JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 2004

M3 Motorway: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome a delegation from the Save the Tara-Skryne Valley Campaign to discuss the effects of the proposed M3 motorway development on heritage matters. The joint committee will hear the delegation's presentation before putting questions. I draw the delegation's attention to the fact that the members of the committee have absolute privilege but this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members of the committee are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charge against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I suggest, Ms Clancy, that you introduce your delegation before you give your presentation.

Ms Julitta Clancy

Thank you, Chairman. We welcome this opportunity to come to the committee today. We are two independent groups. There is an independent group with us who are experts on Tara's archaeology and history. They are Mr. Conor Newman, Dr. Edel Breathnach and Mr. Joe Fenwick. Our delegation consists of Mr. Vincent Salafia, Mr. Brendan Magee, Dr. Muireann Ní Bhrolacháin from NUI Maynooth and myself. We propose that the three experts brief the joint committee first and that we should then speak.

Chairman

I am not sure how many groups or how many experts we have on our committee.

Ms Clancy

You are all experts. Members of the joint committee will have received a short presentation and we are now distributing some appendices to it. I suggest that Dr. Breathnach start the proceedings. Our group will then come in with our contribution.

Dr. Edel Breathnach

Thank you, Chairman, and Members of the Oireachtas for inviting us to address the joint committee.

As our statement unfolds I hope members will begin to realise how important this issue is and how crucial their opinion is to the preservation of the most important monument in Ireland. We are addressing the decision to construct a section of the M3 motorway from Clonee to Kells through the valley between the hills of Skryne and Tara. Who are we? I represent local interests, archaeologists, historians and scholars of Celtic studies from Ireland and throughout the world, environmentalists and scientists. I come with the support of highly influential academics and institutions in Britain, Europe and the United States to express their deep concern about this decision.

Since 1992, Mr. Conor Newman, Mr. Joe Fenwick and I have conducted large-scale research to the highest academic standards into the archaeology and history of Tara and its landscape. This was done under the aegis of the Discovery Programme, a State-funded body established to work on major archaeological projects. We have published a considerable body of information including, in 1997, the results of an extensive archaeological survey of the hill itself and its hinterland. This is what leads us to the issue of concern here.

Why is there such concern? As we all know from primary school onward, Tara is a cultural icon of this island and has been since pre-history. We now know it was the centre of an exceptional kingship and a pre-Christian sanctuary and burial ground since the Neolithic period. When we began to work on Tara in 1992, the definition of the site was simply the hill itself. We knew, from international comparisons of such centres of kingship throughout the world, that Tara must have involved a wider landscape. These are ceremonial complexes with known patterns of monuments in the landscape. Indeed, that is what our research found. We redefined the landscape of Tara. We established that there was a clearly defined archaeological and historical landscape, that it was formally demarcated in the Iron Age - just before and after the birth of Christ - and that a ring of defensive fortifications was constructed around the hill. This demarcation lasted through medieval and later history to the present day. The modern Barony of Skryne approximately demarcates the earlier prehistoric landscape.

The M3, as it is proposed, cuts right through the middle of this landscape. This is a highly sensitive and internationally recognised type of ceremonial landscape. This is why we have the support of academics throughout the world. They recognise this kind of landscape. It is a landscape which should only be subject to disturbance as part of a strategically planned research project. Such a plan has been slowly and carefully developed by the Discovery Programme since 1992.

Was this importance not recognised during the planning process for the M3? Indeed it was. All the preliminary work done during the first stages of the process strongly recommended that this zone should be avoided. As we went through the process, this advice was watered down to a point where it was almost contradicted by the archaeological consultants. They commenced the processing by strongly suggesting we should not touch a particular area and ended up saying it was all right to do so.

A geophysical survey carried out for the consultants as part of the planning process illustrated that Tara is a high archaeological content zone. Currently, we are receiving the same standard reply from all the authorities we meet - the NRA, Meath County Council and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - the due process has been gone through, the planned route has been approved by An Bord Pleanála and we are too late.

Many among our delegation attended the oral hearing and gave evidence, to no avail. Prior to the decision on 18 March 2003, as members will note from the booklet, the joint professors of archaeology in Galway, Dublin, Trinity and UCD, Queen's, Oxford University, York and Exeter, the chairman of the Discovery programme and Conor, Joe and myself wrote to the Minister for Transport, Deputy Séamus Brennan, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, and the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy John O'Donoghue, expressing our concern at the planned route and warning it was an important landscape but we received no reply.

In the case of Tara, a number of flaws were evident in the planning process. The primary consideration for this section of the M3 should always have been a cultural consideration, not an economic or traffic one. This is an exceptional case. The cultural significance of the area in this instance should have been top priority. That was not so.

We were not consulted as experts, even though our work is in the public domain. Indeed, Ministers have launched our books. The preliminary acknowledgement of the archaeological consultants employed by the NRA and Meath County Council that this zone should be avoided was watered down. The geophysical survey carried out as part of the EIS, despite its shortcomings, confirmed that this zone was of significant archaeology. Alternative routes were not subjected to the same scrutiny.

Where are we now? There are two levels in this debate - one political and one involving best archaeological practice. I address the political points to members of the committee. A mistake has been made in deciding to route this section through this highly sensitive landscape. We are told it is too late, the route cannot be changed, due process is being followed, tenders and contracts are being issued. Are we dealing with a system that is so inflexible it cannot deal with mistakes or exceptional cases? Hundreds of archaeological sites are being dealt with under the national development plan. We accept that; it is part of development. However, there must be some way of dealing with this type of case or with situations whereby something exceptional is unexpectedly found. I am afraid the solution to such cases lies with politicians from whom the NRA and county councillors take their cue. That is what we have learned.

If we do not form a policy to deal with the exceptional case, we will continue to have unnecessary controversy and rancour such as took place at Carrickmines and Tara. We are told high standards of archaeological excavation will be followed. This area should only be touched as part of research excavation and not, as is the case as we sit here, rapid soil stripping and test trenching of the route corridor.

Having attempted all avenues, we come to the committee, as our elected representatives, to plead with it regarding this special landscape of national and international importance. Members know Tara is important. As a person who has worked on it for ten years, I can tell members that the construction of the motorway through the valley between Tara and Skyrne would be an unambiguous declaration that the protection of Ireland's heritage was no longer a core value of this nation. Are we to be recorded in history as making that statement?

