Deputy John Kelly is in possession.
Dublin Transport Authority Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
When this debate was adjourned on 10 June last I had been drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill contains a weakness in that it does not seem to recognise, even obliquely, any dimension of life in this capital city except transport. It is true that the Bill is expressly about transport but it seems a pity that there should be no recognition in the Bill or in the Minister's speech that a city is more than simply a road network covered by a network of public transport. I went on to say that it was only the latest example of the kind of attention which this capital city gets and which leaves it, on any objective scale, very low down the list of European capitals in terms of amenities and appearance and the preservation of the things which once made it admirable. I suggested, not for the first time, that the condition of the city was such that it needed not just a transport authority but a complete department, perhaps a separate local government structure different from that enjoyed in other parts of the country, in order to solve Dublin's problems. I put forward this idea as one which should be supported not only by Dublin Deputies. It is just as much the capital city of Deputies coming from Loop Head or Malin Head as for Deputies who live in Dublin 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
The Bill does not seem to mention or authorise the provision of facilities which are relevant to transport and which are normal in large cities in Europe and even in Britain, for example, the pedestrianisation of city centre areas. This has been tried here but only in a tentative and half-hearted way. The only teeth which the Bill seems to contain regarding the control of traffic could be summed up in a few provisions about bollards and ramps.
Just before I reported progress I was speaking about the rapid transit system, the first instalment of which has arrived in the form of the DART system. I praised those operating the system and the public for the respect which they show it. Nothing that I said then about six months ago has changed as far as I have been able to observe. It still remains a credit to the Dublin public and to the CIE staff who take pride in operating the system.
I object very much to the DART system being made a target for macrosocial criticism. I often hear it said that money has been poured into this system which is supposed to serve only the affluent suburbs, whereas nothing like enough money is put into the road systems and transport serving suburbs which are not so affluent. It is not the case that the DART system serves only affluent suburbs. It is quite true that it runs through some of them but it also runs through districts which are not affluent. Anyone travelling on a DART train at any time of the day would be able to see that the people sitting around him represented a cross-section of Dublin citizens, some well off and some poorly off.
The fact that the system runs there, that it represented an extremely heavy capital investment and that it would require twice the number of passengers to justify itself at present is not attributable merely to the decision-making power of the people living in Dublin 4 or on the Howth Road. It is attributable to the fact that a permanent way was already there and in service. There was a tradition of using it. It is not as though anybody had decided merely to convenience people in comfortable suburbs by pouring enormous sums of money into the construction of an entirely new track. This was the only suburban track which Dublin still possessed. I do not think there is anybody in the House who does not regret that the other suburban track from the old Harcourt Street station to Bray via Shanganagh Junction was torn up about 20 years ago. I hope some day to see that track reinstated.
We have planned the city in completely the wrong way by not taking advantage of that extremely expensive infrastructural investment. In the case of the Kingstown line substantial private investment was made more than 150 years ago. We should have planned the extension of our city in such a way as to make use of that very expensive and very much underused network. The Chair represents a county constituency and must have noticed that within five minutes of leaving Kings-bridge station you are out in ragweed country which is no longer built up and there are fields on either side, whereas in districts in which there is no railway there are miles of built-up areas with poor transport. Instead of building Tallaght and Blanchardstwon in the way they have been built, although they are not very far from rail lines, we should have built our extended suburbs along those lines. I am thinking of people who would wish to commute into the city or across country. That would have avoided many social problems and expenses which the State has to bear in terms of providing bus services. However, it is not too late to learn. The lines that CIE made an effort to bring into use as far as Maynooth should be considered for eventual upgrading and incorporation into the rapid rail transit system with whatever necessary spurs — I am sorry it should have to be spurs — to serve Tallaght which does not have a rail line running through it and Blanchardstown which has a rail line running close to it.
In his speech the Minister referred to the rapid rail transit system and he spoke of the difficulty of getting the feeder services off the ground. I do not know how well they will work. I suspect that the utility of the service will diminish rapidly as one gets inland. I do not think many people would want to take a bus from, say, Ranelagh to go to the railway station at Sydney Parade or Lansdowne Road to travel to some point in the centre of the city or a short distance to the north. I am not an expert. I take it for granted that CIE have done their homework and their market research and that they know that, if they can provide feeder bus services, they will get more people using the DART services.
The Minister said that CIE have not been able to get the feeder services going because of industrial difficulty with regard to a squabble about one-man buses. I will say something that the Minister did not say. Perhaps he was under the constraint that Ministers are under but which does not weigh so heavily on back-benchers. It is simply not tolerable that an industrial dispute — I do not want to prejudge it — should prejudice this immense public investment on which many thousands of pounds are going out of the window in interest charges every day. It is not tolerable in a small country like this that we should have had to carry on our backs this damned dispute about one-man buses for the past 25 years. I do not care who I offend, whether it be one union or all 28 unions that serve CIE.
There are 28 unions servicing a concern that would be lost inside a large private corporation in Japan or in the United States. There are 22,000 employees and they need 28 unions to represent them. It is not tolerable that the ordinary mass of people, which includes many trade unionists, should have to carry that burden. It is not tolerable that taxpayers — including these workers wearing their taxpayers hat — should be asked to carry the load of sustaining a service that cannot be made profitable because an agreement cannot be got about one-man buses. I know there are cities in England where the one-man bus service has not yet arrived and no doubt that is the reason we are holding on to the system in this country.
As I have often said here, we cannot take any step forward unless we make sure the English have taken it well ahead of us. However, on the Continent there is no such thing as a two-man bus. Our system imposes a very severe burden on the public. I am speaking as a public representative and not merely as somebody against the trade unions which is not the case——
The Soviet Union has one-man buses.
That does not tell us a lot because over there the decisions are made without any form of consultation. They do not have free collective bargaining or free anything. A person has to take the goods supplied by the State and at the prices determined by the State. A person accepts the wages that are paid by the State and lives in a flat allotted to him by the State and if he does not like that he can damn well lump it. That is the system over there. However, Deputy Wilson made a valid point and I do not wish to belittle it. If it is possible to have a one-man bus system even in a country like the Soviet Union which is often able to achieve the appearance of full employment by overmanning State enterprises, I cannot see why we should have to pay for something more expensive. Any public representative who, out of fear of causing resentment among the unions, neglects his duty to speak for the mass of people, including many trade unionists in their dimension as taxpayers, is not doing his job.
The Minister said:
I must express grave disappointment at the failure of CIE and the unions to agree so far on the provision of feeder services for the DART. If the huge public investment in DART is to be even half justified, it is absolutely imperative that these feeder services commence without further delay.
That was last June. The Minister said:
CIE and the unions should know that if they are not prepared to provide the feeder services there are many private operators who would be so prepared and I am under some considerable pressure to consider this option.
That was six months ago but there are still no feeder services, public or private. Time is going by and much money has been lost. I should like the Minister to explain what has happened in the past six months to the feeder services. Will he state what progress he is making to give CIE, management and unions, a shock by obliging these services to be provided by private enterprise, even if only as an experiment?
In section 29 there is a reference to the Dublin Transport Authority as being a licensing authority. They will have the function of licensing operators, presumably that means private as well as public operators. Subsection (2) states:
In deciding whether or not to grant such a licence, the Authority shall have regard to the public intereset regarding the provision of passenger road services in the Authority's functional area.
I should like the Minister to explain what he means by public interest. I admit this is a general phrase and we use it very often without feeling the need to explain it, but it does not occur in the definitions section and because of the nature of this subject matter it is important that we know what is in the Minister's mind. Is it a public interest consideration if money can be saved? I should have thought most citizens, groaning under the load of taxation, would say yes: indeed I think they would regard it as one of the top elements of the public interest if public money could be saved. Has the Minister got a mental reservation along the lines that the public interest is sufficiently regarded if some element in industrial relations is taken into account in deciding whether to permit the operation of a private licensee? I sincerely hope that what the Minister has in mind in the public interest has nothing to do with industrial relations because we cannot afford the kind of industrial relations we have had in CIE during the years.
In sections 23, 24 and 25 where the functions of the Authority are mentioned there are some curious expressions. They lead me to wonder if this is the only Authority on the face of the earth with no authority to issue instructions or to make decisions. The Authority's functions in relation to planning are central because city planning is inconceiveable without regard to transport planning and transport planning is inconceivable without regard to the way the city is growing and has grown. Section 23 provides:
The Minister may, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, from time to time make grants to the Authority of such amounts as with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, he considers necessary to enable the Authority to meet its administrative and general expenses.
I can make recommendations. So can Deputy Wilson. Mick McGilligan's daughter Mary Ann can make recommendations to the Minister. In other words, this Authority will not be entitled to say that this or that service shall be provided. They are only allowed to make recommendations. They are allowed to make recommendations to the planning authority part or all of whose functional area falls within the authority's functional area as to the content of the Authority's development plan, etc. It is the same in respect of planning applications and planning appeals. In this regard it is not even recommendations: all they can do is to furnish observations. I will furnish them with observations but they will pay no attention to them; they are not under any obligation to have regard to the observations furnished to them by this Authority. I say in a general way, and I should like to hear the Minister deal with it in his reply, that it seems to me the whole area of the relationship between the Authority and the planning body is extremely feeble. The Authority do not seem to be giving any kind of authoritative input, something one would expect of a body being called an authority.
