Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was delighted to agree to second this motion when Senator O'Toole asked me to do so because of all the problems in motorway routes and archaeological objections, splinter groups and ginger groups coming forward, but this is the one that really matters. I echo some of Senator O'Toole's points. There are merits and environmental dangers in various motorway routes put before us. This is the one that sticks out most. I expressed grave concerns about Carrickmines but we are in danger of becoming a nation where any archaeological find infringed by a motorway becomes a reason for delaying a motorway for a long and unacceptable time. I accept that and that wherever one goes in Ireland one will probably find an archaeological treasure of some sort. This, however, is not just any archaeological treasure. This is Tara which is very special to Irish history and heritage and should not be infringed at any cost.

One of the problems when we look at motorways is that cost is the only factor that seems to matter to those in charge. One cannot measure archaeological finds, heritage, fauna, flora and environmental damage in terms of costs. The Government has tried to widen this motion to talk about the wonderful job it is doing on the motorways because the attempt to vandalise Tara is so embarrassing. Another example where cost seems to be paramount is the Westlink bridge on the M50. Anybody who gets stuck every day in the traffic on the Westlink bridge realises that this is a nonsense. It is justified on the basis that it would be more expensive to buy out people neighbouring the route than to let people queue up there all day.

The cost cannot be measured against immediate toll road revenues. It can be measured only against long-term, almost infinite delays and problems in the future. Equally, one cannot compare the cost of a motorway with heritage. They are totally different things. One is priceless, the other can be measured in euro and cent and the cost to the Exchequer in the immediate future. Senator O'Toole has made the case extraordinarily well that this is the wrong route. Nobody is even claiming for one moment that there should not be a motorway or an extremely acceptable alternative to carry the traffic going through Meath. Maybe it should be a railway. Meath is the only area contingent to Dublin through which no railway runs. Maybe there should be a different route but this is the worst of all worlds.

The National Roads Authority set up an inquiry to examine the sensitive issues involved in route selection. Senator O'Toole covered this but it is worth reiterating that the National Roads Authority set up its own consultants to produce a report identifying the best and the worst routes in respect of archaeology, built heritage, flora, fauna and habitats, water quality, landscape and visual effects, air quality and noise levels. In the case of archaeology it recommended the P route but we are going on the B route. The P route has the least effect on the built heritage, and was the preferred option for reasons of flora, fauna and habitats. It made no recommendation on water quality; the P route would least affect landscape and visual quality, have the lowest air pollution levels and was the best option for noise levels. What is the point of the NRA commissioning a report on these particularly sensitive areas, making definitive recommendations and then ignoring them? In other words, these criteria do not matter at all. The oldest trick in the world is to employ an independent consultant who will normally find out what needs to be done and to follow his or her instructions. In this case, the report did not comply with the wishes of those who commissioned it, so it was simply ignored.

I have also spoken to Professor George Eogan who is the world's leading expert on this area. He told me that despite what is stated by the Government and by those who support the particular route, this area is part of the Tara complex. I do not think that anyone will try to deny this anymore. It is part of the traditional Tara complex and it will affect our history and our heritage, yet it is only a three mile stretch. It would be more expensive to bypass that particular stretch and if that is the reason, then the Government should tell us. It should tell us in straightforward terms that we cannot afford to preserve the heritage which we have at Tara. If that is how members of the Government think, then they are Philistines. If they are not Philistines, then they should give other reasons, but they cannot give any environmental reasons because their own report, given by the NRA, finds in favour of another route.

I appeal to the Minister not to take a decision which will destroy a vital part of Irish heritage and which will make a mockery of us in the eyes of those who are committed to environmental heritage throughout the world. I appeal to him to reverse this decision.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

Seanad Éireann commends the Government's commitment and proactive approach in the delivery of the upgraded national roads network;

—notes the Government's commitment to the protection of our national heritage and the preservation of archaeological sites and features;

—notes the on-going liaison between the NRA and the national monuments division of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in preserving our national heritage and with dealing with archaeological sites and features in accordance with best practice;

—notes that the roads programme is being implemented in full accord with the code of practice on archaeology for the national roads programme agreed with the then Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in 2000;

—commends the National Roads Authority on its commitment and investment in placing archaeological issues at the centre of the road planning process, evident in the discovery of so many previously unrecorded areas of historical and archaeological importance;

—notes that the national roads investment programme is being implemented as part of the National Development Plan 2000-2006 and supports the objectives of the national spatial strategy, confirms the importance of the transport corridor that links the north west, Cavan and north Meath to Dublin as one of the busiest in the country;

—notes that the Government investment in our road network is essential to provide for balanced regional investment and is delivering shorter, safer and superior road journeys;

—notes the comprehensive statutory public consultation procedures in place, under the Roads Act 1993, which are also being supplemented by extensive non-statutory local consultations by road authorities;

—and emphasises the importance of public private partnerships in harnessing the necessary skills and finance to support the earlier completion of the Government's ambitious national road infrastructure targets.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to debate this issue. It is the first opportunity that I have got to congratulate him on his recent appointment and I wish him well. It is clear that the Government, through the NDP, has and will continue to deliver on the strategic roll-out of the road network to drive economic growth in this country. This is something that has been part of the NDP and the national spatial strategy for some time. By the end of 2003, the Government had spent €5 billion on that particular programme. Through PPP and Government funding, €8 billion will be spent between now and 2008. That is all for a very good reason. Motorways are an integral part in linking the provinces with the capital city, as well as linking provincial, local and regional roads.

A safe and efficient network of roads will provide the infrastructure for the future growth and development of this island. That is a critical component for the future of this country. This road network is vital to sustain balanced regional development, which is a key plank of Government policy. The Minister and I are acutely aware of the importance of balanced regional development. We need to ensure that a road network is in place, together with other infrastructure such as aviation and rail, as a counter-balance to the phenomenal growth that takes place on the east coast. It is something which the western seaboard and the BMW region have suffered for a long time. The concentration of growth, investment and population has not worked on the east coast. It has not worked because people spend hours on the way to work in the morning as part of a relatively short commute. The regions have not been developed or have not been assisted in that development. In ensuring a shift in population out of the city and in improving the lives of those who live there and those who do not, a key factor is a quality road network. It has to form part of the development of infrastructure, whether it be rail or aviation. The people in the regions are entitled to that development.

The M3 is critical to the delivery of this agenda. It is consistent with the NDP and with the national spatial strategy. The same thing occurred in the mid-west region, with the development of the Ennis bypass. It occurs when we lobby for further funding to be put in place to link cities like Limerick and Galway. This is done to ensure that there is growth and development so that people can live their lives outside of the city to the same standards as those who live on the east coast. The M3 is vital in contributing to the on-going success of the local and regional economy, bringing better balanced regional development, improved safety, and access to and from Dublin, its ports and its airports. In addition, this project will transform the quality of life for those living in Dunboyne, Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells.

