JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005

M3 Motorway Development/Tara-Skryne Valley: Presentation.

Chairman

The first item on the agenda is presentations on the M3 motorway development and the Tara-Skryne valley. Members will recall that the committee heard evidence on this project from interested parties at its meeting on 28 April 2004. On 16 December last, members of the committee visited the proposed site of the motorway. The visit took in the sites at Rosetown, Collierstown, Skryne, Baronstown, Tara and Blundelstown. The visit was facilitated by the NRA and the committee was accompanied by Professor George Eogan of the Discovery programme. The visit was very informative. Members heard detailed descriptions of the archaeological sites visited from Professor Eogan and Mary Deevey, the head archaeologist with Meath County Council. We also met members of local concerned groups both in favour of and opposed to the proposed motorway.

Members may also be aware that the Joint Committee on Transport recently invited submissions on the proposed motorway. The date for receipt of submissions expired on Wednesday last and a substantial number have been received. I understand it is proposed by the committee to hold hearings on the motorway and that these will deal with the proposed route.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government attended a meeting of our committee on 8 December last and in the course of his responses he said that his role is primarily concerned with archaeology. He also said that he is awaiting papers on the archaeological issues before he decides on a course of action. Essentially, the Minister is required to issue directions in regard to any sites of archaeological significance on the proposed route. Current indications from the Department are that this process could possibly be commenced within the next few weeks.

The role of the committee, therefore, is somewhat limited to the scrutiny or examination of this process. Accordingly, today's discussion will focus on the archaeological issues and contributors will be invited to address the specific issues relating to individual archaeological sites along the proposed route. It is proposed to send a transcript of today's proceedings to the Minister to assist him with his deliberations.

We have several groups before the committee and it is proposed to invite them separately to make a presentation. It is intended that each group will have five minutes to do so. However, in view of time constraints, I ask that each presenter limit his or her contribution, if possible, and avoid repetition of matters raised by other contributors.

Before we commence, I remind contributors that whereas parliamentary privilege applies to the utterances made by members of the committee, this privilege does not extend to witnesses before the committee. The presentations and questions and answers will be taken separately. There will be questions and answers after each presentation.

The first group to address the committee will be Ms Julitta Clancy, Fr. Gerard Rice and Ms Claire Oakes representing the Meath Archaeological and Historical Society and the Tara Heritage Group. You are welcome and I look forward to your contribution.

Ms Julitta Clancy

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee on the proposed motorway and its impact on the archaeological landscape of Tara. Since the committee's hearing on 28 April last there have been many developments. On 1 November we requested a rehearing of this issue on the following grounds, namely, new evidence confirming the existence of at least 38 archaeological sites in this section of the motorway and evidence of what we believe to be inaccurate and misleading information given by the NRA in the course of its presentation to this committee in relation to, first, the number of archaeological sites to be directly impacted and, second, the ranking of the preferred route as given in the route selection evidence summarised in the EIS. The third point in this regard is the growing concern among the public and the academic community as to the impact the M3 will have on the archaeological landscape of Tara. The fourth point is serious local concerns as to the realisability of the M3 project and the viability of certain aspects of the proposed scheme in light of archaeological and other issues.

We have been asked today to confine our contributions to heritage matters. How can we honestly do that when the roots of the problem and the key to its resolution lie in a combination of factors, including planning, transport, finance and contract issues? We would not be here today if this essential part of our national heritage had not been included in a massive single contract PPP tolled motorway project subsumed into a local planning process, clearly incapable of dealing with an area of such national and international importance, and handed over to a roads authority which has consistently downplayed the significance of this unique landscape.

With regard to the heritage of this area, five minutes is the time allotted to each group today to plead for the preservation of a landscape formed through well over 5,000 years of continuous settlement and ritual activity linked to a centre of key importance in the prehistory, history mythology, literature, politics, religion and folklore of this island. We have five minutes to relay our concerns as to how this motorway, incorporating a 26 acre lighted interchange, just 1.2 km from the Hill of Tara, will not only have a severe impact on this landscape and the visual aspects but will also inevitably lead to further development, particularly in the vicinity of the interchange. We have five minutes to discuss the growing number of archaeological sites, 38 confirmed and many more yet to be uncovered, in this stretch of the motorway, which represents at least 45% of the total number of sites as yet identified along the entire 63 km route. All are part of the Tara landscape which already has the highest density of known monuments in the country. They now await a decision by the Minister, a decision in which, if he limits himself to the narrow provisions of the recent amending legislation, taking each site on a case by case basis with no account of their context, will lead only to disaster to say nothing of the enormous delays and costs that will be involved. When dealing with sites of this density in a landscape of such significance the imperative must be preservation, real preservation, not what is euphemistically termed "preservation by record", that is, destruction and not even preservation in situ as currently being interpreted, because this cannot be applied to motorway development.

The second point we want to make is in regard to the NRA's appreciation of this unique heritage. At our earlier presentation and again in our request for a rehearing, we stated our belief that the NRA was misleading the public as to the archaeological impact of this project. Right from the beginning it has downplayed the significance of this landscape. It showed little regard for it in the selection of this route and persevered with it despite the growing evidence against it. It said it looked at all the alternatives, yet out of the six primary routes initially put before us at route selection stage, five went through the landscape and four of those were between Tara and Skryne. What sort of choice was that?

The June 1999 and January 2000 route selection reports could not suggest a preferred route due to the complexity of the archaeology. The August 2000 report stated it would be virtually impossible to underestimate the importance of the sensitivity of the archeological and historical landscape in this area. Any development, particularly on the scale of the proposed road, will have an immense impact on the landscape. 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. I have all the references in the appendices.

Despite these clear warnings, the B2 option was adopted and persevered with, even after it had received the spectacular results of the geophysical survey. The An Bord Pleanála inspector in this case, who is not an archaeologist, declared in contradiction to the earlier report that he was satisfied that the route, as proposed, would not have a significant impact on the archaeological landscape associated with the Hill of Tara. He defined it as indicated by the area designated as the core zone on the RMP map SK 500. This was accepted by An Bord Pleanála. Nothing was said by the State's heritage protection agency and the rest is history.

