Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996

Vol. 464 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Dublin Light Rail Plan: Motion.

Mr. Cowen

I move: That Dáil Éireann:

(1) condemns the lack of respect shown for the Dáil by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications when he misled the House in relation to the plans for the Dublin light rail system by withholding information on an EU investigation in both debates and in responses to parliamentary questions on 14 December 1995 and on the following dates in 1996, amongst others: 31 January, 5 March, 6 March, 26 March and 28 March;

(2) calls on Minister Lowry to explain why he proceeded to announce the light rail lines for Dundrum and Tallaght on 12 December 1995 given that:

(a) on 29 November 1995, according to the EU Regional Affairs spokesperson, his Department had agreed to a postponement pending the further investigation which represented a full study of the entire light rail plan; and (b) a serious question mark was hanging over the line, the phasing and the £114 million in EU funding;

(3) calls on the Minister, in the interests of openness and accountability, to lay before the Dáil all correspondence between him and the European Commission in relation to the Dublin light rail system; and

(4) condemns the Government for overseeing a serious deterioration in relations between Ireland and the European Commission with this controversy involving Minister Lowry following on other serious ones involving Ministers Howlin and Yates.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Cullen.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed. Agreed.

Mr. Cowen

This is not the first occasion within the short tenure of office of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications that a Private Members' motion has been tabled criticising his handling of matters within his portfolio. Last year the public life of the country was convulsed for months by the controversy created by the Minister and his army of advisers in relation to anonymous letters. That affair resulted in a Private Members' motion being tabled condemning the Minister. To have had one Private Members' motion of such a serious nature tabled might be seen as unfortunate but to have two within such a short space of time can only be seen as carelessness. Obviously the Minister has not learned from the anonymous letters affair he himself created.

Throughout all these controversies the Minister somehow thinks he deserves pity. He seeks to generate public sympathy by claiming that he is being targeted and that he is innocent. Last week in this House he complained of "the welter of abuse and allegations" against him. He might well recognise how others feel on the basis of that statement.

It must be remembered that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications is the author of his own difficulties and has only himself to blame for his political judgment again being called into question. He has managed single handedly to botch almost every issue that has come before him. As has already been said, this accident-prone Minister has managed to get in the way of his own agenda.

The controversies that have arisen involving this Minister raise the most serious questions about his attitude to office. This is particularly obvious in the motion I have just moved. The Minister has sought to make light of the whole affair. As far as he is concerned, there is nothing wrong with withholding information from the Dáil, Seanad or the public. The Minister's concealment of information in relation to the European Union investigation into the Dublin light rail system did not stop merely at the Dáil, Seanad and the public; it appears it also extended to the Cabinet.

The Sunday Business Post has reported that the decision on the two lines was taken without the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications letting his Government colleagues know that the phasing of the project was under the microscope. This demonstrates the Minister's cavalier approach to Government office; he appears to believe that Cabinet is some kind of a Ballymagash town council meeting where he can say anything and get away with it. One would expect that the Minister's colleagues would be on their guard when this inexperienced Minister is in the spotlight at Cabinet. Given his record to date, they should be exercising extra caution during his presentations to Government. Anybody who has made such a bags of so many things, who has been a lightning rod for controversy, should not be let out in public until the fine print has been checked.

That does not appear to have happened because, if it had, one would have expected the Minister for Social Welfare to have raised some queries with the Minister, Deputy Lowry, about the light rail line to Ballymun. Had the Minister for Social Welfare kept his eye on the ball he would have had to be informed by the Minister of the EU investigation.

Given the level of concealment by the Minister, one must also question the Taoiseach's robust defence of him in the House last week. Is this the type of behaviour the Taoiseach is willing to accept on the part of his Ministers? Is this what he claims A Government of Renewal is all about?

The information concealed by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications about the European Union investigation was of no small importance. As The Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post both said in editorials, the citizens of Dublin deserve precise information regarding the status of the light rail project. The Irish Times, in its editorial on light rail, noted that, despite a four-page statement by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications on 16 April, he still had some explaining to do. That editorial said: “his statement last night does not satisfactorily answer the many questions raised”.

That newspaper also acknowledged the legitimacy of the Fianna Fáil claim that the Minister has engaged in a gross deception of both Houses of the Oireachtas over the Dublin light rail plan. By withholding information on the European Union investigation, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications has yet again raised questions about the Government's respect for the Dáil, its relationship with the European Union in Brussels and its commitment to a much vaunted promise of openness, transparency and accountability.

Most serious of all is the threat posed to Dublin light rail by this controversy. In a speech to the Dublin City Centre Business Association on 28 March last the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications warned:

There is a fixed timescale for the EU funding which underpins the project and there is no guarantee that this money will be obtained unless the timetable is adhered to.

Where stands that timetable now? The Minister and the Taoiseach have maintained it is not in jeopardy. That may be wishful thinking. The Dublin light rail project is now 18 months behind schedule and cannnot afford to lose any more time if it is to meet the deadline for spending European Union money before funding expires in the year 2000. There is a very real threat posed by this additional delay, given that this time next year there is to be a medium-term review of the operational programme for transport.

What happens if the European Union changes the phasing of its funding for light rail? There is the real likelihood that, by the time of the mid-term review, no cable for light rail will have been installed, that the project could still be at the planning stage. If that is the case, the European Union could decide to allocate those funds elsewhere. Portugal already has two light rail projects ready to go once funding is found.

Dublin badly needs the light rail project. Whereas at one time traffic jams in the capital were confined to peak hours in the mornings and evenings, traffic jams now continue throughout the day. Only radical measures such as the installation of a light rail system will alleviate the problem. That is why this controversy is so serious, why the Fianna Fáil Party has pursued the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications for answers.

