Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Bill but, unlike the previous speaker, I do not necessarily regard it as good legislation. It has been forced upon the House, the Minister and the country by a series of mistakes made by the Minister and his Department over several years. It is extremely costly legislation, as it now transpires, following a series of blunders, which eventually ended up in the courts, as both sides weighed up the various options. At least €50 million has been lost in the course of building a road that should have been finished long ago. In any other country, it would have been completed long ago for a fraction of the cost. In Australia, 1,000 km of road have been built for the same sum. The cost involved in the construction of the M50 cannot be justified. The conflicting issues in this case have been progress versus protection of heritage. Both have to be acknowledged and must co-exist because if they cannot do so, the situation will remain unchanged.

State-of-the-art technology can identify historical sites from the air, so I cannot understand why modern geophysical techniques were not employed in this case. Why did we have to await the commencement of major roadworks to discover the remains of a Viking settlement near Waterford? Technology is now available to identify such sites well in advance of any excavations, so why was it not employed? If it was done, was it done properly? Perhaps it was just a desk-top examination, which has happened in other cases.

The Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, will be familiar with the Committee of Public Accounts' examination of the Kilrush marina creek — a famous case many years ago. All the information provided in that examination was wrong and failed to stand up afterwards. It cost four times the original projected price because insufficient examination was undertaken of the site in question. It had nothing to do with the preservation of a monument but concerned subterranean rock formations. It transpired that what was known as a desk-top examination had been undertaken, which proved to be expensive relative to the eventual overall cost of the project. It is sad that we had to await an examination to discover that fact.

In recent years, I have tabled numerous parliamentary questions concerning historical sites that require protection, including ring forts. I do not understand why excavations cannot be undertaken without the involvement of major roadworks or other developments. Why not carry out excavations as a separate project with a view to protecting and preserving historical sites for future generations? In that way, locals and tourists alike would be able to visit such sites and learn from them. Millions of tourists visit such sites all over the world every year, so I cannot understand why we do not organise matters in that way. We are preoccupied with keeping historical sites buried for future generations, but at what future date will we uncover these sites. Some people say it will happen when technology advances to the extent that we can obtain more initial information from potential excavation sites. If we wait that long, however, something else may happen and we may never get to enjoy our heritage to the extent that we should.

Some time ago I had occasion to inquire about an area of recent afforestation in a certain part of the country. In this context, I inquired about the whereabouts of an underground cave, which was of considerable historical significance, but nobody knew anything about it. However, every local authority has access to a satellite image system that can merge with Ordnance Survey maps, whereby every location is shown quite clearly, without exception. I cannot understand how it was possible to carry out afforestation over a wide area and ignore the existence of a major historic site such as that, but it happened in the last four or five years and must therefore happen all the time. Why is that the case?

The first thing a developer will do if he or she is involved in developments in respect of which there is a danger of the discovery of something of that nature, is try to progress the project as quickly as possible so no one will discover it until afterwards. I do not blame them for doing so because the authorities fail to examine or explore the sites beforehand as they should do. I strongly dispute the view held in some quarters that we should preserve everything underground forever because that is the reason we are in this position and have this legislation before us.

I acknowledge that Dúchas, An Taisce and other parties were involved and signed off on the Carrickmines project in recent years. However, some people sought to pursue the objections further with the result that the motorway has been held up at a cost of €50 million and there is a strong suggestion that there has been a serious infringement on an historic site. This cannot be allowed to continue.

The people who allowed this project to go ahead with such costs, from whatever quarter, need to be called to answer some serious questions. The country cannot afford to proceed in this manner. We cannot proceed in the manner of cases such as that involving the snails in Kildare town because we will become a laughing stock. In the desire to be politically correct we will eventually arrive at a position where nothing will happen because all objectors will need to do is point to a sacred site or whatever. I appeal to the planners not to infringe on such sites, rather they should circumnavigate them, giving them plenty of space.

