asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether he has received from residents in the immediate vicinity of Merrion Gates, Dublin an objection to the proposal of CIE to instal television monitored gates remotely controlled from Merrion Gates; whether he is aware that in the light of experience in other countries such a construction must be regarded as dangerous; that in particular there is nothing to prevent children from climbing over the gates; that television cameras may cause loss of privacy to private householders nearby; and that the proposed warning bell to be heard at least half a mile away is likely to be a considerable nuisance; and whether in all the circumstances he will take steps to ensure that CIE will adopt safer level crossings controls with less nuisance to the residents and risk to the children.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Level Crossing Control.
I have received from a number of residents in the vicinity of Sydney Parade level crossing objections to a proposal by CIE for the installation at the crossing of remotely controlled barriers. The proposed barriers would be fitted with skirts and would seal off the crossing completely while trains are passing. The barriers would not be automatically controlled but together with the railway signals protecting the crossing would be under the full manual control of the signalman at Merrion level crossing who would have the Sydney Parade crossing in view at all times by means of closed circuit television. Conventional type traffic lights would be provided at the crossing instead of flashing lights and bells as had originally been proposed. The barriers would be more difficult for children to climb than the existing conventional gates. CIE have informed me that the TV cameras at the crossing would have within their field of vision only the area of the crossing and the question of invasion of privacy does not arise. The Board are satisfied that the proposed installation would not jeopardise safety at the crossing and are not aware of any evidence to the contrary from any country abroad.
An order made by me under section 9 of the Transport Act 1958 would be necessary to enable the installation of the proposed barriers and CIE have made formal application to me for such an order and have forwarded copies of the draft order to Dublin Corporation and the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. Before deciding the matter I will, as required by statute, consult the Minister for Local Government and I will also give due consideration to any representations made by Dublin Corporation, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána or any other interested parties. At this stage I consider that CIE should be given the opportunity of explaining to those who have reservations about the proposal the various details of the proposed installation and the safeguards which would be provided. I have therefore arranged with CIE that they will, on request, meet representative deputations from interested parties to discuss the matter.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that this proposal was rejected a year ago by the Dublin City Engineer and Dublin Corporation in so far as they had power to reject it, and if it is not a fact that, despite representations from public representatives and the people, this apparatus is now being installed at Sydney Parade?
The Deputy asked if I was aware that objections had been raised by the corporation 12 months ago. My information is that this matter was discussed by CIE with the Garda authorities and the Corporation officials and it was understood that no objection was raised to this matter and that it was only when the matter was discussed at City Council level this year that the council decided to oppose it. As I have stated in the reply, the Minister has now arranged with CIE to have full and frank discussion with interested parties and if the Deputy is anxious to follow up this matter, arrangements could be made for him or for anyone in whom he is interested to have full discussion with CIE in this connection.
A year ago the Dublin City Engineer and the corporation in committee objected to this proposal, but, despite that, CIE are now installing this apparatus.
I do not accept that. The order has not been made for its installation. Any sort of finalisation of the matter could not proceed at this stage.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is the purpose of the change? Is it to effect economy? If so, what is the estimated saving on the new method as against the old?
I have no note as to the costing because this does not arise out of the Question, but I can have the matter looked into and can communicate with the Deputy.