There has been much talk about the fauna and flora and the archaeological issues. I accept that and I appreciate the difficulties and issues that arise. However, neither Senator Ross nor Senator O'Toole made any mention of the people's lives that it affects on a daily basis and their concerns. The same issue will arise in regard to re-routing. There are farmers and people who go about their lives in a very small local area. We have to look at the impact that the development of any road network has on those people. While the Senators seem to suggest that the P route was the ultimate solution to all problems, at no point did I hear reference to the daily lives of those who will be affected by the development of a road.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked that representatives of the Government talk to the people in the area with whom I spoke.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no doubt the Senator did so. However, he seems to suggest that the only concerns that he had about the P route were the points that he raised. At no point did he refer to the people who would be most affected by the development of that road. It may be an oversight on the Senator's part, but it is an important point.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is incorrect.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We can get into that again.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have spoken to the people in the area.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senators should address the Chair and not each other.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some of them were farmers, believe it or not.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The capacity of the existing two lane road is 13,800 vehicles per day. That is not capable of delivering the current needs. This project will result in reductions of between 75% and 90% in through traffic in the towns of Dunshauglin, Navan and Kells. That will have a tremendous impact on the lives of those who live in those towns. While it is very important to protect archaeological elements in our country, it is also important that we protect the lives of those who are living in this era and whose lives will contribute to the archaeology of future generations. We should be mindful of the fact that future generations will look upon whatever road is developed as the archaeology of the future.

The new motorway will also benefit everyone living along the existing N3 by removing the majority of the traffic and associated congestion, which currently affects their lives on a daily basis. The present road is not coping with current traffic volumes. The chosen route lies 1.5 km to the east of the designated area of recorded monuments and east of the existing N3. As it passes through the Tara-Skryne valley, the motorway will be a greater distance from the Hill of Tara than the existing N3. The scheme has been designed to minimise physical and visual impact on the archaeological landscape around Tara.

A considerable amount of archaeological work was carried out. A test trench was excavated along the central line, with cross trenches dug every 20 m. The net result has been that archaeological sites have been found which would never have been discovered otherwise. From an archaeological point of view, it will provide an overall understanding of life in the past.

We often concentrate too much on what is considered to be the destruction of sites during road projects, but it should be considered that the excavation of sites associated with roads has provided a great deal of information about life in a bygone era. It would be wrong to suggest there is a need to retain such sites. They should be investigated and excavated, the information found during the archaeological dig should be recorded and matters should then proceed.

It is important, for obvious reasons, to ensure that those who are living on this island in the current era can go about their daily lives. The construction of the roads needed to facilitate that does not have to involve the destruction of historic monuments. There is a need to seek common ground during the consultation phase, for example, during the planning stages when archaeologists and representatives of An Bord Pleanála are involved. After the road has been designed, however, we should move on and allow people to get on with their daily lives.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, to the House. I support in principle the motion moved by Senator O'Toole. I believe agreement can be found and I hope the Government will allow that to happen by accepting a way forward.

The daily capacity of the N3 as originally envisaged was approximately 11,600 cars, but approximately 21,700 cars are travelling on it each day and that will increase to almost 40,000 cars by 2024. If the road cannot cope with the present number of cars, it will not be able to cope with the increased numbers over the next ten years. Most people acknowledge that something has to be done to improve the road. I estimate that 90% of people favour the construction of a new road in some shape or form. Most of those who are protesting against the planned route are in favour of the construction of a new motorway. Previous speakers have referred to the inconvenience that has been caused to the people of County Meath and those who pass through that county. Many problems are encountered each day in towns like Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells as a result of traffic jams. The many cars which travel through such towns when going to and from Dublin each day eventually end up in a mass backlog.

Senator Ross and others have rightly asked whether the development of the railway line between Navan and Dublin has been considered. If it has been considered, should the State not acquire the necessary land at the same time as it is acquiring the land for the motorway? The National Roads Authority is often praised at various meetings for the tremendous work it does throughout the country to provide a national primary and secondary roads network. Secondary routes do not receive the same level of funding as primary routes, in most cases. Is there a need for three motorways within a 30-mile radius of each other? I refer to the existing M1, N2 to Derry and N3 routes. Is it possible to develop the N2 and the N3 as a single motorway? Has that been considered? What is the position? If it has been examined, has the possibility of providing a rail link between Navan and Dublin been considered as part of that process? Over 30,000 people live in Navan, but it has been suggested that its population will increase to approximately 60,000 in the next few years. It is obvious, therefore, that a railway line to the capital city will be required. Such a line would work wonders for the present roads network.

Great emphasis has been placed on the cost of building new roads. Many people are objecting to the proposed M3 route on the basis of its cost. The last paragraph of the Government's amendment to the motion calls on the Seanad to emphasise "the importance of public private partnerships in harnessing the necessary skills and finance to support the earlier completion of the Government's ambitious national road infrastructure targets." The proposed M3 will be a public private partnership. We all know that PPPs involve private investment and toll roads. If a PPP contract is signed in this case, the private investors who will be recouped by means of tolls will not deviate from the route that has been agreed. If the NRA, which I assume will be the procurement agency in this case, agrees a specific route with the private investors, does the Minister of State agree that there will be no further movement in that regard?

If the route cannot be changed after the public private partnership process has been set in motion, we will have to crash everybody's heads together to agree on a route that is satisfactory to most people. As I said earlier, 90% of people agree that a better route, which bypasses most of the towns in County Meath which are on the N3, is needed. Businesses in Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells, which are jammed with backlogs of traffic each morning and evening, have been badly affected by the failure to complete the new route. I am sure the chambers of commerce and local authorities in such towns would welcome being bypassed by a new route to Dublin.

Has the National Roads Authority examined the possibility of combining the N2 and the N3 as a single route? The Kilcock bypass on the western route, which is being developed under a public private partnership, will serve the N4, N5 and N6, which pass through counties such as Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, Leitrim, Longford and Westmeath. Three or four national primary routes come together to approach Dublin as a single motorway. Has such a system been considered in this case? It seems to me that there will be three major motorways — the M1, the planned M2 and the planned M3 — within 30 miles of each other in County Meath. What will happen when the roads eventually enter Dublin? Where will the traffic go? Traffic will approach Dublin at great speed from three roads that come from the same direction, but what will happen then?

I have already asked whether a rail route has been considered. If it is a possibility, has it been discussed by the National Roads Authority and Iarnród Éireann? Has the Government reflected on the possibility of providing a rail route as well as upgrading the motorway? The issues are important in so far as they relate to the infrastructure of the country as a whole. As I have said, I do not have a problem supporting the principle of the motion. At least 90% of people are in favour of the development of a motorway in the County Meath region. We can find a solution to this problem, but the Government needs to bring everybody together to find it.

Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment moved by Senator Dooley. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, to the House for this important debate and I await his comments.

