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

M3 through Tara-Skryne Valley: Presentations.

Chairman

Two groups have come to make their presentations. Before we commence I remind contributors that whereas parliamentary privilege applies to utterances made by members of the committee, this privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome Dr. Brian Lacey, programme manager with the Discovery Programme, Dr. Michael Starrett, chief executive officer of the Heritage Council, and Mr. Ian Doyle, archaeology officer with the Heritage Council. I ask Dr. Lacey to make his presentation, to be followed by questions and answers. We will then deal with the second presentation.

Dr. Brian Lacey

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to address the committee as chief executive officer of the Discovery Programme. The Discovery Programme is a public institution for advanced research into Irish archaeology. It was established in May 1991 as a non-statutory body on the personal initiative of then Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey. In 1993 responsibility was transferred to the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. In 1996, under the then Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, we became an autonomous company, The Discovery Programme Limited, funded through the Heritage Council. We now operate completely under the aegis of the Heritage Council, as confirmed to the Dáil by then Minister, Deputy de Valera, on 21 February 2001.

We are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and, in accordance with a memorandum of understanding of 1998, a small number of administrative matters still require the approval of the Department. Otherwise we operate as an independent body. We have a council, representing 12 archaeological institutions North and South, made up of universities, major museums, Departments, learned and professional societies etc. This group can, additionally, co-opt up to four distinguished archaeologists from abroad. The council appoints five members of a directorate or board of directors. Three other members are appointed by the Heritage Council, as is the chairman of the Discovery Programme, who must be approved by the Minister with responsibility for heritage matters. The Heritage Council has decided that one of its appointees will always be its chief executive. Unfortunately our current chairman, Dr. Michael Ryan, cannot be here today but is very willing to speak to the committee on another occasion if that would be useful.

As distinct from the other public bodies that deal with Irish archaeology, the Discovery Programme's sole remit is to engage in full-time archaeological and related research in order to enhance our knowledge of Ireland's past. Our only other concern is to communicate the results of that research, as appropriate, to scholars and the public. We do our work by identifying major issues about which there is a lack of knowledge and establishing research projects to investigate those matters. A dedicated specialist staff is recruited for each project. To date six major projects as well as some smaller ones have been established, covering many parts of Ireland. The results have been published in six books and six issues of an in-house scientific journal. These journals and books are all refereed in accordance with the international academic system by totally independent academic authorities.

Several other ancillary educational and popular publications have been issued and the staff have written more than 200 other articles in various external outlets. At the moment, four more books are at the publishers, three books are in various stages of drafting, others are in preparation and the seventh issue of the in-house journal will be published later this year.

Since our inception in 1991 we have had a Tara project, investigating both the archaeological remains and the literary and historical sources. Three of our books and many of our research reports have dealt specifically with Tara. A major study of the kingship of Tara between the years 400 and 800 will be published later this year.

We can claim that we have done more research on Tara than everyone else put together. Our work on Tara has included all forms of survey and excavation. We have studied the ancient and modern historical sources for the site and its hinterland. Approximately 30 individual monuments were known on the Hill of Tara before we started this work. There was no understanding of their chronological relationship, in effect. The number of known sites on the hill now stands at approximately 120. We have an overall model of their development through time, which can be tested by excavation in the years to come. There has been a growing appreciation of the Hill of Tara as the dominant element of a wider surrounding landscape of related ritual and settlement sites, which seems to extend from Ringlestown Rath to the west, along the Riverstown linear earthwork to Rathmiles to the north and onwards to Rath Lugh and Skryne to the east.

The Discovery Programme is a research institution. It does not have a function in planning or development matters and is certainly not a campaigning body. Given the programme's major involvement with Tara, however, it was deemed appropriate for its members to make their views known at the motorway planning stage. The Discovery Programme involves individuals who, in their separate capacities, have taken differing positions and roles in the M3 debate. As a corporate body, the programme said in written objections and at the oral hearing that it was opposed to the route subsequently approved. When the decision on that matter had been made in line with due process, however, we believed we had no further role. We thought it would be beyond our powers to become involved in the controversy that subsequently emerged.

