——which the Minister insisted was being honoured, which I find is not now being honoured. In fact, I find he was mistaken in some of the allegations he made.
The quality of our national roads network is of fundamental importance to our economy. It is important vis-à-vis its efficiency and the competitiveness of our economy. Bad roads retard economic development. Indeed, it has been estimated independently that bad roads in Ireland add 20 per cent to the cost of rural manufacturing industry. Traffic congestion, bottlenecks and delays impose clear cost penalties on the Irish haulage sector because of the tachograph regulations. The accumulated cost of an inefficient roads network and a highly taxed haulage sector means that Irish transport costs are twice the European average. For example, it is estimated that, on averge, transport costs account for 9 per cent of export values, in other words, for every £100 of Irish exports, £9 are attributable to transport costs, double the European average of 4.5 per cent.
The credibility of the Government on the establishment of the National Roads Authority and providing that Authority with a statutory base is very weak. Fianna Fáil first promised this Bill in 1987, over four years ago. As of February 1989 the sixth draft of the Bill had been circulated. Over four years after it had first been promised it is now introduced in this House. That indifference and neglect is matched only by the Minister's successor's complete failure to provide adequate resources to bring our roads network up to a European standard.
In the operational EC programme for infrastructural development from 1989 to 1993 there was larger support than ever from the EC for funding for roads, up to 75 per cent of a route development made available. Given that these new resources were being made available, what did the Government do? They decided to cheat the Irish motorist and EC taxpayer by substituting EC resources for Irish Exchequer funding. In fact, the Exchequer will contribute only a net 17 per cent of the cost of this five year roads programme from 1989 to 1993.
Given the tax return on the construction work in the form of PAYE and PRSI from the works this programme will generate, they will actually make a profit on their investment given the low level of capital input. This means the Exchequer will have contributed less to the construction of national roads over the period 1989 to 1993 compared with the previous five years Exchequer funding. This five-year roads programme will result in 16 per cent only of the national roads network being upgraded. It is a matter of total frustration and annoyance to the Irish transport sector, industry, agriculture and tourism that road development is such a low priority with this Government.
Fine Gael believe that, until there is a single Minister and Department of Transport dealing with all aspects of road, sea and air transport, we will not have an integrated, efficient raods transport network. At present we have a Minister for the Environment, his Department and local authorities dealing with roads and traffic matters and some degree of law enforcement in relation to them. The Minister for Transport is responsible for aviation and shipping, for semi-State companies and certain haulage issues, such as licensing regulations and laden weights. The Minister for the Marine is responsible for ports, shipping and marine issues.
I might cite the example of Denmark where they reorganised their Government Departments to ensure they would have an integrated policy by having a single Ministry for Transport dealing with all modes of transport. Those working in and dependent on the transport sector here are confused and baffled by the lack of coherence at this level of inter-departmental responsibility. We believe there should be a single Minister, acting in a coherent manner, leading to the evolvement of an efficient integrated transport network, reducing our peripherality and heading to lower transport costs. We contend this lack of coherence is one of the fundamental flaws of this Bill, that is, the total omission of infrastructural responsibility for our railways as part of the functions of the National Roads Authority.
Fine Gael believe that the National Roads Authority should have responsibility for the upgrading and maintenance of the national network of roads and railway track. Rail transport is the only form of transport where the operators, Irish Rail, have to pay the total cost of the infrastructure, the permanent way. This costs over £44 million per annum. It is a disgrace that the EC operational programme for 1989 to 1993 provides not one penny for the railways outside Dublin, although resources under that programme amount to over £1 billion. The small figure of £36 million is to be used for rolling stock in the Dublin area. All road expenditure is on the basis of 75:25 and it is shameful that not one penny was applied for in respect of the railways.
I attended a public meeting in Galway last night. People there are wondering why it takes two hours and twenty-five minutes to commute to Dublin by train. It need take only two hours if there were continuous welded rail all the way. I understand it is provided from Heuston to Portarlington, but only 18 miles of the remaining 88 miles from Portarlington to Galway are done. This work could be done at a cost of £18 million or £1.8 million over ten years. To put those figures into context, it cost £35 million to build five miles of the Athlone by-pass, while it would cost £18 million to update 70 miles of track. That illustrates the value for money provided by the rail-ways. The Minister may say it is not a matter for his Department but it is a vital infrastructural and transport issue and it underlines the weakness of ad hoc planning in relation to transport. The lines from Ballina, Westport, Castlebar, Galway and Sligo to Dublin are being downgraded by stealth through lack of investment in the permanent way. Trains can achieve speeds of 90 miles an hour on continuous welded rail but not on jointed tracks. The proposed authority should be a national roads and rail authority and should come under the aegis of the Minister for Transport.
