Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1986

Vol. 364 No. 8

Dublin Transport Authority Bill, 1985: Report Stage.

I move amendment No. a1:

In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:—

"(3) The Authority shall consult with the local authorities in its functional area in relation to any measures which it intends to take under this Act.".

This amendment is proposed in fulfilment of an undertaking given to Deputy De Rossa on Committee Stage. The purpose of this amendment is to impose a clear duty on the Dublin Transport Authority to consult with the Dublin local authorities in advance of implementing any measures under this Act.

I thank the Minister for introducing this amendment in order to ensure that there will be a clear obligation to consult with the local authorities.

The original Bill contained the obligation to consult with all the local authorities. It was the policy of Fianna Fáil at the time that a plan should be made, that the three local authorities, now reduced to two, would have an input into the Authority and that the public or any interested group, such as An Taisce, would participate in a public inquiry so that any plan finalised would carry the greatest possible consensus. I regard this Bill as being too restricted in scope, but this amendment is along the lines suggested. It contains a provision for consultation with the local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. b1.

In page 8, to delete lines 32 to 36 and substitute the following:—

"(4) When an order under this section is proposed to be made, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".

This amendment is proposed in fulfilment of an undertaking given to Deputy De Rossa on Committee Stage. The purpose of this amendment is to require the approval of the Dáil and Seanad before any ministerial order can be made under section 10 of the Bill to vary the functional area of the Dublin Transport Authority for the purpose of any of their functions.

I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment which is important particularly in regard to regulations that may be made. The Dáil will have an opportunity to discuss them.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, to delete lines 38 to 43.

I had been speaking on section 12 when we were cut short by madame guillotine. I had made the point that in my opinion the Minister was taking authority which was not necessary on the basis that the section was seeking unnecessary authority and consequently was cribbing and confining the authority of Iompras Bhaile Átha Cliath. Either the Authority will be a high powered one with its own fund of expertise, with knowledge that no other specialist authority would have, or it will not. If it is to have that expertise, the taking of a general directive from the Minister seems to be superfluous. The task force that has been in operation for some time was very successful, and sections of this Bill will give statutory authority to the kind of work the task force was doing.

I presume the expertise that was there for the task force will be available to the Authority and therefore I do not think the Minister needs this power. However, there has been a tendency in legislation to concentrate power in the hands of the appropriate Minister. That is very necessary in some instances but in this case, when you have an authority with expertise and with statutory powers, I do not think these powers for the Minister are necessary.

I am afraid this amendment is unacceptable. Section 12 is precautionary. It makes clear statutory provision for the giving of appropriate ministerial directions to the Dublin Transport Authority should the need arise at any time in the future. Any such directions will have to be in writing.

This reserve power must be available to the Minister for Communications to secure timely corrective action if, for example, the Authority failed to give sufficient priority to its most important traffic management functions, or failed to establish effective controls over its costs or the use of its resources. It is not possible, therefore, at this stage to be more specific as regards either the circumstances or purpose of any ministerial directions under this section. It is obviously to be hoped that the need for such directions will not arise.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 49.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molony, David.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, Willie.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Prendergast, Frank.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Skelly, Liam.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Browne, John.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doherty, Séan.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hylind, Liam.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West)
  • O'Dea, William.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 1a, 1b, 1c, 5 and 6 are related. Amendments Nos. 1a, 1b, 1c, 5 and 6 will be taken together. Recommital is necessary in respect of this amendment and an additional amendment is on the white sheet.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1a.

I move amendment No. 1a:

In page 12, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following:

"(b) elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas or of the Assembly of the European Communities, or".

The purpose of these amendments is to make provision in relation to membership of the Authority as they affect elected members of Dáil Éireann, Seanad Éireann or the European Parliament. Just a few minutes ago the Dáil and the Seanad agreed to a similar amendment to the National Development Corporation Bill and I now propose that we adopt these five amendments.