Ms Clancy

I will briefly make some points. The essence of the argument is that 6,000 years of a unique archaeological and cultural landscape will be destroyed by this tolled motorway. In terms of archaeological remains alone, the immensity of the destruction could be equivalent to six to eight Carrickmines Castle sites but of far greater antiquity and value.

As to how this mess arose, the answer is simple. From the outset Meath County Council and the NRA ignored the huge importance of the Tara landscape. They ignored the advice of their consultants at route selection stage, the results of the public consultation process, the evidence and published research of the acknowledged experts on the Discovery programme, the fact that their own consultants did not recommend the chosen route under any of the environmental headings, downplayed the spectacular results of the geophysical survey which they only commissioned after the preferred route was selected and failed at all times properly to inform the local politicians and the public as to the extent of the archaeology impacted by the motorway. They are still doing that.

They have consistently failed to explain why this particular section of the route was adopted when there were no compelling reasons in favour of it and many compelling reasons against it. Why did they do this? The underlying strategy of the NRA and Meath County Council was the creation of a tolled motorway of such a scale as would ensure its viability as a public private partnership project. This strategy took hold and drove the whole process forward. For this reason it was essential to distance the M3 from the N2, to align the M3 close to the old rail line formation, thus delaying the development of the Dublin to Navan rail link, and to delay the construction of the much needed Dunshaughlin bypass and link it into the public private partnership project.

From the outset, Dúchas, the State heritage agency, failed to give adequate protection to this unique archaeological landscape. It failed adequately to define and enforce the zone of protection given to Tara, to warn against routing the motorway near Tara or the Tara-Skyrne Valley, to act when the spectacular results of the geophysical survey came to light, to attend and give evidence at the oral hearing and failed to insist on independent monitoring of archaeological investigations along the M3 route.

This lack of intervention by the State heritage protection agency clearly led the NRA and Meath County Council to deem it acceptable to route the motorway through this highly sensitive landscape, despite the heavy costs and delays that will be incurred due to archaeological factors. It has also led to a virtual delegation of the State's heritage protection responsibilities to the National Roads Authority.

An Bord Pleanála, through its inspector and determining body, failed to give due weight to the crucial expert evidence presented at the oral hearing and failed to recognise and address the unique importance of Tara and its hinterland which, as stated earlier, should have been the priority factor in that valley. It failed also adequately to investigate the reasons which determined the selection of this route and failed to question the passive role played by Dúchas.

The Legislature failed in not ensuring adequate protections, processes and guidelines. As a result, enormous and unaccountable powers have been given to bodies such as the NRA, leading to widespread abuse and lip service to the process. This in turn has led to frustration and disaffection, protests and litigation with the inevitable lengthy delays and costs which taxpayers have to bear. This is happening all over the country.

The result will be that the project will not be completed by 2009. It will have horrendous overrun costs on the road construction contract due to the extent and density of the archaeology - if it is revealed, something about which I am very suspicious. It will involve an archaeological cost from €16 to €30 million; it will inevitably lead to third party litigation, further delaying and adding to the costs, and will destroy forever a unique cultural landscape.

Legislators are entrusted with environmental and heritage protection. Is this what transport and road safety policies are supposed to be about? Is this how our cultural heritage is to be protected? Is this how our international commitments are to be respected? Is this how State bodies should respond to overwhelming evidence of the magnitude which members have heard today - to ignore it and plough on as it is case on the Tara-Skyrne Valley?

We ask the committee immediately to do the following: to seek to put in place independent monitors and research directors to review all archaeological plans and oversee all archaeological investigations along the motorway route - this is the minimum in terms of guaranteeing public accountability; to call on the NRA and Meath County Council only to proceed at this stage with the Clonee-Dunshaughlin and Dunshaughlin bypass sections and to accelerate the road safety improvements to the existing N3. We call on the NRA and Meath County Council to stop the test trenching and examine other methods. We call on them to stop misleading the public as to the extent of the impact on archaeological heritage. We ask this committee to call on them to explain why this route was adopted, who decided it and what weight was given to the various factors, engineering, economic and environmental, in arriving at that decision. We had a meeting three weeks ago but are still waiting for a reply to our questions. The appendix to our submission shows a list of the points we raised but to which we have received no reply.

We ask the committee to call on the NRA and Meath County Council to investigate alternative routes and mechanisms. We ask it to endorse UNESCO world heritage site protection for Tara and to investigate the adequacy of current heritage protection legislation and enforcement, particularly where major State infrastructural developments are involved, because this does not exist at present. The committee should call in the Dúchas officials and ask them to demonstrate how they have fulfilled and are continuing to fulfil their enforcement and protection responsibilities throughout this process. It should also investigate the adequacy of planning and environmental impact assessment legislation and guidelines with particular reference to the use of expert evidence, public access to information, which we found deplorable, proper public consultation, which was a sham in this case, and access to justice, which does not exist for local heritage and residents groups and which is contrary to the Aarhus Convention.

Our appendices provide a description of the M3 motorway scheme, including maps and significant evidence on the route selection. They also provide a summary of alternative options as put forward by various groups. Also included are notes on the meeting held by our group with the NRA and Meath County Council and a list of the inadequacies and deficiencies experienced by some of us in the process. We have not included a list of the deficiencies in current heritage protection mechanisms but will send it to the committee later. We have included selected correspondence showing the type of letters that have been sent to us by the NRA, a selection of news cuttings from our local papers and some miscellaneous material such as maps and archaeological information.

I will now hand over to Dr. Muireann Ní Bhrolacháin for questions unless the committee wants to ask me questions directly.

Chairman

I will now open the discussion to the committee members who have questions.

Deputy J. Bruton

Does the group agree that from the point of view of commuters to Dublin from Cavan, Kells and Navan who will use this route over the next ten to 15 years, the net result of choosing this particular route will be that the road will not be available until much later than would otherwise be the case because of the unexpected and unforeseeable delays that will occur because of necessary excavations? Could the group give any estimate of how much this road is likely to be delayed as a result of choosing this route rather than a less archaeologically sensitive one? Techniques are available for surveying alternative routes archaeologically, without physical excavation. This should be done to determine which of the six alternative routes considered is the least archaeologically sensitive and to select it as an alternative to the current proposal.

Is the group prepared to comment on claims being made by the National Roads Authority to the effect that any site on the route will be archaeologically excavated and scientifically examined and that any material found will be properly stored and all scientific data made available to the public and archaeologists? It has emerged recently that reports from at least one quarter of licensed archaeological excavations have not been presented yet to Dúchas and that when Dúchas sought them, they could not be found. An excavation on which a report has not been properly lodged is a waste of money. Claims being made by the NRA to the effect that sites will be excavated are of no value if the likelihood is that one quarter of the reports will never be lodged. Even when they are lodged, they are not properly catalogued and are unavailable to the public or other archaeologists. Therefore, 25% of reports are not lodged and 75% are unavailable for inspection. Will the group comment on this and state what it feels is the value of that sort of archaeological effort?