The NRA say that it must be guided by balance, that archaeology was only one of the factors to be taken into account. This would be true in most cases, but surely in such a sensitive archaeological landscape as this, where there were no other dominant factors, common sense would have dictated that archaeology should have been the primary consideration. The NRA has consistently downplayed the numbers of sites that will be impacted on by the motorway.

In its presentation to the committee, the NRA stated that five sites would be directly impacted, that is, destroyed by the motorway. This is the figure it has presented to the public over and over again from August 2003. It repeated it to the committee at a time when it had already received the interim report on the test trenching confirming that there were at least 28 sites, a copy of which report our society was in possession as we sat here in the Visitors Gallery on that day.

All this information is set out in the appendices but I will give the committee a brief chronology. The environmental impact statement in 2002 — the related tables are in the appendix — showed two recorded sites and 37 potential sites for further investigation. In September 2003, Meath County Council produced a summary of the EIS, which it gave to us, showing two recorded sites plus six new sites and the road was subsequently moved to avoid three, which left five sites. In October, Michael Egan of the NRA said on the "Vincent Browne Show" on RTE Radio 1 that, for the record, only two known sites will be impacted by the road. The geophysical work identified six other potential sites and the road was amended to avoid three. In total, five sites in the rich archaeological county of Meath will be affected. In February 2004, Brian Cullinane of the NRA wrote to the national newspapers. I will not quote everything he said, but he again stated that five sites would be affected. In May 2004, the interim report came out indicating 28 sites, of which 19 were totally new, that is, they were not included in the earlier geophysical results. On 1 June, the NRA came before this committee and told us there were five sites. In September, the final report was released. It showed 38 sites, of which 29 were newly confirmed. How can we entrust this unique heritage to such a body?

We are not opposed to the motorway; we are opposed to its routing through the Tara landscape which should be preserved for future generations to research and enjoy. The problem before us cannot be solved within the present mechanisms or the recent Act. The Government and Legislature must find the way to resolve it in the best interests of our national heritage and the urgent transport, commuting and road safety needs of the people of Meath. We ask the Minister to take into account all the submissions today and to consult the experts on Tara's archaeology and history as well as other independent experts.

We ask him not to limit himself to the narrow prescriptions of the recent legislation but to recognise this as an archaeological landscape of great national importance and take into consideration the key principles of preceding legislation, international conventions such as the Valetta Convention and our Constitution. I remind the Minister of the words of his predecessor, Deputy de Valera, that the archaeological heritage is a key goal of Government.

We put to the committee some of the requests we made on 28 April. First, immediately put in place independent monitors and research directors to review all archaeological plans and oversee all archaeological investigations along the motorway route. We asked for this at the oral hearing and at several meetings with the NRA and Meath County Council. However, it did not happen. We call on the NRA and Meath County Council to proceed at this stage only with the Clonee to Dunshaughlin and the Dunshaughlin bypass improvements and the Kells bypass, pending further review of the route between Dunshaughlin and Navan, and to accelerate the road safety improvements.

We call on the NRA and Meath County Council to stop misleading the public as to the extent of the heritage to be impacted. The committee should also ask them to come clean on the costs and time factors involved in "resolving" the archaeological dimension which is now considerably more than the five sites they indicated to the committee in June. In October, Meath County Council was told the costs would be €20 million to €30 million for the entire route and that the time to resolve the archaeology would be little over a year. What are the real estimates?

We ask the committee to endorse the UNESCO world heritage site protection for Tara and to investigate the adequacy of current heritage protection legislation. The rushed legislation that was passed must be repealed and there must be a proper consultative process. We ask the committee to call on the Dúchas officials and ask them to demonstrate how they have fulfilled and are continuing to fulfil their enforcement and protection responsibilities. We note that they intervened with regard to a golf course application in the Tara-Skryne valley and a two storey house development in the archaeological landscape of Cruachain. Both applications for planning permission were refused. We ask the committee to investigate the adequacy of planning and environmental impact legislation.

I will hand over briefly to Fr. Rice and Claire Oakes.

Chairman

Thank you for your presentation. As we are well over the five minutes allocated, I will ask them not to speak at this time. Thank you for the background documentation, which we will study.

The next group to make a presentation includes Mr. Joe Fenwick, Dr. Edel Bhreathnach and Mr. Conor Newman. I ask them to confine their presentation to five minutes, in the interests of conducting the meeting to schedule.

Dr. Edel Bhreathnach

I thank the committee for allowing us to make a second presentation regarding the construction of the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne valley, although I also wish to record our disappointment at being refused permission to accompany the committee to Tara before Christmas while certain other outside interests were allowed to attend. I am encouraged by your sentiments, Chairman, that this issue is a matter of grave concern.

Over the past year Mr. Conor Newman, Mr. Joe Fenwick and I have made presentations to this committee, the NRA, Meath County Council, the media and the public. We have attempted to convey our deep knowledge of Tara and our concerns for its protection on all these occasions.

We have continually emphasised four fundamental points I reiterate here. First, on the basis of our detailed study of the archaeology, history, literature and topography of Tara, the M3 — as currently designed — cuts through the royal demesne or ceremonial landscape of Tara, an "archaeological area" of exceptional importance. Second, regardless of what reassurances the NRA gives, there is no doubt that this proposed section of the M3 motorway and spin-off developments in its wake, such as housing and industrial development, will destroy this immensely important landscape and this destruction will be irrevocable. Third, irrespective of the cultural and heritage costs, should this project proceed as planned, on what basis have the financial risks and the confidence level regarding delays to the construction of the M3 been assessed? We contend that the stubborn determination to route this section of the road through this particularly sensitive area, the Tara-Skryne valley, will cost the taxpayer dearly, given the likelihood of extensive excavations, lengthy court actions and European interventions. Fourth, the controversy ensuing from a decision to adhere to the present route will be unprecedented and protracted. It will undermine Ireland's credibility as custodians of our shared European heritage.

I do not make these comments lightly and unlike our approach to date, which has been modest and passive, the time has come to be blunt about certain issues. We understand that our expertise has been doubted in various quarters and that the case we have presented has been queried. We do not quibble with legitimate questions being raised in public. However, we have published widely on Tara. We have combed historical and literary documents seeking references to Tara and there are thousands of them. We have walked this landscape thoroughly, noting and surveying every inch of it. We have discussed many theories regarding the development and function of Tara from prehistory to the 20th century.