The purpose of these amendments is to provide that any member of the staff of the Dublin Transport Authority who is a candidate for election to the Dáil, Seanad, European Parliament or a local authority in the functional area of the Dublin Transport Authority will only be seconded from employment with the Authority from when he or she takes the seat after the election, and not from when he or she is nominated as an elected candidate as the Bill stands.

These amendments bring the provisions in the Bill for secondment of staff into line with provisions in the Combat Poverty Agency Billy, 1985, and the National Development Corporation Bill, 1985, as amended by both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann this afternoon. Similar amendments are proposed to paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Bill in relation to disqualification of persons from membership of the board of the Dublin Transport Authority.

The purpose of these amendments is to provide that any member of the board of the Dublin Transport Authority who is a candidate for election to the Dáil, Seanad, European Parliament or a local authority in the functional area of the Dublin Transport Authority will be disqualified from membership of the board of the Authority only from when he or she takes the seat after the election, and not from when he or she is nominated as an election candidate as the Bill stands.

I support the amendment. This is a long running saga, this problem of whether Members of this House, or candidates for membership of this House, Members of the Seanad or candidates for membership of the Seanad, and recently Members of the European Parliament, should or should not be eligible for election to various boards and bodies. On numerous occasions between 1973 and 1977 I challenged this because I genuinely did not see the reason for it. Then between 1977 and 1981 I came on the problem from the point of view of somebody who was presenting Bills to the House. The weight of advice nearly always was against Members or potential Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It comprises a small development but I support it. The matter could have been dealt with by the general declaration of interest clause. I hope some day such a declaration of interest by candidates, by Members of the House, will be sufficient to allow them to be members of various boards and to act on various boards. This whole question of declaration of interest is raising its head at present. My personal view is that there should be total declaration of interest when any Bill is being processed or any policy being formulated or put into effect. If this were so it would be a charter for greater freedom for the Members of the Houses who are often excluded from areas of activity in which they have special expertise. For that reason I am in general support of the amendments the Minister has brought forward.

The amendments the Minister has introduced certainly constitute an advance. I take it that the first lot deal with the appointment or secondment of officials, employees of one kind or another to the agency whereas the second lot refer to the actual Authority. There is there a whole area of declaration of interest to which Deputy Wilson has referred which needs to be dealt with urgently by this House. For some time past I have felt also that the least possible restrictions should be placed on individual citizens in regard to their wanting to or having the capacity to seek office, in these Houses, at local authority level or any other level. The question of membership of boards is a separate one and is perhaps a more contentious issue. It should be remembered that generally boards will deal with matters in much greater detail, having a much closer relationship with commercial, day to day decision making whereas Members of this House or of local authorities would not necessarily have that kind of close relationship in decision making.

I support the amendments generally and welcome the move toward making it easier for people who are in the service of the State by way of being officials or people who want to stand for election to these Houses, to take up positions on the Authority because they should not be precluded from doing so.

Is amendment 1a. agreed?

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 1b was discussed with amendment 1a.

I move amendment No. 1b:

In page 12, line 25, before "coopted" to insert "elected to or".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 1c was also discussed with amendment 1a.

I move amendment No. 1c:

In page 12, to delete lines 36 to 43 and substitute the following:

"(ii) in case he is elected as a member of either such House or of such Assembly or of such local authority in respect of the period commencing on such election and ending when he ceases to be a member of that House or that Assembly or that local authority, as the case may be,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 14, to delete lines 40 to 47 and substitute the following:

"21.—The Authority shall assess annually amounts of public expenditure, both capital and non-capital, which it recommends for the provision, operation and management of transport infrastructure and services in the following financial year; any institution for which provision is made in the Authority's assessments shall supply to the Authority such information, in such form and at such times, as the Authority may require; the Authority's recommendations shall be based as far as possible on the Dublin Transport Plan. In making its recommendations the Authority shall have regard to Government policy in relation to the public finances, and in particular to the prevailing budgetary and economic situation. The Authority shall make its recommendations to the Minister who, after consultation with the Ministers for the Environment and Finance, shall submit them to the Government.".