Would the group agree with me that even if an archaeological excavation takes place, it takes place at a particular point in the development of archaeological knowledge and that in ten, 20 or 30 years from now, more sophisticated techniques might be available to us? Does the group agree that, by definition, the excavation of a site involves destroying it and that we are now destroying something which could with more sophisticated techniques reveal more information about our past and which, once destroyed, will never again be available?

Chairman

Perhaps the group will respond as Deputy Bruton has posed a number of questions.

Mr. Conor Newman

I shall try to address the questions in the order in which they were asked beginning with whether archaeological excavations will delay the road. They should. I say this knowing that the current technique for testing for archaeological sites is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it is being carried out too quickly and without due regard for the nature of the types of remains that exist in the archaeological record.

A substantial portion of the 14.5 km of the roadway about which we are concerned has already been tested using machines. They dig strips through the ground and a look is taken at the area. The soil is not cleaned up and only if a piece of charcoal, an artefact or body is seen will further examination be made. If nothing is spotted, it is closed over. This is unacceptable both nationally and internationally. I have a copy of a letter of concern written to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government from the European Association of Archaeologists which complains about the methodology being applied.

I answer the question while knowing in my heart that we cannot trust the results emerging. We have requested, over and over again, that the entire section of this roadway be covered using geophysical prospecting techniques. I shall hand over to my colleague, Joe Fenwick, to answer the question in respect of that. This is the only reasonable way to proceed at this time. I do not trust that we will be told about what has been found nor that everything that ought to be found will be found.

I think I have already answered the question of whether the NRA can be trusted with our heritage, in respect of its claims that it will look after the archaeological record, by saying that the technique it has adopted is not acceptable archaeologically and does not conform to best practice.

The fourth question pertains to the failure of archaeologists to report their findings to the licensing authority. The committee will be aware that archaeological work such as excavations and site survey using geophysical prospection techniques are licensed. Deputy Bruton tabled a question on this matter and the answer was that more than one quarter of the licences issued within the past six years had not been furnished with reports. I received a letter claiming four of my reports were outstanding. All those reports were lodged. I thereupon contacted as many people as I know in the world of archaeology to find out whether they had a similar experience. I contacted Professor Barry Raftery of University College, Dublin. He was outraged to have received a letter claiming his reports had not been lodged. The same letter threatened that if reports were not lodged the person would not be licensed to carry out archaeological excavations.

One of the reports which it was claimed he had not lodged concerned an excavation of Bawnogue naSráid,a famous Neolithic site published in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy some years ago. A second pertained to the bog trackway at Corlea, a report which won an international award for its standard of publication.

It has been admitted by the chief archaeologist at a meeting of the Institute of Irish Archaeologists two months ago that the filing system is in a mess. A trawl through the drawers pertaining to the licences that have been issued to archaeologists found that there was mayhem. The system had only recently been automated and it is in a mess. It was irresponsible of the chief archaeologist to reply to the Dáil that one quarter of all reports had not been furnished because that is simply not the case.

It is unequivocal that techniques of archaeological site investigation are always improving and better practices and techniques are available to each new generation of archaeologists. It is unequivocal that as time goes on, techniques for extracting information from archaeological sites are improved. It is universally acknowledged that older excavations are compromised by the historical circumstances and the state of development of the profession at that moment in time. Excavations in the 1980s are already out of date. New techniques have been developed, particularly for non-invasive assessment of archaeological sites as my colleague, Mr. Fenwick, will explain.

As my colleague, Ms Edel Breathnach, has stated, there should be no disturbance of archaeological sites in this very important and unique archaeological landscape that does not fall under the rubric of a research programme. Driving a motorway through a landscape does not constitute best practice in anyone's definition of research. Simply stated, the excavation that will follow from this motorway will in the fullness of time be considered out of date. A regular question on third year BA examinations in archaeology is to debate the statement, "Excavation is destruction". Excavation is destruction. It may be systematic but it is still destruction; the site is gone and it cannot be redug and only the paper record is left to rely upon. That is what makes the development of archaeological excavation techniques and the history of that development so critical to our profession. Best practice in archaeology is not to excavate. It is not the first thing archaeologists do - it is the last option. It is like a surgeon investigating whether a patient is ill; the last thing he or she will do is open the patient up on the operating table. All other options will be tried first.

The question of whether there are other archaeological techniques that might have been applied in this case and in the alternative routes will be answered by my colleague, Mr. Fenwick.

Mr. Joseph Fenwick

Deputy Bruton asked about the techniques available to investigate the alternative corridors through which this motorway could pass. There are a number of geophysical techniques which can be used. It is worth noting that geophysics is to archaeologists what an X-ray is to a medical doctor. It is a non-invasive, non-destructive method by which a landscape can be investigated without necessarily lifting a sod of earth. It is also very cost-effective. A geophysical survey costs a minute percentage of what it would cost to excavate an area. It costs between 6 cent and 25 cent per square metre, depending on the technique used and the resolution of the survey. The technique of magnetic radiometry is at the lower end of the spectrum. Excavation is more likely in the range of €100 to €150 per square metre.

It is inexcusable that a geophysical survey was carried out along only one of the routes. This was carried out along the emerging preferred route. The emerging preferred route was first selected and then a geophysical survey was conducted along it. This effectively was a waste of time. It would make much more sense to have conducted extensive geophysical surveys along all six routes in order to advise of the quantities of archaeological sites likely to be encountered along each of these routes and then make a judgement accordingly. Priority should have been given to the archaeological heritage of the area and it should have been avoided at all costs. Advice was given to that effect from the very beginning in 1999.

Geophysical survey is an option that can be used even now to assess alternative routes and it should be used. It is very inexpensive, non-invasive and cost-effective. To carry out such extensive test trenching along this part of the motorway that has been chosen, is vandalism. We are aware that in a number of the sites which have been detected through geophysics there is a continuation of test trenching through these sites even though it is unequivocal that these sites exist. It is ridiculous to test-trench a site which is known to exist. It should be excavated from the top of the soil downwards rather than test-trenching.