The identification of the extent of Tara is the result of 14 years work. This research is ongoing and continues to reveal new and exciting discoveries which only serve again to confirm the importance of this archaeological area. We have brought with us today a select number of publications that we have produced to date. The next volume, "The Kingship and Landscape of Tara", due to be published shortly, is a 500 page product of painstaking and detailed research undertaken, and refereed, by internationally recognised scholars. It is the result of combined and collective research undertaken since the inception of a major research initiative into the history and archaeology of Tara under the auspices of the State funded Discovery programme. It represents a significant milestone in our understanding of Tara's history and archaeology.

This work is factual and is not a work of fiction concocted by so-called "professional objectors". This is the reason eminent scholars worldwide support the case we have assembled. A legal argument used in international law, particularly relating to the environment, is that of "the precautionary principle" — on whom does the burden of proof relating to damage to the environment fall? In the case of Tara, the burden of proof lies with the developer, that is, the NRA and Meath County Council. It is they who must prove that this landscape does not exist and, therefore, that no irreparable damage will be caused.

We can demonstrate from our expert knowledge that this sensitive landscape exists as a distinct entity and that it is under threat from the proposed motorway. I challenge the NRA and Meath County Council. In the absence of a published case similar to what we have published, we want to hear in public and in detail from their experts or their external advocates, not as road engineers or project managers but as archaeologists and historians, how they define Tara. We want to know why they claim there is no extensive ceremonial landscape. We want to know why their consultants' initial assessments were disregarded, most particularly the environmental assessment of the various route options and the stark warnings concerning the extent of Tara's archaeological area.

There must be no hiding behind their usual arguments and spin: traffic volumes, the number of houses affected or archaeological techniques. Before a final decision is taken, it is imperative that experts inform the Minister of the facts in detail. The public should know, on the basis of detailed archaeological, historical, literary and topographical evidence, the NRA's and Meath County Council's reasons for asserting that the Tara-Skryne valley is not an integral part of Tara.

It seems that the archaeological and heritage institutions of the State have remained remarkably silent on this issue. We respectfully insist that as part of the debate the chief archaeologist of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the chairman or CEO of the Heritage Council, the director of the National Museum and the chairman of the Discovery programme be called before the committee in order that it might seek their views on the definition of Tara and their estimation of the level of the damage likely to be inflicted.

An argument has been advanced by the NRA and others that the Tara landscape consists of the monuments underground, among them those recovered and resolved as part of the road project. The exercise is compared to hundreds of excavations undertaken in recent decades in the wake of infrastructural development. We beg to differ. Tara's landscape, as one of the premier sites in Ireland, should be subject only to a considered excavation seeking answers to specific questions and not a rapid salvage or rescue excavation carried out in the shadow of bulldozers.

We reiterate that we do not oppose the M3 motorway. We are only concerned with one relatively short section of it, namely, that part which runs through the Tara-Skryne valley and its associated interchange at Blundelstown. A rerouting to the east of Skryne or to the west of Tara would pose no problems. Likewise, the bypasses around Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells will cause no difficulties. We are willing to co-operate with everybody in terms of finding a solution.

I put it to members that today's debate and the decisions of the committee and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are crucial and will be recorded in history. This matter is crucial to taxpayers, in light of escalating costs, and to the people of Meath, in terms of the loss of their heritage. It is vital that we avoid a protracted and monumental controversy and that we preserve our dignity as a nation and demonstrate that we are capable of balancing economic development and cultural wealth. Perhaps this is the defining moment when the right balance will be struck between infrastructure and the protection of Ireland's historic landscape, thus leaving Tara intact for future generations. The responsibility for this decision lies with the committee and the Minister.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Bhreathnach for the documentation she supplied. Are there any questions from members?

Deputy Gilmore

As Dr. Bhreathnach stated, this is one of those defining moments in history. We have had so many such moments in this country in recent times that one almost loses the sense of their importance. However, one could not but realise the importance of this matter.

The immediate issue with which the committee must deal is the making of a recommendation to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as to the decision he should make in respect of the requests that have been made to him under the provisions of the National Monuments Acts. As we are aware, he has quite a degree of latitude — some of us would argue that he has too much latitude — with regard to what he may decide.

I wish to return to the critical issue — this was also referred to in Ms Julitta Clancy's submission — of the possibility that the Minister may consider this issue on a site-by-site basis or purely in terms of the Hill of Tara as distinct from the landscape there. Will Dr. Bhreathnach summarise why the Minister should consider this matter from the point of view of the landscape as opposed to looking at individual sites or merely at the Hill of Tara?

Chairman

I will take questions from a number of other members before Dr. Bhreathnach replies.

Senator Bannon

Reference was made to the committee having the final say in respect of this matter. The final say in respect of the route lies with the Government and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I understand that a number of recommendations have been made to the latter regarding alternative routes. In my view, there is a preferable alternative route and we must impress upon the Minister to need to take it. I am a member of a historical society and I am aware that the artefacts of particular areas can be lost forever as a result of developments of this kind. I am, therefore, extremely concerned about the current route, particularly in light of what has been said here today. I will be encouraging the Minister to consider the alternative routes that have been recommended.

Deputy Sargent

I take on board what has been said by our guests. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to it and act accordingly. I wish to pose questions on a number of points.

I do not wish to contribute to the analysis of this as being a league of sites, namely, how many sites are in one area as compared to another and what will be the least damaging option based on a count of sites. As Ms Clancy pointed out, however, the number of sites has been bandied about to a considerable extent. The Sunday Tribune indicated that the total number of sites is 141. Is there a consensus among members of the archaeological community with regard to the analysis of what we are dealing with here? As Deputy Gilmore said, the Taoiseach often refers to this matter as one which involves the Hill of Tara. In my view, that seriously devalues the question of heritage. Would it be possible to obtain an appraisal of the position so that we can challenge the misrepresentation which is coming, in particular, from the NRA?

