Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

That is how the Maynooth line was opened by the late Brian Lenihan and Albert Reynolds. They decided that with an investment of a few hundred thousand pounds, the line could be re-opened. Let us make maximum use of the existing infrastructure. However, I am realistic enough to know rail will not solve the problem.

I refer to the archaeological issues. We have an awful tendency to examine everything in Manichean terms, black or white. We have had a number of these debates, which have been of varying merit. The fuss about the Glen of the Downs did not have much merit. The glen looks beautiful where the road passes through it. Trees are an eminently renewable resource and a great deal of fuss was created by people who were, in the main, ideologically opposed to roads. The Carrickmines issue also did not have great merit and even The Irish Times at the end published an editorial saying enough is enough.

I differ from Senator Ryan regarding the Kildare bypass. How do these rare snails stand now that the motorway has been built? It is impossible to eradicate snails no matter how hard one tries. Despite the involvement of the European Commission, I am sceptical about the merit of that argument.

To come to the issue of Tara and the N3-M3, while this is something on which the Minister must make a decision it is an issue about which we must be careful. We have a paradox in that the National Roads Authority — and Members may think this unsuitable — is practically the largest environmental patron in the country. It is the second biggest planter of trees after Coillte. It must also employ far more archaeologists than all the universities in the State put together.

Development leads to archaeological knowledge. For example, we are told that Woodstown in County Waterford is the most important Viking site, apart from Wood Quay. If the road had not been planned there, would it ever have been discovered? Let us say for the sake of argument that there are 27 sites along the M3 route. If they were investigated at the ordinary pace of archaeological investigations where there is no development involved, the process would take 1,000 years. Perhaps there is an argument that these sites should be left for future generations. However, the alternative is that development provides us with the opportunity to investigate something that is probably not absolutely central.

The problem for Government and the NRA arises if they find something that is of unusual significance or something of which we do not already have several examples. We cannot know this until the route is investigated. If something of that nature is found, it creates a serious dilemma for the Government and the NRA. They need to consider the matter carefully. I do not have the expert knowledge to make such decisions, but they do or should have. They can also get advice from the Heritage Council and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The question is what are the comparative risks of varying the route, accepting that this may involve some extra costs and investigations, as against proceeding regardless and facing the risk of coming across something of major importance which cannot simply be investigated and then tarred over. There is also the possibility, as Senator Ryan mentioned, that people outside the country will become interested in the matter.

This is a difficult decision that can only be made with full knowledge and consideration of the facts. A cavalier decision on either side should not be taken. This is one of the most important decisions the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will have to take. I urge him to take extreme care and caution in making it.