Brendan Ryan (Labour)

All of us support the construction of motorways. A number of people in the Dublin-based element of the Green Party may not want a good road network but many Members and I have discussed this issue formally and informally. The country desperately needs a good transport infrastructure but desperate need does not justify short-term and destructive decisions. The NRA's response that the new road was further away from Tara than the old road suggested an indifference to what it was doing that bordered on negligence.

Many Members have received correspondence but, at the risk of mortally embarrassing him, I refer to a letter I received from a former Member of the House, who is the most eminent archaeologist in the State. He stated:

I would like to say that the proposed route of the motorway is not on the line of the present public road but going through virgin territory. There is archaeological and historical evidence to show that the area is part of the Tara complex, that is, more than a portion of the summit of the hill. Apart from actual monuments, there is also the problem of the integrity of the landscape and of the Tara environment. To put a huge motorway through this sensitive and culturally rich area would be totally wrong.

The archaeologists employed by the NRA were probably trained by the author of the letter, Professor George Eogan, and they learned what they know from him, yet they have suddenly come to a different conclusion because their employers have so dictated.

This is about common sense not hyper-sensitive environmentalists. Common sense was ignored when the Kildare bypass was proposed. An appeal was made to the European Commission at enormous cost in terms of time and expenditure because it found that the State had not followed proper procedures. Given that the consensus among domestic and international archaeologists is that the proposed road through Tara is an affront to our heritage, the State is inviting submissions to the Commission, which will inevitably result in delays and, ultimately, a significant cost to the Exchequer.

The central issue is about whether the project will be delayed and, ultimately, changed following external intervention or whether we will cop on to ourselves and change the three or four miles involved and avoid doing something which will make us look petty and extraordinarily limited in the eyes of the world. We must be extremely careful. There is no inherent conflict between development and heritage. It is possible to engage in both provided the will is there to address both. However, when somebody in a senior position of influence decides a short cut is the quick and cheap cut, we end up in the current position.

A series of questions must be asked about why that is the case. What motivated the NRA to switch from the preferred route environmentally, archaeologically and heritage wise? What motivated the authority to display a level of ignorance about what it was doing that suggests it never thought about it? The authority began by referring to how far the road would be from the hill, which suggested the officials had no idea of where they were. This is sacred territory, as it contains thousands of years of this country's heritage. Some people in Fianna Fáil might be influenced because a road was built by previous colonisers but that should have nothing to do with this debate. We have the knowledge, resources and awareness to realise that building a road there is an affront to our heritage. We have the time to change the proposal and if we do not decide to do so, our minds will be changed for us by people outside the State. That would be the ultimate and unpleasant irony whereby we would be coerced to defend our heritage by the European Commission.