This may not be a matter for the committee or those appearing before it but there is a need for answers to be provided as to why the serious recommendation in the Halcrow Barry report about another route seems to have been dismissed or ignored. Many articles have indicated that there is a better, cheaper solution. That is a logical assertion but there does not appear to be a meeting of minds with the NRA in respect of it. Is anyone in a position to indicate why the Halcrow Barry recommendation has been ignored?

The Minister's actions will ultimately be motivated as much by politics as by archaeology. Tara has had an impact worldwide. There are two housing estates in the town in which I live in north County Dublin which bear the name "Tara". I happen to reside in one of these. Throughout the world, the name "Tara" will provoke enormous reaction, particularly if the NRA proceeds in the way intended. I caution the Minister in respect of this matter, which has the potential to provoke reaction well beyond the borders of County Meath. It should be dealt with on that basis.

Dr. Bhreathnach

I concur completely with the final point raised by Deputy Sargent. The reverberations not only in the academic community, but in many others throughout the world, will be great if it is decided to put the road through. People in Ireland are not particularly aware of the fact that in other countries New Ageism is as strong as Christianity. Apart from Stonehenge in Glastonbury, Tara is one of the places to which people come and of which they are very aware. It could be that all hell will break loose.

On the more serious archaeological issues, I will ask Mr. Newman to answer Deputy Gilmore's question on the integral nature of the archaeology as opposed to individual sites. Mr. Fenwick will then answer the question on the exact number of sites.

Mr. Conor Newman

A quick answer to the Deputy's question on why the landscape is relevant is that all the archaeological analyses to date have shown that the monuments on the Hill of Tara comprise a cemetery and a sanctuary, in other words, a royal burial ground. It is not where people lived. There is very little evidence of settlement on the Hill of Tara. It has been described as a city of the dead. People live in the surrounding landscape, therefore, they are two sides of the same coin.

In terms of asking the Minister to decide on the merits or demerits of any individual site, we would say that to try to argue the merits or demerits of approximately 38 archaeological sites earmarked for excavation in advance of the proposed motorway is to miss the point. It does not matter how big or small, complex or simple, whether the sites are prehistoric or medieval, each and every one of them is a component of the royal landscape of Tara. Collectively, and not individually, they comprise the archaeological complex of Tara. The option of moving the motorway a few meters to avoid a particularly big complex or significant archaeological monument, a "showstopper", to use Deputy Michael D. Higgins's phrase, will make no difference to the substantive issue, which is that the road should not be built through the heart of the royal demesne of Tara. It is a bad choice of route.

That is the short answer to the question. From an archaeological point of view, we can map the archaeological landscape to get a footprint of the royal demesne with a high degree of resolution. The mapping concurs with the documentary sources. Therefore, we have a unique instance of a combination of two data sets, two scholars coming from different angles examining their own material and arriving at the same conclusion. Therefore, we are not talking about monuments that do not exist or monuments that lie under the ground. These are monuments that exist. If we had been given an opportunity to accompany members of the committee on the tour of the archaeological sites of Tara, perhaps we would have shown them these places. The monuments exist and between them they make a statement about where the core zone of the royal demesne of Tara exists. This motorway is going right through the middle of it.

Mr. Joe Fenwick

Deputy Sargent asked about the number of sites, which is an interesting question. As he will be aware, Ms Clancy made it abundantly clear that the number of sites has gradually grown from two prior to the investigative survey techniques to five, to 28 in an interim report, back to five and up again to 38, which is the latest tally. This is a relatively short stretch of motorway, extending to 14 km, but it includes a large number of archaeological sites. In reality, it is not 38 sites that will be impacted on directly but one site, which is the site of Tara itself. Therefore, the issue relating to the number of archaeological sites is largely irrelevant. We are looking at the landscape, which is the crux of the matter. As Edel and Conor said, it has been clearly defined geographically, archaeologically and historically.

To answer the question more specifically, some of the sites appear to be relatively small. Some may be things like fulacht fiadh, but a significant number of them are very large, covering several hectares in area. These are the ones which are very extensive. While one might say that there are 38 sites, it is difficult to include a small site and a very large site and count them as one individual site. Some of these large archaeological complexes could be considered as a series of several sites combined together. Putting an actual number on the number of archaeological sites is irrelevant. It is equivalent to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I included in the document a number of geophysical images and test trenching images. The scale of some of these geophysical images is written underneath. Some of them cover an area of 180 m by 80 m, 160 m by 120 m and 160 m by 140 m. Some of these complexes are very large in area if one considers Croke Park to be 90 m by 140 m. Some of these sites are considerably larger than that area, therefore, one is talking about very large sites. The reason for undertaking these exploratory investigations, geophysical surveys and centre line test trenching is to assess the scale of the archaeological work anticipated prior to building the motorway. I do not believe there is great confidence that there is a handle on what exactly is involved. The geophysics alone suggest that of the 30 areas covered in detailed surveys, some 26 of them had unequivocal or suspected archaeological remains.

The test trenching has confirmed the existence of 38 sites, but it failed to address the archaeological features identified in the initial geophysical survey. In some instances targets were not followed through; they were earmarked by the geophysicists in the initial report but they were not addressed in the test trenching. Some of these sites were missed and some of the very large sites were test trenched in a way that would be considered to be at odds with best practice by putting a series of test trenches in an indiscriminate way across a known archaeological site.

Mr. Newman

As we heard from the two contributions, a deliberate effort has been made by Meath County Council and the NRA to downplay the significance of these sites. From the beginning, we have been led on a merry dance about the number of archaeological sites. To an extent, this is reflected in the reports. If we believe that the Minister will be able to make an informed decision on the quality or calibre of the sites earmarked for excavation on the basis of the report, we will be disappointed, as he is.

A considerable amount of work has gone into the report. I do not know how many members of the committee have gone to the trouble of printing it. I brought four volumes which took me an entire day to print. They are poorly organised. It is extremely difficult, even for me as a professional archaeologist, to figure out what they have found and where they found it. They have consistently resisted making a proper or mature assessment of the type of site, the scale of the archaeological remains, the function of the site, the timescale envisaged for excavation, the cost and a plain English description of the site and its relevance. I will give members two examples of what I am talking about. These are the kind of sites about which we are concerned. Anyone examining the geophysics without prior experience can see the scale and complexity of the sites. For example, the sites at Carronstown 1 and 2B contain four pits containing cremated bone. The bone has not been analysed and they claim they do not know whether it is animal or human bone. It is clear from the context in which the information is given in the report that the excavator believes they are the remains of human burials. Four pit cremations will not make anyone in this room jump off their seat. However, if in a random bulldozer swipe across a landscape one finds four pits with cremated bone, that to an archaeologist means one is dealing with an early bronze age or iron age cemetery.