Although both sides in the debate have frequently referred to the Discovery Programme, it has scrupulously avoided any further public comment on the matter. On its behalf, however, I would like to emphasise certain points. It would be hard to overstate the national and international importance of Tara. The Hill of Tara is just one element of a wider related archaeological landscape, the additional richness of which is continually being further revealed. The Discovery Programme welcomes the development of our national infrastructure but is occasionally disappointed when, even in good faith, a major cultural asset is depleted by such development. In the event of any impingement on to such an extremely important asset, the least that can be expected is that the highest possible standard of archaeological investigation and mitigation be deployed.

Deputy Gilmore

I would like to ask two questions. Do I understand correctly, from the paragraph entitled "Tara", that the Discovery Programme regards the Hill of Tara as part of a wider landscape? I would like to ask about Dr. Lacey's comment that the Discovery Programme, as a corporate body, "said in written objections and at the oral hearing that it was opposed to the route subsequently approved". Can Dr. Lacey confirm, for the avoidance of ambiguity, that the Discovery Programme formally objected to the route that has been approved for the M3 during the motorway planning stage?

Dr. Lacey

We felt it was appropriate for the Discovery Programme to be involved at the planning stage, but not subsequently after the decision had been taken. The programme submitted a written objection to An Bord Pleanála about the route that was subsequently adopted. It made its views on the matter known at the oral hearing on the matter that subsequently took place.

Deputy Gilmore

Was that the objection that was made by Dr. Newman?

Dr. Lacey

There is a slight complication in that Dr. Newman was an employee of the Discovery Programme who did a great deal of the work. He was a member of our council at the time of the oral hearing and still is. He represented the programme at the oral hearing. There is a distinction between the Discovery Programme and Dr. Newman, who appears in his own capacity at this meeting.

Deputy Gilmore

Dr. Newman made a presentation at the inquiry on behalf of the Discovery Programme.

Dr. Lacey

He was representing the Discovery Programme.

Deputy Gilmore

He was not appearing off his own bat.

Dr. Lacey

No.

Deputy Gilmore

That was the Discovery Programme's objection to the——

Dr. Lacey

Yes. That is correct. The Discovery Programme's research into the wider landscape over the last ten years has led to a growing appreciation that parts of the locality other than the Hill of Tara are of importance. While it is difficult to be precise about the nature of the related area, the evidence available to us suggests that it stretches from Ringlestown Rath to the west of Tara to Rath Lugh to the north of Tara and to Skryne to the east of Tara.

Deputy Cuffe

I was pleased that Dr. Lacey said he regards Tara as being part of a wider landscape. When we stood on top of the Hill of Skryne in a cold, biting wind approximately six weeks ago, we felt there was a continuity between the Hill of Skryne and the Hill of Tara. It seems to make sense to see it all as being part of a rich archaeological landscape. What is the public view of the chairman of the Discovery Programme, Dr. Michael Ryan, on the proposed road? Can Dr. Lacey expand on the views of the five members of the board about the proposed road?

Is the Discovery Programme satisfied with the methodology of the works undertaken by the NRA and Meath County Council? I refer in particular to the geophysical survey work that was conducted. Was the programme happy with that? The programme has published six books on six issues, as well as hundreds of articles. It has published three books and many research reports on Tara and a major study of the area will be published later this year. Is it merely disappointed with the outcome of the hearings about the road?

Dr. Lacey

The Discovery Programme is a research body. While its members have certain views as private individuals, the programme as a whole feels it is not appropriate to comment on the decision to build the road, now that the decision has been taken. The programme had a role in making a contribution at the planning stage. I have outlined the view that was expressed at that time. After the decision to construct the road was taken, the programme moved out of the picture to some extent. The programme has scrupulously avoided comment. The only function given to it by the State, which donates public money for its activities, is as a research body. It was appropriate to make an intervention at the planning stage. The Discovery Programme clearly stated in its written objection and its contribution at the oral hearing that it was opposed to the route that was subsequently chosen. The programme felt that when a decision had been taken on the matter, it moved out of the picture. The board of the programme did not take a position or adopt a view. Dr. Ryan has publicly expressed his disappointment with the route that was chosen, but that is a matter for him. The issue is strictly not relevant to the business of the Discovery Programme.