I am not happy with the composition of the Authority. It has been somewhat sweated down from its original form. According to section 2 of the Schedule, the Authority will consist of not more than 12 members appointed by the Minister, including not more than four persons who for the time being are members of the local authorities in the Authority's functional area. I do not see that there is any case whatever — I hope this will not be regarded as undemocratic, because even democracy has limits — for including four amateurs on the Authority. The democratic element in regard to management and relationships with the Authority consists of the Minister, answerable to this House, and it is this House that controls him, that can put in or out the Taoiseach who appointed him. There is no need for this tipping of the cap to the democratic principle by putting four passengers on this Authority. That is what they will be unless, by some fluke, there is somebody in Dublin Corporation, Dublin County. Council or Dún Laoghaire Borough Council, or some of the new councils coming up, who is an expert, who knows something about transport above and beyond complaining about its shortcomings.
I do not see any reason to put four local politicians on this Authority. It means it will have four fewer places for people who know something of the subject, like knowing something of why we get convoys of seven or eight buses on a road, other than merely complaining about them. I hope I will not offend some members of local authorities, like Deputy Joe Doyle when I say this, but those four members will be four extra wheels on a coach that already will have eight wheels, I hope, of expert people. All the other four will do is to create the friction that wheels in contact with the ground usually do: they generally hold up the speed with which the Authority may make improvements.
On private operators, I want to come back to something the Minister said in his introduction, not in connection simply with the DART services or with the feeder service for the Dublin Area Rapid Transit. The Minister said:
While there may well be scope for the provision by licensed private operators of limited or specialised bus services in the Dublin area, it is not possible at this stage to indicate the likely extent of such provision. As I have said, the establishment of the DTA and the reorganisation of CIE will provide the environment in which CIE management and staff should be able to deliver an efficient and reliable service.
CIE have been going for 40 years. What is wrong with the structure they have? Why can they not deliver the services we would like to see without this new Authority? What is there in the existing Authority and structure which prevents CIE management and staff from getting on with one another and making sure that the people who are paying for the whole show will get a decent service? The Minister said:
It would be inconsistent at the same time to prevent private operators from providing scheduled services on any extensive basis, even if they were in a position to do so. CIE must avail of the opportunity provided for it, however, and no doubt the DTA would keep the licensing in question under continuous review.
As I said, CIE have been there for 40 years — I remember as a small boy the time of the change. CIE have had plenty of time, and warning after warning, thunderbolt after thunderbolt, from inside and outside the House, and there is no more room for pussyfooting. There is not even the room left by the Minister last June about the pressure he was getting to have private operators provide the feeder services for DART. Here we are, six months later, still without the feeder services, public or private. The Minister should regard himself as having no option but to give himself statutory powers if necessary to put the private sector, even if only as an experiment or as a warning, into some parts of the Dublin city services, and even provincial services.
We often hear the argument that the private sector is interested only in the cream, in the profitable bits — they would like to run the 6, 7A and 8 buses but they do not want to run the two weekly buses from Manorhamilton to Clones. I can see the force of that argument and, if it were so, I would not have private enterprise in either, but even as an experiment I would cut CIE services rather like a sandwich cake and parcel or option out by tender concessions to operate specified parts of the services, and anybody who took on a profitable bit would be obliged to take on a bit that up to the present incurred losses. I would not sell out or let or make any concessions of the good bits alone. I realise the social service bit is there and any Deputy from a thinly populated country area will know that more forcibly than I am saying it. However, we might be able to get private enterprise to take on a good bit joined to a bad bit, to take on, so to speak, a package without charging the people the subvention of more than £2 million per week which CIE at the moment are losing. I do not call it a commercial loss in the strict sense, because of the social dimension.
I admit that many national transport authorities in Europe lose money. Most of the rail services in Europe, if not all of them, lose money. I am not singling CIE out as being bad: I am only singling them out as costing the Irish people more than we can afford. It may be that other countries could bear £2 million a week, £112 million last year, but we cannot afford that type of subvention.
The Minister must look around urgently for some way of shedding that burden and placing it on some other shoulder. I am not saying this because I am committed to Thatcherite policies or anything of that kind. I merely wish the State to be clear of the burden of paying out week after week £2 million that it cannot afford. The idea that a monopoly of public transport is defensible in a country where it is costing so much requires to be defended. The onus is on those who believe in a transport monopoly for a State body to prove that there is no other way in the public interest of providing the service. It is a fair point to draw attention to those Articles of the Constitution which deal with property and with enterprise and to show that far from suggesting that the Constitution leans in favour of public enterprise or towards nationalisation, it enthrones private enterprise and states that the State shall endeavour to supplement private enterprise wherever necessary. In a State like ours, there is no room for the contention that a public monopoly of any public utility is the natural and necessary formula.
While I cannot accuse CIE of waste, I cannot absolve them entirely either on that score because it is in the nature of all public authorities who make investments other than out of their own pockets, to spend money needlessly. This may happen in some small way or it may be in a big way but money dribbles out of the public purse in a way that it could not dribble out of the pocket of a private individual because he depends on his money. As I have said here before, the State leaks money at every joint. At every joint the State is squirting £100,000 here, or a couple of million somewhere else. As it moves along the earth, it lards it, as Shakespeare said of Falstaff. Money is spent on criteria and after a degree of diligence which no private individual or family could afford.
I have spoken with praise, which I sincerely mean, of the people who run the DART service and who are evidently proud of that service, but contemporary with the establishment of the DART has been installed at Westland Row station a row of shining stainless steel barriers. The idea is that one places his ticket in one of those machines and the ticket flashed up the other end while at the same time the barrier is released thereby allowing the passenger to walk through. There are 12 of these barriers at the station, as many as might perhaps be required in the Montparnasse station of the Paris underground at rush hour or on Christmas Eve. Such a number is not called for at Westland Row. I have not yet seen any of these barriers in use. The stream of passengers there rarely reaches a point where it is not possible for a single ticket checker to clip the little green squares out of the passengers' tickets. I am referring to that station because it is the only one apart from my local station that I use but I use it frequently. If you or I were running a train service, or if we were shareholders in the operation, we could not afford that kind of expenditure. I could not put a figure on the cost of these barriers but I am sure it was not insignificant.
I do not go around snooping to see where money is being wasted by CIE. I am speaking only from what I have seen but I am sure anybody else here could relate the same sort of experience. It is an example of the way the State leaks money but it is in the nature of things that that would happen in State controlled operations. However, it should be in the nature of a Government such as this one, who are committed to trying to reduce State expenditure, to reduce the number of areas in which the State is exposed to the risk of losing money because of slack management. Management is not necessarily more slack in this case than in any other but in a State enterprise there must be more slackness in that regard because the money is not coming from the pockets of those whose decisions result in the losses.
Section 40 deals with road works and I have some fault to find with this section. Ostensibly the provisions seem sensible. It is provided that the Authority may direct, in respect of any public road in their functional area, the periods during which, the times at which and the manner in which road works may be carried out. However, there is no definition in the definition section of "road works". The Minister of State who is present will realise that I am not making a cheap debating point in saying this but such a definition should be included. In the absence of any such definition I am left in doubt as to whether what is meant is road works connected with road improvements. In other words, are we talking about road widening, road narrowing or the incorporation on a roadway of some element of traffic apparatus such as bollards? If what is meant are works carried out by public utilities and which involve digging up the road, that should be specified. If such works are not included, it is not worth including the section in the Bill because it should encompass works carried out by Bord Telecom, by the Gas Company, by the ESB and by the water works and sewerage departments. A similar point was made in a submission from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and which I think was submitted after the publication of the Bill. That group said that they had long been dissatisfied with the manner in which road works are carried out in the city. Well may they be dissatisfed. I have lived in several cities in Europe and I know many more but I do not know of any in which there are pavements so scarred by road works as it the case in Dublin. There has been a series of excavating and of filling in, sometimes carelessly with tar flung into them and other times not so carelessly.
The chamber of commerce continued in their submission that it was not clear to them that there is adequate planning of works, integration of the requirements of different utilities and a sense of urgency in completing road works once initiated with minimum disturbance to traffic flows and to the vital business interests of those directly affected by such works. One need only step outside the door and into Merrion Street to find an example of what is meant. I do not know what is going on there. It does not seem to be anything radical, but radical or trivial those works have been in progress for up to three months or perhaps more. I consider the chamber of commerce submission to be totally justified and I think anyone else living in this city would be of the same opinion. The Authority ought to be given specifically the power to control the operation of road works, including those required for the purpose of public utilities and not merely for the road section itself.
Section 33 refers to parking prohibitions. I have no fault to find with this section except that I would have liked it specifically to have empowered the Authority to do something which for all I know may be within the jurisdiction of the Garda or of some other body. I refer to specifying hours during which loading and unloading may take place. It is common to find narrow streets and lanes in this city, where commercial vehicles are parked, either completely blocked or where the stream of traffic is reduced to one lane. I appreciate that people must do business and that loading and unloading must take place but in some continential cities, if not in all, this operation is permitted only at certain times of the day. These are usually very early morning hours or late evening hours. I realise that if a supplier or a wholesaler was asked to put staff on the road to deliver goods at, say, 7 a.m., he would have overtime problems and so on and that such an operation would not be economic for him but there is no reason for the citizens of Dublin having to endure such inconvenience and irritation while the citizens of other European capitals are spared that problem.