I do not know whether the site has been earmarked for excavation. In the case of Baronstown, the site described as a ringfort contains no evidence of a causeway and there is a question mark over whether it is in fact a ringfort. The only artefacts found at the site are bronze age pottery which means it cannot be a ringfort. If it is a ringfort, then it is a multi-period site. This type of teasing out of information is not contained in the report. If I were the Minister wanting to know if I should give the go ahead to excavate this site, I would want to know what the archaeologists believed or thought. The archaeologists should point out that there are reasons to suggest the site is or is not a ringfort and that, in addition, pottery dating to the bronze age associated in some shape or form with the site had been found. It could be that there are two sites, one on top of the other which makes it a more complex and lengthier job. They are the type of things lacking in the report and about which we are very concerned.

Chairman

We have three more presentations to hear. However, Deputy Gilmore wishes to ask a supplementary question.

Deputy Gilmore

Will Mr. Newman summarise for the committee his involvement with the Discovery programme, how it related to Tara and tell us his experience of trying to relay to the NRA, the Department and others his concerns in that regard? It is important we hear directly from Mr. Newman. It appears to me he is probably the leading expert in the country on Tara or at least has been the leading expert up to this point when we now have many experts on Tara. It would be useful to hear what was the experience of the country's leading expert on Tara in trying to convey to the authorities who made the decision about the motorway what they were getting into. It would be useful for the committee to hear his views in that regard.

Mr. Newman

From a biographical perspective, I was appointed director of the Discovery programme's Tara archaeological survey in 1992; the Discovery programme was launched by the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey. I was appointed at the same time as my colleague, Dr. Edel Bhreathnach, and we ploughed parallel furrows through Tara media archaeology with Edel searching documentary sources. The results of the first four years of the archaeological survey were published by me in the monograph before members along with various articles attached.

In September 1996 I was appointed as a lecturer in archaeology in NUI Galway. Neither I nor my colleague were formally consulted on this particular development. The Discovery programme was not formally approached for its opinion on the impact of the development on the Tara landscape. I raised an objection at the planning stage and found myself as one of the witnesses to provide evidence for the inspector at the An Bord Pleanála hearing. We are repeatedly told it was the longest oral hearing in the history of the State. The impression being given, therefore, is that the entire proceedings were devoted to the question of archaeology. I guarantee members they were not. We are speaking about a 60 km motorway, one of the biggest infrastructural developments in the country, and it should not come as any surprise that the oral hearing went on for some time.

I read into the evidence at that hearing a statement which is now in the public domain. In that statement I outlined my concerns in respect of the archaeological landscape of Tara, the amount of monuments that would be impacted and the fact that the geophysical images were not included in the original environmental impact assessment. I also read into evidence the fact that the advice given at an early stage was ignored. However, clearly my statement made no impression whatsoever on the inspector who recommended in favour of the route. That, in a short synopsis, has been my experience.

Deputy Gilmore

In a nutshell, would it be fair to say that Mr. Newman's concerns were not listened to or taken on board?

Mr. Newman

They obviously were not taken on board.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Newman for his presentation. We will now hear from Mr. Vincent Salafia and Dr. Muireann Ní Bhrolcháin.

Mr. Vincent Salafia

I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak on this matter of national and international importance. I am the public relations officer of the Save Tara-Skryne Valley Group. This is my second time to make a presentation to the committee on the issue of the Hill of Tara and the M3. I have a bachelors degree in political science, a juris doctorate law degree and I am currently completing a masters in law at Trinity College, Dublin.

The sole issue being reviewed by the committee today is whether the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should issue directions under the National Monuments Act 2004 to the National Roads Authority and Meath County Council to begin excavations along a certain section of the M3 motorway which passes through the archaeological complex of the Hill of Tara. We believe he should not do so and that it would be a breach of his constitutional duty as Minister were he to do so.

In August 2004, the then Minister, Deputy Cullen, issued similar directions on the Carrickmines Castle and M50 case. That decision was judicially reviewed in the High Court. Justice Laffoy denied the relief sought and that decision is now being appealed to the Supreme Court. The case is, for the third time in three years, going to the Supreme Court. However, Justice Laffoy recognised, for the first time, that there is a constitutional imperative on the part of the State to protect the heritage of the people of Ireland.

In my last presentation to the committee in 2004, I explained I had taken legal advice to the effect that the M3 plan is illegal under the National Monuments Act and had sent a solicitor's letter to that effect to the Minister. I explained that I had sent the original solicitor's letter in the Carrickmines Castle litigation which stated that the M50 plan was illegal under section 14 of the old National Monuments Act because the Minister had not granted consent to demolish the national monument. The Supreme Court agreed and granted an injunction in January 2003.

In June of that year, the former Minister, Deputy Cullen, granted consent under section 14 but in February 2004 was found by the Supreme Court to have acted unconstitutionally in that the regulations covering consent had diluted the primary legislation. In June 2004, the then Minister presented a new National Monuments Act which was to be limited to allow for completion of the M50 at Carrickmines Castle. Such a provision was in the Act but the amendment also revamped the Act completely, creating a new procedure which we are discussing today. The effect of this legislation is to provide a mechanism for legalising demolition of any national monument in the pathway of any approved road scheme without the public having had an opportunity to become aware of such a decision as is required under EU law.