This amendment is based on what I referred to on numerous occasions on Second Stage, Committee Stage and since Report Stage began. As the clear words indicate — they do not need interpretation — for the implementation of the plan it was my wish that the Authority would have financial powers with regard to capital and non-capital expenditure. Moneys from the Exchequer for the provision, operation and management of transport infrastructure and services should be allocated to the Authority. The Authority, as an expert body, should take the decision as to how it should be divided. In the amendment I have mentioned also that the recommendations should be based on the Dublin transport plan. There is no more powerful a weapon than having the finance. If plans are ready and the Authority are able to say it is part of the overall plan that a roadway for buses or a rail line should be constructed from the city to Tallaght, then the Authority are in a very powerful position to have their plan implemented. There is provision, perhaps an over-cautious one, that the Authority shall have regard to Government policy in relation to the public finances. This is self-evident, something we would expect without writing it in. But it is inserted in the amendment to indicate that there is no tendency towards giving what would be in effect a large sum of money to the Authority without due caution. I know that what I have been pushing by way of amendment logically hung together, the plan and the financing.

As has been pointed out over and over again, one of the weaknesses in the Bill is that there is too much consultation with too many people, for example, with too many Ministers, to make the Authority effective. When Deputy Bruton was speaking on the Second Stage he indicated that he felt the same. I am not naive enough to think that at this stage I will get this amendment passed. But I want to give the House an opportunity to assess the arguments behind the whole scheme of planning and financing and, importantly also, the idea that CIE should act as the agent of the Dublin Transport Authority, in other words, that the activities of CIE in the city of Dublin should be controlled as they would be the agent of the Dublin Transport Authority. The obvious patent result of this would be that when the Authority had decided to improve the Dublin city services, for example, to develop new routes, change routes, establish different stops and so on, they should be in a position to do so and require their agents, CIE, to carry out what they had decided.

I am recommending the amendment to the House and intend pushing it hard. The only glimmer of hope I have from the Bill as constructed shone through on the last day we discussed the matter where there seemed to be a possibility of introducing an enabling section to cover such things as an overall Dublin plan and a provision for the Dublin Transport Authority being the dispenser of the finances in order to put that plan into execution.

I urge the House to consider this amendment seriously in the context in which I have placed it in the hope that we will have a better and more effective Dublin Transport Authority. I know that the powers they age given — Deputy Taylor indicated that there are considerable powers — will mean that the Authority will have effective power. I specifically mentioned the area which was catered for hitherto by the ad hoc task force set up after the Transport Consultative Commission had reported. I am not in any way denigrating the Bill in toto. There are areas which are good, but my criticism from the beginning has been that the Bill does not have a provision for an overall plan or for the financing of the Authority's activities to include the putting into effect of that plan.

This amendment could not be accepted because it would allow the Dublin Transport Authority to make unreasonable and unrealistic assessments of the quantum of new public expenditure which it considered should be incurred for the provision and so on of road and rail transport facilities and services. It is a matter for Government to decide on the parameters of public expenditure and, therefore, the appropriare function of the Authority, as already provided for in section 21 of the Bill, is to consider and make recommendations to the Ministers concerned as to the priorities which should be assigned in expenditure for the provision of road and rail transport facilities and services. The Government will decide on the final allocations for any particular items, as heretofore.

The kernel of Deputy Wilson's argument is that a plan is essential for the real development of a Dublin transport authority. Without muscle a plan is useless. The contention of the Minister is that if the Authority was given power to assess annually the amount of its expenditure it would incur unnecessary expenditure and do unreasonable things. Estimates of expenditure put forward by the Authority will have to be approved by the Minister for Finance and that represents a hold on what the Authority can do. The Authority should have power and be allowed to draw up its own plans. It should be given the finance to put those plans into action. Deputy Wilson's amendment seeks to give that power to the Authority. The Minister's treatment of the amendment is an indication that he does not have any intention of accepting it. It is clear that he is not willing to accept the arguments put forward by this side of the House. Because of that the transport authority that will be established following the passing of the Bill will not be a success.

