JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 2005

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

The first item on our agenda relates to further presentations with regard to the M3 motorway development and the Tara-Skryne valley. It was agreed at our last meeting that the committee would hear further evidence on the issue of the M3 motorway development. This committee heard evidence on this project from interested parties at its meeting of 28 April 2004 and also at our last meeting of 19 January 2005. On 16 December 2004, members of the committee visited the proposed site of the motorway. Members may also be aware that the Joint Committee on Transport recently invited submissions on the proposed motorway. I understand that a substantial number of submissions have been received by the committee which is currently holding hearings dealing with the proposed route.

For the benefit of witnesses attending this meeting and of members of the committee I point out that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has stated to the committee that his role is primarily concerned with archaeology. He has also said that he is awaiting papers on the archaeological issues before he will decide on a course of action. Essentially, the Minister is required to issue directions with regard to any site of archaeological significance on the proposed route. Indications from the Department are that this process will be undertaken in the near future.

The role of the committee, therefore, is somewhat limited in its scrutiny or examination of this process. Accordingly, today's discussion will focus on the archaeological issues and the 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 assist him in his deliberations.

We will have two groups before the committee this afternoon. It is proposed to invite them separately to make their presentation. It was hoped that the director of the National Museum would be available for today's meeting. However, he is unavailable and has conveyed his apologies to the committee. A letter from the director has been circulated to members setting out his reasons for non-attendance today. He has expressed his willingness to appear as a witness at a future date should that be required.

I will read the letter which has been circulated. The letter was sent to the committee clerk and reads:

Dear Mr. Burke,

Following on an earlier conversation with Mr. Michael Grant, I have been asked by Mr. Philip Furlong, Secretary General of the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism, not to take up your invitation to appear before the Joint Oireachtas Committee tomorrow Wednesday, 2nd February 2005. The Secretary General and Mr. Grant, Assistant Secretary, feel that as the Statutory Officer mentioned in the National Monuments legislation my position might be compromised at the Committee and that my appearance would be inappropriate at this stage. You should know that the Secretary General fought for the right of the Director to be retained in the amended Act.

I have been assured that I will be formally consulted by the Minister for the Environment on the matter of Tara and the M3.

I am willing to appear before your Joint Committee at a later stage.

Yours sincerely,

I am disappointed that the director, Dr. Pat Wallace, is not in a position to address the committee this afternoon as I think he would have had a useful contribution to make in the interests of openness, transparency and accountability with regard to this process. It seems that he is taking advice from the Secretary General and Assistant Secretary of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. His attendance would have helped us in our deliberations and certainly would have involved the public in the process. Otherwise, the process may seem to be determined behind closed doors.

I am open to suggestion as to what we should do at this stage. I certainly recommend that we write to the director and to the Secretary General of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism letting him know our views on this issue.

Deputy Gilmore

Did I hear correctly that we are to have two presentations today?

Chairman

That is right.

Deputy Gilmore

Who else is not attending?

Chairman

The other invitations have been accepted, the Discovery Programme and the Heritage Council.

Deputy Gilmore

I thought we invited the chief State archaeologist.

Chairman

Yes, there is a note on that issue also. There is a similar explanation. At the last meeting Dr. Edel Bhreathnach pointed out that the views of the chief archaeologist in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government had not been sought. The Deputy is referring to the absence of this officer today. The Department's position is that the archaeologists in the Department are currently preparing advice for the Minister's decision and are anxious not to anticipate that decision. I understand the Department will be happy to come before the committee when the Minister has considered that advice. That is the explanation from the chief archaeologist of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Deputy Gilmore

The position is that at our last meeting we had presentations expressing various concerns about the heritage and archaeological implications of the proposed M3. We decided we would invite to the committee the four main State agencies with responsibility in this area. They are the chief archaeologist of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. which used to be the Dúchas service, the director of the National Museum of Ireland, the Discovery Programme and the Heritage Council. I understand the latter two will attend the meeting. I do not agree that the letter from the director of the National Museum is a case of the director not being available and being willing to come before the committee at a later stage. It is manifestly clear from that letter that the director of the National Museum was told not to come here, no matter what kind of benign phraseology is used in the letter. This is understandable because public servants have a way of expressing a reality in very polite terms. It is manifestly clear the director of the National Museum was told not to appear before this committee.