I realise that, if this were to be regulated along the lines I suggested, it would put costs up for somebody; but we have to weigh up the social advantage of marginally increased costs, perhaps not even that but better organisation between distributors and retailers on the one hand, and the social cost to the public by having a sluggish traffic flow of the sort which frequently develops at the bottom of Leeson Street at the St. Stephen's Green junction, where at all hours of the day, there are large vehicles double parked supplying the eight or ten shops on either side of the street. That situation is duplicated all over the city. The occasional traffic warden or member of the Garda Síochána who initiates a prosecution against the distributor is regarded as persecuting them. I see their point because they have to do their business, but it should be regulated in such a way that they have an hour or two in the early or late part of the day when minimal disruption would be caused to the public.
The last point I want to make arises on section 10 which deals with the Authority's functional area. Subsection (1) reads:
Subject to subsection (2), the Authority shall perform its functions in relation to the area...comprising the county borough of Dublin and the administrative county of Dublin.
What has the administrative boundary to do with the transport problem? Where is the relationship between an administrative boundary, which as often as not coincides with a barony or something which goes back to the days of Richard III, and the transport problem which arises because of the patterns on which land is acquired and developed? There is no correlation. Perhaps I have not understood this properly and I do not mean to offend anyone in the Department, but I would have said that was an insufficiently thought out provision.
Is there any reason why the Authority should not, within limits, be given power to determine their own functional area in such a way as to include the solidly built up areas to the west and to the south — as far as Leixlip on the western road and Bray or beyond on the southern road, both of which are very large towns in different counties? Will there be administrative difficulties because the Authority's writ does not go beyond the bridge coming into the village of Leixlip? All the building has started at the far side of the bridge. Are we to draw the same conclusion about the point at which the Bray Road runs into Wicklow? That is a nonsensical provision. I urge the Minister to look at it again and ask himself where is the correlation between a transport policy and administrative boundaries which, to some extent, are historically determined, and whether it would not be more sensible to give himself the power to determine from time to time, perhaps by order subject to the usual annulling resolution in this House, the area within which the Authority should function.
In spite of the reservations I have expressed and my criticism of this proliferation of public bodies when there is no real reason why the existing bodies should not do their jobs properly, like everybody else I wish the Bill well and hope it will result in a better transport system from the point of view of the transport user and the taxpayer.
Proinsias de Rossa
I should like to welcome in principle the idea behind this Bill in that there is an obvious need for an Authority to co-ordinate the various aspects of transportation and traffic control in the Dublin area. However, in my view the Bill before us has some very serious deficiencies and perhaps on Committee Stage we will be able to deal in more detail with them.
It would obviously be of benefit to achieve a co-ordination between the different agencies which at present deal with traffic control — Dublin Corporation, the Garda, the Department of the Environment, CIE and so on. There is a range of bodies with an input into how our traffic is regulated and it is very important to have a central authority to deal with that problem.
The traffic problems facing Dublin at present are, I believe, the direct result of a failure of Governments in the past to ensure that public transport services were developed as the population of the greater Dublin area expanded. County Dublin is the fastest growing urban area in western Europe but our public transport system is possibly the most underdeveloped in any capital city in the EC. The opening of the DART last year was an important and significant advance, and the rapid transit system should be extended. When considering comparative costs in relation to the DART and its development, it is important that we put into the equation the vast cost of the development of roads in the city and county areas. Rarely do we hear anybody speak of the cost of site acquisition, land acquisition, the acquisition of property and so on, which is necessary to provide the huge dual carriageways, overpasses and by-passes which are being built at present. If we were to carry out a proper cost benefit analysis and comparison with the real cost of alternatives I am certain that the rapid transit system or DART as it is commonly known, would be seen as a very economical way of ensuring the provision of a modern public transportation system for the city and county areas.
Obviously this system is unsatisfactory at present in that it only services some of the better off areas of the city, running from Howth to the Bray area, but CIE have substantial plans for developing that service. There is no reason why the huge working class populations in areas such as Ballyfermot, Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Finglas and Ballymun, should not be serviced by that system. It is a question of whether the Government, not just this Government but previous Governments and perhaps future Governments, are prepared to invest in public transport rather than in the development of infrastructure which continues the growth away from public to private transport.
There are very clearly benefits for the citizens of the greater Dublin area in having a more efficient and better organised public transport system. There is no benefit at all to anyone whether a passenger in a bus or a private car owner who gets stuck in a traffic jam, in O'Connell Street or along the Quays at peak time when the atmosphere is polluted causing other kinds of problems, stresses and strains. Recent statistics show that 64 per cent of commuters in Dublin travel to work by car compared with 32 per cent who travel by bus and 4 per cent by train. If the quality of life in the city is not to deteriorate further, the aim must be to shift the balance dramatically in favour of public transport.
There must be a specific Government policy to that effect. There is no sense in the Government saying that it is their wish to have a living city and cleaner air while, at the same time, pursuing policies directly opposed to that. It can be argued that, but for the recession and the drop in sales of new cars, the conditions on roads around the greater Dublin area would be far worse than they are at present. We should plan now to change our direction in relation to transport. We are talking about getting people from one place to another in the most effective and efficient manner in terms of pounds and in terms of the environment.
This Bill is welcome in that it attempts to co-ordinate a number of areas of traffic and transport. It contains a number of reasonably progressive ideas. However, it combines with these ideas a conservative approach to transport planning. It is useful to have a co-ordinating Authority dealing with Dublin transport but the powers given to the Authority in this Bill make it a fairly weak Authority.
My first objection to this Bill relates to the composition of the Authority. It is not acceptable that authorities of this kind should be nominated by the Minister in power. This means that there are political appointments which will dominate the Authority. There should be provision in this Bill to ensure that there are nominees from other interested bodies such as An Foras Forbartha and CIE. There should be nominating procedures similar to the reformed procedures in regard to An Bord Pleanála.
The concept of a transportation Authority is in line with the practice in Great Britain. For instance, there is the London Transport Authority and the Passenger Transport Executives in Merseyside, South Yorkshire and so on. In Britain the Passenger Transport Executives actually operate the buses and in some cases the trains. There is a grave danger that the Dublin Transport Authority will become just another layer of bureaucracy standing in the way of better services. At the moment various commuters', tenants', residents' associations and other groups have direct access to CIE district management. There is infinite potential under this new Authority for CIE to evade responsibility in relation to what they ought to do.
There are some other defects in the Bill. Part IV does not specify the conditions applying to the issuing of licences which exist under the 1932 Road Transport Act. Under section 12 of the original Act, among other things, the Minister had the power to specify the service frequency, the number of vehicles to be allotted, the type and colour of the vehicles to be provided by the operator and so forth. Section 12 of the same Act allowed the Minister, in laying down conditions for licences, to specify the wages and conditions of employees. I am not sure whether or not those sections were amended subsequently as I had not time to investigate it to that extent. It is important, in view of the effective black economy operating at present from which a number of private bus operators draw their labour, that this Authority should have power to specify the conditions for employees and the wages that should be paid. There should also be a relationship between the wages and conditions applying to private operators and the wages and conditions applying to CIE workers. Otherwise one could not realistically claim that there is fair competition between them.
Another disappointing aspect of the Bill is that it does not lay down guidelines as to the financing of public transport. Section 21 allows the Authority to make recommendations on expenditure priorities. However, the fundamental question as to how we finance public transport is not dealt with. At present Dublin buses recover their costs with ticket revenue to an extent far higher than in most European countries. There is nothing in this Bill to indicate that the Government are coming any closer to fulfilling their promise to pay a public service obligation grant which was promised some time ago. If such a grant were paid to public transport operators, as it is in the UK, the question of deficits would be brought into perspective and we would have less talk of CIE having an unfair advantage vis-á-vis private operators.
On a more general note, it is interesting that, in borrowing the concept of a metropolitan transport authority from the British practice and legislation, the Government did not see fit in this legislation to provide for the establishment of transport users consultative committees. When we were taking ideas from the UK legislation we should have taken up this idea of a users consultative committee as well. It seems that practically everybody is consulted in relation to public transport, except the users.
The thrust of the Bill seems to be based on the premise that Dublin's traffic can be reformed by the establishment of a co-ordinating organisation. That is a false premise. The traffic problems in Dublin can only be solved by infrastructural investment in roads and public transport, by having a proper balance between the investment in both, by ensuring that the development of our roads does not affect the environment of those who live in the city or on the outskirts of the city and that an adequate public transport system is available which will avoid people having to invest in cars, which they can ill afford at present, to get from one part of the city to the other. The proposed Authority have this power and also they will have no power to operate services directly themselves.
While I cannot see the Bill improving the situation except in a very marginal way, it deserves support as far as it goes, but we have only scratched the surface of the problem of transport and traffic in the Lucan area.
The transport scene, especially in Dublin, has been of great concern to public representatives and for that reason I welcome the Dublin Transport Authority Bill now before the House. There have been a number of improvements in traffic problems over the last 10 years, with the road development programmes which I need not enumerate here, from the earlier Stillorgan road development to the more recent Palmerstown, Santry and Swords by-passes. I welcome the current schemes of major road construction such as the airport road, and we must add to this the substantial volume of the continuing smaller schemes of road widening, resurfacing and improvement. In recent years three new bridges have been built across the River Liffey. The traffic management initiatives in the area of one-way streets, including traffic reversal on the quays and the extensive bus lane provisions, improvement in car parking, more off-street car parks and more meters to facilitate short term parkers are all welcome. The electrification of the Howth-Bray railway line gives a new standard of speed and comfort to commuter traffic. Recently Dublin Corporation announced that shortly they will introduce an infra-red signal and central computer control for a test period of two months aimed at easing the movement of Dublin city buses. The system will be installed at nine traffic light locations in the city, allowing Dublin Corporation traffic controllers to give buses on more than a dozen routes more rapid passage through critical junctions by giving the green light for as long as necessary to get buses through. This system has worked extremely well in European cities and it should go a long way towards easing traffic problems here.