Deputy Gilmore

I have a sense of déjà vu about this discussion. I was one of a number of people who argued for a different route for the M50 to the route which was eventually chosen which went through Carrickmines. If the original route had been chosen, the debacle of Carrickmines might not have happened. I also recall that when Carrickmines Castle was discovered, the same type of argument as Dr. Breathnach has made this morning was made at the time, namely, this was something the Minister and the NRA should address and resolve rather than allow it go too far. That did not happen. The case went to court. There is the absurd situation exists that two ends of a motorway which cannot be joined up in the middle are costing the taxpayer significant sums of money. It seems that the Tara-Skryne issue will be magnified several times over. There is a lesson to be learned in this case from what happened at Carrickmines.

When archaeologists talk about their trade, many people's eyes glaze over at the mention of archaeological finds and values. Will the delegation give the committee an example of what is found when contractors go on site to dig for a new motorway? Are there any recent examples of finds that have been made on other schemes? From what is known from the geophysical work, will the delegation explain to the committee what will happen if this motorway goes ahead? As happened in Carrickmines, the discovery was not made until the digging started. From the knowledge of the geophysical studies that have been held what items are likely to be found on this route?

I note that Mr. Newman made a submission to An Bord Pleanála. The NRA and the Minister argued that this motorway scheme has followed all the processes. The EIS had been carried out, the project has been reviewed by An Bord Pleanála and signed off. Save the Tara-Skyrne Valley Campaign made a submission to An Bord Pleanála and I presume it made a submission when the EIS was carried out. Were these issues not considered when the EIS was being carried out and when An Bord Pleanála examined it?

Deputy Cuffe

I thank the group for its presentation. What was the view of the archaeologist engaged in the production of the environmental impact statement on behalf of the National Roads Authority and the county council? What was the majority view in the many submissions made? What will happen if we make a major archaeological discovery and we find another Navan Fort or Newgrange in the course of this excavation along the route of the road? I am concerned that a motorway is an unstoppable force and even if a significant find were made, there would be no way of altering the route.

Can I take it the group believes the Navan rail link should proceed in advance of building the motorway? Does the group believe the Navan rail link would be less expensive than the motorway? Would that rail link be adversely affected by the construction?

Chairman

That would be more of a transport matter. We should stick to——

Deputy Cuffe

It is important to consider the totality.

Chairman

While I do not deny its importance, we are interested in its relevance. Let us stick to the subject we are here to discuss.

Deputy Cuffe

The relevance of the subject is that we are viewing a transport plan under archaeological considerations. There is a danger in simply considering a motorway.

Chairman

We want to focus on the heritage aspect.

Deputy Cuffe

I appreciate that and I would welcome the group's view on the matter.

Dr. Breathnach

My colleagues and I shall divide the various aspects between us. Conor Newman will talk about the EIS and his experience at the planning process stage. Joe Fenwick will talk about the sites likely to be found and the delays.

In response to Deputy Gilmore's issues, we are focusing very much on questions of what might be found and what is there under the ground. I stress that this is an intact discrete landscape. There is an element not just of the excavation side. If we had the protection as habitats do, this would be very high on the register of landscape that should not be touched. I say this as a preamble to all the answers about excavation and what might be there.

As to the type of sites, if we read Archaeology Ireland on a quarterly basis there is a huge range of sites. We are finding habitation sites some of which can be run of the mill.

Deputy Gilmore

Can the group give us a recent example?

Dr. Breathnach

It is possible to find sites, which are very large just as further north very large habitation sites have been found. Military or very extensive burial sites can be found, as have appeared in the south eastern part of the country recently. I do not have the absolute detail, but there is a significant Viking age site. It can be highly exciting. Most of them are run of the mill habitation sites and burial cemeteries. I will turn to Mr. Newman for his expertise on the type of site likely to be found in the Tara-Skyrne Valley.

Mr. Newman

We know a fair bit about the kinds of sites that have already be found, both ones the existence of which we know because they still exist as monuments above the ground and those that have been found in the course of the geophysical survey. The documentation we have given the committee contains images that show the types of ground plans those monuments have. They are very big and complex. In those cases it is difficult to say whether they are settlements sites, fortifications, ritual sites or burial sites.

In the case of Tara, we should expect everything and anything. In particular, one can expect the anomalously big and the anomalously complex and culturally important. We are dealing with a very internationalised zone here in late prehistory and into the early Middle Ages. This is why with regard to the footprints of some of the sites that have been discovered it is difficult for archaeologists to say with any certitude what they are. We can tell the committee that they are big, that they are multi-phase and that they are complicated for that reason. Joe Fenwick may be able to comment further on that matter.

I would like to address another question posed by Deputies Gilmore and Cuffe as to our experience in the environmental impact assessment and the view of the consultants. I can read a number of quotations directly from the consultants. For example in 1999 Valerie J. Keeley Limited, which was also associated with Carrickmines, came to the following conclusion on completing its first analysis of this landscape:

It is recommended that all archaeological sites and their environs, as identified, be avoided. This recommendation is most strongly urged for the area of and surrounding the Hill of Tara, where current archaeological research is continuing to discover more and more sites.

To my mind that is quite unequivocal. The next quotation comes from a preliminary document prepared by Margaret Gowen and Company Limited in August 2000, which states:

The monuments around Tara cannot be viewed in isolation or as individual sites, but must be seen in the context of an intact archaeological landscape, which should not under any circumstances be disturbed in terms of visual or direct impact on the monuments themselves.

That does not require any comment from me. It is unequivocal. The same document continues:

In recent years, largely as a result of the research of the discovery programme, the extent and number of the archaeological monuments in this region has been greatly expanded. This in turn has led to an expansion of the zone of archaeological protection afforded to Tara, which now encompasses not only the hill itself, but also includes an area approximately six kilometres in diameter. No mitigation would remove the effects of this route on the Hill of Tara or its outlying monuments. It would have extremely severe implications from an archaeological perspective.

That is the advice that was paid for. That is the advice that Meath County Council and the NRA got as early as August 2000, well prior to the emergence to the preferred option.

The same company in 2002 had swung to a different opinion. I will leave it up to the imaginations of members of the committee to figure out why. This opinion states:

Most of the sites approached by the route appear to be later in date than the great prehistoric complex at Tara. No sites related to the Tara complex will suffer any physical impact. The route lies approximately 1.5 km from the eastern limit of the protected zone around Tara.

It is manifestly contradictory advice. It is not a great leap of the imagination to figure out which advice was adopted by the NRA and Meath County Council. It is like being told by a doctor that one has cancer and on seeking a second opinion from the same physician being told one does not. One might walk away feeling it is great and that one does not have cancer. The fact is that this company is providing manifestly contradictory advice. The original advice was correct. It was based on the company's conclusions and our analysis. That is what the process is about.