Senator Paddy Burke spoke about the possibility of developing a railway line between Navan and Dublin. There was some good news for the County Meath area when the Book of Estimates was published last week. The provision of €60 million over the next three years for the construction of a railway station in the docklands of Dublin will facilitate the development of a railway line part of the way to Navan, from the existing line at Clonsilla to Clonee and Dunboyne. Iarnród Éireann plans to develop a major park and ride facility at Pace, on the road to Navan just inside County Meath near the border with Dublin. The facility will take a great deal of traffic off the road.

It is clear to those of us who attended the committee meeting last week at which the NRA representatives spoke on the M50 upgrade that we are building a great many roads. With the recently opened bypasses at Monasterevin and Cashel, one can almost traverse the country on dual carriageway or motorway. Essentially that simply gets the traffic into Dublin faster. When one enters the city now, one must pass a modern version of a medieval gate called the M50, with interchanges. I have described it as such because it is essentially a ring around Dublin through which cars must pass and where there is congestion every day, if not every hour. It is patently obvious that we are not increasing road space within the M50. We must seriously consider why we are getting traffic into Dublin faster and over the M50 by means of a major upgrade if that traffic has nowhere to go.

That brings me to rail. I beseech the Minister to bring to his colleagues my concern that further massive investment must be put into the railways as a way of achieving a modal shift from cars. We have spoken of it now for close to a decade, since the Dublin transportation initiative, or DTI, was initially established, setting out its parameters for how traffic would be taken from the roads and people would choose public transport. The only way that it can happen is if we have a seismic shift in our attempts to address the issue. When one looks at the amounts being spent on roads, one sees they are vast and they will continue to be so over the next five years. That will lead to what Senator Dooley calls balanced regional development and assist the regions.

Those concerns must be addressed and I hope that will happen. I have made known the concerns of those who have been writing to me regarding the Hill of Tara. Regrettably, one must accept the present position. When one examines the proposed scheme of 49 km from Clonee to Kells, one sees that one must also ask what is the realistic alternative. Some Senators opposite have suggested removing 3 km to 5 km around the Hill of Tara. Obviously, no matter where one goes in that entire area, there will be archaeological remains, and I hope those remains will be studied, researched and recorded. Ultimately, we cannot keep on conducting reviews. The scheme has been on the cards for five or six years and has been in all the studies regarding what was going through. There has been extensive public consultation. One might say that, if one were starting again, one would not start from here, but the consultation process is over, and the submissions have been made. The preferred route has been altered. If we were to set about choosing an alternative route at this stage, the precedent that it would set, the delays that might mount up and the great associated costs would have to be taken into account.

The road is obviously being built to deal with the substantial volumes of traffic on that entry corridor. I live in the Dublin West constituency, which is the gateway to that entire area. Navan, Dunshaughlin and all the towns further out have been developed at a phenomenal rate over the past five years. The congestion that it has caused in those villages and towns must be addressed, and that is what the M3 motorway seeks to do. As I say, I have no doubt that the Minister will address the comments made by Senators this evening and if for no reason other than this, I welcome this debate.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I should not be here tonight, and we should not be debating this motion. We should have learned from the past 40 years that public concern is a remarkably effective way of finding out what one might be well advised to avoid. I was a young person still at school when the ESB decided to knock down a large part of Fitzwilliam Street's Georgian heritage. I was an obstreperous student in college when attempts were made to destroy a large part of Hume Street's Georgian heritage; since then I have changed only my occupation, not the adjective that describes me. Attempts were made to do other things, many of which succeeded, and on every occasion, history and dispassionate analysis have shown that the objectors were right. It was a desecration of Dublin to destroy a large element of its Georgian heritage.

We have now reached the next stage. A road is desperately needed. The problem has been that for 30 years in this country the philosophy of the Department of Finance regarding infrastructure has always been that it should follow markets rather than create them. It is a fundamental philosophical difference between people such as me and those in the Department of Finance that I feel that we should use infrastructure to cause and channel development rather than wait for the development and then build infrastructure. We should have done this five, ten or 20 years ago. I have followed most of this debate either in the House or in my office. Let us not get involved in a spurious argument that somehow there is some objection over here to the construction of an efficient road network in this country. On this side of the House we have the same concerns as public opinion, namely, that the desperate rush to catch up with the mess made of our infrastructure will result in an act of archaeological vandalism.

The arguments on the choice of routes have been well rehearsed, having been made by several speakers in this House. It is undoubtedly true that no one has produced a convincing reason for this route to have been chosen ahead of an alternative route that on every environmental and heritage indicator was better. We have all had the opportunity to read the indicators, all of which suggested a different route for the sake of visual amenity and archaeological heritage. The argument has moved on. The first ignorant — I use the word in the sense of being without knowledge — response from the National Roads Authority was that the new road was further from the Hill of Tara than the existing one. Such was the level of intellectual debate with which the NRA began. Even were that argument sufficient to justify a second act of vandalism, if the area were one of precious heritage, it would have been obscene to make it simply because we did something wrong 100 years ago. Road construction at that time was less intrusive and destructive and the roads were much smaller.

This project involves a major motorway with floodlit intersections and so on. The issue underlying the debate means that somebody like me, who lives approximately 170 miles away, feels obliged to intervene. The issue does not relate to roads and it is a pity the amendment has been tabled because it ducks the issues. One could always conclude the reason for ducking the issue is because the Government is uncomfortable about it and, therefore, wants to discuss something else.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Precisely.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I approach this subject with caution. I will first deal with the transport issues. The N3 is congested and a road to Navan, built to at least motorway standard, is needed, although a legitimate question has been raised, which can also be raised about all motorways, which is what happens when one reaches the M50. We all know that one spends at least three quarters of an hour getting to one's destination.

Senator Paddy Burke is not accurate about the N1, N2 and N3. If one is travelling across the Border, one is supposed to travel along the M1 before taking the Ardee turn off. One uses the M1 between Drogheda and Dundalk so that one does not travel on the N2.

I fully agree with the comments about rail but there is a rail line between Drogheda and Navan, which is used by Tara mines. It would cost between €15 million and €20 million to relay the line and provide a station. The strategic rail review recommended a line to serve Navan but that will take the best part of a generation the way things proceed and a line to Clonee will only bring one so far. I am always frustrated by transport debates in that where we have infrastructure, we do not propose to use it and, instead, we prefer to speculate about vast engineering schemes, which might, if we are lucky, be completed in 15 or 20 years instead of doing simple, relatively inexpensive jobs, which help to solve the problem.

Senators:

Hear, hear.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is not being allowed to make the decision. The Minister for Transport has taken over.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Whichever Minister is responsible, it is ultimately the Government that makes the decision which could have serious ramifications. I urge care and caution in coming to the right decision.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely, to the House and compliment him on his approach to his new portfolio. Senators appreciate that he has informed us of the areas for which he holds responsibility. I do not intend to put Senator Mansergh on stilts and provide him with an overview of the countryside from Ardee to Dundalk, Navan and Cavan. He covered those areas rather than the Hill of Tara.