All these measures have contributed and will contribute to an easement of the traffic situation in Dublin. The programme which I have just outlined reveals a determination to tackle a problem which if left unattended would have created chaos and virtually seized up the city with the gravest implications for the commercial and economic life and activity of the city. It is in the above context that we should approach the Dublin Traffic Authority Bill.
The task force who were a forerunner to this Bill have been functioning for the past number of years and working fairly well. This has encouraged me in the hope that, given the right co-ordination structure, the various elements in the total traffic scene, the Department of the Environment, Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council, CIE, the Department of Communications, the Garda and the Department of Justice will launch a sustained and concerted effort for further improvement. The Dublin Transport Authority's outline in this Bill seems to be a co-ordinating structure rather than a radical reallocation of authority and resources.
I must agree with Deputy Kelly here. I would have preferred to see this legislation creating an authority with greater teeth and possibly with the setting up of a specialist traffic law enforcement agency. The Bill leaves traffic responsibility still with the Garda. This is really a mistake. The Garda are fully occupied at present with the prevention of crime, including vandalism, prosecution of offenders, control of drugs, policing of crowds and protection of persons and property. It is of concern, therefore, that all traffic law enforcement, with the exception of limited parking control, remains with the Garda. Traffic law enforcement needs sustained interest which the Garda force with their full range of concerns will not be able to provide.
Having said that, I am pleased to note that a provision in the Bill moves the traffic warden function to the DTA. This is sensible, but it is important that the move be more than a cosmetic change in reporting lines. The wardens as a force have manifestly not been well managed, and it is right that they be managed by the DTA whose priority is in the area of traffic and transportation rather than by the Garda who have other vital responsibilities, as I have outlined. Let me refer to a report on the analysis of parking characteristics at parking meters just to show how inefficient the warden system under the control of the Garda is at present. The survey recorded 8,518 parking offenders at parking meters. Of these the survey also recorded that only 530 or 6.2 per cent received tickets.
There has been public disquiet for a long time at the manner in which roadworks have been carried out in the city. The engineers of the road and traffic department of Dublin Corporation have done their very best to co-ordinate road repairs but up to now statutory authorities such as An Bord Gáis, BTE and the ESB could open the roads without seeking anyone's approval. This has been remedied in the Bill which provides under section 40 that the DTA are empowered to regulate the timing and manner of execution of roadworks in their functional area. Also they are empowered to see that these roadworks are carried out with the minimum disruption of traffic and with a sense of urgency. Deputy Kelly was not too sure of the interpretation of that section, but I hope that anyone who intends to open the roads for any purpose will now have to get the permission of the Authority.
In the area of public transport services, which is dealt with under Part IV of the Bill, the Authority will set objectives in relation to the extent and standards of bus and suburban rail services to be provided in the Authority's functional area by CIE within their Exchequer subvention. The Authority will also monitor CIE's progress on meeting such objectives. This will impose a healthy discipline on CIE and will enable value for money to be assessed as far as the Exchequer's subvention is concerned.
I welcome the proposals concerning the licensing of car parks and the involvement of the DTA in the approval of charges. I welcome also the proposed powers of the DTA in relation to road ramps. Dublin Corporation have for some time now been carrying out experiments in this area which have proved very successful. A number of small residential roads in Dublin are being used continuously as rat runs, and the erection of ramps will have a desired effect. It would be very regrettable if section 32 of the Bill was to hold up or hinder in any way the pilot scheme at present in operation in Dublin Corporation, although I accept the principle that road ramps should be used in a limited way only.
Deputy Kelly spoke about the pedestrianisation of large zones in the inner city in common with what happens in European cities. He said it had been tried in Grafton Street in a halfhearted manner and with mixed results. I do not share his view on that. I think it has worked very successfully in the parts of the city where it is in operation at present. It was also his view that it should be tried in a wider area of the city, perhaps in an area connecting the northside with the southside. Deputy Kelly may be interested to know that Dublin Corporation have plans in hand for connecting the pedestrianised Grafton Street with the pedestrianised Henry Street. It is important for pedestrians in the city to have a corridor to walk through from one shopping area to another. However, there is a problem in regard to pedestrianising streets in that it leads to a lot of illegal street trading, but that is a matter for another day.
Mention was made of the rapid rail systems. I would have preferred if that system had been introduced from the centre of Dublin to Tallaght and not on the Howth-Bray line. All that was needed on the latter line was new rolling stock. Had I been a member when the scheme was given the go ahead I would have expressed the view that the money allocated would have been better spent on a Dublin-Tallaght route.
Deputy Kelly referred to the lack of feeder buses to the rapid rail service and I agree with his sentiments in that regard. I read recently that CIE intend to introduce an auto-fare system whereby passengers on entering the bus will place the correct fare into a tube. I understand that the company intends to introduce that system which may solve the problem of feeder buses.
The last two speakers expressed disagreement about the composition of the new transport authority. Deputy Kelly said there was little point in appointing representatives of local authorities to the board, but I disagree. Local authority members deal with three main problems — housing, planning and traffic. All local representatives in the Dublin area deal with those problems daily and it would be a pity if a transport authority for the city did not have representation from local authorities. They would not be free passengers, they would pay their way.
Deputy De Rossa suggested that the board will be filled by political nominees of the Minister of the day. That might have been the practice in the past, but the Government have taken a definite line on this. It is their policy, as occurred in regard to the appointment of members of An Bord Pleanála, to appoint the people best qualified.
It has been clear for some time that the traffic and transport problems in Dublin are imposing high costs on industry, public transport and private motorists. That trend will continue until traffic problems are solved. The establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority, with its comprehensive range of functional powers, will go a long way towards dealing with our traffic problems. For that reason I support the Bill.
I welcome the decision to set up this new authority which will play an important role in this city. There should be a minimum of delay in setting up the board. Like Deputy Doyle, I am a member of the Dublin traffic study group and we are frustrated because of the difficulties that face Dublin Corporation, motorists, pedestrians and motor cyclists due to the state of traffic in the city. Of all the cities I have visited — I have been to many cities in the Far East and in the West — I have not seen traffic conditions as bad as they are in Dublin. There is a great lack of discipline among different sectors — motorists, pedestrians jay-walking, or cyclists not paying attention to the traffic lights or failing to give an indication when crossing a road.
I should like to quote some statistics, published by An Foras Forbartha, in regard to road accidents in 1984. In that year 465 people were killed on our roads, 8,210 were injured, a total of 8,675. In January of that year a total of 683 were killed or injured on our roads; 583 in February; 581 in March; 694 in April; 683 in May; 740 in June; 824 in July; 791 in August; 728 in September; 841 in October — a very bad month; 773 in November and 754 in December. It is interesting to note that in November more accidents occurred than in December, but that may be due to the fact that in December there is always a big compaign urging people to be careful when driving over the Christmas.
According to that report 156 pedestrians were killed in 1984; 493 received serious injuries; 917 received minor injuries, making a total of 1,566 pedestrians involved in accidents or 18 per cent of the total number of people involved in accidents. With regard to pedal cycle users 40 were killed in 1984; 200 seriously injured, 500 received minor injuries, making a total of 742 or 8.6 per cent of all accidents. A total of 59 motor cycle users, including pillion passengers, were killed; 346 seriously injured, 560 received minor injuries, making a total of 965 or 11 per cent of all accidents. A total of 187 car users were killed; 1,559 seriously injured and 3,046 received minor injuries making a total of 4,792 or 55 per cent of all accidents. A total of 13 goods vehicle users, or 5.1 per cent, were killed and two PSV large vehicle users, or 1 per cent, were killed. Other vehicle users killed amounted to 0.6 per cent.
One thing about these figures which troubles me somewhat is that these are percentages of all accidents. What percentage would the figure for pedestrains be of all pedestrians out and about? We had a total of 742 pedal cyclist accidents and that figure does not give the whole story. People will take it from those figures that it is quite safe to cycle in Dublin or any other city because there are so few pedal cycle accidents as opposed to car accidents. However, there are very many more cars on the roads than bicycles. We know without having to do too much research that 1,566 pedestrians is a very small percentage of all pedestrains. However, 742 cyclists may make a very high percentage of all cyclists on the roads and the same goes for motor cycles. Perhaps An Foras Forbartha could direct their attention to these matters, regarding which I have placed a couple of questions for written reply next week. If we go on the number of cycles imported into the country each year we can get a rough idea of how many cycles are on the road and in the case of motor cycles we can find out from the numbers registered. We can see that the figures of 18 per cent for pedestrians, 8.6 for cycle users, 11.1 per cent for motor cycle users and 55.2 per cent for car users do not give the whole picture.