Consideration is being given to an already well-advanced project involving a motorway through the Boyne Valley. I strongly support the need for the motorway to alleviate traffic congestion travelling into and out of Dublin and on the arterial routes. However, we have now discovered there is a series of archaeological sites upon which the motorway will seriously impinge. This is despite the fact that modern technology is available to the local authorities, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and through the private sector. Is it not possible at this stage, before the project goes off the rails at tremendous cost, to use the available technology to identify the most sensitive areas and circumnavigate them?

It will be argued that this has already been done and agreed to, but I am not so certain. If the same argument develops as did in respect of Carrickmines, I assure the House that in ten years' time, Deputies will still be talking about the delayed motorway through the Boyne Valley. I appeal to the Minister and all those involved to get their act together and deal with the issue. They should ensure that the environment and our heritage are protected and that we can advance like every other country in the world. If we do not, eventually everything will come to a halt. I emphasise the necessity of carrying out independent evaluations and geophysical surveys on an ongoing basis, without pressure from any quarter in respect of a major development. After the survey is carried out, it can be placed on the local authority's or the Department's database.

Given that the technology, including satellite imaging, is available to local authorities, I do not understand why we still seem to find ourselves with a motorway, roadway or other construction half developed before someone identifies something which should have been identified long before. In that context, I already referred to the Viking site in Waterford. Similarly, in Kildare town, formerly part of my constituency, €15 million or €20 million extra had to be spent on the bypass to carry out the same works because of delays. Situations such as this suit the contractors because they increase their costs and can undertake other work while the project is held up.

In order to deal with this position, we must anticipate such problems is advance. The Kildare town case could have been dealt with in advance. We must ensure that projects are not progressed until an EIS is prepared which is sufficient to guarantee clearance of the project — it should cover everything. Where the position is not clear, the local authority should carry out an EIS in certain sensitive areas.

Environmental impact statements have been carried out in most of the cases to which I have referred. However, I cannot understand why if an individual applies for planning permission for a house within 150 or 200 m of an historic site, he or she will quickly be told they cannot build there because it impinges on a vista and so on. How can the local authority find out all the information when it affects a single person applying for permission for a house and yet, when bulldozers are working on a motorway through the area, they cannot do so. I presume it is because the latter is for the common good.

Nevertheless, we have reached the point at which enough mistakes have been made to give us a clear indication as to how the Government and the local authorities should proceed. There is no substitute for sufficient prior examination and investigation of the sites involved. If that lesson has not been learned by now, I am wasting my time here, as is the Minister of State. If we go around this roundabout one more time, it will be to our shame because we should have learned from our mistakes. We found out to our cost what can happen in this type of situation.

There is a tendency to blame the objectors. I do not normally tolerate them but their objections must be examined and tested to find out if they are well and soundly based. If they are, we must act accordingly. If they have not already been fired, people should have been fired for the Carrickmines situation which is before us. We should not have to pay €50 million to anyone to ensure that everything is resolved to the satisfaction of everyone and that the legal fees are paid, when all we will get is a simple road. These are serious issues which must be discussed.

I would like to have more time on this issue. I have a particular affection for historic sites because I was born in the west of Ireland, where there was a ring fort at least every 150 metres which coincided with existing settlements. There were more of them then because the population was higher. I would like to see excavations carried out on such sites and the results made available to school children.

There is nothing to beat local history in terms of education. Local history is hugely beneficial to the new generation and gives them something we did not always have. We saw the sites and heard the folklore but did not have the authoritative information to back it up. I hope in the not too distant future there will be a serious programme of excavation and education relating to all archaeological sites. They are there for the benefit of future generations but if the present generation does not see them, except when a motorway is being built across them, we are wasting our time and we are not doing the State, the country or our heritage a service.

The Bill is about progress versus protection of our heritage, to which must be added the delays that cause the increased costs. We should try to learn from our mistakes now rather than in ten years' time. If it has cost us greatly now, why not take action now? Why not put in place the necessary measures to ensure this debacle is not repeated? For example, over two years there were countless courts cases concerning people living in trees in the Glen of the Downs. I am a tree enthusiast.

See this speech in context