I support this important motion. While recognising the importance of the proposed motorway, nowhere could our archaeological heritage be more at risk than at the Hill of Tara which is threatened by the demands of progress. The people recognise the necessity of developing an adequate road infrastructure despite the undisputed heritage value of the area. If this project goes ahead, the conflict between the past and the future will result in the certain destruction of at least 25 known sites in the place of kings, saints and scholars. Tara is a place of magic steeped in history. It is a well recognised centre of Celtic identity of which we are proud. Leaders from all over the world have been brought to view artefacts from the site. We are proud to show off our heritage in legend and culture in the area.

"Tara is, because of its associations, probably the most consecrated spot in Ireland, and its destruction will leave many bitter memories behind it." Thus spoke Douglas Hyde, George Moore and William Butler Yeats as reported in The Times in 1902. Nobody has a greater understanding of our magical heritage than W.B. Yeats whose writings give voice to our cultural heritage in all its facets. Now, 102 years later the fate of Tara again hangs in the balance. The threat then was of British Jews digging up the hill in search of the Ark of the Covenant, but this has been replaced by the far more destructive threat of the National Roads Authority.

The NRA has been accused of reducing the seriousness of the issue in its claims that Tara is confined to a cluster of monuments on top of the hill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing, in particular a road, should be allowed anywhere near Tara. This should not, however, take from the commitment of the NRA to develop roads while spending money on archaeology. The people, in particular those who live in County Meath, want and need the proposed motorway, but not at the expense of the destruction of Tara. We all recognise this. Senator O'Toole and I spoke to people in the area, to the farming community and the people of County Meath on this issue. They all favour development, but not the destruction of Tara.

It is hoped the ongoing discussions between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will produce an acceptable solution to this impasse. It is important they do and that this meeting takes place urgently. All bodies should be brought in on the discussions in a consultative role. We should have a select committee in place to deal with the issues of archaeological sites and developments that we can expect to come on stream. We need something in place to deal with this area.

Last July during the debate on the rushed National Monuments (Amendment) Bill 2004 I said that the clash between the present and past had never been greater. I pointed out that the drive to create and expand our horizons was aided and abetted by our increasing knowledge and technical advances. I indicated that the destruction of the primary source of our history was inexcusable in our headlong rush towards so-called progress. I pointed out that the Bill gave the guardianship of our past exclusively to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It placed a heavy responsibility on both the Minister and the Government.

Tonight's motion asks the Minister for Transport to intervene in co-operation with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to find the most suitable route for this important motorway. Experts have advised the Department that the P route would be the best in this case. The Labour Party has argued that the site at Tara is littered with archaeological monuments. There is no disputing the fact that we cannot damage the culture and history of this 5,000 year old site which is of significant importance in terms of tourism.

The Fine Gael Party believes that development and archaeology can go hand in hand. The nub of the argument is whether we should preserve the monuments in situ or record them. The latter will be at the core of Fine Gael's policy. The road is essential and must be built. Archaeological sites must be preserved in situ wherever possible and where that is not the case artefacts should be brought to museums and preserved.

The route chosen should have the least possible impact on surrounding archaeological sites. However, we should not be in any doubt that urgent road works need to commence in some areas. The original road capacity envisaged for the M3 was approximately 11,600 cars per day but the number of cars today is in the region of 21,700 and this is set to rise next year to 36,600. If the road cannot cope with the current volume of traffic it will not be able to do so in ten years. Fine Gael believes work must commence on this new road as a matter of urgency.

On several previous occasions I highlighted the development of the N55, the main route from Belfast through Armagh, Monaghan, Clones, Cavan, Granard, Ballymahon, Edgeworthstown and on to Athlone. This is an important route which, if developed, would draw a significant amount of congestion away from the east coast. This option should be examined even at this late stage. I would appreciate if the Minister would consider upgrading the road from national secondary status to national primary status. We need a main artery through the midlands. I have been promoting this matter for some time and I would appreciate if the Minister of State would take this matter on board. I do not dispute the fact that we need an M3 but we do not need it on the Hill of Tara.

Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, to the House and congratulate him on his appointment and the fine work he is doing. He is most committed to transport issues.

We are all agreed on the need for an adequate roads infrastructure. I agree with what Senator Mansergh said regarding taking a balanced approach. He advised that we should not take a cavalier approach to road development. I have had many arguments with the NRA through the years but I accept it is very concerned about the environment and the preservation of archaeological sites and features. Our amendment acknowledges this in stating this is evident in the discovery of so many previously unrecorded areas of historical and archaeological importance.

I support rail transport and agree with Senator Mansergh that we should preserve existing infrastructure. Contact with the NRA and the Minister is most important at a time when many new roads are being developed throughout the country. Oireachtas Members from County Galway meet the NRA at least once a year to discuss road development in the county. What is happening in County Galway is a very good example of what should be happening in other parts of the country where several options are given in regard to proposed road developments. For example, there were at least three or four options for the Loughrea bypass, which has now commenced, and the same is true of the Tuam bypass. Three options were also available for the proposed new road from Tuam to Galway city.

I referred to this road on the Order of Business and Senator O'Toole mentioned it in regard to the Estimates. I said it would take six months to develop a rail link but it might take six years to get a new road. I stand by that comment. That is the view of the lobby group, West on Track, and the inter-county committee composed of the five Connacht counties that strongly support a rail link. I look forward to an opportunity to discuss the development of rail, which would have the strong support of the Seanad. Senator Henry referred to this matter also in regard to road development.

The National Roads Authority is most stringent when it comes to the environment and archaeological remains. Some speakers referred to snails during the debate. The sea water baths in Ardrahan on the Gort to Oranmore road were to be protected and I hope this will be the case. There are a number of options for the development of this road and I hope there will not be any threat to the preservation of these baths.

When the former Deputy, Padraig Flynn, was Minister for the Environment he promoted the bypassing of towns such as Lucan and Kilcock and people in the west queried the value of spending so much money on the east coast. He made the point that it would also benefit people in the west to have such towns bypassed. I welcome the bypassing of towns and the development of roads in the western region that is now taking place.

In putting forward the transport package in the Estimates, the Minister stated it would benefit jobs in the regions, commuters and business, which is an important issue. He went on to say the Government is building roads because they protect and grow job opportunities and community life throughout the country. Over €1.3 billion will be invested in roads in 2005 alone. It is clear that the development of roads in conjunction with the NRA is important to the Government. I hope it will continue this policy in a careful way, not in a cavalier manner.