It is important to keep in close touch with the local authorities. The Minister has mentioned an intention of doing this. He says that the Dublin Transport Authority will be connected to the new local authority system for Dublin city and county. I hope he will pay attention to what the local authorities are saying. There must be a flow of information from local representatives. We are all the time receiving representations from our constituents about the road conditions. The road traffic conditions in Dublin are the worst I have ever seen anywhere, mainly because of the lack of discipline. This comes through lack of enforcement. People go through traffic lights of any colour. The Garda are needed for more valuable work than chasing a car that has gone through the traffic lights. When I was visiting Dayton, Ohio, a couple of years ago the people there were complaining that enforcement of the law on motorists was too rigid and that motorists were having a really bad time. My comment was that it was better to have the law enforced to a greater degree than was reasonable in some people's minds than not to have it enforced at all.
Pedestrians can jay walk, cyclists can also go through the traffic lights, cyclists can ride on unlit bicycles. I have been tempted to put down a question asking the number of prosecutions for riding an unlit bicycle. Fines for illegal parking have been ridiculous. They have recently been increased but certain types of parking should have greatly increased fines attached to them. I am thinking of the motorist who parks beside the traffic lights allowing only one single lane of traffic to form, and the best example of that is at Lower Fitzwilliam Street. The cars here are parked facing out towards the middle of the road. Motorists parking in this manner know there will be no serious consequences. In this case the fine should be very substantial and the word should be let go around that there will be a fine of £50 or £100 if one parks in such a manner as to create single line traffic.
I drive 400 miles a week and I know what it is like trying to get from one place to another. I know the temptation to take chances in order to get to a meeting or appointment on time. These delays would not happen if there were some discipline among motorists. I have lately adopted the mentality of staying behind the slow moving car in the middle of the road and letting the person behind me worry. When the traffic lights indicate that people turn right, they still do not turn right. The green light appears to have an hypnotic effect on some people. When this board is set up I ask that they look into these matters. I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for jay walking since that legislation was brought in some years ago. I have often felt that it should be taken off the Statute Book because it has not been put into effect. People will ask how do you prosectute an old lady for jay walking? The fact is that there is no discipline and one might as well not have phasing of traffic signals.
I am delighted that the committee will be dealing with the problem of bollards and ramps. I know that in certain areas these ramps can be very dangerous if hit by a car going at high speed. One has to be very careful where these ramps are situated, to avoid damage to nearby property. If motorists become aware of the presence of these ramps, they will realise that they could be injured or their car damaged. The ramps could be of a minor nature, not the high ramps seen very frequently when approaching check points in the North.
Traffic management, as it obtains at present, is very bad. The lack of link lighting is incredible in this modern age. The new road from Lucan to Palmerstown is a magnificent carriageway; but the traffic lights along it, particularly from Chapelizod up as far as the King's Hospital, is a good example of lights sited very close together but not linked. Traffic lights are not intended necessarily to slow traffic down but they should be linked in such a way that they lead to a continuous flow of traffic. I have only today written to the superintendent regarding the traffic conditions in Lucan which make a laughing stock of traffic management. It is not in my constituency but is on my way home. Evidently some genius decided to stop traffic turning left into Lucan village, where there was a filter left lane, so that now there is a backlog of traffic any time of the day. One only has to go into Lucan to experience such frustration through sheer bad traffic management. Neither is the timing on lights very good. However, I must say, in defence of the people who have the contract to service lights, that when a fault is reported they do repair if fairly quickly.
A traffic authority remote from local authorities which may just list certain suggestions in a patronising way will not be at all effective. There must be people appointed to that Authority determined to unscramble the mess that exists at present. They must be people prepared to listen to elected representatives regarding certain problems. Such people must also resist the kinds of pressures which sometimes are brought to bear on public representatives to have certain alterations made which may not be in the best interests of safety. For example, some years ago people were looking for a bridge to be sited over a particular road. In spite of the fact that officials then considered that such a bridge would cost £100,000 and would not be used, people insisted on that project going ahead. Tremendous pressure was brought to bear on local representatives. If, one of those representatives said he had to be guided by officials' advice in this matter, that it would be dangerous to have such a bridge built for a particular reason, the other local representatives would lose no time in getting word around that: "We could get it through but your man is opposing it". That type of pressure being removed will do no harm at all.
It is a good thing also that the Dublin Transport Authority will be taking over the licensing of taxis in respect of which a very unsatisfactory situation obtains. People are hiring out taxis at night time to friends. There may be people with five or six plates not even driving their own taxis. They may have been able to purchase a number of taxi plates from one another. I am against this practice. If a taxi plate is not being used by the man who sought it then it should be handed back. But people are buying up taxi plates, gradually leading to them running a fleet of taxis, employing people who, in turn, might not be the best people to drive taxis because very often they have not undergone any particular test. The Dublin Transport Authority should take a hard look at this matter. The Taxis Drivers Federation are also in favour of a fair distribution of taxi plates. They are against this practice of people having five or six plates, having all sorts of people doing part time jobs at night, very often people who are drawing unemployment benefit. Possibly because of lack of investigators to work night shifts, it is very difficult to track such people down.
My understanding is that the Authority are not being given any teeth under the provisions of this Bill. Unless they are empowered to act in a strong manner they will meet with failure. The Minister should reconsider his attitude because it is my understanding that they are given no real teeth under the provisions of this Bill. Perhaps this aspect could be examined again on Committee Stage when we shall have some suggestions to make, and also in relation to a budget for this Authority.
I must apologise because I came in rather late without having had as much time as I should have liked to prepare my contribution. However, I have got off my chest many of the things I have had in my mind, many of the things which run through one's mind while one is driving and experiencing these frustrations. The Ceann Comhairle does not have to experience these any more — he lets somebody else get the ulcers. The interesting thing is that every motorist will agree with you. They will all say "you are absolutely right". It is contended that none of us is to blame, but we are all to blame because we all contribute towards these conditions. Often we see people driving 60 miles per hour up one road and down another. I was very nearly run down today by a joyrider in Dame Street. I was in the island in the middle of the road and I remained there even though the lights were with me because this driver was swerving all over the road, travelling at about 60 miles per hour up past City Hall. As usual in such circumstances, there is never a garda in sight. Perhaps we will read about some unfortunate victim who will have been run down in the meantime by that type of person.
The Dublin Transport Authority should make life difficult for the car thief, the joyrider, by ensuring that there is proper protection particularly in housing estates, with a proper ramp or bollard system being installed, something to slow down the joyrider so that he will know if he goes in there he will be caught and that he can no longer use side roads.
This Authority have a tremendous opportunity to do their task well because they are starting from a most awful situation from a traffic point of view. None of us now enjoys getting into our cars going on a long journey because discipline has totally broken down. The top priority we seek is enforcement of the law and in respect of which the Garda will have to do their job. From our meetings with the Garda in the Dublin Corporation Traffic Study Group I know they experience certain frustrations also in doing their job. Whatever changes in the law are necessary to render their task easier should be effected. Rather than their having to go into court each time they charge somebody for not having a light on a bicycle, some way should be devised by which such charges are brought in by, say, an inspector handling 25 or 30 such charges, making the charges on behalf of these gardaí so that they are not taken off our streets. In the times in which we live these gardaí should be doing something else. Some way should be devised by this new Authority to allow an inspector go in and present charges to the District Court on behalf of all the gardaí who have made prosecutions. Then there might be a little more enforcement.
The casualty rate will increase rather than diminish because enforcement is non-existent. Something must be done soon. We have not seen a radar car for many years. We have not seen much activity by the pick-up truck. Dublin Corporation have one pick-up truck which the Garda drive. We should have four pick-up trucks, two operating on the north side and two on the south side, picking up cars which are causing obstruction. People are very selfish. It is said that tourists do not mind getting a parking ticket because they know the car hire company will pay. This charge is included by the car hire company in advance of the car being taken out in anticipation that parking charges will be incurred. If cars were being towed away even the tourists would have to think twice. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will deal with the famous boot which they use in London. That would take care of a lot of people who do not give a damn about their fellow citizen.
I hope this Bill will ensure that transport and related matters in Dublin will be improved. I sometimes have reservations when I hear about another body being set up which is either to take charge of something or to look into something. If this body achieves even some of the objectives set out for them they will be doing a good day's work.
I would hope for increased co-ordination between the various bodies who deal with road and transport planning. It appears that one unit may be working in total ignorance of another unit. Common sense discussion will solve these problems.
We are all aware that the traffic difficulties in Dublin arise from various factors, including historical ones. Many of our streets were constructed long ago and are not capable of carrying juggernauts. Generally the streets were not built for heavy traffic but by using imagination in relation to one-way streets, bus lanes and various other developments there can be an improvement. It is certainly to be hoped that the Dublin Transport Authority will alleviate the traffic problem in the city.
There are problems due to inadequate parking facilities in the city centre. Many people bring their cars into the city, in spite of difficulties in parking, due to a lack of faith in our public transport system. All our main thouroughfares are filled with traffic, sometimes flowing but often jammed. Only by discussion and liaison between the interested groups can an improvement be brought about. The Dublin Transport Authority will have to liaise with Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation. Perhaps this could be done in a formal way so that there would be consultations at all times.
It is daft when one reaches the boundary of a local authority area to see good lighting and other facilities on one side and very little provision for traffic on the other. We must ensure that this kind of thing does not happen in the future.
I would hope that the setting up of this Dublin Transport Authority will mean an end to the parking chaos. I have some sympathy with people who infringe the rules to a certain extent, possibly by parking on a single yellow line. I feel particular sympathy for people who go to River House to tax their cars and find they have been given a parking ticket. I do not, however, have any sympathy for people who park on clearways or cause obstruction to other motorists and pedestrians. Certainly there will have to be greater enforcement of the traffic regulations.