Under successive Governments from the thirties to the sixties policy in relation to the haulage sector was designed to safeguard the position of the railways. Many changes have taken place in transport liberalisation in recent decades, particularly the legislation in the 1980s to open up the haulage sector to intense competition within the private sector. This will be added to by cabotage in terms of international competition. We will shortly have a bus competition Bill which will open up passenger services to similar intense competition in terms of fares and the scheduling of routes. The original basis of the protective legislation in terms of haulage and passenger transport services was the protection of the railways. Now that these changes have taken place, there is a compelling case for more positive support in terms of infrastructural capital grant aid to the railway sector to ensure its survival. The Government cannot ignore this problem and express surprise in years to come over the time it takes to travel from Dublin to Westport or Sligo by train and the fact that fewer people are using the services. We will be tabling a series of Committee Stage amendments to ensure that the Authority is expanded to deal with the purely infrastructural requirements of Irish Rail. This would also include the possibility of the ultimate conclusion that the solution to Dublin's transport needs is the development of a public transport network, probably a light rail system, which could come under the aegis of a national roads and rail authority.
I now refer to the independence of the Authority. I am aware that one of the reasons for the delay in bringing forward this legislation has been the internal debate whether the National Roads Authority should be an executive office within the Department of the Environment under the control of the Minister, which would merely mean the renaming and reclassification of the roads division of that Department, or the establishment of a semi-State authority independent of the Department and the Minister for the Environment. It is absolutely vital that the National Roads Authority be an independent arm of Government, acting with the singular objective to expedite the upgrading of the standard of Irish roads to a European level. They should be free to articulate views in the way, for example, that the Combat Poverty Agency do. They should also be free from political interference in relation to the prioritising of route development. Because we now have a Minister for the Environment from Cavan-Monaghan rather than Mayo, we do not want to find that primary route development moves from the west to the north-east. This is no way to plan infrastructure. We need independence of action. Knowing the Minister's record of support for the health board in his own area, I have no doubt that he would not be behind the bush in looking after his constituency needs.
It is vital that the National Roads Authority do not become another layer of bureaucracy, wedged between the Departments of the Environment and Finance on the one hand and local authorities on the other. Such a buffer might only add to the bureaucracy delays and problems of the current road construction programme. To avoid such a dilemma, it is imperative that local authorities have a strong consultative relationship with the authority and that the Government allow them to do their job on an autonomous basis. We will be tabling a number of amendments because we believe the present draft does not allow sufficient consultation with local authorities and their engineering staff. We must ensure that in terms of maintenance, local authorities will not be in a worse position financially in carrying out their responsibilities. I am referring specifically to the maintenance of former national roads which have been downgraded or bypassed. The maintenance funding to date to local authorities in respect of national primary routes has been so low that they cannot attempt to maintain the hard shoulder of such roads. Deputy Howlin will verify that the Wexford county manager recently outlined to us that for some time it has been the case that the inadequacy of funds has prevented any work on the hard shoulders of these roads. It is an acknowledged fact of policy. If under this legislation local authorities are to be given added responsibilities and delegated to do certain work, it is vital that they are not made the scapegoats for financial cutbacks and that they be given adequate resources. In this area the independence of the authority is vital. It must be ensured that the position regarding shortsighted savings does not worsen.
The procedures for compulsory purchase orders do not take account of local residential or community views which may be expressed through local public representatives. I will be seeking to insert amendments so that in the first instance compulsory purchase orders will continue to be carried out by local authorities. Only in the event of a clear conflict of views between the local authority and the National Roads Authority would the matter be taken up by the Minister, who would have to sanction such a compulsory purchase order. It is vital that we do not have unaccountable bureaucrats determining in isolation the sensitive issue of compulsory purchase orders. The track record of local councils in this regard has been fair and reasonable, bearing in mind sensitivity to local needs and the requirements of progress.
What I am saying is that in virtually every conceivable case the acquisition of land for route development should be carried out exclusively by local authorities. They should be democratically allowed to carry out their role in this regard and only in an extraordinary dispute where the local authority are being totally unreasonable should the Minister, who is accountable to this House, as opposed to the National Roads Authority, who are basically accountable to nobody, take action.
