Written answers

Wednesday, 8 July 2009

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Planning Issues

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 416: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the reason he did not revoke archaeological licences and halt excavations on the M3, in the Lismullin-Tara area, when the European Commission put him on notice that an environmental impact assessment was required. [28633/09]

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 417: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the amount spent on outside legal counsel to defend the action in relation to the requirement for an environmental impact assessment for the M3 project in the European Court of Justice. [28634/09]

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 418: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the consequences for the National Monuments Act 1930, and archaeological codes of practice, if the European Court of Justice finds against Ireland. [28636/09]

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 419: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the consequences for capital infrastructure projects, already under way, if the European Court of Justice finds against Ireland in relation to environmental impact assessments. [28637/09]

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 421: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the reason, in view of the legal action initiated by the European Commission, and his admission that there are gaps in the way archaeological finds are dealt with in certain circumstances, he is defending the environmental impact assessment case being taken against Ireland by the European Commission, rather than amending the Act to adopt the recommendations of the Commission. [28639/09]

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 426: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he has taken to comply with the recommendations of the European Commission in respect of the need for environmental impact assessments for works that affect national monuments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28692/09]

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 416 to 419, inclusive, 421 and 426 together.

I understand that the questions refer to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case C50/09, initiated by the European Commission, concerning Ireland's alleged failure to properly transpose and implement certain provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The Reasoned Opinion from the European Commission relates only to the excavations at the national monument at Lismullin and not to any other archaeological works along the route of the M3 motorway.

In the case of Lismullin, the vulnerability of the remaining fragile archaeological features required urgent steps to be taken, and although the question of an EIA did not arise, it would not have been practicable in any event. Despite protective covering, heavy rainfall since its discovery had already significantly impacted on the site. Urgent measures were needed to ensure that no further degradation occurred.

The option of preservation in situ had been carefully considered by the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The conclusion reached was that, because of the fragility of the features and the location of the site in a natural hollow, preservation in situ could not guarantee the actual preservation of the monument. This conclusion was endorsed by the Expert Advisory Committee I appointed, on the advice of the Director of the National Museum, to advise on the conduct of the archaeological works. The only viable archaeological option, therefore, was preservation by record, i.e. the full archaeological excavation and recording of the exposed features.

Ireland lodged a comprehensive defence in this case on 27 April 2009. The European Commission is required to lodge its response with the Court not later than 15 July 2009. I am not prepared to speculate on the outcome or possible consequences of this case.

The engagement and remuneration of legal counsel to advise in this case is a matter for the Office of the Attorney General.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.