The Minister made the point that the quantum of expenditure would be decided by the Authority. I should like to trace the argument back. The amendment states that the recommendations shall be based, as far as possible, on the Dublin transport plan. That being so, the expenditure will be related to the plan. That plan, as conceived by me and pushed in another amendment, would be the most democratic possible structure because the Authority would be required to formulate it. The plan would come in for the benefit of the expertise in the local authorities — in this sense Dublin Corporation and what will replace Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Borough Council. In other words, the expertise there would be brought to play on the plan. The plan would be published for everybody to see. An inquiry would be held and the plan would be viewed by all those interested in this very important subject of transport in our capital city. Their ideas and suggestions would benefit the plan. A public inquiry would give an opportunity to everybody to comment on the plan.

At the back of all this would be a consideration of what it would cost. When it is sent to Government for final sanction the first thing that will be considered will be its annual cost. It should not be forgotten that the proposal was that the plan should cover a five year period or a time decided by the House. Paramount in the mind of the Government when they would be considering the plan would be its cost. What the Government would be called upon to do later when the plan was being put into effect is something they would have reviewed beforehand. They would know beforehand in general terms what the cost per annum would be. It is not possible to take any power away from the Government. They have the final ipse dixit on it. We were suggesting that the Dublin Transport Authority which we conceived of as an expert body to deal with a very important section of our country, the transport in the capital city, would do the assessment. The Government, in sanctioning the plan, would also be sanctioning expenditure and none of their prerogatives in this matter could be touched. For that reason the Government decision with regard to expenditure, the expertise for local authorities and the interests of the public would be safeguarded and there would be no problems such as those which the Minister mentioned.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 50.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molony, David.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, Willie.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Prendergast, Frank.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Skelly, Liam.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Browne, John.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West)
  • O'Dea, William.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F.O'Brien and Taylor, Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Wilson has been ruled out of order.

Did I hear the Chair say that amendment No. 3 was ruled out of order?

The Deputy was so informed.

It escapes my notice how amendment No. 2 was permitted and amendment No. 3 was not. I know of the convention—I think I called it that on the last day, but I do not agree with it—about the expenditure of moneys. I should like guidance from the Chair as to how we distinguish between amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 3 on that basis.

In so far as amendment No. 3 is concerned, the reason was given, that is, that it was ruled out of order on the basis of a potential charge on the Revenue. I understand the amendment specifically includes the word "shall". I do not discuss my rulings here but the Deputy has a potential appointment with me and perhaps we can avail of that opportunity to discuss this matter also.

I understand your method of procedure in the Chair, that you do not discuss your rulings. I see the reason for that. If you were to discuss your rulings here there would be chaos so far as debates are concerned. The only reason I raised the matter was that I understand the provision is a Standing Order one. As you often suggest in the House there is a way of modifying Standing Orders and that is through the Committee that exists for that purpose. I have strong views about a number of areas where I think Standing Orders could be amended. We could consider this area about the expenditure of moneys.

I am not challenging the Chair's ruling or its modus operandi in the normal course of events.

I do not discuss my rulings in the House but the Deputy's amendment includes the phrase, "shall be paid to the authority out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas." That is a clear charge on the Revenue.

I understand that but what is puzzling me is the raison d'être for that ruling in Standing Orders.

It must come from the Government.

This ruling was included in the Standing Orders in 1922 and has been in existence since.

It has neither statutory nor constitutional backing. In your little book of rules, is there any record of anyone having challenged the rule?

I shall not go through those now.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 17, to delete lines 5 to 15 and substitute the following:

"28.—Notwithstanding any provision contained in any existing legislation, CIE shall operate public transport services within the Authority's administrative area, to such an extent, in such a manner, and at such fare levels as the Authority may from time to time determine. Section 2 of the Transport Act, 1964, which reads "it shall be the duty of the Board (of CIE) to conduct its undertaking so that, taking account of payments made to the Board by the Minister out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, its operating expenditure, including all charges properly chargeable to revenue shall not be greater taking one year with another than the revenue of the Board', is amended by the insertion of the words ‘Dublin Transport Authority and the' between the words ‘the' and ‘Minister'."