As part of the process of assembling the environmental impact assessment, one might assume that the company had consulted with Dr. Edel Breathnach, Mr. Fenwick or me. We are the acknowledged international experts on the archaeology and history of Tara. We were not consulted. One would assume the company had approached the Discovery Programme, which is the leading body involved in the research of Tara. It did not. The Discovery Programme went on record prior to the decision of An Bord Pleanála to object as a body to the location of the motorway.

I do not know what more we can say. The evidence is overwhelming. I spoke at An Bord Pleanála's oral hearing and committee members have the text of my statement before them. Again, I pulled no punches and explained the circumstances as I saw them. I tried to explain that the environmental assessment was fundamentally flawed as it failed to articulate what the full impact of the motorway would be. It claimed the impact would simply involve the destruction of two recorded archaeological sites on the route. We say there are at least 26 recorded archaeological sites on the route. Members can examine the map we have provided and they will see that what we say is undeniable.

Indigenous and international expertise has been ignored in this process. The impact of this motorway will not simply involve the destruction of an undisclosed number of archaeological sites of particular cultural significance given the context in which they occur. It will also involve the destruction of the integrity of an intact archaeological landscape which is uniquely important in Irish as well as in world terms. We must ask whether we are willing to allow that to happen.

One would think that when an archaeological site was discovered that State authorities would step in to identify it as a site of national or international significance which may not be further disturbed. Any development would have to be altered to accommodate it. The State is mute and deaf in this context. Services have been systematically dismantled over the last decade with the result that there is no longer an authoritative voice in Irish heritage. No one is standing up to describe what constitutes best practice. In place of that, private developers have been given free rein to determine what constitutes best practice in heritage management in Ireland. As a result, best practice has been defined to favour developers, which is why they are vandalising the archaeological landscape of Tara as we speak with machine dug trenches.

Developers are now saying that no archaeological site is capable of preventing a development. We have been told personally and off the record by the NRA that if it wanted to put this motorway over the top of the Hill of Tara, it would. The reality is that it thinks it could. Mr. Fenwick will talk a little more about what has been found through the geophysical survey.

Mr. Fenwick

Deputy Gilmore asked about the nature of the results of the geophysical survey along the proposed route of the M3 toll motorway. A letter was published a number of weeks ago in which Mr. Cullinan of the NRA stated that two sites would be impacted along the entire stretch of the route along with three additional sites which were discovered through the geophysical survey. In addition, he said that 15 sites were found through archaeological field walking. This is patently untrue and the geophysical survey shows something entirely different. Only a synopsis of the geophysical report was contained in the environmental impact study and none of the geophysical images were included. It is very difficult for a person to make an independent evaluation of the nature of the geophysical results if he or she cannot see them.

Of the 30 areas surveyed, 26 contained potential archaeological features. A number of those sites contain unequivocal archaeology, some of which is very important. Some of it is of an unprecedented scale, significance and complexity. The geophysical results of the survey were outstanding and I would be very proud to have conducted it myself and found the sites in question. They are quite remarkable in the context of Tara. While the results Mr. Newman and I have obtained on the Hill of Tara through our own research has been remarkable, the geophysical survey tells us that the entire surrounding landscape is of great significance. This is particularly true of the valley between the hills of Skreen and Tara. It underlines the fact that this is part of an integrated archaeological and historical landscape.

I photocopied for committee members a number of images of archaeological monuments. Geophysical surveying is a means of allowing one to see beneath the soil. For the convenience of members, I have marked out the areas involved. The first covers an area of some 240 m by 120 m which is approximately 3 hectares or four internationally sized football pitches. This is an enormous monument. To excavate it to the highest possible standards, which would be required at Tara, would mean great time and expense. One is talking about millions of euro. Given the complexity of the site, to deal seriously with it would take two or maybe three years.

Deputy J. Bruton

The road could be held up for two or three years due to that site alone.

Mr. Fenwick

The complexity and scale of these sites is such that we do not even know what they are.

Deputy J. Bruton

QED.

Mr. Fenwick

This archaeology does not lend itself to easy description. One cannot easily categorise it as we have no idea of knowing what it is or how far back it dates.

Mr. Newman

The problem is not only the ground plan, but the depth and complexity of the stratigraphy itself. For that reason, we cannot provide the committee with a straight answer. We do not know how deep or complex the stratigraphy is or how long it will take to tease out what is happening to figure out the phasing of the site. We do not know how many constructional phases there are on the site. If a site like this is excavated to the highest standards, in the phrase everyone keeps using, it will take years.

I excavated a site called Raffin Fort which compares in geophysical terms with the image in front of members although it is on a much smaller scale. The entire enclosure was only 65 m in diameter though it was a multi-period site. There was no indication prior to beginning the excavation that this would be the case. We excavated over seven seasons and, all told, it took about 18 months. We did not finish as we ran out of funding and the authorities deemed that enough had been done. If the site was on the route of a proposed motorway, a complete excavation would have been demanded which would have taken a further six to nine months. It should be remembered that this time period relates only to the excavation phase. Everything one finds must be analysed. Radiocarbon dating costs €350 a pop. To carry out the process properly - to international standard - requires up to 30 dates from each site. One is talking about big bucks.

Deputy J. Bruton

And significant delays.

Mr. Newman

Yes.

Mr. Fenwick

I have photocopied for members a number of images which cover a large area. The clarity of the images speaks for itself. There is a significant amount of detail and one can see individual pits. Numerous other sites along the corridor have not produced such clear images. One of the sites recently produced a prehistoric cemetery. While I do not know the details of the site, the geophysical image of it was not as nice and clear as the ones I have photocopied for members. It was one of the sites which was more ephemeral in nature. A significant body of geophysical information suggests that a large number of major and significant archaeological sites will be found along the route.

Mr. Vincent Salafia

We have heard about the archaeological and historical effects of the motorway. As Deputy Gilmore pointed out, legal and social concerns are likely to lead to delays, particularly with regard to the site identified by Mr. Fenwick. I will not give too many details, but it is highly possible that a legal action will bring the development to a halt. The Save the Tara-Skryne Valley Campaign is taking legal advice and has not come to a final decision. Its representatives are here today in an effort to avoid litigation.