We are now informed that the chief archaeologist has also been told not to appear before the committee but will attend once the decision is made. That is no use. The whole purpose of our discussions is to inform the decision which will be made. This committee is the vehicle by which the public and interested parties have access in a public forum to the decision-making process. The purpose of our hearings is so that concerned people can express their point of view. The State authorities are invited to respond and members ask them questions and if necessary the committee makes recommendations.

The notion that the committee members cannot have an exchange with public servants because they have some role in a statutory process is absurd. If we were to follow that logic, the committee would never discuss anything with anybody. The committee's role is not incidental; we are part of the Oireachtas. We do our job on behalf of the public to engage with public servants who are in the business of making decisions and to transmit to them our opinions and to be a vehicle by which interested parties representing the public interest or concerned or professional bodies can exchange views.

This committee has had exchanges about the retail planning guidelines with the Minister and his officials. They did not refuse to come here on the grounds they were going to make a decision on it. The committee has a wad of documents on the subject of European directives. At some point the committee will discuss these with the people who will be involved in the statutory process and in the decision-making. This is muzzling of public officials who might express a point of view to this committee that is not convenient to some pre-determined agenda about where the road is going, come Hell or high water. It is in line with the way in which this whole project has been advanced.

The committee has been told on other occasions by witnesses that although they were experts on Tara and on archaeology and although they were being funded by the State, not only were they not asked for their opinion on this road but when they expressed their opinion it was ignored. Somebody has decided that irrespective of the consequences for heritage or for archaeology, that road will go there and anybody who has a contrary view will either be ignored or muzzled if they happen to be a public servant.

It is unprecedented that Government is preventing public servants from appearing. We may say it is the Secretary General, but it is the Government. I do not believe the Secretary General of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, rings up the director of the National Museum every couple of days to say, "By the way, have you been invited before an Oireachtas committee so that I can express an opinion on it?" This was a direction which has come from somewhere. Tick-tack has been taking place. The Chairman rightly says that this business should not be done behind closed doors. Somebody has been tick-tacking behind closed doors so that the director of the National Museum is given an instruction not to attend and the chief archaeologist is given the same instruction. It is not acceptable to me and before we conclude today, the committee will need to decide how to deal with it.

Deputy Cuffe

This is an extraordinary state of affairs. Senior people with an expertise in the area of archaeology are being pressurised not to appear before this committee. This does not amount to anything more than a gagging order on them. It is nothing more than a return to the bad old days of political pressure being applied to tell people to shut up and not express their views. This is emanating from ministerial level. I ask the Chairman in his capacity as Chair of this committee to write immediately to the Ministers, Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy Roche, to express the committee's deep concern that this committee is being sidelined in an effort to push this motorway through the Tara-Skryne valley.

I am most upset about it. I heard rumours yesterday. Both Deputy Gilmore and I raised the matter in the Dáil. I received a copy of the letter written by Dr. Wallace to the committee from the clerk yesterday afternoon. It is extraordinary that one of our foremost archaeologists is denied an opportunity to give his opinion to the committee. It is ludicrous that this individual is putting forward an argument that it might compromise any future decision in this regard.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has been before the committee to speak about genetically modified crops and the county manager of Wicklow County Council has spoken about illegal dumping yet their positions were not compromised. It is nothing more than political influence of the worst order that Dr. Wallace is being denied the opportunity to come before the committee today. It is a test of the Chairman's leadership and chairmanship that he raises those concerns at the highest level possible. I ask that the Chairman raise the issue with both Ministers. I see this as being a dark day not only in the discussion of the possible impact of a motorway on the Tara-Skryne valley, but on the working methods of the committee system in Leinster House.

Deputy Morgan

I share the sentiments expressed by the two previous speakers. It is bizarre that the committee cannot hear the expert advice from two particularly eminent people in the State who have exceptional expertise and ability in this area. It is ironic that the people whose attendance we wish cannot attend while on the other hand, a group with very particular expertise and research is being denied access to the joint committee on transport. I am not in a position to make a proposal but I suggest that this committee should adjourn until such time as those people are prepared to come before it to make their presentations, share their knowledge with the members and be questioned before the decision is made and not afterwards. There is no use in listening to their advice after the event. The committee should allow them a few days and then reconvene immediately once they are available to attend.

