Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

Perhaps the Minister will explain at a later stage why he did not simply address the "technical glitch" rather than bring in a Bill which as I indicated in an earlier contribution today has wider ramifications. We now have a situation in Carrickmines in which two ends of the M50 motorway are virtually complete but cannot be joined up in the middle. Whatever view one may take of the history of this affair, and I have views to which I will return, the only sensible action possible at this stage is to legislate to allow for the completion of the motorway, obviously in a way that maximises the protection of the archaeological find. The options open at this late stage are limited to the completion of the motorway and I would have no difficulty in accepting a Bill which would have allowed simply for that to happen. This Bill, however, has much wider implications than the completion of the M50 at Carrickmines.

The history of this motorway deserves to be recalled. Deputy Olivia Mitchell will recall that when she and I became enthusiastic new members of the old Dublin County Council in 1985, this week 19 years ago, the road plans were quite different from their present state. The immediate road plan of the then Dublin County Council was to complete a motorway as far as Sandyford and to take the traffic from Sandyford down what was then called the "green route" to Leopardstown Road onto the N11 at White's Cross. There was a long-term objective pencilled into the road plan and the development plan for a motorway which would go from Sandyford past Shankill to link up with the N11. Deputy Mitchell will recall that she and I were among the then councillors who argued that did not make sense. The sensible thing to do was to complete a motorway ring around Dublin and I recall arguing for that at the time.

That was 19 years ago and the question is not what has happened in the few months or two years that have elapsed since the discovery of the ruins of the mediaeval castle at Carrickmines and its fosse. The real question is why it has taken us 19 years to get from the consideration of that plan to a point where we need legislation debated in the Dáil to complete the motorway.

There were several delays in this motorway scheme. There was a delay in its design and the route selection. The old Dublin County Council had decided on a route for this motorway in 1992 following an examination by the council's engineers. One of the Minister's predecessors or his Department instructed the county council that it was not to produce a single EIS on that route but that it was also to carry out a second EIS on the alternative route. That process and decision delayed the motorway scheme by between four and five years. An elaborate EIS process was undertaken between that decision in early 1993 and the public inquiry in early 1998, thus creating a five-year EIS process. A great deal of money was paid to consultants to look at every stone, ditch, dwelling, etc., that would be affected by the motorway.

After spending five years and so much money, how did they get it so massively wrong? It is not that the existence of Carrickmines Castle was not known; it was known about and they ignored it. The extent of the site was not known and the issue did not arise at the public inquiry. This State, through its agencies, namely, the county council and the NRA, spent a great deal of money on an EIS which did not identify what has emerged to be probably the largest environmental impact issue at stake in the entire exercise.

Our EIS processes are seriously flawed. They are, in fact, phoney. What is engaged in is a process where there is a pretence undertaken that environmental impacts are being considered. From my experience of this particular motorway scheme, however, it seems that these studies are undertaken more in the interest of glossing over environmental difficulties or finding ways to circumvent them rather than facing up to them and addressing them directly. That is one of the reasons we are in the situation in which we currently find ourselves.

The second reason we are in this situation is that the public inquiry process is phoney. I spent three weeks attending the public inquiry relating to this motorway. I argued the case for the alternative route which, had it been accepted, would not have avoided this location but, because of the direction from which the motorway would have come, might well have avoided there being a major impact on the ultimate archaeological find. I was, however, ignored. Everybody who attended the public inquiry was ignored unless they had with them senior counsel or highly paid lawyers.

I recall various objections being raised by local residents who wanted no more than some mitigation in terms of the amount of noise that the motorway might cause, but they were ignored and nothing changed. However, in other instances a senior counsel representing a well-heeled landowner would make a case to the inquiry and, following two days of discussions outside the inquiry room with council officials or the legal people representing the council, they would return and state that agreement had been reached. The only people who were listened to at the inquiry were those with access to highly paid lawyers.

This motorway was also delayed because of legal challenges which had nothing to do with archaeology. There has been a great deal of discussion during the past two years about the people who initiated legal challenges in respect of Carrickmines Castle, the degree to which they delayed the building of the motorway and the enormous cost, which continues to accrue with each passing month, to taxpayers. That discussion has some validity. However, we do not hear as much about the four years lost in the legal challenges undertaken in respect of the Southern Cross Route, the earlier part of this motorway, by landowners, some of whom were well connected to sections of the media which choose to ignore the delays caused in this instance. Neither do we hear a great deal about the legal challenges mounted by the landowners, whoever they may be, involved at the relevant tribunal in respect of land located near Carrickmines. These challenges also delayed the building of the motorway.

If we had been presented today with a simple item of legislation which would allow for the completion of the motorway at Carrickmines, notwithstanding my concerns about the history of the motorway and about the find at Carrickmines — in respect of which steps could have been taken two years ago to reach a solution rather than trying to ignore people's objections — I would have some sympathy with it. However, that is not what has come before us. This legislation gives to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government wide-ranging powers, not only in respect of the M50 at Carrickmines but also in respect of any national monument.

Under section 5, the Minister will be given the power, which he can exercise at his discretion, to order that a national monument be demolished, that excavations may take place there, that it should be renovated or restored — something with which no one would disagree — that it should be sold or that it should be exported.

See this speech in context