Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I move:

That Seanad Eireann,

—while fully accepting the importance of developing an adequate roads infrastructure and ever mindful of the need to have a practical approach to planning matters, is appalled by the prospect of a motorway being constructed through archaeologically important sites near the Hill of Tara;

—recognises that the current proposals are likely to destroy at least 25 known sites;

—believes it would be an affront to our people that this specific area, a place of kings, saints and scholars, steeped as it is in our history, culture, mythology and legendry and, immeasurably important as it is to our identity, be ravaged and despoiled;

—sees this proposed route as irresponsible and unnecessary and therefore calls on the Government to intervene, as a matter of urgency, on behalf of the people to oppose the current plans and to ensure the selection of a more sensible and suitable route for this important motorway project.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, who has been a sparring partner and compadre of mine for many years. It is grossly unfair that the Government should send him to the House to debate this unpopular issue as he would not touch the Government's proposal with a 40-foot barge pole. He has been sent to the House to defend an amendment which has nothing to do with our decent, positive and progressive motion. I never question the Cathaoirleach's decisions in these matters but I suspect the amendment is barely in order.

It is unnecessary to despoil the cultural landscape of the Tara area to accommodate the new M3 motorway. Instead, on this occasion, we can have our cake and eat it by building the motorway while protecting our heritage. It is a matter of being sensitive and practical.

The Minister of State and I stood side by side when we supported the development of an interpretative centre in the Burren, an area in his constituency. I could make the same point with regard to the Blasket Islands interpretative centre and many others. I do not approach this issue from a position of opposition to development. This is the first time in many years that I have tabled a motion on planning and development taking this line.

Opponents of the proposed M3 motorway should not be regarded as just another group of objectors. Having spoken to them, they take a sensible approach because their background is one of interest in the area.

There is no reason to oppose the construction of a motorway. Among other reasons, it is necessary because the N3 is overloaded and the Government has been unwilling to build a railway to Navan. For this reason, I hope the Minister of State's speech does not set out reasons for building the motorway.

I hope a practical approach will be taken to finding an acceptable middle course between, on the one hand, what is proposed by the National Roads Authority and others who wish to drive ahead with the proposed route and, on the other, the lobby groups which wish to protect important parts of our heritage by proposing a reasonable alternative. I ask the Minister of State to throw away his script and, as a sensible elected public representative, consider their proposal. He should then indicate what is wrong with it or give one reason the changes requested cannot be made.

Over the years, I have regularly disassociated myself in the House from the green welly-wearing, tweed-jacketed urban types who go for a walk in the countryside and suddenly describe themselves as "conservationists". Having liked what they saw, they want the countryside to be kept as it is and, irrespective of the quality of life of the people living in it, oppose building houses in the country because it might affect their view. The Minister of State is aware of my consistent position in this regard.

I thought long and hard before getting involved in this issue because I have encountered many unreasonable objections to developments, some of which have brought the democratic process of objecting into disrepute. Regularly, organisations such as An Taisce do not cover themselves in glory, although it is not always wrong and has an important job to do. However, on many occasions, I have not shared its view on issues such as rural housing.

In protecting the citizen's democratic right to object, we have created a type of hydra which appears to grow another head every time we cut off one avenue of objection. I am known for making comments such as these in the House and regularly express understanding for the Government's frustration with regard to matters of this nature. For example, I supported recent legislation giving it additional powers in this area.

The Government may be tempted to write off the Tara-Skryne group as a nuisance. This would be a grave mistake and an error of judgment. Each issue must be considered separately. It is our duty to be practical, sensible and positive and to ask the Government to be reasonable and sensitive in its approach. It is uncontested that the new motorway needed to replace the inadequate N3 should be routed through County Meath. The people of the County Meath, however, have had to accept more motorway intrusion than any other county. The roads there already include the M1 going through east Meath, the M2 being built through Ashbourne and that direction, and the M4 through Enfield and the west of the county. These proposals have been generally accepted, and are to be welcomed because they add greatly to the improvement of the national roads infrastructure. We must now accept that the people in that county also have to deal with the new M3. I plead with the Minister of State to agree this should not be built according to the present conception and set of proposals. That would be wrong and a grave error.

The location of the M1, M2 and M4 — although the M2 is the N2 being upgraded to motorway characteristics — present no real problem. I discussed this in some detail with a former Member of the House, the eminent Professor George Eogan, who made his name and reputation in this area. He said the construction of these motorways has unearthed incredibly important archaeological evidence which is to our collective benefit. It has been stored and collected and is preserved. One of the great concerns for people is to have access to all that great information put together properly, academically and responsibly in the building of those roads. This should be recognised, valued and celebrated and as an annexe to this debate, I ask that it be published in a full scientific publication to the highest international standards. If we make this available we will show that we are serious about our archaeological background.

That was good news but the next project is bad news because, unfortunately, the part of the M3 route that goes through the Tara-Skryne valley is fundamentally wrong. All the evidence offered to the environmental impact statement recognises the importance of this cultural landscape and urges that the area be avoided when the motorway route is being determined. Whoever in the National Roads Authority defined the Hill of Tara as simply the hilltop — which appears to be what the authority has done — is completely uninformed and dangerously ignorant of the reality of the area. It is best described as a wide cultural landscape of major importance in the areas of archaeology, history and Celtic studies. It is different from Carrickmines which many would argue could be dealt with through excavation and recording. Some people argue the converse but there is at least an argument against that. The Government must intervene to change this route.

There is no reason the motorway cannot be routed away from Tara. It is a detour of a few miles. It would be costly but given the centrality of this location to our national identity, our history, sense of what we are and where we came from, it would be cheap at the price. In researching this I was appalled to discover that when the different route options were being considered the so-called P route, the pink route on the map, came out with the highest marks. The archaeologists who studied this recommended the P route as being the one that caused the least problem. It would least affect the built heritage, was the preferred option of those who assessed the impact on flora and fauna, would have the least effect on the landscape and visual aspect, create the least air pollution and offer the best option on noise levels.

These are facts. I do not know why the Government is putting itself behind the 8-ball on this. Why is it defending this indefensible position? It could acknowledge this is mad, be sensible, listen to experts and local people, and build the road where it should be built without interfering with an area that is central to what we are, our identity and heritage. I look forward to the Minister of State's response and to the debate on this over the next two hours. I thank my colleague, Senator Ross, for agreeing to second the motion.