The fact that the Dublin Transport Authority will be taking over some of the roles exercised by the Garda will undoubtedly lift some of the burden from the Garda. All the various interests must be represented on this new Authority. It should be a body on which there are no "passengers". It will probably be composed of about twelve members by the time the local authorities, the Garda, CIE, the Taxi Owners' Federation and possibly trading groups are taken into account. An Authority composed of people from these organisations would know their business. However, I am a little worried regarding the fact that they have to refer their recommendations to the Minister. I hoped that they would be in a position to make decisions which could be acted upon. Having consulted expert opinion they should be allowed to implement plans like the establishment of bollards, ramps or culs de sac in certain areas. At present some estates are used as a throughway by motorists putting the lives of children and adults at risk. If bollards were put up in estates which are used as short cuts the residents would be very grateful as it would slow down motorists. There is also a case for the provision of ramps and, although people have asked for these to stop joyriders, they would also be a deterrent to speeding motorists who go through a 30 miles per hour or a 40 miles per hour zone at 50 or 60 miles per hour.
There should also be a further development in relation to the DART service, which has been working well. Admittedly its cost was very high and it is only by greater usage that there will be a return from it. That means providing feeder buses from outlying areas to bring people to the DART stations. The service covers an extensive area from Howth to Bray and I hope that the Minister will without further delay ensure that these buses are provided either by CIE or a private concern. There has been far too long a delay in this regard and people are not getting the full benefit from DART. It is important that the service should be utilised to the fullest possible extent.
Provision should also be made in relation to cyclists and there should be stricter enforcement of lights on bicycles and reflective clothing. Unfortunately, while many motorists cause accidents, if a cyclist is involved there is an inevitable result. There should be an onus and a duty on cyclists, like every other road user, to make sure that they are seen and that they observe the rules of the road as well as the motorists. They should not go through red lights just because it is convenient to do so. There must be greater enforcement of the rules of the road.
The work of the commission has been of great benefit to Dublin over the past few years in regard to one-way streets, bus lanes and pedestrian only zones after a certain time. Shopkeepers in Grafton Street and Henry Street welcome the fact that people can walk safely in the area and do their shopping with ease. Of course there is a problem in regard to parking in the city and it will not be solved overnight. People would like to leave their cars at home but public transport does not cater adequately for them. However, there are car pools in operation and they make sense considering the high cost of petrol. People living in the same area and working in the city can use one car which is of benefit financially and also ensures a steady flow of traffic. If people had faith in public transport they would use it more often, but of course if a service is unreliable they will go back to their cars. Buses and trains should run on time so that people can depend on them. Nobody wants to be waiting around on cold evenings for buses which do not come.
I hope the Authority will look at the operation of public transport with a view to improving it in certain areas. I hope the Authority will also look at road works. We are all aware of the barrels being erected, drills taken out and holes dug. While we are wondering what is going on more holes are dug. While I agree that when repair work is necessary Bord Telecom, the ESB and Dublin Gas have to be taken into account, and there should be some consultations and liaison between them. The question of carrying out repairs in off-peak hours should be investigated. I hope the Authority will ensure that unnecessary roadworks are not undertaken and that, when work is necessary, as much as possible is done at weekends or in the evenings. In some instances a one-way system has been introduced quite successfully to ensure a continuous flow of traffic. I sympathise with people who have to carry out repair work, but they cause havoc in many areas with the result that there is a further snarl up of traffic.
I hope the Authority will give consideration to the operation of the school warden system, I have received complaints recently in my constituency that these wardens come on duty too late or leave too early. Many of them are not available to help young children leaving school. Everything possible must be done to ensure that children are protected fully. Consideration will also have to be given to the location of traffic lights and roundabouts. Matters like these must be considered fully to see what improvements can be made.
I hope the Authority will function properly and ensure that transport in the Dublin area will function effectively. It will be the job of the Authority to see to it that there is liaison between the various bodies concerned. I hope the Minister will indicate when he expects the Authority to be in operation.
It cannot be denied that difficulties arise from time to time in relation to casual traders. While I have no objection to the man selling chips or fruit and vegetables doing business, it is important that the customers or other motorists are not put at risk because of the way the trader has parked. I hope the Authority will consider this matter. I am glad to support the Bill and I hope it will go some way towards improving the present traffic problems in Dublin.
I welcome the Bill and I hope it will bring some order into certain chaotic areas in the Dublin transport system. I live on the north side of Dublin and I represent in this House and in the city council a large constituency in that part of the city. The main areas in which I should like to see the Authority become involved immediately and thoroughly are areas that have been matters of concern to Dublin city councillors. They have had a limited role in the supervision and operation of the taxi service in the city. There is also the question of examining the possibility of the licensing of private buses for which there has been a great demand in parts of the city due to the inadequacy of the services offered by CIE in many areas.
For a long time there has been a need to take action in relation to heavy vehicles parking in the city. These cause great danger, discomfort and environmental damage to communities who have to put up with the problem. In some instances engines of refrigerated vehicles are left running all night and a number of fatal accidents have been caused as a result of the parking of these heavy vehicles. Despite many plans, the local authorities have failed to provide adequate parking facilities. It is essential that such facilities be provided so that lorries could use them and thus not park on residential streets. Lorry drivers should be forced to use the new toll bridge.
It is essential that the roadworks programme be co-ordinated. Deputy Keating provided us with the information that in the past 12 months Merrion Square, just outside this House, has been uprooted 74 times. This is a quite extraordinary figure and must indicate chaotic management. Within a month of the Phibsboro Road being finally completed sections were opened up for various works. This is quite inexplicable. It must be possible to co-ordinate this kind of work and the Authority must give urgent attention to it.
As a northsider I look with some envy at the superb public transport system now available to the residents of the coastal broker belt in Dublin. By comparison, the north and west of Dublin are almost like a transport desert. There has been total under-investment in public transport for those areas. In the next decade this must be a social priority. In respect of the development of the city, there is the objective of creating three mini-cities on the fringe of Dublin at Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. However, they have been provided with only the minimum transport services. We are sending many young families into those areas that are already suffering a high degree of unemployment and where people cannot provide their own private transport. One would imagine that the public transport services would be improved to cater for that need. Instead, the people are allowed to suffer from inadequacy. For social and national development reasons I should like to see public transport investment in the next decade aimed at the provision of services in those areas as a priority. Rail lines are available as far as Cabra and beyond. Initial planning has been done by CIE but substantial State financing is lacking.
Therefore, I would ask the DTA to look at the needs and the great potential for the development of a DART type service, some form of commuter rail service, to Cabra, Finglas and Blanchardstown, and the Tallaght-Clondalkin areas. I hope the Minister will indicate some advanced thinking in relation to this. From my direct communications with CIE, I understand planning has been going on.
Members of Dublin City Council have been concerned with the taxi service in Dublin. Responsibilities are divided between the Garda and the local authorities. I would welcome some direction in regard to the taxi service because of the integration of the system with the Dublin Transport Authority. There has been concern that local authority control over the taxi service in Dublin was only in regard to the number of plates to be issued in any one year. Real control, the issuing of licences, was out of their hands. It has been brought to my notice that there is extensive abuse of the taxi plate system in a number of ways. Many people are multiple plate owners, though it is a stated objective of the Taxi Federation and the clear desire of the local authorities, that where possible there should be a one man one plate system or some form of double sharing. I have been told of one extraordinary case of multiple plate ownership. A certain Dublin citizen is in possession of eight plates which are sublet to drivers who are paying the person involved £90 to £100 per week for the privilege of using those plates. If we add that tidy situation up we are talking about an income of £1,500 per week, a very healthy income to allow to anybody. These plates were given out on a lottery system originally and handed out by the local authority. We have a responsibility to ensure that those abuses will not be allowed to continue. There are many people who have been working for years who would like to get into the system full time but cannot afford the kind of investment involved. These plates are valued at between £8,000 and £10,000.
People operating on a one man one plate basis, who are paying their taxes, demand a better system. It has been reported to me that there is widespread abuse of the social welfare system by people acting as co-drivers. They have flexibility and can turn up at employment exchanges whenever they choose. I have had these reports from people involved in the business who are anxious to see the system tidied up so that people who are anxious to earn an honest living can do so. I hope the new Authority will look at this as a matter of urgency.
I welcome the provision that will give the new Authority responsibility for the routing, pricing and licensing of all bus services. It is desirable that this should be taken out of the hands of the Department who tend to have a single view, that being the view of CIE. I am not satisfied that in all cases CIE are the only body who can offer an adequate service. There may be room to introduce alternative services, particularly in areas to which CIE have been unwilling to offer services, in one instance in my constituency over a period of 18 months. Attempts by private individuals to provide a bus service were blocked by laws which prevented anybody getting into the business. The possibility to inquire into this is to be welcomed. The new Authority will be distant from the Department and from CIE in relation to routing and pricing questions. This will be welcomed by ordinary Dublin consumers who have been expressing concern about travel costs. They may now get a more objective and detached hearing.
I should like to come back to my concern about the effects of heavy industrial traffic in Dublin city. Dublin Corporation have failed to make adequate provision for the proper organisation and management of such traffic in the inner city. They have failed to provide adequate spaces which companies could use or be compelled by law to use for parking. The local authority are not in a position to prevent enormous juggernauts, articulated trucks, parking in side streets in built-up residential areas.
