Opposition TDs and Senators Pledge to Challenge Government Over M3 Motorway

by TaraWatch Fri Jul 03, 2009 08:34 info at tarawatch dot org

TaraWatch would like to thank Deputy Aengus O Snodaigh and Sinn Fein for submitting all of the questions we gave to them.

We would also like to thank Maureen O'Sullivan for agreeing to sit on the Parliamentary group for Tara.

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS - 2 July 2009

Submitted

1. To ask the Minister for Environment why he didn’t submit the Hill of Tara and the entire revised Ireland’s Tentative List of UNESCO sites to UNESCO as promised, for this month’s 33rd Session of the World Heritage Committee in Seville, Spain.

2. To ask the Minister for Environment how much money has been spent in hiring consultants and reviewing Ireland’s list of World Heritage Sites in the past two years?

3. To ask the Minister for Environment what is the current plan in relation to revising Ireland’s Tentative List of UNESCO sites?

4. To ask the Minister for Environment how could the Minister, or the Minister’s advisors make a determination of the ability of Tara to become a UNESCO site, before the advisors had visited the site or reviewed the M3?

5. To ask the Minister for Environment is he aware that TaraWatch nominated the Hill of Tara as a world Heritage site, but only on condition that the M3 was rerouted, because of the fact that it passes through the middle of the proposed World Heritage Site.

6. To ask the Minister for Environment does the Minister still consider that UNESCO will accept the Hill of Tara as a UNESCO sites with the M3 passing through it?

7. To ask the Minister for Environment can he define the area of the proposed Tara World Heritage Site?

8. To ask the Minister for Environment has he considered the costs involved if UNESCO demands that Ireland move the M3 motorway, once Tara is declared a World Heritage Site?

9. To ask the Minister for Environment has he included Eurolink Consortium (SIAC, Ferrovial and Cintra), the M3 Public Private Partners, in the consultation process for making Tara a World Heritage Site? If so, what has been their involvement?

10. To ask the Minister for Environment has he included Iarnrod Éireann in the consultation process, as the preferred route for Navan-Dublin railway was announced in May, and will be passing through the proposed Tara World Heritage Site?

11. To ask the Minister for Environment has he included Eirgrid in the consultation process, as the Minister for Transport has proposed that the North-south Electrical Connector be placed underground along the M3 or the N3, thereby passing through the proposed Tara World Heritage Site?

12. To ask the Minister for Environment why did he not revoke archaeological licenses and halt excavations on the M3, in the Lismullin/Tara area, when the European Commission put the Government on notice that an EIA was required?

13. To ask the Minister for Environment how much money has been spent on outside legal counsel to defend this action in relation to the requirement for an EIA for the M3 project in the European Court of Justice

14. To ask the Minister for Environment what will be the consequences of for the M3 motorway if the ECJ finds against Ireland?

15. To ask the Minister for Environment what will be the consequences for the National Monuments Act and archaeological codes of practice, if the ECJ finds against Ireland?

16. To ask the Minister for Environment what will be the consequences for capital infrastructure projects, already under way, if the ECJ finds against Ireland in relation to EIAs.

17. To ask the Minister for Environment can he explain why he did present a new National Monuments Act as promised in the middle of 2008?

18. To ask the Minister for Environment in light of the legal action initiated by the European Commission, and his own admission that there are ‘gaps’ in how archaeological finds are dealt with in certain circumstances, can he explain why he is defending the EIA case being taken against Ireland by the European Commission, rather than amending the Act to adopt the recommendations of the Commission?

19. To ask the Minister for Environment how much money has been spent conducting a consultation for a revision of the National Monuments Act and archaeological policy?

20. To ask the Minister for Environment why he has agreed a Code of Practice with Eirgrid, when it is based on an admittedly flawed National Monuments Act?

21. To ask the Minister for Finance is he aware that the European Commission has sent a Reasoned Opinion to the Irish Government, to the effect that the National Development Plan 2007-2013, containing Transport 21, is in breach of EU law, due to the fact that it has not been subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) under the SEA Directive. SEA requires cost-benefit analysis, independent expert assessment and public participation in decision-making, and what was his response to the Commission?

22. To ask the Minister for Finance why does he continue to perform SEA on the NDP and Transport 21?

23. To ask the Minister for Finance is he aware that the M3 motorway, Navan-Dublin railway, and North-South Electrical Connector are all proposed to cut through the proposed Tara World Heritage Site, in breach of the SEA Directive?

24. To ask the Minister for Finance will he performed a new cost/benefit analysis on the M3 motorway, Transport 21 and National Development Plan, in light of the materially changed long-term economic circumstances?

25. To ask the Minister for Finance does he feel that the public private partnership approach to the M3 and other motorways is still economically viable, given the enormous amount of toll revenue that goes to multinational companies?