I will stop there to indicate that this is a very radical suggestion with regard to Dublin transport. As of now, such decisions are made by CIE, in so far as Dublin city services and suburban rail services are concerned, different sectors of the company dealing with road and rail respectively. The overall thinking behind the establishment of the Authority was that plans would be co-ordinated and therefore an authority outside the agency, in this case CIE, would be charged with the responsibility of organising the transport services. It is important that the Authority should be in a position to elaborate their transport schemes for the Dublin area and have the power in the Bill, which they would if CIE were an agent of the Authority, to put those plans into effect.

As this House knows well, if a company like CIE or the future triple or double company exercise their statutory role in the area, there is not much point in asking the Dublin Transport Authority to advise them, yet they should be in a position to advise them. As conceived by us it was to be an expert authority. There is not much point in giving them power to advise because in fact CIE would have the power to say: "No, we think this is the way it should be and we are not taking the advice given by the Dublin Transport Authority". This is the kernel of the problem as I see it.

I draw the attention of the House to the wording of the amendment:

... within the Authority's administrative area, to such an extent, in such a manner, and at such fare levels as the Authority may from time to time determine.

If the House were to accept this, the Authority would be in the way of improving our transport in the capital city. The establishment of the Authority has no other purpose. There is no point in having it in a consultancy or advisory role. It would be just another talking shop and a joke as far as making anything effective which had been decided upon with regard to the operation of CIE was concerned.

I am not too sure whether part of the amendment is properly constructed but I will read the rest of it into the record:

Section 2 of the Transport Act, 1964, which reads ‘it shall be the duty of the Board (of CIE) to conduct its undertakings so that, taking account of payments made to the Board by the Minister out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, its operating expenditure, including all charges properly chargeable to revenue shall not be greater taking one year with another than the revenue of the Board', is amended by the insertion of the words ‘Dublin Transport Authority and the' between the words ‘the' and ‘Minister'.".

Whatever about the obfuscation of the wording — and there is some — the general purpose is that in so far as the Dublin area is concerned and the defined area for the Authority, the Authority would make their case, as suggested by the defeated amendment No. 2, on the basis of the plan and get the money. Then they would utilise that money in both the services and infrastructure area.

I have been talking particularly about the services area because that is the area in which CIE operate. A good deal of frustration felt by the Minister's predecessors, and perhaps by the Minister himself, was due to the fact that there was no control over services development. Interested groups such as residents' associations were at liberty to make suggestions and for the most part they would be received and at least listened to by CIE. CIE might be elaborating plans for roadways, Dublin Corporation might be anxious for some other kind of development or possibly Dún Laoghaire Borough Council or Dublin County Council might have plans.

The whole thrust of the amendment before the House on Report Stage has been to see to it that there is not any unnecessary duplication of activity or, what is worse than duplication, activities which are at cross-purposes which would involve the wasteful expenditure of public moneys because of lack of coordination. For that reason I have been pushing the amendments that have come before the House today and this amendment is in line with the others. I do not think we have time to have another division before 7 o'clock on this amendment and for that reason I should like to tease it out fully and ask the support of the House for it. I intend to come back to it.

This amendment is not acceptable because it would effectively mean the takeover of CIE's Dublin operations by the Dublin Transport Authority. No justification for such takeover has been given or is seen. Such takeover would, of course, conflict with and prejudice the effective performance by the Authority of its vital policy-making advisory and regulatory functions on the Bill. The Dublin Transport Authority will set standards for CIE's passenger operations in the Dublin area relating to the extent of the bus and rail service provided and the quality and reliability of that service. The DTA will have regard to the overall transport requirements of their functional area and the special needs of particular areas, for example, the developing western suburbs or categories of passengers, the level of the Exchequer subvention made available for CIE and the permitted fare level. In view of financial constraints the DTA will be obliged to adopt a realistic approach in the setting of standards while seeking to ensure that the services provided represent good value for money. A close liaison with CIE would be necessary in the context of deciding on reliable operation targets and as regards the monitoring of these services provided by the board. I oppose this amendment.