If the current Minister grants directions I have advised my legal team immediately to seek an interlocutory injunction against the NRA, Meath County Council and the consortium of private companies which will be awarded the public private partnership contract to design, finance, construct and operate the Tara toll road. The core issue is whether the roadway goes through the national monument. We maintain it does. There are two separate procedures in the new Act for giving directions. One relates to monuments and the other relates to national monuments. The National Roads Authority has confirmed that it proposes to excavate and then demolish more than 40 sites in the Hill of Tara archaeological complex which must be considered a single unified monument. In addition, other upstanding national monuments such as the massive hillside fort at Rath Lugh will be compromised because the amenity area surrounding them will be shaved away and they will be separated from their related monuments. On its face, the Act requires the Minister to give directions for the demolition of the national monument of the Hill of Tara. However, the National Monuments Act 2004 may be held to be entirely unconstitutional if the Minister grants directions under it for the demolition of part of the Tara complex. If so, the entire road building programme could come to a halt because each project requires archaeological directions. Another effect would be opening private developers to liability. It is not our aim to stop road building but to protect the Hill of Tara. Regardless of the outcome, litigation could take years to complete. This will delay completion of the motorway indefinitely. Realistically, under the current plan, it cannot be completed until 2015 at the earliest. It would be quicker to go back to the drawing board and take a route that would not harm Tara.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, stated in December that it was not within his power to vary significantly the route of the proposed M3 motorway through County Meath. The only decision he faces is whether he should issue directions for the excavation of archaeological sites in the path of the motorway. The Minister for Transport must make his own decision regarding the route, a matter which the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport is considering.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government also stated An Bord Pleanála had confirmed the route selection in August 2003 before the National Monuments Act 2004 was passed and before the 39 or more sites in the Tara complex were discovered. The Minister concedes that the board is responsible for confirming the path of motorways but he holds a legally recognised constitutional duty to protect the heritage of the people.

The board is an independent body which does not have the same constitutional, statutory or moral duty as the Minister. He cannot rely on its decision to justify his own. There is no necessity that justifies the granting of permission for this raid on Ireland's crown jewel. It would be a resigning matter if there was still such a thing here.

I submit 3,000 individual submissions on behalf of the public which agrees with the sentiments I have expressed. I would like to hand them to the clerk to the committee.

Chairman

Mr. Salafia may hand them to the clerk after the meeting. I thank him for his presentation.

I call Mr. Brendan Magee on behalf of the Meath Road Action Group.

Mr. Brendan Magee

On behalf of the Meath Road Action Group, I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to make this presentation. The three experts have covered the archaeological aspect. My argument is that the National Roads Authority ignored the advice of the environmental experts, in particular, the archaeological experts. The evidence for this is contained in the route selection report. As the title suggests, it is an assessment of all the route options under the various environmental headings. On the "Prime Time" television programme on Thursday, 26 November 2004, Mr. Michael Egan, head of corporate affairs at the National Roads Authority, intimated that the quotes read out by Mr. Conor Newman did not pertain to the chosen route.

To ensure there is no ambiguity, the following quotes contained in the route selection report relate to all four sections of the B route, that is, the chosen route. They refer specifically to archaeology. With regard to B1, it states:

The effect of this route on the Hill of Tara and on its outlying monuments is profound and would have severe implications from an archaeological perspective. It is unlikely that cost effective proposals to meet the mitigation requirements could be supported for this route in this area.

On B2, the report states:

The north-eastern end of route B2 follows the same proposed line as that of B1, and its route and river crossings carry the same archaeological implications (as B1). B2 then turns east near the foot of the Hill of Tara and joins B3/B4 at Blundelstown, continuing along that route with the same archaeological implications.

On B3 and B4, the report states:

This combination of routes is perhaps that which comes closest to the largest number of known archaeological sites with the exception of the Green route options.

This explains our bewilderment at the choice of the B route. For the sake of comparison, the following are selections from the route selection report on the P routes, namely, those located to the east of the Hill of Skryne. It states:

These routes are the least intrusive and, archaeologically, have the least impact. As the routes are to the east of Skryne they are also the least visually intrusive in terms of the Hill of Tara, being screened by the Hill of Skryne for much of the route.

The second quote states:

From the desk top study there appears to be no need for mitigation in the case of this route. A field study would be required to check for above ground monuments and features, but as explained above, most of the archaeology in this area is well defined and recognisable in the field. The route does not come particularly close to, or cross through, any of the archaeological features in the area.

These quotes cover all of the sections of the proposed route through Tara and prove that the National Roads Authority ignored its own experts. The information furnished to the committee includes a five page appendix which summarises the Meath Road Action Group's presentation to the oral hearing. This contains evidence in respect of all the other environmental categories, most of which the National Roads Authority also ignored. This evidence supports the argument that the wrong route was chosen.

Chairman

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport will also focus on the issue of the route.

Finally, I call Professor George Eogan. I thank him for accompanying us on our visit and welcome him, as a former Member, back to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Professor George Eogan

This issue does not relate simply to a hilltop but an area. This is a vital distinction which I hope everybody now accepts. The term "area" is enshrined in legislation, even in this country. Therefore, there is nothing new about this. It refers to a group of monuments which are considered to be archaeological in nature and tend to form a coherent whole.

It is not unusual in archaeological areas to consider the county through which the road travels. There are three other areas in County Meath protected by legislation: Loughcrew, although not the entire landscape, also known as Sliabh na Cailligh; Brú na Boinne which no doubt is well known to everybody — it, too, is an area accepted not only in national legislation but also internationally as it forms part of a world heritage centre; and Tara which covers an area around the hill which is not unusual. If one looked more attentively at the archaeology of County Meath, there may even be other areas such as Teltown.

One can define the area around Tara almost as well as Brú na Boinne. It is reasonably well defined from the archaeological and historical points of view. It does not matter whether the area has four, 40 or 400 monuments, the landscape is vital. To decide to put something as intrusive as a major road across part of this archaeological complex and landscape would be very strange because we should protect our heritage.

Authorities in other countries have dealt with similar problems. For example, Coa in Portugal, in the valley of the River Tagus near Porto, became famous. The plan in the Tagus valley was to flood the area and create a good, stable water supply because, as some members will know, water is very scarce in Portugal. The local people and others naturally did not approve of the plan and gave very good reasons. Fortunately, the Portuguese Government accepted those reasons and in a very straightforward way it has ensured that the patrimony of this part of the Tagus valley is protected. I am not saying we should look over our shoulder and try to do what other people do but if Portugal can do that, we should be able to do the same in Ireland.