26 - To ask the Minister for Transport is he aware that the M3 motorway, the preferred route for the Navan to Dublin railway, and possibly the route for the North South Electrical connector will pass through that the area of the proposed UNESCO World Heritage Site and accompanying Buffer Zone, the Minister for the Environment is proposing and has he consulted with the Minister for the Environment on this matter:Has the National Roads Authority consulted with the Minister for the Environment on this matter; has he considered the consequences, if UNESCO tells the Irish Government to move the M3, the Dublin-Navan railway and the Electrical Connector and has he received advice on whether his proposal to run power lines along the M3 requires a new EIA?

27 - To ask the Minister for Transport regarding the current case being brought by the European Commission against Ireland, in the European Court of Justice, for failure to implement the EIA Directive, can the Minister please answer the following questions: why did the Minister not order the NRA to halt works on the M3, in the Tara area, when the European Commission put the Government on notice that an EIA was required, how much money has been spent on outside legal counsel to defend this action in the ECJ; What will be the consequences of for the M3 motorway if the ECJ finds against Ireland; What will be the consequences for the National Monuments Act and the NRA codes of practice, if the ECJ finds against Ireland; what will be the consequences for transport projects, already under way, if the ECJ finds against Ireland; and who bears the risk for costs if the ECJ orders a new EIA on the M3 and how much public money has been spent on the M3 Motorway so far?

28 - To ask the Minister for Transport considering the recent slow-down in the financial commercial activity, rural development, along with the highest increase in unemployment in Ireland in County Meath, has the Minister performed a new cost/benefit analysis on the M3 motorway?

29 - To ask the Minister for Transport Has the Minister considered that it would be much more cost effective, and indeed profitable, to route the M3, the Railway and the Electrical Connector along the same route to the west of the proposed Tara World Heritage Site, and service the town of Trim?

30 - To ask the Minister for Transport how much profit does the Government stand to make off the M3 motorway in toll revenue; and can you please supply the traffic projections, which these profits are based on?

31 - To ask the Minister for Transport how much profit does the Eurolink Consortium stand to make off the M3 motorway in toll revenue; and can you please supply the traffic projections, which these profits are based on?

by W. Finnerty. Fri Jul 03, 2009 09:58

My question is this:

"Is our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 constitutional?":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Is+National+Monuments+%28Amendment%29+Act+2004+Constitutional%3F&btnG=Search&aq=o&oq=&aqi=

When asking this question I am mindful of comments made by Dr Gerard Hogan (Constitutional Lawyer). For more on this subject please view the search results provided below.

Constitutionality of National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004, Dr Gerard Hogan:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Constitutionality+of+National+Monuments+%28Amendment%29+Act+2004%2C+Dr+Gerard+Hogan%3A&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

by old codger - pensioner Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:14

The Green ministers are just as corrupt as Fianna Fail. They are now wedded to them because they know that their betrayal of the people that voted for the Green Party , leaves them ruined in the next election. They have to do what Fianna Fail wants them to.
The government does not care about EU or UN fines it is not them that will pay them, it is the Tax payer and the stupid electorate that have let crime flourish in Irish politics for decades.
THIS IS A CORRUPT STATE HUMAN OR CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NON EXISTANT IN IRELAND THE LAND OF THE GREAT PRETENDERS.

VOTE NO TO LISBON They will not pay for their crimes but you will.

by Accuracy Sat Jul 04, 2009 01:06

I think I can count 10, and that includes ababy. where are the 30 members.
wow! that Td will have fun getting answers to all those questions - will they make any sense with all that lot!
The old codger is right, the people elected these people. they voted to destroy Tara and they just don't care. Get a life now and give it up. Its over and done with

by Anti-Troll Squad Sat Jul 04, 2009 01:29

Accuracy indeed.

The delegation stayed for over two hours, during which time many people came and went - as some could only get out of work for a lunch time visit. Joanna Tuffy isn't in the pictures either, but she was there, as was Arthur Morgan. In fact 30 was a conservative figure. Not that is matters. There were two people down the street protesting about Shell, and one other with a big sign protesting about child abuse.

There are three responsible Ministers, and many issues relating to the Hill of Tara, such as tolls, heritage, EU courts, transport, human rights, UNESCO, environment, budgeting, climate change, etc. And one thing is very clear. It's not over. In fact, it is just beginning.

That's why it was important enough for Sinn Fein, Labour, Fine Gael and Independent TDs and Senators to participate. Many of them are forming a political grouping for Tara.

The next political grouping they form will be called 'The Government' - so get used to it.

by W. Finnerty. Sat Jul 04, 2009 19:41

"Gerry Hogan, senior counsel for Mr Salafia, claimed the legislation used to push through the project (via Tara Complex) was unconstitutional."

