TaraWatch
Suite 108
The Capel Building
Mary's Abbey
Dublin 7

Minister John Gormley
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Customs House
Dublin 1

30 June 2008

Dear Minister Gormley,

I am writing to you, to inform you of what I believe to be a material change in circumstances, in relation to the Hill of Tara and M3 motorway.

Yesterday, an article and an editorial that appeared in yesterday's Irish mail on Sunday, which quotes a published academic paper by Maggie Ronayne, Department of Archaeology, NUI Galway: 'The State We Are in on the Eve of World Archaeological Congress (WAC) 6: Archaeology in Ireland vs Corporate Takeover' in Public Archaeology, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 2008, 114-129.

The article quotes Ro Ronayne, a former contract archaeologist for the National Roads Authority (NRA), who held a number of archaeological licences for test-trenching sites along the M3 motorway. In the paper, she claims that she, and a number of other licence-holders, were forced to change findings in reports, and also had reports changed without their permission, by the NRA. These reports were in turn presented to the Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, who relied upon them in making his decision on whether or not to grant full excavation licenses, on sites which I alleged were national monuments.

As you are aware, I took a High Court action, to judicially review the Minister's directions of May 2005, which ordered the excavation and demolition of 38 archaeological sites between Navan and Dunshaughlin. The action was taken against the Minister for the Environment, Meath County Council, and the Attorney General, and not the NRA. However, the NRA immediately filed a motion to be considered a notice party, and were added to the action by Justice Smyth. They then immediately began an intensive cause of action, which involved a high volume of correspondence, motions, and expert affidavits. Justice Smyth ruled against me, saying that there were no national monuments present, and I was liable for approximately 600,000 euros in costs to the Government, and also was liable for my own costs, which were in the hundreds of thousands. I was forced to withdraw my Supreme Court appeal, due to my inability to pay these exorbitant costs. It now appears that the
NRA evidence was fabricated, and that there were indeed national monuments present.

Currently, I am taking legal advice, but I wanted to write to you immediately, and call on you to review the matter, and take prompt and decisive action, in regards to the above claims by Ms Ronayne. The second leg of my argument in the High Court was that there is one single greater Tara national monument, which the motorway traverses. This claim was also rejected by the Judge, in large part due to the NRA evidence. While the 38 sites have disappeared, the motorway is still a long way from the completion date of 2010, so this is still very much a live issue. I still maintain that the M3 is passing through the middle of the Tara national monument. The area of that monument is equivalent to the area that you are proposing should be a UNESCO World Heritage Site. We have written to UNESCO and informed them that we believe it would be a breach of the World Heritage Convention for them to inscribe Tara, without requiring a re-routing of the M3.

Assuming the claims by Ms Ronayne are true, and I find no reason to doubt that, the core responsibility for dealing with those claims, rests on your shoulders. One of the other claims I made in my case was that there is a constitutional imperative for the Minister for the Environment to protect the national heritage. That duty has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, in the Dunne case, over Carrickmines Castle, and does exist. It imposes a positive duty on you to act in the best interests of preservation.

When you took office, you stated that you had received advice from the Attorney General, that you could not undo any of the previous orders of the former Minister, Dick Roche, concerning Tara, unless there was “a material change in circumstances”. I believe the revelations by Jo Ronayne, combined with the observations of Maggie Ronayne, constitute such a material change in circumstances, which not only provides you with an opportunity, but imposes upon you a duty, to act in a positive manner and take whatever measures necessary to protect the entire Hill of Tara landscape and archaeological complex.

In my opinion, your constitutional imperative is to immediately place a Temporary Preservation Order on the entire Hill of Tara archaeological complex, and to undertake a public enquiry into exactly what has transpired, with regards to the archaeological assessments used to justify the current route. While I may have legal remedies available to me, it should not be left to private citizens to protect sites such as Tara, by risking life and limb entering the Courts. Protecting Tara is your primary responsibility, and this change in circumstances offers you an opportunity to use your ministerial powers to the fullest.

Yours sincerely,

Vincent Salafia