I am deeply concerned, as are my party, about Part V of the Bill which deals with toll roads. Under the Minister's proposals, the National Roads Authority will have power to levy tolls on new motorways they build, and to levy tolls on new highways they will only need the approval of the Minister. The local authority will have no say in the matter. The National Roads Authority can decide to collect the toll themselves or sell the franchise to a private company. Income earned from the tolls can be used to repay finance borrowed for road construction which under the Bill they will be allowed to raise.
Fine Gael are opposed to such sweeping powers which, in effect, amount to the possibility of new and penal taxation. That is not to say we are opposed to tolls in principle. We believe tolls should be limited to roads where there is a private investment factor only. In cases where there is total public funding, tolls should not apply. Therefore, roads which are publicly funded by Irish taxpayers and the European authorities should not be used as a vehicle for raising new Exchequer revenue. If it is necessary to supplement the existing roads programme which is publicly financed with new roads which are privately financed, they can be the subject of such a toll.
I understand there are only two toll facilities in operation at present under the Local Government (Toll Roads) Act, 1979, namely, the East Link and West Link bridges over the River Liffey. In view of the fact that the Irish road user pays the highest rates of taxation in Europe, such a major departure from existing policy should be vigorously opposed. The figures are quite startling when one combines the revenue from VAT and excise duties on petrol and auto-diesel, with VAT and excise duties on the purchase of motor vehicles as well as other taxes. Including motor taxation, this amounted to a total taxation of £1,061 million in 1988; £1,221 million in 1989 and £1,280 million in 1990. Enough is enough. More tolls for publicly funded roads can only be an additional unfair burden on the Irish road user.
To put it frankly, Irish motorists pay £3.5 million every day to the Exchequer. To put this in context, the total requirement needed to bring our roads up to the European standard by the year 2010 would be £230 million per year. When one compares this to the figure of £1,280 million one can see that the Government are taking in huge resources from motorists. The Government should not introduce a new tax by the back door which would add to transport costs on our primary, inter-city and arterial radial routes at a time when there is a huge disparity between taxation on transport North and South of the Border. I should like to give some examples of this.
The VAT rate on fuel and vehicles in the Republic is 21 per cent and 15 per cent in Northern Ireland. The excise duty on vehicles in the North is zero while it is 6.5 per cent in the South. The rate of excise duty on a hectolitre of oil is approximately 10 per cent higher in the South than in the North. When one adds to this higher insurance costs and dearer prices for parts, one can see how the haulage sector in the South are being crippled by a loss of market share to Northern Ireland hauliers and they have to cope with the existing unfair competitive base. Goods are transported from the most southerly points of the Republic — Cork and Kerry — to Larne, across to Stranraer and then to the south of England. This is illogical and means huge losses to Irish ports, such as Rosslare, Cork, Dún Laoghaire and Dublin, in terms of the central and southern corridor. The Government have already taxed haulage transport out of existence and any proposal to introduce toll roads would not only make us uncompetitive in Europe but would add a further burden to the soft touch — the Irish motorist. This would be unacceptable. If the Government wish to introduce a supplementary programme over and above that set out by the EC, the Department and the National Roads Authority, for building more toll roads, then only a modest level of toll should apply. There would also have to be strict control of the toll and a local authority input. The proposal to repeal the Local Government (Toll Roads) Act, 1979, set out in Part V, goes too far.
I wish to refer to the funding of road construction in more detail. The Department of the Environment estimate that the total cost of upgrading our national roads network to an acceptable standard would be £3.3 billion at 1987 prices. At the current level of investment this would not be achieved for 30 years. This is unacceptable. A more reasonable target would be the year 2010, which is just under 20 years away. This would require an average annual investment of approximately £230 million per annum at 1990 prices. When the Government were negotiating with the EC Commission they did not honour their original application under the plan entitled "Ireland Road Development 1989 to 1993". This envisaged a total investment of £687 million, including an Irish Government commitment of £171 million. When the operational programme was subsequently published in 1990 the total was reduced to £518 million and the Exchequer's contribution was cut by £30 million. It is shameful that the Irish Exchequer funding position should have been reduced in these circumstances.
The whole purpose of getting this money was to bring us up to a European standard. If one compares the average funding for roads projected over the five year period of the current plan with the previous five years, one can see that total annual expenditure is projected to rise by 24 per cent. However, when one takes into account that EC funding is up by 78 per cent, one can see that net State expenditure is down by 19 per cent. This deceitful, shabby and cheap substitution of funds will mean that in years to come when people look back at our preparation for the Single European Market they will see that, instead of bringing our infrastructure up to an acceptable competitive standard, we diverted the funds for current purposes in a shortsighted and irresponsible manner. It will be seen that we shored up our budgetary position with EC resources instead of using them for the purpose of providing long term meaningful benefits.