In speaking of the new road from Galway to Dublin, it was said that the shortest way from Galway to Athlone was through a great deal of bog, which is true. It would take up to half an hour off the journey time spent going through Loughrea and Ballinasloe. It could have been of benefit to people in north Galway but the belief is that one should build roads so that they would pass near major towns, in this case Athenry, Loughrea and Ballinasloe. We would not like to see short cuts being developed. One has to take the development of these towns into consideration because of the job opportunities that go with that, as the Minister stated in the context of the Book of Estimates.

Despite criticism I have made of the NRA, I believe it is taking into consideration issues of archaeology and the historical importance of sites and I hope this will continue to be the case. I also hope we can meet regularly with the NRA. The Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has had regular meetings with the NRA which I welcome. I listened to some of the debate at today's meeting of the committee. The Chairman referred to visiting the area under discussion. This would be an important mission for the committee as its members are not all familiar with the details of the area. It was proposed in the Estimates that money would be spent on this road next year. There is an opportunity for the committee to examine the situation and ensure it proceeds in a careful manner.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a lovely little village in County Cork called Glanworth. I have visited my brother's house there but have never had time to walk around the village until recently. It is located on the River Funcheon, across which there is a beautiful 11 arch bridge, which is one of Europe's oldest and longest. The bridge has been treated in an extraordinary manner for many years. It was used by very heavy traffic, as with the bridge at Slane, until one day two 40 tonne trucks faced one another in the centre of the bridge and neither would back down. The locals decided to take the law into their own hands and decided that no more would these vehicles cross their bridge. They put traffic lights and height barriers in place so that this could not happen again. The local people had a sense of value of their heritage.

The village is delightful. There is a castle on a rock above the bridge, a mill with a functioning water wheel and an ancient abbey built by the Dominicans in 1475 — not a very good time to build abbeys — which was supported by the Norman Roche family from the area. There is also an ancient graveyard and a castle which was built by the Condrons before even the arrival of the Normans. There is a great deal of history and even romance; an heiress called Amy Fleming was about to be abducted with her fortune from the castle by some rogues but, fortunately, another gang called the Nagles rescued her, telling her they would mind her and her fortune.

Members probably think all this information was gleaned from splendid notices all over the village. However, there is not a word stating anything about the place except the usual "fógra" which informs one that the Office of Public Works is in charge and that if anything happens to one, one cannot sue the OPW or the Minister. It is thanks to the restaurant in Glanworth Mill that I gathered all the information that day. I sometimes feel many things happen in this country because we do not understand what we have around us until it is under threat.

When widening roads was all the rage, there was talk about doing something about the bridge in Glanworth so that it would be more convenient for the 40 tonne trucks to travel across. Someone tried to blow up the bridge during the Civil War but it mercifully withstood the blast as well as hundreds of years of traffic before and since. The Fermoy bypass was built but, because there will be a toll on it, the town will still attract traffic — perhaps over my little bridge.

Too many people knew about Tara for what is proposed there to be taken on the nod. I am delighted that Senator O'Toole tabled this motion tonight because, when one examines what has already been destroyed in various parts of Ireland, it is unthinkable to allow this area to be destroyed too. I was in a town called Bolgheri on the west coast of Italy when a motorway was being built linking Rome with Geneva. There is a line of fairly slow-growing cypress trees outside the town that are the subject of a poem by Giosuè Carducci, which is learned by every school child in Italy. Therefore, there was no question of the trees being touched, which meant the motorway had to loop around the avenue of cypresses.

In Tara we have, as Senator O'Toole has rightly described it, a place of kings, saints and scholars — steeped as it is in our history, culture, mythology and legend — being attacked by a road which can be built elsewhere without a great deal of difficulty. Sometimes the simplest of solutions seems to be dismissed as quite impossible. When we discussed Carrickmines Castle, I suggested that a flyover be built. It could have gone over the site quite easily as only two roads needed to be connected on either side of the castle area. However, this was considered impossible because it is all the go nowadays to build roundabouts.

I suggest that when we come to areas of such importance as Tara, our imagination must come before what is practical. In that context, we need only consider what happened at Wood Quay. When I visited York to see the Viking settlement, I thought I would see something incredible when all I saw was two sorts of basements, on which one could not walk but rather travel around on a little train. At that time, I remembered what we had where the civic offices are now — fine as they are. I was in Cologne when workers building an enormous development found ancient mosaics right beside the cathedral. However, there was no question of their being disturbed. A splendid development has been built but one can still look down onto the mosaics through the glass in the museum which has been built.

I was in Verona when the Porta dei Leoni was rediscovered. Once again, it was imaginatively dealt with so that one could see the mosaics underneath and alternative arrangements were made to avoid the important site. We have such knowledge about our own heritage areas. I am quite sure that Senator Mansergh did not mean to suggest that if we just found such sites by good luck rather than by ancient knowledge, we should do nothing about them. Rather, if we find such sites by good luck, as was the case in Cologne when war reparations were still being made in the 1960s and in Verona, when sewerage works were being undertaken, one must treasure what is found. Whatever good fortune we have had to find artefacts in excavations south of Tara, we should consider the alternative routes which have been suggested.

Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House as well as the opportunity to debate this issue. We have had numerous presentations and discussions on this issue before the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. I agree with Senator O'Toole that this is as much an issue for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as it is for the Department of Transport.

It is worth examining what we are doing here. For many years we did not have the resources to develop our road infrastructure. We were caught in a catch-22, whereby there was no development and therefore no progress. We felt that the only way we could attract major indigenous companies and those from abroad was to provide a top class road network throughout the country and link the main cities. The benefit of this was not just to the cities but for every town and village adjacent to these routes and the results are there for us all to see. The improvement in our main access routes — north, south, east and west — has provided opportunities to develop major high-yield, value-added industries throughout the country. The proposed spatial strategy enhances the progress made to date.

My own experience of road developments is the M1 motorway to the North. No one can state that development has not improved conditions for everyone, not just for motorists but for business people too. There has been a massive increase in the number of cars, trucks and vans coming from north of the Border. It has improved conditions for people living along the route too and has made a huge difference to the lives of people living in Drogheda. We all remember the controversy surrounding the M1- there were swans in the estuary and ferns to be conserved. However, these issues were handled sensitively in an environmentally sustainable manner and I am glad to report to the House that the swan population on the estuary has doubled since the motorway opened. That is just one of the benefits. It was a PPP project and, in fairness to all concerned, every measure was taken to minimise interference with the environment.

I congratulate the developers on the spectacular bridge across the Boyne just past Drogheda, which has now become an attraction. Again, significant controversy surrounded the project at the time. It was handled properly. There was extensive consultation with all concerned parties and the result was a state of the art major road network running from the North to the South. It has improved life for all concerned.

There have been other examples over the years of developments not taking account of the environment. It is not so long ago that archaeology was not even considered when developments were proposed. I shudder to think of the amount of archaeological information and substance which has gone missing over the years purely because the structures did not exist to protect them. It is only relatively recently that legislation and regulations have been introduced in this area. Thankfully, significant strides have been made in the precautions and measures which are taken now to investigate and preserve any items or sites which are of archaeological or historical importance.