Returning to the opening point, we are dealing with a crucial, tiny area. As it is not yet Thursday, when we will be speaking of kilometres, if I say three miles I think I may be okay. It is a very small area, whereas some of the other areas are larger. Furthermore, what I am now defining or mentioning as the Tara complex is only roughly the same size as the Brú na Bóinne complex and the Loughcrew complex. To repeat, there is nothing unusual in having an area 4 or 5 km long and 2 or 3 km in width. That is precisely what we have at Tara.

As we all know and as we all learned at school, Tara is a very notable site. It was mentioned in the literature of the first millennium A.D. over 1,000 years ago and it is interesting that it has been mentioned subsequently down through the middle ages and to the present time. One of the positive aspects of Tara is the great research carried out over the past few years.

In Tara we are dealing with an archaeological complex. It does not matter whether one or 100 monuments are involved. It is a general complex which we can generally define. We have the precedent for accepting the existence of an archaeological complex in a major way in the same county of Meath at Loughcrew and above all at Brú na Bóinne.

Deputy Gilmore

Our visitors will recall that two motions were debated by both Houses of the Oireachtas prior to Christmas. I proposed one of these on behalf of the Labour Party, basically seeking a rerouting of the M3. The motion in the Seanad was proposed by Senator O'Toole. Both motions were defeated. Unfortunately, Members of both Houses who spoke very passionately against those motions are not here today to put their questions to people concerned about the issue.

I would like a little more time to address the two issues which arose from the debates. This may be the last opportunity to do so in this type of forum. The first relates to the argument — a bit like the argument that there was no sex before television — that if there was no road building there would be no archaeology, that if the NRA was not proceeding with this road plan we would not have the archaeological dates and the discovery of what is down there and so on. This argument was made in the course of the Dáil and Seanad debates and I would like to hear the response from the delegations here today.

I agree with Professor Eogan that the critical issue is the question of whether the Minister sees what he has been asked to do in terms of sites or in terms of the area, the landscape. While Professor Eogan says it is now accepted — as it is in the area of people who know about these things — that it is the landscape which matters, unfortunately, that is not accepted by those making the decisions in respect of the M3.

This is more a conundrum than a question. I have heard no indication that the Minister considers that he is looking at the landscape. My understanding of what the Minister thinks he has been asked to do is that the archaeologists have discovered that within the landscape there are perhaps 38 sites and he must decide what to do about them, whether that is to order that they be dug or whatever. However, there is no indication that anyone on the official side, so to speak, including the NRA, the county council or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, considers that they are looking at a landscape. How is that to be turned around? How does anyone persuade those making the decisions to accept the landscape argument, which they clearly do not accept? They see sites, monuments, test trenching and so on.

This issue was not considered at any stage in the planning of this road. Mr. Newman, in the presentation he made at the oral hearing, argued for the landscape approach but, as he told the committee, the decision makers took no notice of what he said, even though he was the acknowledged authority on Tara. How then at this stage can we persuade the Minister in particular that he needs to look at this issue in terms of a landscape rather than individual sites?

Chairman

I will not open the response to all the delegations but Ms Julitta Clancy and Fr. Gerard Rice may like to answer some of these questions along with Ms Claire Oakes and Dr. Bhreathnach. Repetition should be avoided.

Deputy Sargent

What we have heard today is very powerful and I imagine it is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the hell that may break loose if the Minister does not take note of it.

I would like some clarification. A couple of points were made regarding alternative routes. I do not want to be presumptuous but I think that most people here would agree to another route being chosen. In the course of the presentations it was mentioned that there would not be a problem, archaeologically, with another route. Is that point made on the basis of there being a lesser price to pay or whether it has been analysed and found to be problem-free? It is quite powerful to say that from an archaeological point of view another route would be acceptable even though it may have a cost. To be able to say that would perhaps provide the necessary oxygen to the Minister. I live in hope. He could be told that another route, on which there would be some sort of consensus, would be acceptable, rather than an expectation of a different battle with a prolonged outcome. I wonder if there is a basis for saying that, from an archaeological point of view, there is no problem with another route.

Chairman

I am trying to be fair to everyone. I will ask Ms Julitta Clancy, Fr. Gerard Rice and Ms Claire Oakes to respond, with Dr. Bhreathnach concluding.

Ms Clancy

I will respond to Deputy Gilmore's second question and leave the first one to the archaeologists. The process has not worked. The Minister has to face up to this. We would not be here today if the process worked. We as a society have worked with the process in other road-building projects in Meath and they are massive. We have worked constructively for years. Over 211 sites went on the M1 and yet there have been no scientific reports for them that I know of. As the process has not worked, we are appealing to the Minister. Time is running out on this each day. Four years ago we appealed as we did two years ago, also. A year and a half has gone by since An Bord Pleanála's decision. We could have been further along the road with this if people had woken up a year ago. Let us not wait until the tenders are given out. Let us do it now and be brave about it. We are bigger than process. People down through the centuries struggled in all sorts of ways for us to be free. Are we now unfree to do something about this? I am going to hand over to Fr. Rice on that.

Fr. Gerard Rice

I will read a quotation: "Tara is, because of its associations, probably the most consecrated spot in Ireland and its destruction will leave many bitter memories behind it." That is from a letter to The Times, London, in 1902 signed by Douglas Hyde, William Butler Yeats and George Moore. It gives testimony to the place Tara has in the imagination of the Irish people.

Daniel O'Connell, the finest politician of the 19th century, tapped into that memory which gave people a pride in their past that antedated the coming of the Normans and late medieval history. For the crowd in 1798 coming up from Wexford, Tara was a place they went to. They were massacred there, but somehow or other it had an attraction for them. When the new State was established here, Tara, as well as the other legends, provided a mythological origin to justify it — respectability. That is something politicians always tune in to. The Emperor Augustus commissioned the mythological origin of the Roman state in Virgil's Aeneid, where the Romans were the Trojans who escaped from Troy. In 1953, when the first of the modern excavations on Tara took place, it was no accident, I believe, that the Taoiseach of the time, Éamon de Valera, turned the first sod, recognising the site’s place in the imagination of people. That is what has given Tara its coherence. That is why when the landscape is being talked about, the reference is to something on the ground that reflects a reality, a decent mythological justification for the fact that we have a place of our own.

