The Irish Times, Tara and the M3 and a society where certain issues are ignored….

Today’s edition of the Irish Times brings us an editorial on Tara. It certainly doesn’t pull its punches.

It is a tragedy for Ireland that the current route of the planned M3 motorway, which is due to snake its way through the valley east of the Hill of Tara, now appears to be accepted as a fait accompli, even by the new Green Party Minister for the Environment, John Gormley.

There is an proposal that:

Over the past several months, the National Roads Authority clearly set out to create so many facts on the ground in its determination to pursue the approved route of the M3 that the hands of a new minister would be tied. It was assisted in this dubious enterprise by the 2004 amendment to the National Monuments Acts championed by Martin Cullen, when he held office in the Custom House; it was specifically designed to facilitate road construction, even at the expense of our archaeological heritage.

My own feelings on this issue have developed over time. I’ve never been entirely comfortable with those lobbying against the road. They appear, to me at least, to have taken a fairly alarmist line, and one which overstated the significance of the site by recourse to a ‘mythic’ discourse rooted in a series of contentious historical assertions presented as fact.

However, having said that I have also been fairly troubled by the almost glib way in which this development has been allowed to proceed. I am entirely certain that every step has been within the processes allowed by law. I don’t share the Irish Times view as regards the NRA. My reading of the situation is that the NRA fulfilled a statutory obligation to release information on sites of interest along the route and to deal with them appropriately through sound archaeological investigation and the rather unfair characterisation of ‘facts on the ground’ is not borne out by the events as they unfolded.

But…there is a genuine dilemma here, because one means of dealing with the archaeology is through “preservation by record” or “(destruction)” as the IT puts it. That’s not entirely accurate. The very process of archaeological excavation is destructive in the sense that it alters that which is there, often utterly. That doesn’t necessitate the destruction of artifacts that are found, but features may well be destroyed. It’s an old problem. To investigate one must engage in a process which will alter.

Frankly, I’m not hugely concerned about the archaeology either. The surveys have been done. There are undoubtedly sites of interest in this landscape, but one could argue that there are sites of interest in all landscapes. Material will be salvaged, some will be destroyed.

I do have concerns about the landscape itself. Knowing people who live beside a motorway I have seen the way it has impacted both positively and negatively upon their lifestyle over the past ten or fifteen years. It is not a disaster, but there are clear downsides. To my mind the original decision to route beside Tara, notwithstanding the reality of a pre-existing road there, seems odd.

Yet my real problem with this is that a broader societal discussion was not engaged in on how we approach these issues, because being pragmatic there should be a much clearer methodology available, one which asks us more broadly to rank our societal goals and take ownership of them. There are trade-offs that have to be made in these instances. The issue of transport for those who live in the general area as against national heritage. The means of determining the actual – as against hypothetical – status of such sites and just what lengths should be taken to preserve, conserve or discard them. The resources afforded to infrastructure and to heritage. All are deeply complex, not to mention controversial. Yet, at no point does it seem clear that those obligated to weigh them deeply – and here I’m talking about government – did so in a clearly rigorous fashion.

Yet, there is no huge outcry amongst the public (although the IT editorial might assist some sort of dynamic there). This is not Wood Quay, where hundreds of thousands were mobilised, unsuccessfully as it transpired. I marched in defence of Wood Quay (I had little choice, I was brung..as they say). I see little equivalent passion today.

Indeed the track record of the Irish Times itself on this matter is intriguing. Checking editorials over the last two years there is a brief mention in one from 2005 about:

While the M3 motorway seems likely to go ahead, against the weight of expert opinion, there is the danger that it could then attract residential or other developments that will further intrude on what the director of the National Museum, Dr Pat Wallace, has described as “a unique cultural landscape”.

In March 2006 there is a stronger one which notes:

The mystical setting of the Hill of Tara, once the seat of Ireland’s high kings, is considerably more important than the fate of the outer defences of a Pale fortress in south Co Dublin. Dick Roche could, and should, have declined to issue his directions on the treatment of 38 archaeological sites on the route of the M3 between Dunshaughlin and Navan. But there was a political impetus to forge ahead with the motorway, whatever its consequences for the Tara landscape.

Nobody could deny that the existing N3 is plagued by congestion, mainly caused by commuters using it every day to travel to and from work in Dublin. But an alternative route should have been found – one that would protect, rather than damage, the Tara landscape – and a much higher priority attached to re-opening the old Navan railway line. This project would provide a real alternative to car commuting for many but is not scheduled for completion until 2015. That is much too long to wait while rushing ahead with a misconceived motorway plan.

Yet, that, as far as I could determine, was that until today, well over a year and a quarter later. Not much to show for something that should, if the IT was being consistent, be a continuing issue. Having said that the IT can largely only reflect. The societal narrative appears to be one of resignation about such things. The forces arrayed against a host of issues are seen as too great, Shannon is stymied by ‘reality’, Tara by the dynamic of development, co-location by the need to do something, anything. That’s a narrative that we on the left, whatever our views regarding individual issues, should abhor. It’s curious to have to make recourse to Nick Cohen on such a regular basis, but his point about corporations and the power of government is absolutely correct and needs only to be slightly adjusted to suit this issue…”…however novel the ability of companies to shift money and jobs around the world, and however restrictive the limits on the autonomy of national governments have become, corporations remain weak. When all is said and done, they are hierarchical associations for the production of profit. They can’t raise armies or levy taxes or enact legislation. Governments can do all three and turn nasty if they have the inclination…’. There is a terrible danger that the left is becoming entranced by the power of its opponents…

John Gormley appears to have tried to shift the debate by appointing a review of the situation and state policy on archaeology. As the IT notes he has said: that if the review was to recommend amending or even repealing the 2004 legislation, he would act on this by taking it to Cabinet. But whether he would be able to persuade his Fianna Fáil colleagues to accept such a recommendation remains to be seen. Certainly, it is difficult to imagine that those who sponsored the damaging changes made to the National Monument Acts three years ago would be prepared to set them aside, in the interest of heritage protection.

A fair point. No government wants to be seen to have taken a wrong decision and that will weigh heavily if the issue ever gets to cabinet. But am I being unreasonable in seeing the IT’s renewed interest as being a convenient stick with which to beat Gormley and implicitly the Greens for their temerity in going into government? And consider this, here is the Green dilemma encapsulated. Remain outside of government and probably there would be no review at all of procedures and a likelihood of further issues like this arising, go in and Tara is most likely lost, but the situation doesn’t happen again. Problem is that those who would oversee the first scenario are those who sit cheek by jowl implementing the second with you. And what would the IT have Gormley do? Leave Cabinet? The very cabinet that would revert to scenario one with clearly no hesitation? A difficult place to be, and on a slight tangent a place where the events of this and the next number of months may reverberate in the public imagination longer than the Green Party (or perhaps Fianna Fáil) might like.

I don’t have the answers. I can see both sides of this argument, but… the original decision, the management of the problem, the way in which the NRA has been hung out to dry and the continuing lack of ownership – or seeming wish to take ownership – of the issue by the broader public is revealing in itself.