In view of this lack of commitment it is important that there is now long term planning. This is at the core of whether the National Roads Authority will be successful. Fine Gael believe that a target date of the year 2010 should now be set to implement the roads programme outlined by the EC in 1989. Furthermore, it is vital that an interim target should be set for the necessary road development being achieved by the end of the next five year programme. The present programme will run to 1993 and the next five year programme will run to 1998. What we are saying is that 60 per cent of the EC target to bring us up to a European standard should be achieved by 1998 and the total programme should be implemented by the year 2010. This minimum target should be 60 per cent of the total programme.
There should be a clear signal from this House as to what the National Roads Authority are obliged to achieve. All the road maps and routes have already been set out. The design work in terms of what needs to be done is already in place, what we need is action and implementation. To make matters worse the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, on 6 March 1991 outlined a list of new projects to commence at that time. He announced that £114.6 million was to be invested in major road improvement schemes. There was no breakdown of this figure for new starts. Reliable industry sources suggest that some £30 million of this £114.6 million was exclusively for new projects which were to commence for the first time in 1991. I regret to say that my allegations in September that the then Minister was not honouring his commitments of 6 March have since been confirmed, despite the Minister's denials. The Minister said at the time that my claims were absolute rubbish and that I had got it wrong again. I stand over my claim that no excavation work has commenced or will commence this year on the northern cross route linking the N1 and the N3, i.e., linking the western toll bridge and Dublin Airport. Neither the Portlaoise by-pass nor work on the Euro route at Kilpeddar, Glen of the Downs will commence this year. Despite the former Minister's bluster it is quite obvious that independent constituents of the road transport industry see through this waffle. I quote from the Alliance of National Road Users press release of 11 September in which they said they were: astonished at the Minister's blanket assertion that all eight EC supported projects due to commence in 1991 were on target. They went further and stated: "The Minister's remarks are not supported by the situation on the ground". The former Minister with his age old practice of bluster and bluff has been exposed yet again.
Clearly, we have a situation whereby we are not honouring our commitments. Further information has come to hand since. The northern cross route is at least eight months behind schedule. Construction has not yet commenced on any of the following projects: the £50 million Lucan-Kilcock by-pass; the £16 million Mullingar by-pass; the £29 million Portlaoise by-pass and the improvement work at Kilmacanogue and Glen of the Downs costing £8 million. The fact is that the Minister clearly set out on 6 March the programmes that would commence this year but that is all in ribbons. There is no logical or acceptable explanation in the context of delays or tendering that will satisfy a situation whereby even the most modest programme, agreed by the EC, is not now going to be implemented. It is no wonder we are being humiliated in Europe. I will go further and draw the Minister's attention to the report of the EC Court of Auditors which oversees Community spending. It has called into question the operation of a number of EC financed schemes in Ireland. I quote from The Irish Times of 28 November 1990 — the day after the annual report of the Court of Auditors was published:
... the court criticises agricultural schemes and projects financed under the Community's regional development fund, for "sloppy management", failure to correctly apply spending rules, and the "withholding of essential information" necessary to Brussels in order to improve EC schemes.... While recent reforms of the European Regional Development Fund — which, per capita, benefits Ireland more than any other EC member state — are “much vaunted”, according to the auditors, administration of the funds has “barely improved”.
Ireland is accused in the report of receiving funds "considerably higher than its quota" for regional development. The Government's use of EC moneys for the national roads development programmes has resulted in "no significant improvement".
The whole principle of EC funding is not to give money to the Paddys — the whole principle is one of additionality, to help poorer peripheral member states to reach European standards. Yet, in a shabby and cheap way we are substituting this Euro gravy to prop up our budgetary situation.
This is not only a tragedy of neglect because of the continuing horrific series of road accidents which are the result of an inadequate national road network, but is extremely grave in so far as the EC authorities are concerned. The EC Court of Auditors are not happy with the present Government's performance in terms of road development. I should like to quote from a statement from the CII on 23 August 1991 in which they say:
The CII roads policy committee strongly urges the Minister for the Environment to take all the necessary steps to accelerate the current roads programme, so that at least the approved EC assistance for roads, up to the end of 1993, will be drawn down.