The Carrickmines development was mentioned. It is relevant to this debate because that situation shows that when something goes wrong, it goes badly wrong. It was a proposed two year project but it took seven years. A total of 130 archaeologists were required, the cost of archaeological investigations was more than €6 million and, in the end, 90% of the site was preserved.

We must be realistic, particularly about Tara-Skryne. The Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government has heard a number of interesting presentations but the decisions surrounding this route have not been taken overnight. There have been three years of discussion, consultations and environmental impact statements. The An Bord Pleanála oral hearings, which took 28 days, were the longest ever for a development such as this. Every factor has been taken into account.

The new Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government has suggested that the committee members visit the site and speak to the concerned parties. I welcome that proposal. It will give us an opportunity to see what is happening there and to talk to all involved.

Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Senator Norris.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This week an inquiry is taking place into the construction of a new toll road between Ballinasloe and Galway city. Practically all the proposed new routes and those which have been constructed have involved some interference with an archaeological site. I support the motion. In this instance, I cannot understand why the NRA, through its consultants, does not carry out its ground work before proposing a new route.

The selection procedure followed by the NRA is extremely dubious. In most instances, it proposes to consult with the landowners and all other interested bodies as to which is the most appropriate route to be chosen. Invariably, however, the process results in the selection of the route initially proposed by the NRA as the preferred route. I believe that behind all this the interests of the developers of these roads are a priority and everything else fits into place in choosing the route.

In the case of this route, I cannot understand why the NRA and the consultants who designed the road, knowing what they know now, cannot move it slightly. I happened to see the records regarding the selection of a route in Galway. There were four options for the road. I attended public meetings in various places in support of or against a particular route. I saw a Minister of State claim to support the cause of those who wanted the route moved northwards. On the following night, however, he attended another meeting of bodies interested in having the route moved southwards. He indicated to all and sundry on one night that he had made representations to have it moved northwards and, on the next night, to have it moved southwards.

However, according to the file of the NRA he had issued a directive that the road take a particular route, which was neither of the two routes I mentioned. If that is what is happening, when the NRA is supposedly not responsible to anybody in the Houses except directly to the Minister, what or whose interests are the developers usually following? Something needs to be done about the finalisation of the process. Somebody must take this in hand and stop the rot we see at present.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Norris has two minutes.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are you sure? Senator Burke only said about three sentences and he had eight minutes.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but he has spoken for approximately six.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. He spoke for three.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry. The Senator has four minutes.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will compromise on that. This is a site of world importance. When Senator Kitt spoke about the shortest way from Galway to Dublin, I thought of James Joyce saying the shortest way to Tara is via Holyhead. It soon will be — we will have to go to England to look at photographs of it. It is extraordinary. It is as if the Egyptian Government decided to put a tramline through the Valley of the Kings.

It was interesting to listen to Members' contributions. Senator Mansergh made a balanced contribution and indicated disquiet on the Government side. Senator Maurice Hayes, who was nominated to the House by the Government, wrote a superb article in one of the Sunday newspapers outlining the difficulties. Professor Eogan, who is perhaps the most distinguished archaeologist and certainly the greatest authority in this country on this area, has indicated his concern.

We do not oppose motorways. That is a myth. We also do not oppose infrastructure. In fact, virtually all the road can be built with the exception of a three mile stretch from Ross Cross to Carlow Cross. Why not first build the two ends of the road, which will give time to investigate and produce an alternative route? That can be done.

What is involved is not just a couple of pinpoints on top of a hill or a burial mound but the entire archaeological complex. This has been recognised under legislation dating from the 1980s which deals with the nomination of archaeological sites. Under the discovery programme, the idea that Tara does not begin and end with monuments on the hill in State ownership is recognised by the fact that throughout the 1980s and 1990s the zone of archaeological protection marked in the SMR maps described a slightly greater area than that on the top of the hill. In 1997, Dúchas redefined the archaeological zone as an ellipse some 6 km in diameter around the hill of Tara. The area is already defined as an area of major archaeological importance.

There is no doubt that the crown of the hill is a burial ground. There is an impressive concentration of monuments there that are clearly visible. There is, however, also an entire complex, only some of which has been located. The remainder lies waiting to be discovered.

I wish to deal now with the identification of the route. The NRA considered various routes and there is no question that it decided upon what is called route P as the most favoured on a number of grounds including archaeology, built heritage, flora, fauna and habitats, water quality, landscape and visual effects, air quality and noise levels. In no category whatever does it recommend the route the NRA has chosen. That is astonishing. Some of this information was diluted in the environmental impact survey and led to a letter being written to The Irish Times by a distinguished archaeologist which states An Bord Pleanála bears some responsibility in for this fiasco because "Its weak-kneed, unquestioning acceptance of whatever road plans are put before it shows that it is simply the Government's rubber-stamping department."

This is a serious matter. The place in question has been celebrated by poets from Yeats back to the court bard of Maoilseachlainn in the tenth century. One side of my family has old Gaelic roots and I am astonished that a Fianna Fáil Government would consider desecrating what is surely the most sacred site in Irish history.

Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope it will not damage the Minister of State's metronome irreparably to discover that I support the motion and oppose the amendment. I had hoped that the motion would be taken on its merits but the amendment invites us to consider and either endorse or condemn a range of motorway issues.

I have enormous regard for the work done by the NRA. It has done wonderful work — including the putting in place of a beautiful bridge — on the road to Belfast and I wish its counterpart on the other side of the Border was half as good. I pay tribute to it for that. However, that does not mean that we should canonise it for everything it does. Previous speakers referred to the need to move people through County Meath and to help them to commute. In that context, I hope the option of putting in place some form of rail transport will be considered. The one thing one learns about road construction is that regardless of one's plans, the road one is building will be almost overloaded by the time it is completed. This leads people to seek alternative routes. Roads produce traffic which leads to further roads and traffic and alternatives must be found.

Senator Morrissey inquired about what would happen when the various roads reached their destinations in Dublin. It takes me longer to travel from Dublin Airport to the Houses than it does for me to drive from home to the airport.

Another difficulty I have with the amendment is that it removes the focus from Tara and the more general matter about which we are concerned. One of the problems is that, as regards the route chosen, there appears to be an assumption that if Tara and Skryne can be saved then we can drive a road between them. This ignores the integrity of the existing archaeological environment.

A second problem relates to trial digs. If it was not such a bad metaphor, I would say to the Minister of State that if he is in a hole he should stop digging. Trial digs are fine to an extent but they rarely work well under pressure. Nobody has indicated what will happen if there is a major find. What would be the position if the type of mosaics to which Senator Henry referred or another Newgrange were discovered? Is it not the case that, in such circumstances, those involved would be really up against it? In my view, it is better to face these challenges early on rather than be obliged to deal with them later.