In 1903 what these men were protesting about were the British Israelites. I am not too sure as to who they were, but they were well-heeled. They came over here with the notion that the Ark of the Covenant was buried in Tara. Where they got that notion from, God only knows. They destroyed the Rath of the Synods, of course, in their efforts to find this out. This happened because there was no legislation to defend Tara and there was no native government at the time to speak up for it. We have both now and I trust that the M3, as currently planned, is shifted. I will end with a quotation from Gladstone, of all people, when he was appealing for the passing of the first Home Rule Bill in the Westminster Parliament. He said: "Think well, think wisely, think not for the moment but for the years that lie ahead before you reject this Bill." The Bill was rejected and we are living with the fallout of that ever since. I appeal to the committee and the good Minister to think well and wisely, not for the moment but for the years ahead before the M3 in its present site is allowed to go ahead.

There are two relevant articles in the current edition of the Meath historical magazine, Ríocht na Midhe. One is a reflection on the history of Tara and its place in literature, legend and politics. The other is on the geophysical survey and its implications. They are very readable articles. It is not possible to give one to everyone, but there is one for every member of the committee at any rate. That is all I have to say.

Ms Claire Oakes

I call on the Minister and our legislators not to be bound by processes that obviously have been unable to respond to this extraordinary landscape. To hide behind a process that has not really worked is to sidestep the issue. The problem will not go away. In fact it just seems that the planning process has lacked the flexibility and the mechanisms to deal with something as extraordinary and as sensitive as this landscape. Therefore I am putting it up the Minister and the legislators to face up to the problem now. Interestingly, in talking about alternatives, we are not planners. That is not our professional qualification, but there are planners who have come up with alternatives which have been looked at and identified. Three years ago a local residents group in Navan put forward a radical alternative proposal and presented it to the NRA. It was turned down mainly on the grounds that it was not in line with the National Development Plan, 2000-2006, the Meath county development plan and so on. In other words it did not fit in with the process and in addition it was coming two years too late. This is three years later. Let it not be said again in another three years that we have lost more time in planning and more money and failed to get a proper transport system for the people of County Meath.

Dr. Bhreathnach

I will answer all the points raised by Deputies Gilmore and Sargent. First, there is the question of no NRA, no archaeology, which is the argument put forward, in other words that these sites need to be excavated site by site to find out more about Tara. That is one perspective of archaeology but we should not lose sight of the fact that the NRA is not an archaeological body. It should not be dictating how archaeology is processed. Everything in Irish archaeology is processed. If we were take what was happening in the last 14 years to its proper conclusion, it would have meant continuing with considered research archaeology. In other words, we have come up with the questions and from there on it could be decided what parts of this landscape should be surveyed further, by geophysics. With geophysics, without putting a spade in the ground, it is possible to find out a great deal. It is possible to determine how far to go in a particular direction and how much would be excavated. Research excavation is a slow process while broadway excavation means getting in there quickly and getting out as fast as possible because the bulldozers and everyone is on one's back. The latter is not research archaeology. The archaeologist is not given time to think. To do that through a landscape like this or, as Professor Eogan has said, through one such as the Boyne valley is simply not right.

As to how we get to the Minister, I am a constituent of his and have written twice to him. I have received no acknowledgement. I have gone to his clinic and met his wife, but I have not heard anything from the Minister. I would like to meet the Minister, because in a sense we have been State funded in this work and it is only proper that we should see him face to face and present him with our evidence. As I said in my presentation, I challenge the NRA archaeologists — not the road engineers and everybody who comes with them — to discuss the archaeology with us in public. We will talk about the landscape, not about how they are doing the test trenching or best practice, but what we have here. They can then tell us, "why not". We also have State institutions involved in archaeology, very much depleted and silenced in recent years. I ask the Chairman of the committee to call on the chief archaeologist of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the chairman or CEO of the Heritage Council, the director of the National Museum of Ireland, the chairman of the Discovery programme, all of which are State-funded with taxpayers' money as regards this issue. Either they have not been consulted or they are remarkably silent.

Chairman

Was that in regard to this issue?

Dr. Bhreathnach

Yes, because either they have not been consulted for their opinions or they are remarkably silent. On Deputy Sargent's point about an alternative route, we cannot guarantee that one will come across Michael Egan's show-stopper. For example, no one knew the site at Woodstown in Waterford existed. To a certain extent, if people had listened to historians with regard to Carrickmines we might have known more, but it is not possible to state that one will not come across exceptional archaeology anywhere in Ireland. However, Professor Eogan is saying we should not go through a known archaeological area. We are not saying one will never hit archaeology, especially in County Meath because that is where anyone who wanted to be high king of Ireland went, and the Anglo-Normans followed.

While this discussion is about archaeology, I emphasise that historians and those who work in early Irish literature and Celtic studies have as equal a say in this simply because it is so prevalent in the literature. One sentence from the preface to my book shows the assessment of 12 eminent historians, linguists and topographers, including my colleague, Mr. Newman. The sentence reads: "When assessed anthropologically and from the evidence of early Irish sources, it becomes clear that this was an exceptional kingship and Tara was regarded as an inauguration site of the king of the world." Anthropologically, the kingship of the world is a type of kingship known throughout the world, and is comparable to the pontifex maximus of Rome.

Although it seems odd to us, Tara was the Vatican of Ireland; it is that type of site. The imprint or centre of the site was the hill but the ceremony was all around that landscape. To become king of Tara, one had to enter the site at certain points, cross one's ancestral graves at certain points and all the time one was moving towards the top focus, which was the hill. However, one had to do this ceremonially. This motorway would cut right through this ceremonial site.

My colleague, Mr. Fenwick, reminded me of a tale in which Cormac MacAirt comes to Tara to be recognised as the rightful king of Tara. The king there at the time gives a false judgment and his residence falls on top of him as a result. That may sound strange but it is our ancestors speaking to us. In other words, those who can judge truthfully and rightfully are those who will provide good governance.

Chairman

It will be difficult to follow that. I thank the five delegations for their presentations and for the work put into them.

The Joint Committee went into private session at 4.10 p.m. and adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 February 2005.