Deputy McCormack

While Dr. Lacey has partly answered the question I intended to ask, he has not clarified the matter to my full satisfaction. I note from the report that once a decision has been made in accordance with due process, the programme considers it has no further role in that it is beyond its powers to engage in controversy. However, among its four concluding points the report states with reference to Tara that the hill is only one element of a larger landscape. Another point indicates that the Discovery Programme is occasionally disappointed when a major cultural asset is depleted to development. It is clear this point is linked by the programme to Tara as Tara was mentioned in the previous point. In the context of the presentation of the document on 2 February, does the programme consider the matter to have been decided? In the context of that decision, I relate the point on disappointment to what has happened at Tara.

Dr. Lacey

At the outset, we expressed our opposition to the route which has been chosen. In that sense, we are disappointed. Our view did not seem to contribute to the ultimate decision.

Deputy McCormack

The programme is still disappointed on 2 February despite the fact that the decision has been taken.

Dr. Lacey

A decision has been taken by An Bord Pleanála which we accept despite not liking and being disappointed by it. As I stressed, we are not involved in the planning and development process and are certainly not a campaigning body. The sole reason public money is provided to us is to engage in archaeological research. We carry out that research and issue our findings.

Deputy McCormack

If the programme has no role in the matter once the decision has been taken, why is it continuing to express its disappointment, even in good faith, that a major cultural asset is to be depleted by development? Clearly, the report submitted on 2 February refers to Tara.

Dr. Lacey

That is correct. The Discovery Programme voiced its opposition to a particular route which was subsequently chosen. While we have no role in opposing the route at this stage, we are clearly disappointed by it.

Deputy McCormack

While I do not disagree with its opinion, it is not consistent to say the programme has no future role in influencing the matter while it continues to stress to the committee in a report on 2 February its disappointment that a cultural asset is being depleted by development. It is only my opinion.

Chairman

Dr. Lacey has come to the committee at our request and we are very grateful to him for doing so.

Deputy McCormack

So am I.

Chairman

The witnesses are talking about the significance of the archaeology in the Tara-Skryne valley. I do not want to pursue Deputy McCormack's line of questioning further. He has made his point.

Senator Brady

Moving from Deputy McCormack's point, the third point in the report states the programme has been occasionally disappointed. Can Dr. Lacey expand on that by outlining some examples of developments which have disappointed the programme? Does the disappointment relate, as Deputy McCormack implies, only to Tara?

Dr. Lacey

We are specifically referring here to Tara.

Senator Brady

Were there other infrastructural developments which disappointed at any stage?

Dr. Lacey

The board of the Discovery Programme would never discuss such matters as to do so would not be germane to its business. As the staff and bulk of the board of the programme are archaeologists, discussion of events relating to archaeological matters takes place outside formal meetings. We only involved ourselves in the issue of Tara because no other body has done as much research on the site as ours. We felt it would have been inappropriate to fail to contribute at the motorway planning stage. We were quite clear in our thinking that once the formal decision had been taken, there was no further role for the Discovery Programme in the debate. Over the last six months, the Discovery Programme has been mentioned repeatedly by both sides in the debate, but we have scrupulously avoided involving ourselves or responding in any way. Had we not been invited to attend the committee, we would have made no public statement on the matter.

Senator Brady

When the committee visited Tara, we were given to understand by the people who showed us the various sites that a number of them could be excavated and reinstated within a number of months while preserving whatever materials were removed. Hypothetically, if the motorway were to proceed along the proposed route, would there be a role for the Discovery Programme in any excavations which would take place?

Dr. Lacey

If the motorway goes ahead on the proposed route, the Discovery Programme would wish to be associated with excavations in some way given its clear interest in the entire Tara complex. That is a different matter.

Deputy O’Dowd

I welcome Dr. Lacey and his organisation. When I heard of the Discovery Programme first, I thought a Sky channel was to attend. I ask to be excused for my lack of knowledge. I am now quite clear about the fine research work the programme carries out.

