Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I support my colleague Deputy O'Dowd. I have the greatest sympathy with the issues raised by this motion and fully understand the frustration and desperation that drives those responsible for such a motion. I share many of the feelings that have been expressed by members of the Labour Party, but like Deputy O'Dowd I have come to a different conclusion. The proposed road must go ahead and there are ways of dealing with the problems that have been outlined.

The issue in question is one regarding which there is no right or wrong answer. All we can do once we have agreed that we want to build a road — there is virtually full agreement that we do — is arrive at the best answer, bearing in mind a variety of criteria, including archaeological criteria, that are very important regarding the road in question.

It is difficult to make a decision on the route of the road because we have all been lobbied heavily on this issue and professors on both sides have been cited. Film stars and others from all over the world, but not too many from County Meath, have expressed their views on it. As I tried to inform myself on it, I wavered from side to side in a way that I did not find necessary regarding the Carrickmines issue, which was very much more clear-cut. Most people realise there is a vast difference between the remains of a 500-year-old outer wall of a castle and archaeological sites in a 5,000-year-old landscape.

Tonight I have heard accusations, counter accusations, rebuttals and so on. The waters have been so muddied that we cannot have a rational debate on the issue, not least as a result of the presence of professional objectors associated with the campaign. There is a type of objectors' roadshow whereby they move from one cause to another — almost any cause will do. These types of objectors do very little to serve the people of County Meath who have genuine concerns, which perhaps could be addressed and ameliorated but for the "all or nothing" nature of the campaigns run by professional objectors who are more concerned with negative campaigning than with finding solutions to problems.

The waters are muddied further by the one-sided nature of the information available to all of us, particularly to the public. It is difficult enough for us as Deputies to get accurate information. Inevitably, our opinions are formed and informed, and our decision-making is influenced by the kind of information available to us. I heard today that the chosen route was the worst, but my information is that it is the second best in terms of avoiding the archaeology of the area. I assume that information is correct. What we did not hear is that what is best for the archaeology of the area is highly unsuitable in terms of the impact on traffic, environmental footprint, visual intrusion and so on. We heard all about the archaeological arguments but little about any of the other issues that must be considered when building a road. For instance, we did not hear that in the six routes considered initially — ten routes were examined — in the sensitive area around Tara the impact was measured across 18 different aspects, including traffic, safety, environment, visual intrusion, the impact on homes, people, businesses, hedgerows, farms, severance, community and archaeology. All these aspects are important. I accept archaeology is particularly important in such a sensitive area but the route that was selected was top in 14 of the 18 criteria examined. The next best option was way behind.

What was chosen in the end was neither the cheapest nor shortest route; it was the best route in 14 of the 18 criteria examined, as determined not by blinkered officialdom or people with a particular point of view, but by 18 well paid, independent professional experts in their field. If this is the best of ten routes, the logic of the argument is that if we drop or postpone this proposal there is an 11th route which will be better. Is there a route that will not meet with objections or that is better than what has now been determined? I do not think so. We have gone through the process. Whatever one might think about the process — I said previously to the Minister that I do not think a whole lot of it — we have gone through it and selected a route.

We have all heard calls for a compromise by building three bypasses and linking them together. I would like it if that were the solution, but it is not the case. Not only would it be dangerous but it would add significantly to the congestion on the road. It would create a number of bottlenecks. If anyone doubts it, they should ask the residents of Knocklyon or Sandyford who had a motorway spewing out into their area for a number of years. This is exactly what would happen if a number of bypasses were built and the traffic was fed back on to the narrow roads.

The people of Meath have a once-off opportunity to get 57 kilometers of high standard motorway, which would deliver them from the constant congestion of the Navan Road. It would reduce their business costs, improve safety, relieve the local feeder road of traffic and end the conflict between heavy commercial and commuting traffic and children travelling to school, tractors, animal movement, pedestrians, cyclists and all the normal activities which require a safer environment and slower pace. I am not sure if the chance which is currently available will be available in the future. I would be very reluctant to halt the process now and I do not think we would be serving the people of Meath well if we did so.

See this speech in context