There appears to be an attraction in terms of having everything dealt with in this area in the form of a single PPP. I am not opposed to PPPs, which are a great utility in ways. In this instance, however, we must consider what would be the cost of delays. Let us consider whether, for example, a different equation might emerge if the cost and agony of undergoing appeals, protests, etc, was weighed against constructing an additional mile or two of motorway.

The crucial point relates to the integrity of the landscape around Tara. When people of the eminence of Professor Eogan and all the country's major archaeologists and scholars of this era are opposed to a particular line of policy, it is worthwhile stopping to review the situation, reconsider the options and test the information one has been given. Perhaps the Minister of State might consider what Thomas Davis said in 1845 about people running a road towards Tara.

Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened with interest to the contributions of Members and I thank them for their comments. It is evident that people feel passionately about this matter. I ask Members to listen to what I have to say because I believe I can respond, adequately and positively, in respect of the issues of concern.

The motion provides a welcome opportunity to debate an important issue, namely, the upgrading of the national roads network and its impact on our archaeological heritage. I wish to state clearly the Government's commitment to the objectives of upgrading our transport infrastructure and protecting our environmental and archaeological heritage. The identification and minimisation of impacts on our environmental and archaeological heritage is at the centre of the NRA's guidelines on project management. More particularly, the approach to archaeological issues is set out in the code of practice on archaeology for the national roads programme agreed in 2000 by the NRA and the then Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. This code of practice sets out a comprehensive and transparent approach for the treatment of archaeology on national road projects. It has provided a framework for dealing with archaeological sites and features in accordance with best practice.

Before dealing with the Clonee-Kells project, it would be useful to set it in the context of the national roads programme generally. Investment in our roads network is critical for the ongoing development of the economy, the facilitation of regional development, the provision of safer roads and shorter and more reliable travel times and the enhancement of our quality of life. For these reasons, the Government prioritised investment in national roads as part of the national development plan. Investment during the period 2000-04 will amount to approximately €5 billion.

The results of this investment are clearly evident, with bottlenecks throughout the country being removed. Major projects completed include the M1, Dublin to Dundalk; bypasses of Kildare, Monasterevin and Cashel; the N7, Limerick southern ring road — phase 1; the N22, Ballincollig bypass; and the N11, Ashford-Rathnew road, to name but a few. Work continues on many other projects including the Fermoy, Ennis, Loughrea, Mullingar, Cavan, Ballyshannon-Bundoran and Kinnegad-Enfield bypasses; the Sligo inner relief road; the Dublin Port tunnel; and the south-eastern motorway, which will complete the M50 from the M1 to the M11. Planning is under way on projects such as the widening of the M50 and provision of freeflow interchanges, the Waterford city bypass, the Kinnegad-Athlone road and so on. Since the start of the NDP in 2000, 46 projects have been completed, 20 are currently under construction, nine are at tender stage and a further 12 are either through the statutory process or before An Bord Pleanála. A major transformation of our national road network is under way and it is about time.

The upgrade of the N3 is an important part of the national roads upgrade programme. The Clonee — north of Kells — motorway is a much needed project, consistent with both the national development plan and the national spatial strategy. It is a vital item of infrastructure which will contribute to the ongoing success of the local and regional economy, bring about better balanced regional development, improve safety and improve access to and from Dublin, the ports and the airport. In addition, this project will transform the quality of life for those people living in Dunboyne, Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells. It will result in reductions of through traffic of 75% in Dunshaughlin, 78% in Navan and 90% in Kells. It will also benefit everyone living along the existing N3 by removing most of the through traffic and associated congestion which currently affects their lives on a daily basis. The existing road is not coping with the traffic volumes using the route and the situation will only become worse given the planned development in County Meath and further afield.

I am fully aware of the rich archaeological landscape in County Meath, the importance of the Hill of Tara and its significance to our national heritage. Both Meath County Council and the National Roads Authority are also aware of the special place that the Hill of Tara holds in the national consciousness and of their responsibilities to protect it and the cultural heritage of County Meath. Listening to some of the contributors to the debate, one might form the impression that no proper consideration has been given to this M3 proposal but nothing could be further from the truth. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the position which may assist people in making up their own minds about it.

A great deal of time, expertise and expense has been expended in developing the M3 motorway scheme through the planning process. Every effort has been made to mitigate the impact of the proposed road through the landscape surrounding the Hill of Tara. On the question of the proximity of the motorway to the Hill of Tara, I wish to emphasise that the proposed road passes between the Hill of Skryne to the east and the Hill of Tara to the west. The route was carefully chosen so as to avoid the important core zone around Tara, which has national monument status. The chosen route lies 1.5 km to the east of the limit of the record of monuments designated area and east of the existing N3 road. The motorway as it passes through the Tara-Skryne valley will be a greater distance from the Hill of Tara than the existing N3 Dublin-Navan Road. The scheme has been designed to minimise physical and visual impacts on the archaeological landscape around Tara.

Great care was taken by Meath County Council and the NRA to avoid any previously recorded or upstanding monuments when planning the route of the M3 project. Statements that the selected route was "the only route that was considered by the NRA" are incorrect. A total of ten route options in four broad corridors were examined as part of the route selection study for the Dunshaughlin-Navan section of the scheme which involves the Tara area. Project planning and assessment of route options were carried out over a period of more than three years. The impact on archaeology, as well as implications for other aspects of the environment, effects on people and their homes, the extent to which farms would be severed, together with traffic, engineering and cost considerations were taken into account in evaluating the ten route options in the Tara area. The archaeological consultants engaged by Meath County Council to advise on route selection concluded that the preferred route which emerged from this process was a viable route in terms of archaeology. The preferred route was assessed as best or joint best under 14 of the 13 assessment criteria used as part of the environmental impact evaluation process and accordingly scored higher on environmental grounds than any alternative route.

The public consultation process saw 4,000 people attend public meetings. The preferred route was subsequently submitted to An Bord Pleanála for consideration. Following a 28-day oral hearing during which extensive attention was given to archaeology and potential impacts on Tara, the board approved the M3 Clonee-north of Kells road project proposal. In this regard it should be noted that the decision to approve the proposal was, inter alia, based on the board's conclusion that the motorway scheme" is necessary to provide adequately for the existing and projected traffic growth and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area". The board also concluded that the scheme, "would not have significant adverse effects on the environment."

It may be helpful to Members if I set out in more detail the extent of the archaeological work carried out on the proposed route. I understand from the NRA that in the case of the M3 a test trench was excavated along the centreline of the 59 km length of the route with cross-trenches being dug every 20 metres. This work, as would be expected, has identified a number of previously unknown archaeological sites and features. Reports on the sites concerned have been submitted to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to assist the Minister in determining the most appropriate manner in which to deal with the sites concerned. The reports concerned relate to a total of 38 sites on the 15 km section of the route between Dunshaughlin and Navan.