Dr. Lacey made the important point that before the decision was taken, the Discovery Programme spoke ex cathedra and with full voice. Now that it has been taken and its opinion has been made known, the programme accepts the road must go ahead. The fourth point in the report states that in the event of any infringement on such an extremely important asset, the very least which can be expected is that the highest possible standard of archaeological investigation and mitigation is employed. The National Roads Authority has told us it will spend €30 million on the archaeology. While I do not wish to put a pejorative question to Dr. Lacey, that seems an adequate sum to meet the standards outlined. I have spoken to a number of archaeologists, including Professor Cooney who has written an article on the issue, and acknowledge the differences of opinion which exist. Assuming €30 million is adequate to ensure archaeological work is carried out professionally and under proper academic scrutiny, is there nothing left to do but accept the road must go ahead?

The process has ended and the only other choice is to opt for the pink route, which was identified as having the least potential to have an impact on archaeology. I am told that option would take three years. The key point in my mind is that when we visited the area, traffic was bumper to bumper and immobile at 10 a.m. There is serious pressure on the system. I understand this road could never have been considered if Meath County Council had designated the site specifically in its development plan. We are dealing with a litany of events. Notwithstanding the professional views he expressed earlier, does Dr. Lacey agree the €30 million provision will address the concerns outlined in the Discovery Programme report? Is that a fair question?

Dr. Lacey

Nothing we have said today or in the past is in any way meant to be a criticism of our colleagues in the NRA or any other archaeologist. We accept they are doing their job in good faith and good archaeology will be delivered from that. That is as much as I can say on the matter.

Deputy O’Dowd

A number of the monuments we visited in the company of Professor Eogan were described as medieval in that they date from after the pre-history period. The site and surrounding area is complex. I asked specific questions about the monuments, which I will not detail. It transpired that a number of them are not unique in the same sense as the Hill of Tara. They were common in the medieval period and are not special or unique to Tara. Does Dr. Lacey have a view on that?

Dr. Lacey

The dichotomy in this respect is between looking at the complex as a series of independent sites or as an area. It would be similar to picking out the churches of Dublin. The view of the Discovery Programme, which was expressed early in this process, is that the site is an area rather than simply a network of independent sites. It is the notion of "area" that is significant. While it breaks down into individual sites, it is the relationship of the sites and other factors that creates an area rather than a collection of independent sites.

Deputy O’Dowd

The sites we saw had no unique features. Some of them date from hundreds or perhaps even 1,000 years after the original pre-history Tara site. They had no special features which are unique to the Meath landscape.

Dr. Lacey

The complex of Tara has continually revealed additional layers of richness which no one expected. When the Discovery Programme carried out an excavation at the Hill of Tara in 1997, we did not expect to find the enormous richness that emerged from the excavation.

Deputy Sargent

I thank Dr. Lacey and our other guests for appearing before the joint committee. Dr. Lacey's contribution reminded me of our previous meeting with Dr. Newman, Dr. Edel Bhreathnach and others during which we discussed the route. Before the route was selected Dr. Lacey stated it was not his favourite route. At that time, was a view expressed that, for example, the pink route would be less damaging and preferable? As Dr. Bhreathnach stated, any area one would select in Meath would be archaeologically rich. In terms of approval or disapproval, was there a league, so to speak?

I like Dr. Lacey's statement that it would be hard to overstate the national and international importance of Tara. At the risk of doing so, is it possible to state its importance? Dr. Lacey's book, when published, will increase interest in this issue. Examples such as Newgrange, Glendalough and other sites known on the tourist trail and international sites such as the Valley of the Kings in Egypt come to mind when one considers the question of either understating or overstating the importance of the Tara site. Will Dr. Lacey draw an international comparison to give us an idea as to whether someone living abroad would consider Tara in the same light as we do?

Deputy Morgan

I thank Dr. Lacey for turning up and for his frank and honest presentation. As we are all aware, the M3 is needed as quickly as possible. My question relates to a point Deputy Sargent made. I repeat Dr. Lacey's comment that it would be hard to overstate the national and international importance of Tara. Is he exaggerating a little?

Senator Bannon

I join other speakers in thanking Dr. Lacey for his informed and interesting presentation. He stated the Discovery Programme has done more research on Tara than everyone else put together. He also noted that before the programme's excavations, only about 30 individual monuments were known and that figure has risen to 120 sites. Will he predict the number of undiscovered sites in and around Tara? Of these, how many lie on the proposed route of the M3 motorway?