In a written study in regard to the toll bridge in Dublin one is struck by the fact that for some reason, probably related to pricing, industrial traffic has not been using the bridge to the same extent as ordinary motorists. This is very disappointing and a view was put forward at a meeting indicating that most freight carrying is priced on the basis of time spent travelling and that there is an inbuilt incentive to take longer rather than shorter routes. This should not be tolerated and legal steps should be taken to ensure that where a facility like the toll bridge exists, involving a loan guarantee to the local authority by the State, plus the significant environmental implications for the city centre, it should be possible to compel larger vehicles to use the route that is most suitable.
I can see great potential for the DTA to help to shape the face of Dublin, which is at a crossroads at the moment with the announcement of possible major new investment in the inner city. We should ensure that Dublin will develop in the way many of us would like to see it develop. There must be policy decisions that Dublin city would be developed more in line with continental cities, with a living centre, rather than being developed on the American style, a throughway for people coming to work and to shop occasionally, but not to live. traditionally Dublin has had a living centre.
What we do with traffic in Dublin city, how we provide for a public transport system and how we manage access to the city for people who wish to live here and work here are all questions that are of vital importance for the future. I hope this transport Authority will include that major environmental consideration in all their decisions. Perhaps this, together with the major package of investment announced here at the commencement of this session, would ensure that Dublin which is at a turning point, which has long been in decline in terms of the quality of the city, would take a turn in the right direction and that we could begin to rebuild a living centre which would be served adequately in transport terms. We must endeavour to preserve the best of Dublin into the next century.
When I studied the subject of constitutional law some years ago I recall being lectured about the merits and demerits of various forms of Government, included among which was the institution of the State board or of the semi-independent statutory body, the term used sometimes. I recall being told that there were two excellent merits in this system from the point of view of Governments and of Ministers in particular. The first was that the State board hived off from the Minister concerned any responsibility for coming into the House and answering questions from Members regarding the activities or functions that properly should come within the control of the Department concerned. The second great merit was that the State board provided the opportunity of giving jobs to the boys, as it was put crudely.
We have gone very much astray down through the years in hiving off from Government Departments functions that should rest properly with those Departments and which with proper organisation could be administered well and efficiently. What we are debating here is a further twist in that same screw. We have had the transfer of the areas of posts and communications to semi-State boards and now in relation to transport the Department of Communications are setting about hiving off their responsibilities to Members of the House in the matter of answering questions and of facing up to their responsibilities. I can visualise a time when other Dublin Deputies and myself will wish to raise questions, to probe and complain and make a fuss about shortcomings in what is available for our constituents, only to be told by the Minister that that is no longer his responsibility and that our inquiries must be directed to the transport Authority. This is a very unsatisfactory trend in our development and it is time it was discontinued.
The situation can be saved if the responsibility is retained here, if we can ask questions about these activities.
Yes. That should be the whole objective of parliamentary democracy, but unfortunately we are allowing ourselves to slip into the very undesirable trend of hiving off responsibilities from Ministers. The excuse being put forward for the development in transport is that it will make for a more efficient system, but I do not believe that will be the case. What is happening will result in the setting up of a whole new hierarchy, a whole new Civil Service structure with board members. Civil servants will be recruited, though for the most part they will be duplicating functions that are performed already in other quarters. It is remarkable that no civil servant can be taken on in other areas unless the numbers have become very run down but by way of this legislation we are creating a whole new set-up that will require totally new staff to perform functions that are performed already in the planning departments of local authorities, in the traffic departments of the Garda and so on.
Apparently for all this funds are available. We can find £400,000 for the operation in the very first year. How is it that for this new Authority it will be all right to take on an entirely new staff while for other areas in which staff are needed urgently, apparently extra recruitment is impossible? We are told that this new body will be the great planning organisation for the future but have many of our problems in the traffic and communications area in Dublin been caused by lack of plans? We have not lacked plans and neither do we lack talk on the subject. What we require are the implementation of these plans and the funds that are necessary for their implementation.
In the planning of the new town of Tallaght where the population is now approaching the 100,000 mark, Dublin County Council did a very fine job so far as laying out the arrangements were concerned. Nobody could fault either of the two provisions they made in the communications field and these did not require a Dublin Transport Authority or any other authority. First, the council reserved land for a busway into the city. That land was reserved all along where the new town was developed. That required a fair degree of forecast and thought and the planners are to be complimented on it.
However, they went further and reserved also a line for a rapid rail route from Tallaght into the city so that more efficient rail transportation would be available to the people being set up in the new town. The expression "set-up" might be the appropriate one to use in this context because many of the people in Tallaght consider that they were set up in Tallaght. The planners reserved land also in the town centre for a railway station but in 15 years or more no step has been taken to implement those plans. Will the new Authority, at a cost of £400,000, push the matter further?
In introducing the Bill the Minister did not give any great encouragement in that regard and neither has any such encouragement been forthcoming from him at meetings we have had with him on the subject. He says that there is the possibility of an alternative of a cheaper service to Tallaght such as a busway or a diesel rather than an electrified rail service, a possibility which was discussed with CIE. However, no definite proposals have emerged yet in that regard. The people of Tallaght would be very happy to have a diesel route. Nobody would insist on an electrified as opposed to a diesel rail service. Also, a busway along the reserved land would be very acceptable to the people of that area.
The measure, to a very large extent, is a window-dressing operation. It is an excuse to avoid taking action that is necessary in the transportation field in the greater Dublin area and cannot be accepted as a substitute for the real thing, that is, providing the services that are so urgently required particularly in the new towns.
I am a strong supporter of rail transport and I make no apologies for saying that. I am a strong supporter of public transport, too. I believe that if a sound, efficient and cheap transportation system were provided, people would use it. I also believe that the pricing policy of CIE has been mistaken. I do not say that is a policy they have adopted by their own choice; it is a policy which has been dictated to them by successive Government directives. Unfortunately, successive Governments never provided financing to CIE that would enable them to provide an efficient and cheap service. CIE were required to operate as if they were a business rather than being recognised for what they are — a social service. In every civilised country public transport is heavily subsidised, as are fares. When CIE increase prices it is counterproductive. It is another twist in a vicious circle, because the more the prices are increased the more people are frightened from using the service and the more people are encouraged to use their own cars, thus causing the traffic jams. The Bill seeks to avoid this. If the service was cheap, adequate, reliable and efficient people would use public transport.
The provision of a rapid rail service to the densely populated suburban areas of Dublin will be an expensive procedure. We have the necessary expertise to build an electrified train system. The teams who constructed the DART are now redundant and their expertise lies idle. Those people are being paid dole money for doing nothing whereas they could be gainfully employed providing a service which is critically and urgently needed. There are immense advantages and savings in having a rail system that will serve up to 100,000 people. We cannot just look at the initial capital cost, as we unfortunately tend to do. If that service were provided there would be fewer cars on our roads, the amount of petrol saved would be enormous, as would be the number of man hours saved in traffic jams. We would also save a great deal of money importing oil and we would do ourselves a very big favour in the environmental field because, as is known, pollution from all this traffic is reaching frightening proportions. The level of lead emissions from all this heavy traffic is of serious concern to me as a resident of Dublin, for myself, my family and my constituents, and it is something we will have to tackle. One way to tackle this problem would be to make substantial improvements in our transportation system.
I wish I could come to the conclusion that the Dublin Transport Authority would solve all those problems, but I fear they will not. The only way those problems can be resolved is by a determination at Government level to make available the funds needed to provide the infrastructure for our public transport which is so urgently needed. When the Authority come into being they will not be able to make and enforce any definitive decisions. When it comes to the crunch they will be little more than a recommendatory body. The original proposal from the Transport Consultative Commission some five years ago envisaged an Authority of a different kind, namely one that would have a block grant provided by the Government. The Authority would decide how that money would be spent and they would have the powers of deciding between the conflicting demands of public and private transport and between rail and road transport. But power of that nature is not being given to the Authority. They have no real power to sort out Dublin's chaotic transport system and they are confined so far as finance is concerned to making recommendations to the Minister.
The Authority are given power to give licences to private operators. Frankly, I find that provision a matter of concern. I take the view that all public transport in Dublin should be provided by CIE. Admittedly, they should not be licensed to provide an inadequate or deficient system. But if there are inadequacies and deficiencies in CIE — and there are — they should be promptly investigated by the appropriate authority, and the Authority should have power to see that these defects are corrected. I am concerned about the licensing of private operators. We know how they work. They select the most profitable routes and leave the State organisation to pick up the tab and serve the less profitable areas. That is completely unacceptable.
Under this Bill the pricing control is taken from the National Prices Commission and given to the Authority. What merit is there in taking that function from one State authority and giving it to another? Is that the reason we are setting up this Authority at such expense?
I am not very happy about the nature and structure of the proposed authority. There is very little democratic structure to it. We are told that the board will be made up of persons with wide experience and competence in transport, that only four of the members will be from the newly elected councils for the Dublin area. Who are these people with wide experience and competence? In what function are they engaged at the moment? Cannot all the functions and advisory functions proposed for this Authority be met, if the Government and the Minister are so minded, within the existing structures? Does there not already exist the necessary expertise in the Department of Communications, in the local authorities and in the Garda Síochána? Is there anything to stop the Minister, whenever he wants, calling a departmental committee, calling in representatives from the planning sections of the local authorities and from the traffic department of the Garda, and dealing with any matters of an advisory or recommendatory nature which need to be dealt with, which is all this Authority are given the job of doing? It would be far cheaper to do it that way. We would not have to spend £400,000 in the first year with, no doubt, escalating costs in future years. Existing expertise is already there and should be called upon.