The above quote appeared on the Daily Telegraph web site on January 14th 2006. Please see at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/1507761/Seat-of-Celtic-kings-is-threatened-by-motorway.html

Vincent Salafia settles the Euros 600,000 Tara court case, October 3rd 2006: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78793

Workers destroy Baronstown (Tara Complex) at 4am on Wednesday July 4th 2007: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83306 (Today is the 2nd anniversary of the destruction.)

Several others have been informed regarding the above:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/DrAnneJeffers/4July2009/Email.htm

by Vincent Salafia Sat Jul 04, 2009 20:06

William, thank you for raising the issue of costs issue, in relation to Tara, and putting it in a constitutional and human rights context.

So many environmental and other important cases have been forced to settle, or never made it into court in the first place, due to the punitive costs scheme here in Ireland, such as the Dominic Dunne case at Trim Castle, and cases involving the Corrib gas refinery.

It is a breach of human rights and access to justice provisions of the AARHUS Convention that litigants who act in the public interest, with nothing to gain, are hit with massive costs orders when they lose a case.

While your main focus seems to be to accuse the legal profession of corruption (and I am not here to defend the legal profession) I think it is somewhat misdirected, in that the main problem is that Ireland has not ratified the ARRHIS Convention in full, which would force judges to change their methodology in awarding punitive costs against litigants and in favour of the State. That must be done by the legislature, not the judiciary.

For more reading on this, see:

The Role of Pre-emptive / Protective Costs Orders in Environmental Judicial Review Proceedings
http://www.ucc.ie/en/lawsite/eventsandnews/previousevents/environapr2006/DocumentFile,16192,en.doc

The European Commission took a case which sought to change the costs scheme here in Ireland, but pretty much lost the case. TaraWatch had a meeting with the Commission a couple of weeks ago, and were informed that the Commission will seek to raise the issue again in a new case. Here is the recent Decision of the Advocate General, which went against the Commission:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007C0427:EN:HTML

by W. Finnerty. Sat Jul 04, 2009 21:45

Vincent,

As I feel sure you will already know, there is a well defined process in the Republic of Ireland for checking legislation which is believed to be unconstitutional, or suspected of being unconstitutional; and, it is described on one of our Government's web sites at http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/irish-constitution-1/unconstitutional_legislation_and_decisions .

Allowing for fact that Dr Gerard Hogan (Constitutional Lawyer) expressed the belief in a very public way -- in 2006 -- that our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 was unconstitutional, do you know why is it that this Act was not then checked using the process referred to in the paragraph above?

With regard to the closely related matter of the international United Nations Aarhus Convention Agreement (which the Republic of Ireland signed in 1998), it is of course subject to the "Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann" process contained in Article 29. 5. 1° of Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitution of the Republic of Ireland).

Some 11 years later, the Aarhus Convention Agreement has still not been laid before Dáil Éireann. Do you know why?

Please note that numerous attempts have been made during the past several years to try and remedy the irregular (I would say grossly corrupt) unconstitutional situation regarding the Aarhus Convention Agreement, as can be seen via the search result link provided below.

"Aarhus Convention Agreement not laid before Dail Eireann - why?":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Aarhus+Convention+Agreement+not+laid+before+Dail+Eireann+-+why%3F&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

by Vincent Salafia Sat Jul 04, 2009 22:03

William,

The reason the Government has not ratified AARHUS in full is because they predict a barrage of cases challenging their incompetent and corrupt projects if people don't have to worry about costs orders. Yes, the Constitution does require that all international agreements are ratified, as you noted, but there is no time limit. And unless the EU does something, it could easily be another 11 years before it is ratified. The Woodland League are considering taking a case on that issue, and I suggest you contact them.

Ger Hogan SC was one of three barristers who represented me in the High Court, along with Colm MacEochaidh and Frank Callanan SC. All three advised settling because in their opinion the case was doomed, as there had been major evidentiary problems, involving affidavits. It was the wrong case to go to the Supreme Court with, as it would have sealed the constitutionality of the Act. It was better to withdraw and let a fresh case go forward, which we knew was in the works. That is exactly what happened, albeit too late and too little, with An Taisce:

An Taisce seeks to challenge M3 construction
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0330/m3.html

If you are so concerned with this issue, why don't you follow the procedure yourself, and test the constitutionality of the Act using the mechanism you highlighted?

by De La Vega Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:54

You forgot one important question.

Q 32. To the members of the Cabinet: Are you aware Ministers that the leading member of the Tarawatch Group, the same person now putting these 31 questions to your collegues, is the same person responsible for bringing about the current National Monument Act as a result of his actions in the Carrickmines affair and so facilitated the ease with which you carried out the destruction of the Tara/Skryne Valley.