Dr. Lacey expressed disappointment about decisions taken in the past in good faith. Are there other locations where bad decisions were taken with the result that artefacts, which should have been properly protected, have been lost forever?

Dr. Lacey

Deputy Sargent asked about a league of approval and, again, I am kicking a question to touch. We took the view that it would not be one of our roles to comment on that matter. We simply stated that the route which was subsequently approved was the wrong one. We did not proceed from there to express a view as to which of the other routes would be suitable as it would be beyond the remit of the organisation to comment in that way.

As regards stating the international importance of the site, I should point out that I am not an expert on Tara. Other members of our staff and individuals who work with us are experts in this area. While it is difficult for me to comment, it is clear with regard to the examples of Newgrange, Glendalough and others cited by Deputy Sargent that Tara suffers from the fact that it is appears to the eye to be only a series of earthworks. In many ways, the archaeological wonders of Tara are underground. It is when we strip away and look underground, either through excavation or geophysical survey, that we see how extraordinary it is.

In the past five to ten years, extraordinary new things have been discovered at Tara, about which there was no understanding beforehand. The intense research undertaken so far by the Discovery Programme has concentrated on the hilltop and has not expanded into the wider area. It seems a reasonable gamble to propose that the standard of significance uncovered on the hilltop will spread out from that in whichever direction one chooses. While it would be hard to place Tara in an international league, it is clearly one of the most important parts of Irish archaeology and cultural history.

Senator Brennan

I thank Dr. Lacey and the Discovery Programme team for their honest and forthright answers. It is crystal clear that the programme uses all opportunities available to it in the planning process to make its views known. The joint committee finds itself in a catch-22 situation. What role should the committee have with regard to a decision on this issue? Should it have made a submission as part of the planning process? Ultimately, it will produce an opinion or recommendation. As other projects arise, what role should the committee play in terms of the planning process?

Deputy Morgan

Can the other two comments also be dealt with in this section?

Chairman

I understand the Minister will make a decision on this very shortly. Whatever the committee does, it will have to provide him with the transcripts of these debates as soon as possible.

Dr. Lacey

I was asked if I had overstated the case. I do not think I did. I tried to choose cautious rather than exaggerated language. I do not think I overstated it.

Senator Bannon

What is Dr. Lacey's view of undiscovered sites, especially ones that could be envisaged on the route of the new motorway?

Dr. Lacey

I can only speak in reference to what has happened already. We know from our investigations of Tara that the more we investigate it the more surprising are the results and the greater their significance. That has been a consistent pattern. We can only assume that will be the case with investigations of other related sites.

Deputy Gilmore

Dr. Lacey said that he is constantly discovering the richness of Tara. Is he saying that as the motorway progresses and digs are commenced it is likely much more than is already known will be found?

Dr. Lacey

I have to stress that I am not an expert on Tara and I have not studied in great detail the various reports that have already been issued in regard to the road, but it is clear that as the route of the road has been investigated more and more sites have become evident. The experience will be that as they are excavated they will reveal more and more layers of interest. One could predict that on the basis of what has already been found.

Deputy Gilmore

So it is a journey into the unknown.

Dr. Lacey

Yes, I think so.

Deputy Healy-Rae

It is my view that with Dr. Lacey and his team and several other teams giving their views we will finish up in the same way as we did with the Monasterevin bypass. Men will be out with tablespoons scraping the ground instead of large excavators making a road that is badly needed. People are crying out for a motorway. It is our duty as members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government to ensure that the roadway is made and that it is as reasonable as possible.

There is a great need for motorways. In some places the roads are in a desperate state. The road from Killarney to Cork is a national scandal. The Chairman can take my word that nobody from Cork to Killarney would object or hold up in any way the development of a motorway there. There is no prospect that it will happen in the near future as there is no money to make it.

Between archaeological sites and the other problems we are encountering at present on the M3 motorway we will end up with millions of cars being held up as they drive through the area in four or five years' time when the road should be finished. We should be totally and absolutely behind the Minister. I compliment the Minister on his intention to make a road.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae. I also thank Dr. Lacey for his presentation. We appreciate that the Discovery Programme accepted our invitation to make a statement.