I, too, regrettably have reservations about the amendment which Deputy Wilson is proposing. The make-up of the Authority would have a very great bearing on the effectiveness of what Deputy Wilson is proposing. If we do not have an Authority made up of experts, then clearly the decisions being taken by that Authority could be questionable. At present we have no idea who will be on this Authority. The Minister has power to appoint all the members, as far as I can recall. We had an amendment down on Committee Stage, which was not reached, seeking to change that. If the amendment as proposed was adopted it would take from CIE some of their key decision making roles and would practically denude them of their right to manage the company. It would transfer power from CIE to this Authority. The amendment does not attempt to control other elements of the transport area, such as the taxi service, the private buses and the private cars which are also key elements in the whole transport scene in the greater Dublin area. While I can appreciate what the Deputy is getting at, we need to have a co-ordinated and tightly run system of organising our transport. I do not believe that this amendment is the way to do it. I also appreciate that this amendment is part of a total approach being applied by Deputy Wilson to this Bill. Perhaps for that reason it is a little unfair to have to deal with it on a piecemeal basis at this stage.

As Deputy Wilson said at the outset, this amendment would bring about a major change in the manner in which transport is regulated in this city and the Dublin Transport Authority administrative area. It would change the whole power of operation of public transport and take it out of the hands of CIE. It would in effect be the Authority that was envisaged by Deputy Wilson and the Fianna Fáil Party with experts who would co-ordinate the whole transport scene within Dublin city, Dublin county and Dún Laoghaire. It would not only refer to CIE. The Authority would also have power to regulate other forms of transport. It is essential to understand that CIE would not be thrown aside. They would still be the public transport authoritive body. It would be no harm to have an Authority which would be able to co-ordinate all the different arms of local government, Telecom Éireann and An Post who operate in the area. CIE have not the power that the new Authority would have to control these local authorities. The Authority would be good for public transport and for the improvement of the transport system. It would not be an Authority concerned with speaking shop. The amendments that have been put forward from this side of the House would have given the Authority the necessary power to co-ordinate and to organise the whole area in question. The end result would have been a more fluent and better service to the public in general.

First of all, I would like to take up what the Minister said. Certainly the whole thrust of my amendments was to have a regulatory Authority, an Authority with power to plan and with money to execute that plan. The advisory role is all right in its own way but it is a bit like Kathleen Mavourneen, it may last for years or it may last for ever. We have far too much of that. The Minister mentioned, and rightly so, the importance of the development of transport for the western and southern suburbs. To a certain extent the Government made strong provision in the northern suburbs with the provision of the DART service. The type of Dublin Transport Authority which I have been advocating is precisely the type of transport authority which would be in a position to develop proper services for the western and southern suburbs of this city. It is all right to talk about close liaison but if we have not got the power that would come from the overall plan and from having control of the finances then it is much more difficult to affect any kind of reform or development in transport.

Deputy De Rossa quite rightly said that what we are aiming at is an Authority with experts. We did not intend that the Authority be totally representational. I commend what the Minister did with regard to giving a minority representation to the local authorities. The whole thrust of the Bill as we conceived it was that it would have experts and that they would be tied down to a modus operandi which would bring them before the public, the authorities and the Government before a plan was finally approved. As Deputy De Rossa said, it would mean a transfer of authority from CIE to the Dublin Transport Authority. The Authority would also have a competence with regard to taxis, private buses and private cars.

Because of the recession, the number of redundancies and the number of people who have been taken off the payroll over the last couple of years, and the Government must share responsibility for that, there has been an easement of traffic. The big snarl up which we expected would have been reached now has not occurred as yet and the new bridges over the Liffey have helped in that area. The type of Authority which we envisaged and which we pushed on Second Reading and have pushed by way of amendment since then is the type of authority necessary if Dublin is to develop in the way we think and hope it will develop as our capital city. For that reason I recommend that the House accept this amendment. I know my time is running short——

It has overrun.

I do not intend to divide the House now but I want to have an opportunity by way of vote for the House to express itself on this amendment.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share