I speak about this matter as somebody who was involved in Carrickmines. The original solicitors letter on Carrickmines went out in my name. Members may have read in the newspapers that another solicitors letter has been issued in respect of Tara on the basis of the National Monuments Act. There is enough evidence to suggest that the proposed motorway route goes through the national monument of the Hill of Tara as the landscape and monument are one and the same.

I ask the committee to ask those involved to stop vandalising the Hill of Tara. They are violating Irish and European law. We heard evidence today about the idea that investigations were not conducted beforehand, in violation of a critical element of European law. If one wishes to obtain European funding, one must act in an open and democratic manner and one must ensure that one does not destroy something important in the process. We have seen sufficient evidence today to show that the process under discussion was not conducted in an open and democratic manner. Something highly important is in danger. Legal challenges and protests can be expected if the political process does not work.

Chairman

We have another meeting at 12.30 p.m. It is possible that there will be a vote in the Dáil within the next 30 minutes. Three members are offering to ask questions. I ask members and witnesses to be as brief as possible.

Deputy Morgan

I thank the Save the Tara-Skryne Valley Campaign for its presentation and for the body of research provided to the committee today and previously. It is much appreciated. The fact that Deputy Bruton and I agree on this matter is an achievement in itself. I commend the group for the achievement.

I sympathise with the witnesses and those in the general area from which they come. Not only is it planned to plough up of the Hill of Tara, but it is also proposed to locate an incinerator just up the road at Carranstown while the Dublin regional guidelines allow for all kinds of input at the Knockharley landfill site. It is clear that the proposed motorway route is of great concern. I commend the group for its dedication and work on the matter.

While I do not agree with the agendas and approaches of Meath County Council and the NRA, it would be naive to say we do not understand their points of view. The bodies do not have an environmental brief. They seem to care very little about such matters. We have heard the NRA's comments in that regard.

I would like to ask about the role of Dúchas in the process, which was alluded to in the delegation's presentation. Is Dúchas concerned about the manner in which a body charged with the major responsibility in this area has conducted itself in this instance? Does the campaign group have particular concerns about the behaviour of other State agencies?

It has been claimed that, as legislators, we are charged with protecting our heritage. It is true that it is one of our responsibilities, but I think that little short of the return of St. Patrick and his crosier to the Hill of Tara will protect it at this stage. Those on this side of the House do not have a majority. We do not have a hung Parliament. While our input will be vociferous and sincere, unfortunately it may be less than effective.

Deputy J. Brady

I thank the Chair for allowing me to address this meeting, as I am not a member of the committee. The proposed motorway is very important to County Meath. Those of us who have to travel through Kells, Navan and Dunshaughlin to get to Dublin each day suffer. I do not think any sane person would like to see the construction of a motorway at the expense of our heritage. I do not think that will happen.

I welcome the Save the Tara-Skryne Valley Campaign. I would like to ask it some questions. How independent are the archaeologists who are conducting digs at present? I believe that they comprise an independent group. When I discussed this matter on the radio one morning with representatives of the campaign, they maintained that the archaeologists who are carrying out the digs are not independent. I do not believe that to be the case. The fact that the archaeologists are independent was demonstrated last week when they announced that they had uncovered a grave at Ardsallagh, near Navan. I would like to know why members of the campaign maintain that the archaeologists are not independent.

Six routes were examined when the motorway was being planned. The preferred route is the route under discussion today. I asked many questions when a debate in Kells was conducted on the route between Navan and the county boundary at Whitegate, near Carnaross. I wish to declare that the route in question divides my farm. While I would not like my farm to be divided, I have to accept it in the interests of County Meath. I asked many questions at that time. Why was the route between Navan and Whitegate chosen? It was chosen because of historical monuments such as St. Kieran's Well, with which some of our guests may be familiar, and the high crosses in the locality. I was told that the route was moved because of such monuments. I am sure that the route being discussed today was chosen for similar reasons, although the witnesses might not agree. I am not a qualified person. I would like to hear the campaign group's views on the matter.

Members are familiar with the famous high crosses and other historical attractions in Kells. Nobody seems to be concerned about the damage being done to such monuments by existing traffic. A cross in Kells was relocated after an accident near the N3 and the N52. It has been moved to the heritage centre about 60 ft from the existing road, which is the cause of significant damage to historical monuments, such as crosses. The new route is twice the distance of the existing road.

Chairman

From where is it twice the distance?

Deputy J. Brady

It is twice the distance from the Hill of Tara as the existing road. I disagree with the remark that the NRA could place the road over the Hill of Tara if it wanted. That would not happen as no sensible politician, whether in Government or local government, would allow it.

Deputy English

I will be brief as I have more questions for everybody else involved in the process than I have for this group. Many questions concerning the procedures used for taking the decision on the route of the M3 motorway remain unanswered. As Deputy Brady stated, we did not get all the answers we sought as the process proceeded. If we are to learn from this experience, the joint committee should recommend that a proper investigation be undertaken into the procedure.

Nobody present wants to pick a route through the Hill of Tara, Kells Cross or a similar landmark, but a route must be chosen. We need to have faith in the system used for selecting the route of roads. I was not completely happy with the process of selecting the route of the M3. Councillors, Deputies and others in the area did our best at the time but we continue to have doubts about the route selected. Our concerns must be addressed. The joint committee should set an example in this regard by requesting that the Minister address them, whether through legal channels or by other means.

What would be the implications of the joint committee making such a request? We need a motorway as much as we need a railway line but I will not address the lack of a railway line as it is a separate issue.

Deputy J. Brady

The Deputy's attitude appears to be one of "to hell with Kells".

Deputy English

No, a railway line would benefit everybody. However, we will not dwell on that argument. The Navan railway line used to run to Kells and Oldcastle.

Deputy J. Bruton

Deputy Brady's party, not the Fine Gael Party, was responsible for the closure. He should get his history right.

Deputy J. Brady

Deputy Bruton was a young man at the time.

Deputy English

If we continue with this argument, we will be here for hours. Given that the railway line which used to run to Kells passed my house, I would be delighted if a line to Kells were to reopen.

The problem now facing us is that the job of the National Roads Authority and engineers is to build roads and it wants to proceed with the M3. Can the joint committee recommend that the project proceed as planned, apart from the section from Dunshaughlin to Navan over which doubts have been expressed? Does the delegation agree that the NRA should make preparations for constructing the road? It will not commence for a year or two at any rate because funding has not been allocated for it.

