I remind the Taoiseach that on the most recent Private Members' debate, the Labour Party proposed a review of the M3 route. We raised the matter as a national monument of international significance is at risk while acknowledging fully the need to provide the hard-pressed commuters from Meath towns with more speedy access to this city, which is usually their place of work.

I note in one of today's newspapers the description by Deputy Haughey, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Local Government, of any attempt to push ahead with the M3 as an action bordering on vandalism. His view is representative of the widening base of acknowledgement that it would be foolhardy to press ahead with the current route if for no other reason than that it is likely to be litigated for years. We have had many experiences in this area since the Wood Quay development. We are now confronted with a scenario in which the admitted discovery of 38 sites means it is expected to make a significant archaeological find every 370 m along the proposed route. One does not have to be Einstein to realise this will mean a prolonged delay which will help nobody from Kells, Navan or Dunshaughlin to access the city more quickly.

People who see adherence to the proposed route as the quickest way to build a road will find out after we have been bogged down in litigation for ten years that it will still not be built. Is not that a very good reason for the Government to take a pragmatic view? While the opportunity still exists, the Government should review the proposed road, provide an alternative route for hard-pressed commuters and, above all, protect a monument which contains our Celtic past?

I was asked this question when dealing with infrastructural questions recently and I stated that, despite all that has happened, the archaeological digs are continuing. I understand there is a six-metre trench in the area. There are spurs off that trench and a large number of people are working on it to determine its significance. The Government cannot make a call on it until it receives all the reports. There are those in the National Roads Authority and within the council system who say the number of finds so far is in line with the number that would be made on any other stretch of road, although I cannot make a call on that.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct. A concerted campaign is under way expressing misgivings centring on the impact of the construction of the M3 on the site chosen by the NRA. They say this will affect the cultural heritage of the landscape the proposed road passes and that this will be compounded by the delay in getting major archaeological reports on it. The scheme was approved with modifications by An Bord Pleanála in August 2003, no High Court objection to the board's decision was made and the scheme became operational on 24 September 2003.

Questions were raised at that time about alternative routes to the east of the Skryne Valley. That has been advocated. It is said that this route would have a significant impact on the local community, farms and over 200 houses. The eastern route would also entail a high level bridge crossing the Boyne, giving rise to significant visual intrusion. The landscape architect who assessed the visual impact in the EIS stated at the oral hearing that he considered that the proposed M3, including the Blundelstown interchange, would not visually impinge on the sensitive landscape surrounding the national monuments. He put forward various montages to show why that was the case.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct because a head of steam has now built up on this issue, as often happens, and I will not try to call it until we receive archaeological advice on it. If there were an easy route, right or left——

What about the railway?

——I would take Deputy Rabbitte's view that we should cut our losses and build on it, but there is not an easy route to the right or left of it.

The Taoiseach responds to the left.

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

All I know is that the reports we saw to the effect that the road would go through the Hill of Tara are not correct because the new road is further away than the old road. I am aware of what Deputy Haughey said yesterday. I understand he also said he would go and look at it.

I am sure his father told him about it.

The other experts should have a look at it as well. In the meantime, we have to wait but it is the old story.

A very old story.

What I am concerned about is improvements in road safety, the quality of our roads, road barriers and all those other issues. I am trying to get commuters safely to their destinations.

What about the railway?

It is the old story but at least this time it is about our heritage about which I would be more sympathetic than the swans, which are breeding very well, and the snails, which have moved on. This is more significant and I would like the archaeologists to provide the Government with a clear report on what they honestly believe. Perhaps then the Government can call it.

If somebody has advised the Taoiseach that the finds along the route of this proposed motorway are the same as the finds that would be found in any other route, that person is either a fool or a philistine. The Taoiseach knows well that is not true. This has been described by international experts as a landscape of unique archaeological, cultural and natural significance, and they are describing the Tara-Skryne valley. Everybody knows the road will not go through the Hill of Tara.

Deputy Rabbitte, without interruption.

Everybody knows this will attract not just national attention but international attention. It is of that significance. It is the first decision the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, will have to make and I do not understand why the decision cannot be made now before we become bogged down in expensive litigation that will postpone the road——

Before we have evidence. Does the Deputy have evidence?

I know the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has claimed credit, on behalf of the Fianna, for driving a road through the Hill of Tara.

Does the Deputy have any evidence?

The Minister should allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue.

I am asking if he has the evidence.

We have a problem when the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, join forces. These are the same people who told us not to listen to the arguments being advanced from this side of the House about electronic voting, and look what they ended up costing us. That will be a fraction of what they will cost us in the case of the M3 motorway if they do not listen.

The Deputy is talking about electronic voting as well now.

The Minister should allow Deputy Rabbitte to conclude.

He is making a speech.

These Ministers will not listen. I am not advancing the arguments. Archaeological scholars of international standing are advancing these arguments.

They are not doing the excavations. Any of us can——

Will the Minister allow Deputy Rabbitte to conclude without interruption?

I do not oppose the building of the road.

The Deputy does.

Neither am I opposed to the reopening——

The Deputy speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the one time.

——of the rail track between Navan and Dublin. That should be done anyway, but we are ignoring the experience we have had from Wood Quay to Carrickmines to the experience of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, in Waterford and walking into prolonged and expensive litigation that will not get one commuter any faster from his constituency to Dublin.

It will get them there much more quickly than it would if they followed the Deputy's idea.

The Minister is not the Taoiseach yet.

Build two ends of the road and leave the middle blank.

The Taoiseach should be allowed speak without interruption.

Deputy Rabbitte is making the point that when there are objections from some people who are renowned but are not the archaeologists on site, we should cut our losses and move to another site. I understand that argument but Deputy Rabbitte will understand that when the NRA chose this route, it became the subject of the longest ever An Bord Pleanála hearing. That is now completed, there has been no objection to the High Court and the archaeologists are working on the site. I am informed that the archaeological finds on this site are far fewer in number than those found on the Cashel bypass.

That is nonsense.

I am just giving the House the facts. I understand the point about the delay. We looked at the possibility of an easy route, right or left, but there was not one that would not affect many people.

There is a railway line.

We are waiting for the archaeologists who are engaged in this large dig to come back to us with a conclusive view. I do not want to get into a long, protracted process.

The Deputy mentioned some roads and there have been several others but some of the arguments in those cases were ridiculous. If there is some historical reason that has been missed by everybody, the Government will have to look at it.

It will be too late when it is built.

I recall the proposal for the Swords bypass in the mid-1990s. It was supposed to change Irish wildlife forever and all the swans in Ireland were going to depart. It is there now and the swans have never looked happier.

The Taoiseach is fond of birds.

Somebody has to be an expert but I am not.

There were experts but they were not heeded.

Archaeology has been one of the fastest growing professions in the State and, presumably, archaeologists will make a report.

They have.

I do not know the answer; I am not an archaeologist.

Ask Deputy de Valera.

The Taoiseach is mixing up the swans with the tax exiles.

I am not even an amateur archaeologist but I will not build up a head of steam until I see evidence. They are doing their work in large trenches and they will report back to us. We can make a judgment then. I agree we should not delay.