We call upon you all to now publically thank Mr. Salafia for the service he has done for the Finna Fail Party.

by W. Finnerty. Sun Jul 05, 2009 14:38

Vincent,

Regarding your Sat Jul 04, 2009 22:03 comment: "If you are so concerned with this issue, why don't you follow the procedure yourself, and test the constitutionality of the Act using the mechanism you highlighted?".

I have found that trying to challenge unconstitutional legislation in the Republic of Ireland is an extremely dangerous, health-threatening, and expensive business: in practice that is, and although it may appear very easy in theory and according to our Government's publicity on our Government web sites.

I have also found that the more effort I put put into the process of trying to challenge unconstitutional legislation, the bigger the amount of trouble I generally get back in return: so far, at least.

Correctly or otherwise, I have often felt that I may be a victim of my own success in certain ways, in the sense that by trying to challenge "unconstitutional legislation" (in this particular part of the world), and allowing for the way I am trying to do it, I may have touched on some extremely "raw nerves": because (I suspect) this is an issue which, on account of the treasonous nature of unconstitutional legislation, many in "high places" are really very desperate to cover up and hide from the general public -- at a time when the Internet is making such cover-ups more and more difficult for such people to achieve.

For evidence of the severe personal trouble which can result from such activities (carried out by an individual such as myself acting on their own as opposed to being a member of a group), you may wish to note the contents of the "To Whom It May Concern Letter" from Dr Michael McCavert GP dated October 28th 2005 (copy at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/DrMcCavert28October2005/Letter.htm ), which, as a matter of interest, was written some 20 months or so before the ancient heritage site at Baronstown was destroyed (as described at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83306 ).

Nevertheless, and despite all the trouble I've so far encountered, I would still be delighted "to test the constitutionality of the Act" (as you have put it) if I could find a lawyer who is willing to help me. Consequently, if you know of any lawyer who is willing to help me, it would be much appreciated if you could please let me know.

So far, please note that all of my own best efforts to find such a lawyer have failed to produce any useful results at all. Similarly, regarding the efforts of Gerard Madden (Omagh based Senior Social Worker); and, a sample of Mr Madden's numerous attempts to find me the legal help I need can be seen at: http://www.constitutionofireland.com/GerardMadden7November2005/Letter.htm -- which was approximately 19 months before the site at Baronstown was destroyed.

Regarding my own efforts, and just as an example, please note that I am still waiting for a reply from Barrister John Glynn (Principal Lawyer at Hogan & Co, Ballinasloe, County Galway) to the letter I sent to him through the registered post on April 3rd 2007 (copy at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/JohnGlynn3April2007/EmailLetter.htm ), which was of course three months before the Baronstown site was destroyed.

Further efforts of mine to get the legal help I need include the registered letter I sent to Chief Justice John L. Murray on August 28th 2007 (copy at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/ChiefJusticeMurray/28August2007/Letter.htm ). Unfortunately, I have never received any reply from Justice Murray either, and consequently I don't even know if he ever received the letter in question or not.

More recently, I have on several occasions during the past nine months or so raised the problem of I not being able to find the legal help I need with Dr Anne Jeffers (Consultant Psychiatrist), and with three other members of her team as well. Unfortunately, my understanding is that there is absolutely "nothing" any of them can do (as they see things) regarding this particular aspect of the overall set of problems I am at present struggling with: even though I have made it very clear to all concerned that finding the legal help I need is (as I see things) by far the most important issue for me. For additional information on this particular attempt of mine to get the legal help I need, via a senior member of the medical profession in the Republic of Ireland, please see list at: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dr+Ann+Jeffers%2C+William+Finnerty%3A&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Finally, and as you may not realise this, please note that I have long been concerned about unconstitutional legislation relating to issues other than Tara, as can be seen via the list provided below. (For the sake of completeness I have included Tara in the list.)

Unconstitutional legislation, Tara:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Unconstitutional+legislation%2C+Tara%3A&btnG=Google+Search&aq=o&oq=&aqi=

Unconstitutional legislation, Turoe:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Unconstitutional+legislation%2C+Turoe%3A&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Unconstitutional legislation, Superdumps (Kilconnell and Turoe):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Unconstitutional+legislation%2C+Superdumps+%28Kilconnell+and+Turoe%29%3A&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Unconstitutional legislation, PPP (Public Private Partnership) Toll Roads:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Unconstitutional+legislation%2C+PPP+%28Public+Private+Partnership%29+Toll+Roads%3A&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Unconstitutional legislation, Shell To Sea:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Unconstitutional+legislation%2C+Shell+To+Sea%3A&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Unconstitutional legislation, Shannon Airport:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Unconstitutional+legislation%2C+Shannon+Airport+%28Warport%29%3A&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Unconstitutional legislation, Money Masters:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Unconstitutional+legislation%2C+Money+Masters%3A&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Related link: http://www.humanrightsireland.com/