With construction not scheduled to begin until next July, the project should proceed without the section which is the cause of concern until everybody involved is satisfied that the decision has been taken properly. If it is decided, following proper procedures, that the proposed route should proceed, we will have to live with the decision. We should leave out the section concerned and proceed with the rest of the proposed motorway. Bypasses for Kells, Navan and Dunshaughlin are needed with or without a railway link. These should proceed while the section in question is investigated. It would be easy to construct an additional carriageway on the route until due process takes its course and everybody's fears are reasonably allayed. Is it possible for the joint committee to make such a recommendation? While I am not a member of the committee, I ask that this option be investigated.

Chairman

The procedure is that we invite a delegation to make a presentation, listen to what it has to say, ask questions and then, at a later stage and in the absence of the visiting delegation, decide on how we should proceed.

Deputy English

What is the opinion of the delegation on my proposal?

Senator Brennan

As regards the geophysical survey carried out on the site, the delegation appears to have considerable faith in new techniques. Dr. Breathnach stated that evidence from the environmental impact statement was not produced at the oral hearing. It is highly unusual that some of the evidence on which an EIS is based was not available at an oral hearing. Will the delegation clarify this? Are road construction techniques available which could be used to preserve sites of importance identified in the survey, while allowing the road to proceed and further surveys to be carried out at a convenient time?

Chairman

The delegation can divide up members' questions as it likes.

Dr. Breathnach

I will first address a number of general questions asked by members, particularly Deputy Brady. The reference to a road being built over the Hill of Tara is in a sense a metaphor for frustration.

Chairman

The use of hyperbole is common in this forum.

Dr. Breathnach

Yes, it occurs when one repeatedly fails to get anywhere. This is the first time I feel I am having a genuine discussion on this matter and I thank the joint committee for that. We understand the problem with regard to roads in County Meath as we are all, unfortunately, commuters in different ways. Above all, I understand the importance of Kells and its significance.

Mr. Newman, Mr. Fenwick and I all work on County Meath. Mr. Newman is working on another project in the Blackwater Valley. We have examined the section of road north of Navan because that is also a highly significant area. It largely skirts the archaeology of the area rather than cutting through the landscape, as is the case with the proposed section in the Tara-Skyrne Valley.

I agree with Deputy English's remarks on the issues on which we can agree, which Ms Clancy will explain. Our focus is on the Tara-Skyrne Valley because it is the site of the largest destruction.

As regards Deputy Morgan's question on what we can do, I learned from the only other case with which I have dealt, which was a proposed route in Durrow, County Offaly, that decisions can be changed with cross-party agreement. In that case, people at a higher level felt the proposed route should be changed. We now have other politicians congratulating themselves on buying the State but three years ago that was not the case. Cross-party agreement is very important and our aim is to convince the joint committee that it is closer than we are to those who can give political direction.

A question was asked about the independence of the archaeological consultants. Archaeology in Ireland has undergone a major change in the past 15 years. My husband is an archaeologist. When he graduated in the 1970s only a small number of poorly paid jobs were available. Nowadays, there is a dearth of archaeologists mainly due to the life of the national development plan. As a result, private companies of consultants have been formed to deal with the large amount of archaeology with which State bodies cannot cope. To put the matter euphemistically, when large amounts of money enter the equation and a particular objective to develop something is sought, the importance of other matters can be reduced. Those of us who work in the area wonder why, for example, there are secrecy clauses. Why must things be hidden?

Dr. Muireann Ní Bhrolacháin

We would not have known about the cemetery site that was discovered last week, which I visited, were it not for the fact that the word was out in Navan. I went to my class on a Monday at 10 a.m. to be told at the end of the class at 11 a.m., by a woman who lives in Ardsallagh, that a graveyard had been found. In my innocence I assumed they had found something relatively modern. I could not believe it when I saw they had found a cremation site. I described it to archaeologists because I am no archaeologist, I am a historian. I am shocked to hear that——

Deputy J. Brady

On a point of order, that is totally untrue. I was informed by a county council official on Monday that this had happened. There was no secrecy about it.

Dr. Ní Bhrolacháin

It was found on Friday. I am not getting into an argument; I am just saying this is how I heard about it. I am in County Kildare but I am only a couple of miles across the border, as Deputy Bruton will probably know. I am not that far away from County Meath. That is how I found out. If I had not been at class and the woman to whom I referred had not been there on the day, I would not have known. I get the feeling that the site might have been covered up and that we would not have had a look at it. I do not know; I am just saying it is a possibility. I worry about the independence of the archaeological companies. As Dr. Breathnach stated, once money comes in to the picture, everything changes.

Deputy J. Bruton

Are these the same people who changed their advice, who said that it was an important site in their first presentation and then said something completely different the second time?

Mr. Newman

No, the company involved this time around is a different company. There are layers upon layers.

Deputy Morgan

Is it a case of a change of name?

Mr. Newman

No, it is a different company. I wish to respond to Deputy Bruton's comment on the independence of the companies. I quoted two contradictory statements from the same company employed by the NRA-Meath County Council. Should members wish, I can quote them again. One statement was to the effect that the monuments around Tara cannot be viewed in isolation or as individual sites but must be seen in the context of an intact archaeological landscape which should not, under any circumstances, be disturbed in terms of visual or direct impact on the monuments themselves. Two years later the same company reported that no sites related to the Tara complex would suffer any physical impact. As a taxpayer, I paid for that advice. I am offended by it. It does not come cheap. I am offended by the fact that we have paid for manifestly contradictory advice.

The Deputy asked about independence. That is what makes us a little ill at ease about the independence of the firms. I am not as concerned as my colleague, Dr. Ní Bhrolacháin, about the reporting procedure to the public about finds. I do not believe things will be buried. Perhaps I am hopelessly naive about it, but that particular issue does not concern me. It has to do with expertise, the ability, qualifications and the willingness on the part of these firms to find out what is there. As an independent firm I would expect that they would pursue best practice. Best practice would imply that it changes the trial trenching routine so it is not an act of vandalism. It would also imply that it cleans up every hole that is dug to have a proper look. They are not doing that. Why not? Is it because it cuts into profits? I do not know.

Mr. Brendan Magee

I would like to shed some light on a question asked earlier by Deputy Bruton about alternative routes. The NRA produces a route selection report which is basically an assessment of all the routes between Navan and Dunshaughlin. Archaeology has been covered in great detail, but I will refer to the NRA's document about a particular route that is east of the Hill of Skryne which is further away from Tara. It is called the pink route. It stated that these routes were the least visibly intrusive and archaeologically would have the least impact in terms of the Hill of Tara. A desktop study confirmed that there was no need for mitigation in the case of this route. The report also covered other areas such as the built heritage. In regard to the route chosen, it states that it passes through the most sensitive area of Tara. As regards the P route, which is the one east of Skryne, it stated that at desk study level there was no need for mitigation in the case of this route.