Dr. Michael Starrett and Mr. Ian Doyle have been very patient. I invite Dr. Starrett to make his presentation.

Dr. Michael Starrett

I am delighted to have an opportunity to make this statement to the committee. Members will be aware that I submitted a fairly extensive statement but they will be relieved to hear I do not intend to read through it in full. I will draw on the most cogent points.

Throughout this process the Heritage Council has maintained a strategic position concerning individual road schemes and other developments in accordance with our policy paper on the role of the Heritage Council in the planning process. This approach has been manifested by work with many organisations to increase the appreciation of heritage and its consideration in any development process. Members will be aware of the functions and role of the Heritage Council in that respect.

We have engaged with the National Roads Authority, NRA. We have taken a strong interest in the implications of the construction of road schemes for the national heritage. This interest has involved a range of submissions as well as dialogue with the National Roads Authority. In the context of our overall remit, in 2000 we made a detailed submission on the national development plan welcoming the overall strategic development process. However, we also highlighted areas where information deficits might well lead to delays. We suggested ways in which these could be resolved.

More specifically with regard to the committee's particular interest today, in 2001 we commissioned a heritage appraisal of road proposal constraints reports. We took a selection of existing constraints reports and appraised them regarding the way in which they dealt with heritage. It is an understatement to say the review found that the existing national road project management guidelines were in need of updating. Subsequent to this the council responded with comments and assistance on the compilation of the NRA draft guidelines on ecology and archaeology.

The Discovery Programme operates under the aegis and funding of the Heritage Council. Dr. Lacey articulately explained to the committee its involvement in the process. He pointed out that it has become a major holder of data and knowledge concerning Tara. The results of all of that research were presented to the oral hearing concerning the motorway scheme.

In terms of broadening the perception of the way in which heritage, both cultural and natural, is dealt with, the Heritage Council part-funds a body, the Woodlands of Ireland group. We have had detailed dialogue with the NRA about species planting on the fringes of new road developments, seeking to ensure that the ecological value of these woodlands and the contribution they make to our overall biodiversity can be enhanced. In short, to date the council has played a major role in shaping the manner in which heritage, natural and cultural, is considered at legislative, strategic and policy level.

Reference has been made to the issue of the archaeological landscape. I want to address that in a broad context. In 2002, council recommended that a national programme of landscape characterisation be undertaken. The process of landscape characterisation focuses on what makes one area different from the next or what makes a unique sense of place. Most importantly it relates landscape to people and local communities. This is done by analysing combinations of landscape elements and features to define the distinctive characteristic of a landscape. The major benefit of characterisation of this type is that it covers the whole landscape, not just special areas or areas to be assessed in advance of development. By this process, landscape and the benefits it brings to society as a whole can be placed in a much wider context, in the context of everyday life. In other words, it becomes understandable to everyone. Since its policy proposal to Government in 2002, the council has continued its work to secure implementation of these recommendations and has, in particular, carried out further work on historic landscape character. Such approaches to dealing effectively with development in the landscape have been accepted as international best practice for many years.

It is certainly the contention of Heritage Council that the landscape implications of the proposed M3, particularly its impact on the area between the hills of Tara and Skryne, could have been assessed in greater detail had this national process of landscape characterisation taken place when it was proposed. The ability of the landscape to absorb the change associated with the proposed motorway could therefore have been considered in the most informed manner.

A recurrent theme in the debate concerning the Hill of Tara and the proposed motorway is that of the "archaeological landscape". The Heritage Council concurs with the need to view archaeological sites in their wider landscape setting and has actively engaged with the practical issues of defining and managing archaeological landscapes. The council has initiated two research projects to assess the concept of the archaeological landscape, and specifically how such areas can be defined and managed. What has become clear from this work and the existing debate is that there is a growing need to accelerate this process and develop a clear, consistent methodology on a national basis to define an archaeological landscape. Some means of determining the boundaries of such landscapes is urgently required.