When replying on Second Stage I would like the Minister to give a commitment that all the EC moneys will be drawn down for the period up to 1993. I know questions will be raised by the Court of Auditors and by the Commission in relation to the way we have failed to keep our promises. It will be impossible to argue for increased funding after 1993 from the EC Commission when our performance has been so pathetic.
I wish to turn now to the issue of non-national roads — the 94 per cent of roads about which the average resident and tourist has so many complaints. These roads are known as regional or local roads under the reclassfication in Part II of this Bill. It is the poor standards of these roads that have made Irish roads the butt of European jokes, not to speak of the constant problem of damage to vehicles. Frustration has turned to anger among Irish motorists on this issue to the extent that in the last local elections specific single issue candidates were elected to councils — not so far from the Minister's area — on the issue of the state of our county roads. Total road mileage throughout the country is 57,000. County or regional roads comprise roughly 53,600 miles of that total. Local authorities have been squeezed in their budgetary situations since the abolition of domestic rates in 1979. The domestic rates support grant from central government in lieu of revenue from household rates has not kept pace with local authority requirements or inflation. Local authorities faced with this position cannot reduce expenditure in many areas of fixed administrative overheads such as the running of the fire brigade service, housing administration, insurance and so on. Even though there has been some increase in the discretionary non-national road grants from the Department of the Environment to local authorities, the total level of expenditure on minor roads has not been adequate. The grant in 1991 was £68.13 million. Most local authorities are down to a resurfacing cycle of county roads of over 25 years, in some cases it is as high as 37 years. Essentially, this is a problem of resources. The present funding mechanisms are not working.
Fine Gael believe that a local roads fund should be established to maintain and improve non-national primary routes. This would be made up of receipts from motor taxation paid to local authorities. In 1991 revenue from this source to local authorities was £161 million. I understand that currently total expenditure on non-national roads for 1991 was made up of a total of £130 million — £80 million by way of grants from the Department of the Environment to local authorities and £50 million from the internal budgets of local authorities. If the grants system were to be replaced by allowing the motor tax receipts to be used in this way funding would be increased by some £31 million this year. I suggest we abolish the road grants for non-national roads, do away with that administration and use the motor tax receipts which would be spent exclusively on the basis of mileage. A minimum level of funding of £160 million is needed to resolve the problem that can only otherwise get worse as time passes. Savings made in the short term on the maintenance of our county roads will have to be paid for in years to come. The level of expenditure should be based exclusively and solely on mileage of county roads in each administrative area or county. Local authorities would not be allowed to divert such funding into other areas of their activity. Unless a political commitment is given for a new funding mechanism of this kind there will be no progress, only deterioration, on the issue. This is an area where radical reform is required.
After the abolition of rates in 1979 we had the domestic rates support grant. The previous Minister, Deputy Flynn, in the late eighties introduced the notion of discretionary grants for non-national roads. This has been increased dramatically to a level of £80 million, but it is still not enough. There is a huge variation in the quality of minor roads in different counties. We must have uniformity throughout the country and we must have quality roads. This can only be achieved with a proper resurfacing and maintenance cycle. We all know that dumper trucks putting a bit of tar and chippings here and there is not the solution to the problem of potholes. We need a new funding mechanism. On the basis of the principle that the user pays, there will be broad acceptance by motorists that the bigger the car the more one pays and that this money should contribute to the local authority setting up a local roads fund which will not be diverted to any other area.
When one takes into account the abolition of road grants and the £30 million that would normally go to the Exchequer from the local authorities, a total of £160 million will have to be paid by the Exchequer for roads. Unless such an investment is made some county councils will have to apply the abandonment clause in this Bill to some roads. Roads are capital assets which have to be maintained. If not, the strengthening work which will be needed in future will be even more expansive.
On Committee Stage, Fine Gael will submit proposals for a road audit of each local authority by the National Roads Authority. It is vital to have a cost benefit analysis as to the value for money being obtained by local authorities in their expenditure on roads. Such an analysis should be carried out on a biannual basis to show regional variations in contractors' prices and the relative merits and demerits of using private contractors as against permanent council staff. I do not have an ideological view on whether the councils should use their own resources or private contractors. If we were totally dependent on private contractors there would be a rip-off. The contractors would get together and agree not to compete on price. As against that, we can achieve better work practices and greater efficiencies if we have clear cost comparisons between private contractors and the cost of maintenance by local authorities. The objective of the road audit would be to arrive at uniform costings for each local authority in terms of strengthening and road surfacing works.