With regard to flora, fauna and habitats, there are various tables in the report and the conclusion is that following mitigation, route P1 was the preferred option in terms of the impact on flora and fauna, which does not impact on any ecological sites identified.

Deputy J. Bruton

Is that the one east of Skryne Hill?

Mr. Magee

Yes.

Chairman

There is a vote in the Dáil. We will suspend proceedings and come back after the vote when we will have ten or 15 minutes to conclude our deliberations.

Sitting suspended at 12.05 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 p.m.

Chairman

Mr. Magee was in possession. If he can remember back that far, he may resume.

Mr. Magee

I was talking about a routes direction report which was commissioned to assess all the routes between Navan and Dunshaughlin. Earlier I mentioned that the report states that the P route, which runs to the east of the Hill of Skryne, is the least intrusive and has the smallest impact archaeologically. The report covers various environmental areas. It also states that the chosen route goes through the most sensitive area of Tara. With regard to the P route east of Skreen, it says that at the level of the study there appears to be no need for mitigation. These routes do not come particularly close to any of the archaeological features or structures of Tara.

With regard to flora, fauna and habitats, there are various tables in the document. The summing up of the section states that the mitigation route P1 is the preferred option in terms of impact on flora and fauna. This route does not affect any ecological sites identified in the study. In the area of landscape and visual effects there are various tables. All the effects are rated in the tables. Again, the P route east of Skreen is found to be the most viable. With regard to air quality there are also various tables and the conclusion is that two of the suggested tables have the lowest pollution levels.

The overall conclusion is that from the point of view of archaeology the P route is recommended; from the point of view of built heritage the P route is the least disruptive; for flora, fauna and habitats the P route is the preferred option; it is also the least disruptive from the point of view of landscape and visual considerations; in terms of air quality, the P route has the lowest pollution levels. In no category is the originally chosen route recommended. It appears the P route east of Skreen is the most viable under all environmental headings.

Deputy J. Bruton

From which study are these quotes taken?

Mr. Magee

It is a route selection report by Halcrow Barry, the consultants for the Navan-Dunshaughlin section, which was issued before the EIS. It is an assessment of all routes considered throughout the Tara area.

Deputy Healy-Rae

In the earlier part of the day I heard the case made by the deputation about flora, fauna and habitats and the various reasons this road should not be built. Recently we also heard of a snail in Kildare that held up the building of a bypass and kept the people of the area stuck in nose-to-tail traffic for two or three years. There were more problems in the woods in Wicklow when the NRA was trying to build roads through the area.

I am in favour of road building. We have massive problems in the area of roads. The NRA is the authority responsible for building our roads. It is its duty to pick a route and decide whether it is fair and reasonable to lay a road there. I will go by what the NRA says in this case. It is my considered view that whatever is said today or any other day, the end result will be that the road will have to be built to facilitate the people who travel to Dublin.

Nobody knows better than the Chairman the problems experienced in Kildare and Monasterevin, which cost millions, delayed the building of the road for three or four years and caused major hold-ups. One way or another, the road will need to go ahead. My sympathy lies with the people who are caught in miles of tailbacks in the morning, afternoon and evening.

Deputy J. Bruton

Deputy Healy-Rae should note that it is precisely to avoid delays in the building of the road that we are entering into consultations at this stage. Many of us who represent Meath would prefer to see a different route chosen because we want the road built quickly. I do not disagree with the Deputy's point that we need roads. As an author of Operation Freeflow, I am well aware of the problems people experience because of inadequate road infrastructure. However, we should be wise and not build roads through areas where they will run into major delays because of archaeological excavation if alternative routes are available.

In regard to the route to the east of Skreen, would it not be a good idea to use one of the geophysical survey techniques to which Mr. Fenwick referred earlier to see whether there would in fact be fewer archaeological problems on that route? We could then compare the two routes against each other and demonstrate on the basis of geophysics whether there are fewer archaeological remains along the existing route chosen by the NRA. We should let that survey decide which route we choose. Would this not be a wise course of action?

How long would such a study take? Would it take a few weeks or a few months? Would it cost a lot? How would the cost of that compare with the likely cost of the excavations that might not be necessitated if the study demonstrated that we could use a different route? In this way we could satisfy Deputy Healy-Rae, who is as anxious as I am to have this road built quickly, by choosing a route that will minimise delays.

Deputy Gilmore

I agree with Deputy Bruton on that point. Deputy Healy-Rae has put the NRA position clearly before the committee. It is clear from the presentations we have seen this morning that archaeological evidence was bent to suit the agenda of the NRA. This means that when the NRA attempts to have this road built the sites will be found one by one, there will be court cases and international as well as national attention will be drawn to the issue. Delays will result and what happened in Carrickmines will be repeated several times over. We will end up with two bits of a motorway that do not meet up and the people to whom Deputy Healy-Rae referred will be stuck in traffic for even longer.

We now know what the problem is. The sensible thing to do is to find a solution to this problem now rather than ploughing ahead regardless, trying to steamroll over people's concerns and eventually causing blockages, delays and extra costs.

Ms Clancy

I am surprised that the rebel of Kerry, Deputy Healy-Rae, accepts the authority of the NRA without question. In regard to the statement that no sane person would want to see the motorway built at the expense of heritage, Deputy Brady stated that he did not think that would happen. This means he agrees with us that we should attempt to have the road re-routed.

Deputy J. Brady

What I stated there was that no sane person would put a road across the Hill of Tara.

Ms Clancy

No, what he stated was——

Deputy J. Brady

The representatives can use what I said any way they like.

Dr. Breathnach

I thank the committee for giving us this hearing. It was a fair hearing and one that we needed. We are aware of the traffic question and we all want a solution. The committee should call in the companies that are giving the advice because the State is spending a huge amount of money on them. We have given our evidence and the same approach should be taken with them.

In answer to everything that was said here, I reiterate that we have no problem with archaeology being dealt with in roads at all. This, however, is the highest register of sensitive landscape in Ireland. It is an integral, discrete landscape that is special.

Dr. Ní Bhrolacháin

We would like an immediate stop to test trenches now before anything else is uncovered.

Chairman

I thank the delegation for the presentation. The meeting was informative and it is a pity we did not have more time. The committee will meet again to decide what action we will take following today's meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.45 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 May 2004.