There is no doubting that this is an important archaeological and historical landscape, notwithstanding the significance of individual sites. To expand more fully on the point dealt with by Dr. Lacey, in the excavations to date on the trenchings, approximately 38 additional sites have been found. Ultimately, there is a lack of a national policy on historic landscapes and landscapes in general, as well as a lack of any means of determining core areas and potential buffer zones for such landscapes.

Should this motorway proceed, it is imperative that future strategic planning by Meath County Council has regard for the character of the landscape and any future development within it. Development pressure associated with motorways, such as warehouse storage, ribbon development along link roads, concern over commuter housing and, in respect of the M3, concern over the proposed Blundelstown interchange, would require particular consideration by the local authority. Full and final publication of these investigations should be a prominent feature of any project. Consideration should be given to the presentation of information to the public and to local schools. Such communicative measures should be a feature of all road schemes that have archaeological implications.

The Heritage Council fully acknowledges that heritage and, within this category, archaeology, are not the sole determining factors in routing road projects. Given that the responsibility of the council relates to the national heritage, the council recognises the sensitivity of any decision with regard to the road location. If the council were the body with decision-making powers on this issue, it is most unlikely that it would have chosen this new route. Having said that, the council acknowledges that any of the other routes would have implications for elements of the national heritage.

It is obvious that during the road design process, consideration was given to Tara and cultural heritage. However, given the international significance of Tara, it is a matter of debate whether sufficient weighting was placed upon heritage in the overall matrix of criteria used to inform the decision-making process. Had the Heritage Council sole responsibility in decision making it would have attached greater weight to heritage and less weight to some of the other considerations in the decision-making process.

It is very important to state that we are all working in a changing climate. Survey work in 2004 undertaken by Lansdowne Market Research on behalf of the Heritage Council has identified a distinct shift in the public attitude towards increased heritage protection and, surprisingly, in the awareness of its importance to all income groups in the four provinces. The survey can be benchmarked against a similar survey carried out in 1999. While we are all very aware of public opinion, this is a shift in public attitude that we would all do well to heed. We must concern ourselves with handing Tara on to future generations in a better condition than that in which we inherited it.

Deputy Cuffe

I thank Mr. Starrett. In his presentation, he made a plea for a detailed research framework pertaining to sites such as this one. He is not aware that any such framework exists. It appears to be a matter of concern that the archaeologists are following the road engineers rather than the road engineers following the archaeologists. It begs the question as to whether Tara is unique. If so, should a road pass so close to it and should such a massive interchange be built merely a few fields therefrom? Is Mr. Starrett happy with the methodology used by the National Roads Authority? Concerns were raised about the pressures the authority is under and about the scientific methods associated with the geophysical imaging process being used. Is Mr. Starrett happy that best practice is being employed in this case? If we were to start again, would the Heritage Council seek a different methodology in terms of the assessment of the route options?

Deputy Gilmore

I thank Mr. Starrett for his presentation. I want to concentrate on three specific areas on which he commented. He stated that if the Heritage Council were the body with decision-making powers on this issue, it is most unlikely that it would have chosen this new route. A passage from his script which he did not read states that this is based on a wide appreciation of the historic landscape of the Tara-Skryne valley and the important place of Tara in the construction of Irish identity. Mr. Starrett stated that given the international significance of Tara it is a matter of debate whether sufficient weighting was placed upon heritage in the matrix of criteria used to inform the decision-making process. I appreciate that circumspect language is used on occasion and I understand the reason for it. However, the bottom line is that the Heritage Council does not agree with the proposed route and believes insufficient attention was paid to the heritage issues. That is pretty clear. Will Mr. Starrett confirm that my understanding of the council's views is clear?

Mr. Starrett made a point about the Blundelstown interchange which seems obvious but which has not been made before to this committee. He stated there is a need for Meath County Council to have regard to development pressures at this interchange, which will be pretty close to the Hill of Tara and the lights of which would be visible from the hill. As has been the case with interchanges on every motorway or major road ever built in this country, major development will follow around the Blundelstown interchange as the land is rezoned for retail warehouses and other enterprises. Will Dr. Starrett expand further on the matter? In this context, are we dealing not just with a motorway being built through the Tara-Skryne Valley but also with the inevitable consequence of building an interchange at that point? We can bet there are people with drawing boards figuring out where they can place the retail warehouses which the interchange will inevitably draw. Therefore, the impact on the landscape of Tara is not just the motorway itself but the consequential development which the interchange will attract.