Chairman

In fairness to the other two groups who are present, the committee should hear them today.

Deputy O’Dowd

Regardless of the issue being discussed, witnesses should attend the committee when requested to do so. There are differing views about the road. My view differs to that of some of my colleagues on the committee. Any witnesses who can explain and give an understanding of the decision and who have been requested by the committee to attend ought to do so. I agree with the Chairman that we continue with our business today. The compellability of witnesses has arisen at other committees. This committee is not just a talking shop but is an arm of the Oireachtas. Members have been elected to do this job. I support the view that the committee has properly requested witnesses to attend and it should insist they attend. I ask the Chairman to contact the Secretary General of the Department and the Minister immediately. He must state that this committee will not be ignored. These witnesses must be heard. The witnesses are obliged to attend according to legal advice to other committees. I support the view that the Chairman pursue this firmly and insist that the witnesses attend.

Chairman

My understanding is that the committee does not have compellability powers but I believe a process can be initiated which may be lengthy.

Deputy Healy-Rae

I share the views of the members on my left that it is extremely unfair. I agree with Deputy Morgan's proposal that once we have heard from the two groups that have come today we should defer our business as a mark of protest. We should do so to stop these people from hiding behind closed doors and make them come out and tell their story loud and clear, after which the elected members of this committee can question them.

Deputy Kelleher

I was unable to attend the visit to Tara to observe the concerns of some local residents and organisations. It is unfair to give the impression that Dr. Wallace and the chief archaeologist were unwilling to attend. Equally we must refute the allegation that political interference is involved here, which is also quite unacceptable. We do not know who gave the direction regarding the attendance of Dr. Wallace and the chief archaeologist at this meeting and we should find out. It is grossly unfair to start accusing people. I do not accept the paranoid left wing theories of political interference at the highest level. We should ask the Secretary General where this instruction came from before we make allegations on anybody's behalf. It is very unfair on the individuals who have been named here today if they had been instructed by a higher level. Equally it is very unfair to level accusations of political interference at Ministers when more than likely none of them had any say in the matter. It might have been a decision made at other levels. Let us be clear and be fair to all involved.

Senator Bannon

We are in a democracy. I am surprised and alarmed at what has been said here today and stated in the media yesterday about two experts in the area who have been barred from appearing before the committee, despite having consented to do so. We need an investigation into who is preventing them from appearing. Is this being done at a ministerial or a Civil Service level or from elsewhere? We must get to the root of the problem and lay the matter to rest. Until those people appear before the committee we cannot sign off on this issue. We need to hear from all the experts we request to appear before the committee before taking any decision.

Deputy Cregan

I support most of what has been said, particularly the comments of Deputy Kelleher. We should not point the finger of blame at this point. We do not know who if anybody instructed those people not to attend. We cannot carry out our duties in the absence of those people. They should be obliged to attend and give us the benefit of their expertise.

Chairman

The only evidence before us is the letter from Dr. Patrick Wallace, dated 1 February, stating that he was acting on the advice of the Secretary General in the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and also on the advice of the assistant secretary of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. Anything beyond that is speculation. No reflection is being cast upon——

Deputy Cregan

That letter does not suggest there has been interference. That is the only evidence before us at the moment.

Chairman

Everybody——

Senator Bannon

We should respond to that.

Deputy Cregan

We appear to be making the allegation anyway.

Chairman

Everybody will have a chance to speak. I will not close the discussion on this matter. It is generally agreed that no reflection is being cast on the director of the National Museum of Ireland or on the chief archaeologist of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Deputy Cregan

Absolutely not.

Chairman

I had hoped to sign off on this issue today as the committee has considerable work to do on the Nitrates Directive, the retail planning guidelines, etc. With the support of the committee I intend pursuing the matter further with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and also with the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and to point out that these people have been invited and any influence they can bring to ensure they appear before the committee should be forthcoming.

Deputy Cuffe

Thank you, Chairman.

Deputy O’Dowd

I support that.

Deputy Gilmore

From where did the note about the chief archaeologist come?

Chairman

It is just an internal note.

Deputy Gilmore

How did he communicate that he would not appear?

Chairman

It came verbally, by telephone.

Deputy Gilmore

Did he telephone himself or did someone from the Department telephone?

Chairman

An official from the Department telephoned on his behalf.