The extent to which new sites have been discovered, approximately 2.5 sites per kilometre, would be similar to the experience on many other schemes throughout the country and in some cases the incidence of sites on the M3 is substantially less than finds on certain other national road schemes. On the M1 route a total of 211 previously unknown archaeological sites were found over a distance of 601 km, an average of 3.5 sites per kilometre. In addition, in the case of the Cashel bypass, which was opened to traffic last month, 100 new sites were located on the 7 km of the bypass, or 14 sites per kilometre. The reports on the new discoveries on the M3 were submitted to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They identify "burnt spreads" or "ancient cooking places" as the most common site type. Other sites include former burial locations and possible foundations of houses, including five of relatively recent origin. Overall the new discoveries appear to be along expected lines and do not appear to be of unique archaeological value in their own right.

The test trenching on the route of the M3 project was carried out by archaeologists who were familiar with the results of the previous surveys undertaken along the route. The purpose of these archaeological investigations is to identify new sites along the route. Those discovered are reported to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and will be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Minister. Rather than losing sites, this work is adding to the archaeological record long-forgotten sites that have no visible presence in the landscape.

The upgrade of the N3 between Clonee and Kells is an important project for the national roads programme overall. It is important for the towns of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells; for access to and within the Border and north midlands regions and for access to and from the north west. It has been planned, designed and approved in accordance with statutory requirements. I understand that every effort has been made to minimise and mitigate the impact of the project on local communities, on the natural heritage and on the archaeological heritage.

The Government is firmly committed to ensuring that investment in the national roads programme is planned and implemented in a manner which ensures the protection of our national heritage and archaeological sites and features. The Minister for Transport is committed to ensuring that the NRA works proactively with the national monuments division of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in ensuring that archaeological issues arising on national roads projects are resolved in accordance with best practice. In recent years the archaeological work carried out under the national roads programme has made a significant contribution to our store of knowledge about our past. The Government wishes to ensure that the national roads investment programme is implemented in a manner which minimises any adverse impact on the environment and, as far as possible, protects our national heritage. I hope this reply has been helpful to the debate.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Members most sincerely for their contributions. It is very important that this debate took place. I am deeply dissatisfied and it is not satisfactory that the Government tabled a 31-line amendment to the motion which makes no mention of Tara or its heritage. I am deeply unhappy with the contributions from the Government side of the House because they do not address the issue. What occurred tonight was an attempt to have a debate on the roads infrastructure. As I have stated, I do not have difficulty in giving the Government due credit for what it has done with regard to roads. I am not a member of the Opposition but an Independent and I will offer my views on issues on which I agree and disagree. Similarly, with regard to the rail network, I support Senator Dooley on the need to improve the Galway line and Senator Mansergh on the need to improve the Limerick to Rosslare line, as I supported him in ensuring the railway bridge in Cahir was reconstructed. I assure Senator Dooley that I consulted people in Meath on the issue before us. It may be news to him that I live one field from the Meath border.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the M3 route does not cross the Senator's land.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Half my neighbours are from County Meath and those with whom I discussed this issue are all from the county. As a Kerryman, I have a fatal attraction towards Meath people because they wear the green and gold colours.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator will always be a Kerryman.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a typical Fianna Fáil trick to raise many matters with which Senators agree. While I agree with 90% of what was said by Government Members, the issues they raised were irrelevant and lacked focus. As regards Senator Morrissey's question, as the Minister of State will confirm, I answered it two weeks ago in the House when I pointed out the problems encountered at the point at which the M1, N2 and N3 reach the city limits. The Senator knows as well as I that the proposed solution, namely, to establish park and ride facilities on every motorway or proposed motorway has been ignored by the Government. Its failure to implement the proposal will mean we will continue to have problems. The issue is that simple.

Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are implementing the proposal.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are no park and ride facilities on the M1, N2 or N3. We will know the Government has acted when we see these facilities.

I share the concerns expressed regarding the Natterjack toad, the Kerry slug, bats in Ardrahan and so forth and I often visit the Broadmeadow Estuary to watch the swans, which are flourishing. Those are not, however, the issue before us, which is the Hill of Tara and I am concerned that Senators have been afraid to address the matter.

The Minister of State informed the House as to what the archaeological reports by Meath County Council lead him to believe while carefully ignoring the proposals made by the route reporting group of the National Roads Authority. These proposals, which I have before me, arrived at a different conclusion. The Minister of State also carefully ignored Ireland's leading expert in this field, Professor George Eogan. I ask the Government to consider these issues.

As regards our position on issues, I agree with Senator Mansergh. I had no time for many of the objections which have been raised. I also agree with Senator Dooley's comments in this regard. I stood with the people of County Clare when they wanted an interpretative centre built on the Burren because they were right and their proposal displayed care, sensitivity and precision. Similarly, I support the construction of the Ennis bypass, which was so important to the Senator in his election. I guarantee, however, that if some philistine were to swerve the route of the proposed bypass further east to go through some of the crannógs in his back yard, I would stand with him to stop it proceeding. The people of Meath are asking Senators to take such a stance this evening.

I welcome the proposal that the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government visit the area and accept Senator Mansergh's suggestion that we examine the matter from both perspectives. When this proposal develops into another Carrickmines and becomes clogged in the courts, as it inevitably will, let us all remember that the reason was because we ignored the issues raised in the House tonight. When, as Senator Maurice Hayes stated, important discoveries are made underground and we are suddenly faced with a dilemma as to what to do with them, the building of this important road, which I support, will be delayed. When that transpires, let us remember that we had the solutions before us tonight but ignored them.

The solution is to opt for the alternative proposal produced in the route selection report of the NRA. It caused least problems in terms of archaeology, built heritage, flora and fauna, landscape and visual impact, air quality and noise levels. This option was available but we refused to take it. We are walking away from it because it calls for bravery.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What was the extra cost of the route?

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I look around the House, I see Senators who have taken brave decisions many times on development issues. I ask the House to make one more such decision.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What schools will we decide not to build to fund the Senator's proposal?

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Senator to conclude without interruption, please.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand Senator Dooley is an up and coming Senator with a major career ahead of him. I commend him on wanting to do a good job as a Fianna Fáil Senator, but he is wrong on this occasion.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator should name the schools.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While important, Senator Mansergh's statement that the NRA is the largest employer of archaeologists and the second largest planter of trees is irrelevant in the context of this debate.

Senator Cummins recently asked me what was happening with regard to Woodstown, County Waterford, where a commitment has been given that certain archaeological finds would, to use the words of Senator Morrissey, be researched, excavated, recorded and archived. Given that this is not happening, I do not detect goodwill in this area. I appeal to the Cathaoirleach to ensure that members of the Fianna Fáil Party look after their heritage and support the motion.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no control over them.

Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to raise a procedural point. Is it appropriate for the Minister of State to respond to a debate with a speech written in his Department before the debate commenced? This approach negated the point of the debate.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not consider the Senator's question to be a procedural point.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.