Dr. Starrett

I will try to run through the points made by members as comprehensively as I can. There is no doubt that Tara is unique. The degree to which we are happy with the methodology relates to the significance we attach to aspects of our national heritage. The Heritage Council is a relatively new body which has been working closely with a number of agencies, including the NRA, to try to raise that significance. We are constantly seeking to fulfil our statutory role under the Act by trying to raise awareness. We can always improve on the methodology.

The Heritage Council considered that the constraints reports which were being produced in 1999 were well below international standards. There was a reliance on the use of consultants rather than the expertise within the NRA to assess some of the work. Nevertheless, the NRA has taken huge steps forward with regard to its environmental management, its archaeological team and so on. From that point of view, the methodologies have been improving and will, I hope, continue to improve.

A figure of €30 million is often mentioned as a research budget for the NRA but I am not aware of any detailed research programme. To put the figure in context, the Heritage Council's annual budget is in the region of €11 million to €12 million. The Heritage Council and the Discovery Programme could do an exceptionally good job on archaeological research if they had access to that level of funding. There is a need for a research programme rather than just a commitment to do something with the archaeology should it be found when the road is built. There needs to be a properly formulated programme with clear guidance and a very clear definition as to how that information will be brought into the public domain and benefit society as whole. As my statement point out, that does not yet exist.

I have answered the question about weighting and the decision-making process. The Heritage Council will always seek to secure greater weighting for heritage matters in regard to these decisions. We have succeeded to a great extent in shifting the value of heritage, although not necessarily its economic value, attached to agencies and enabling local authorities and communities to accept the responsibility they should have for their heritage.

I make no apology for our circumspect language but committee members have summed up exactly what that language was saying. We would not have chosen that route. Rather, we would have given much more weighting to the significance of the value of the unique Tara-Skryne landscape, the national policies and our policy proposal. I must re-emphasise that the Heritage Council proposes policy, upon which it is then up to the Government to act. The policy framework which was proposed has not been fully adopted. The Heritage Council is still pushing to have it fully adopted as it is required on a national level.

The point I made about the Blundelstown interchange was very deliberate. The local authorities have a responsible for strategic planning within their own development plan process. Should the interchange be located there, the potential for inappropriate development is self-evident — experience shows us what we can expect. In that context, the work on archaeological and historic landscapes and the general landscape characterisation needs to be developed urgently.

The Heritage Council pioneered with the local authorities the heritage appraisal of their development plans and the introduction of heritage officers to assist them in all the work the Heritage Council is seeking to achieve in terms of raising awareness. I hope and expect that the relationship between the Heritage Council and the local authorities would be such that, in any development plan process for that area, this landscape would receive very particular attention and that development along it would be considered in a very serious manner because of the impact it would have should it go too far.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Starrett and Mr. Doyle for their presentations. They will be most helpful to the committee in our deliberations.

Deputy Cuffe

One of the factors considered in the selection of this route was to minimise the impact on archaeology. However, we now know from investigative and survey work that some 38 or more archaeological sites are directly in the path of the road itself, yet to the best of my knowledge the road does not deviate by any margin from the original plans. Rather, it follows exactly the same route. Is the Heritage Council concerned about this as a general principle? For example, once the inquiry has confirmed the road's order, nothing changes.

One will take photographs and examine what is done, but the road is ploughing through 38 or more archaeological sites. In essence, is it not slash and burn with photographs because what is found is not being maintained but rather ploughed out of it?

Dr. Starrett

To reiterate what I have said, the Heritage Council would not have put the road there in the first place. That is the shortest way to answer the Deputy's question. Notwithstanding a future decision, if it is to follow that route, it is obvious that two roads will have more impact in a landscape than one. We would seek to make sure that the public benefits from whatever decision is taken in terms of knowledge and information. The key point is that at national policy level in assisting in the making of these decisions — and notwithstanding our policy proposals which are still under consideration by the Government — we are very weak because this is an issue of landscape proportions and is not purely related to this site, a point Dr. Lacey also made.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses for attending the committee meeting.