In my analysis of different counties with regard to road problems, grants and so on, not all the problems can be accounted for in financial terms. Although the mileage is the same for funding in each county we have a deplorable disparity in the quality of roads. At a recent meeting I was told that the number of engineers in one local authority exceeded the number of road workers. I do not know if that is true but an audit would highlight this and it would include the performance aspect, to ensure that roads are brought to an acceptable standard in each area. It is not good enough to leave comparisons as to the quality of our road network to a pothole competition on the "Gay Byrne Hour". We need an appropriate inspection process that would show up local authorities who are not doing their job properly.
We will also table amendments on Committee Stage to deal with the annoyance and irritation that many road users endure due to disruption to traffic from road openings. This applies particularly in metropolitan urban areas. I am referring to road works carried out by other than road authorities or local authorities, including the ESB, An Bord Gáis, work on water supplies and works done by other private contractors. We need order in this chaos where vital roads in our cities are repeatedly opened, causing delays, traffic congestion and hardship to motorists. We will seek a licence or permit system for such road openings which will have clear cost penalties for delays in completing the works or for a failure to replace the roadway satisfactorily. Ordinary motorists find nothing more frustrating than being stuck behind some little plastic tent erected by Telecom Éireann or An Bord Gáis reducing three lane roads to one lane of traffic so that people cannot get to work on time or keep appointments.
In Dublin, for instance we need a licensing system so that utilities cannot open up roads at will. Various authorities should have to work together when roads are opened and there should be penalties for delays. Companies should not be able to work at their leisure. They should have to pay a fine if the work is not completed quickly or if the road is not repaired properly. There is no reason the local authorities should have to bear the cost of replacing roads due to the sloppy workmanship of other State bodies.
In terms of road prioritisation and overall road strategy, it is imperative that we give priority to the roads that connect to our seaports. We are an island economy with a very high dependence on foreign trade. We export more than 70 per cent of everything we produce and we rely on seaports for the movement of 99.8 per cent of our overseas trade. Our dependence on foreign trade is higher than that of the UK, Japan or the US. Our dependence is the highest in the EC, except for Belgium and Luxembourg. Our European partners have a market on their doorsteps. They also have access to high speed rail, motorways and inland waterways to transport their goods while we are totally dependent on our seaports.
Following the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1992 we will be the only country without a landlink to the European Continent. Road access to Dublin Port is poor, adding considerably to access costs while Belfast, Larne and Warrenpoint are served by ports and/or dual carriageway systems. Our principal ports of Dublin, Rosslare, Waterford and Cork should have the highest priority for haulage and tourism access to have the most beneficial impact on reducing our transport costs. One of the disadvantages Irish ports and Irish shipping services suffer relative to the services operated in Northern Ireland, and particularly through Larne, is the infrequency of sailings. Traffic congestion and failure to meet departure times on shipping schedules imposes huge cost penalties. Therefore the highest priority in terms of road development is our links into and out of our commercial seaports. This is absolutely critical.
In terms of competing demands, should it be political constituency pressure that determines on which routes the money is to be spent? I believe not. It is up to this House to state the priorities. Dublin Port, for instance accounts for 7.5 million tonnes of trade, or 40 per cent of all exports, and employs some 5,000 people within an 800 acre compound. Dublin Port is absolutely vital. One of the problems is that it is clogged up. One of the reasons people use Larne instead of Dublin Port — and the same would apply to Dún Laoghaire — is that there are may be one or two sailings a day by Sealink or the B & I Line whereas there is a sailing every half hour from Larne. If someone is trying to meet a 9 o'clock sailing here and gets stuck in traffic in the city centre they have to wait 12 hours for the next sailing. This causes huge problems for all the "just-in-time" modern concepts of the manufacturing industry which is to keep one's stock levels as low as possible and one's cash flow as tight as possible in producing a given product at a given time. I know from my own constituents the frustration of people in, for example, the mushroom business or the fresh fruit and vegetable business, who are trying to meet very tight deadlines for the Tescos and Sainsburys because of delays and holdups on our sailings. The first priority must be the roads to our ports.
In relation to Part VI of the Bill concerning the prohibition of temporary dwellings on national roads and other unauthorised activities on the side of the roads, I would like to make two points. First, I believe it should be an offence to have a wandering animal on a roadway. There have been too many horrific accidents, particularly from wandering horses, for this problem to be ignored any longer. The existing Animals Acts and the powers of the Garda and local authorities are inadequate, as are the penalties for such wandering animals which are extremely dangerous to the motoring public. I would like to dwell on this for a moment. Some areas have a more severe problem than others in relation to wandering horses.