It is a matter of regret that the DART was built along the wrong axis. It was built on the north-south line serving areas that are already very well equipped with cars, where people for the most part do not need a rail link. That is why the Minister has to bemoan the fact that it is not being used to a sufficient extent. The people living in Tallaght and west County Dublin who could make such good use of the system would be totally reliant on using it as most of them do not possess the luxury of a motor car. They would use such a line if it were provided.
The nub of the Bill is that the function of the Authority will be to monitor the ongoing lack of funds in CIE. Is that the reason we are setting up this Authority? We could better use that money in improvements to the transportation system. The question of roads construction and financing will apparently be outside the ambit of this Authority. That will remain with the Department of the Environment. So, it is not even a question that there will be an overall link of roads into this Authority. The whole development in the new areas has been a matter of concern. We have road reservations all over west County Dublin in newly developed areas which are abandoned and covered with mounds of rubbish and so on. It is a waste of good land and I wonder how long they will be left reserved in that way lying between housing estates. In the meantime they just cause a problem and a serious nuisance.
Although I am not very happy that this Bill will make very much progress in achieving what it sets out to do there are some valuable functions given to it, functions which could be organised and performed without setting up a Dublin Transport Authority, things like the provision of ramps dealing with the situation in residential areas, controlling parking of juggernauts and all this sort of thing which has caused problems. Some progress may be made by the Authority in a minor way in functions of that nature but the Authority was not needed and it would have been better to have tackled the undoubted problems by providing the necessary finance to provide rail and road links to serve the people of the new towns around Dublin. They need a transport system. They are entitled to expect it. It should be provided and that should be the objective of our transportation policy.
I should explain to the House that the Minister for Communications ——
Is the Minister concluding Second Stage debate?
—— is abroad on EC business. Yes, I am concluding Second Stage debate.
Where is the Minister of State?
He is absent on cultural business.
Does that mean that the Minister is on something that is non-cultural?
Deputy Wilson may be aware that there is a very important ——
It reminds me of ——
If one must be pedantic about it, there is a very important exhibition of very rare Chinese artefacts being opened this evening in Kilmainham and the Minister of State must be present.
It reminds me of an old Chinese proverb which says it is a sign of insincerity of purpose to seek for the emperor in a second rate tea shop.
I do not follow that allusion. It puzzles me it is so obscure.
It probably does not translate well from the Greek.
I have the task of initiating the reply to this debate. I understand that the debate started five months ago and that many contributions have been made from both sides of the House in the interval. I listened to two contributions, one from Deputy Flaherty and one from Deputy Taylor this evening. Listening to Deputy Taylor, I will find out from him privately afterwards who was his teacher on constitutional law. His teacher must have been a man of some cynicism when the only good he can find in semi-independent statutory authorities is that (a) they provide jobs for the boys and (b) enable the buck to be passed. I hope that is not a reflection on the general tone of the teaching on constitutional law in whatever institution Deputy Taylor attended.
He said it had merits and demerits. I was quoting two of the things. There may be advantages as well.
In relation to the DART, I know that the provision of DART has been criticised in terms of cost. One could argue as to whether that criticism is justified bearing in mind that the original funding arrangements, for good fiscal reasons, could not be adhered to and a large amount of debt had to be accumulated during the building process which tended to distort the overall figure. What we must remember is that DART represents a very considerable technological achievement by CIE from their own resources. They refurbished that entire line with a minimum of disruption to the existing rail services, and practically no disruption to the road services that ran close to or across the railway. The signalling, the bridges, and the electronics were all designed and built by CIE. It took a lot of very high quality expertise to do this on time and without disruption.
Is it not tragic that we cannot continue to use that expertise?
It is only right to pay tribute to CIE during this debate. I share with Deputy Taylor the wish that this expertise would continue to be used. Obviously, one of the tasks of a new transport authority will be to give advice as to where that expertise can be used in designing and building new rail links into the populous new suburbs and towns of Tallaght and Blanchardstown. It will be an expensive measure in money terms. There is no doubt about that. That is a very important consideration which the new Authority will have to bear in mind when making up their minds on the advice they will give. In addition to the expense there will be tremendous advantages, socially and economically, in providing a speedy, relatively cheap form of transport for many thousands of citizens in those suburbs. As the House may gather, I like many others have a certain sentiment towards the railways. Speaking in sentimental terms, only, I would certainly urge the development of such a rail link. Obviously in the real world in which we live there are harsh economic considerations to be taken into account. That will be the task of the DTA in giving the appropriate advice to the Minister and Government of the day as to whether the rail link that Deputy Taylor is keen to see in Tallaght and Blanchardstown will be built.
Another factor which the Authority will take into account, I am sure, is the expertise now developed and being put in place in Inchicore for the building of carriages there. The contract which as Minister for Transport I had the pleasure of initiating for the provision of new mainline carriages provided, after the initial carriages were supplied, for the components and a licensing system to be provided in Inchicore so that the carriages after the initial stock would be entirely home built. Again, an engineering expertise in Inchicore will be available and I have no doubt that that consideration too will be taken into account by the new Authority.
The overall strategic purpose of the Bill is to improve the planning and operation of road and rail transport in the Dublin area and the management of road traffic. It is quite clear that, from all sides of the House, there is support for this general strategic objective. The Bill is not just replacing the non-statutory Dublin transport task force with a new statutory authority. The new statutory Authority will, of course, build on the work of the task force in improving traffic management in the Dublin area, but in addition they will have major, new, necessary functions which are not there at present.
These functions will be to assess and rank public needs and expenditures as far as public transport by road and rail is concerned, and to secure better physical planning so that public transport needs can be better met in the future. Many of the transport difficulties being encountered currently, which have been with us from some time, arise inevitably from the physical environment in which the transport is operating. This is an unavoidable consequence of development of the city, but from now on planning and control of the physical environment must have an eye to the traffic implications of it. In this regard the new Authority will have an invaluable and essential kernel role to play.
During the debate there were many valuable suggestions as to how the Authority should operate, suggestions made by Deputies with firsthand knowledge of the problem and experience of local authority service in the area. The performance of the Authority will be reviewed on an ongoing basis by the Minister for Communications and in that connection the possible extension of the Authority's functions as contemplated under section 9 of the Bill will be under consideration, though at this stage it would be inappropriate in the view of some Deputies to give the full range of powers to the Authority. The involvement of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service and, if necessary, the Minister for the Environment will ensure a full overview so that the most effective arrangements can be made for the exercise of the new functions.
When we come to Committee Stage we will deal in detail with the provisions of the Bill, but I would like to comment on one or two points raised on Second Stage. Deputy Richard Bruton expressed disappointment that the Bill does not deal specifically with the question of value for money in CIE expenditure and he talked of hidden losses and services which should be identified and tackled separately. Under section 28 the Authority will specify the requirements which CIE should try to meet in providing bus and suburban rail services in Dublin and, in so doing, the Authority will be endeavouring specifically to foster greater and better usage of expensive public transport resources entrusted to CIE through, for example, elimination of unnecessary duplication between bus and rail services. An example of that is parallel bus and DART.
In that connection I should mention that CIE have announced recently that large capacity single deck buses will be introduced on 8 December to provide a feeder service for DART and this should increase greatly the level of use of that service. To ensure continuation of that, overseeing CIE will be part of the new Authority's function. Another example of ensuring greater and better usage of the transport resources through CIE would be a tailoring and revising of new services to meet the needs of developing areas of the city and surrounding townships. However, Deputy Bruton should not overlook the Government's plan Building on Reality 1985-1987. Decisions taken earlier by the Government in relation to CIE have established a totally new functional and financial regime for that body which has produced very satisfactory results as regards levels of subvention.
Indeed, I would like to echo the congratulations of the Minister for Communications to CIE on the great progress they have made in living within the new levels of subvention. In this context one should acknowledge that the achievements now coming to fruit in CIE in this regard are the result of careful management for a number of years past. Because of some troubles in the industrial area, CIE were inclined to get a bad name and one was inclined to overlook the tremendous level of management expertise that has been in that company. The fruits of that expertise are now becoming apparent in the improved financial position of the company. There has been a tremendous reduction in the numbers employed in CIE over the last number of years, a reduction achieved peacefully and now showing itself in the better financial position. Therefore, it is only right that I should echo the Minister's congratulations to CIE on their achievements and pay tribute to those in the company who have been working over the past five years or thereabouts to achieve this state of affairs.
Deputy Wilson adverted to the possibility of CIE acting as agent of the Authority. It had been intended in 1982 that CIE would have to operate in consonance with the Dublin transport plan proposed by him as Minister and this effectively would mean the Authority taking over the planning function of CIE. No final relationship between CIE and the Authority had been worked out at that stage because the in-depth McKinsey study was then in progress.
The establishment of the authority on the lines of the Bill before the House was a major element in the Government's programme on transport reform announced in Building on Reality. Another major element was the restructuring of CIE into three subsidiary bodies. That is something which is presently under consideration and the exact form of which will be announced in due course.
Debate adjourned.