Since this controversy erupted the Minister has defended himself with a series of half truths. No matter what he now endeavours to argue, there is no doubt that on 12 December last, when he was badly in need of some good news to distract attention from his difficulties, he announced in a blaze of publicity the light rail lines to Dundrum and Tallaght and expressed regret that the Government had decided not to proceed with a third proposed route to Ballymun until after the year 2000. In his six-page speech announcing the lines, the Minister made no reference to the European Union investigation questioning this phasing which stipulated that the funding for those two lines was conditional. It is incomprehensible that the Minister decided to announce those two lines while a question mark hung over the project and some £114 million in European Union funding.

It was even more incomprehensible if one examines the events of 29 November last because on that date, two weeks before the announcement of the two lines to which I have just referred, officials of the Minister's Department met their European Union counterparts about the Dublin light rail plan. It was agreed at that meeting — and this has been confirmed by officials of the European Union — that a final decision would not be taken on the Dublin light rail lines pending a cost benefit analysis. It appears the European Union had not been told at that meeting that on 12 December the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communication, Deputy Lowry, would flout the agreement and make an announcement on the lines to Tallaght and Dundrum. The European Union believed an announcement about the lines had been put on hold and postponement was effectively agreed. Certainly any announcement was expected to be conditional.

The Minister is now trying to reinvent history. He claimed in a press release on 16 April that last December he launched a public consultation process and that, in effect, he did not make an announcement on the two lines. He suggested this was a public consultation process about a general plan for the city of Dublin rather than for specific light rail routes. It was abundantly clear on 12 December that his announcement related to the two lines and the public consultation process related only to those two lines. This is borne out also by the fact that the only consultation by the light rail team has been on the Tallaght-Dundrum routes and Ballymun has not featured. The focus on the Dundrum and Tallaght lines is recorded also in the Official Report, Volume 462, column 1178, of 5 March 196. At Question Time on that day the Minister in responding to a question said:

I launched CIE's public consultation programme on the planned light rail links to Tallaght and Dundrum on 12 December 1995...

That is a direct contradiction of what the Minister sought to suggest is the case as per his press release on 16 April. Further on in column 1181 of the same day when responding to supplementary questions, the Minister said:

The routes have been announced. They will be made known to the public, the people who wish to comment on how a route might affect them or how it could be best placed or changed to accommodate the concerns of local people will be listened to during the public consultation stage and also at the public inquiry.

That is pretty clear. That was the information available to this House on 5 March 1996 in spite of the fact that on 12 December 1995 a whole new process had started ab initio at the behest of the European Union. In a desperate attempt to try to wriggle out of the controversy the Minister in his press release quotes from a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Shatter in January 1996. The Minister is selective in quoting from the reply. All he gives of the reply in his press release is:

No final decision will be taken on the precise routes until the public consultation process is completed, a public inquiry has been held later this year and EU approval procedures have been completed.

However, in column 1919, volume 460 of the Official Report of 31 January 1996, the full paragraph is as follows:

I launched a public consultation programme on the planned light rail links to Dundrum and Tallaght on 12 December 1995 following the conclusion of detailed work undertaken by the project team to identify the preferred technical route alignments for both links. No final decision will be taken on the precise routes until the public consultation is completed, a public inquiry has been held later this year and EU approval procedures have been completed.

We raise that point to make it quite clear that all that is in question is the Tallaght and Dundrum lines and nothing else. It is not mentioned that two weeks before the Minister announced the two lines he had agreed to an investigation by the European Union into the light rail plan and the phasing of the project. These are not isolated examples of this Minister withholding information. He did so in public statements on 12 December 1995 and on 7 and 28 March 1996 and in parliamentary questions on 31 January 1996 and on 5, 6, 26 and 28 March 1996 and in the Official Report on 14 December 1995 and 14 February 1996.

The Minister tried to claim, since the controversy blew up again, that he had referred to the EU investigation in statements and in his replies to parliamentary questions. The Minister included a throw away reference to the European Union only when he was talking about technical procedures. This could hardly be said to reflect the scale of the investigation launched by the Commission. The Minister also tried to convey in his press release and in his statement to the House last Wednesday that the EU investigation is some kind of a routine procedure. It clearly is not. The seriousness of it was evident when the EU regional affairs spokesperson was interviewed last week. Tommy Gorman, the RTE correspondent, put the following points: "But the Irish Government has already announced what it intends to do; it is going to build a line to Dundrum and another to Tallaght and the one for Ballymun is going to be put on hold. So now you are saying that the Government had in November agreed to postpone this until another study is done." The spokesperson responded as follows: "That is our information. That is what we have agreed with the Irish Government — to ask an independent consultant to take an analysis of all three options and then decide". This was the first confirmation of the Sunday Business Post story of 14 April 1996 which revealed that the European Union had ordered an investigation into the light rail project. Up to then, nobody — not even most of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues — had got wind of this development which had occurred on 29 November last year. On the occasions following this decision Deputy Lowry did not refer to such an important outstanding issue. In fact, in the Seanad on 14 February the Minister said we cannot afford the luxury of more studies to re-examine the fundamental basis of the DTI strategy which we recently adopted. The Minister it appears made a mistake in thinking that having adopted the DTI strategy the European Union would have no say over the lines. On 28 March 1996, on one of the very few occasions when the Minister, Deputy Lowry, referred to the European Union, he gave the impression that the European Union had signed off from the process. In his statement to the House on light rail on 17 April 1996 the Minister deliberately distorted the facts. He claims the European Union investigation——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, in retrospect I think you will consider that the word "deliberately" ought not to have been used. To say that the Minister deliberately misled the House is tantamount to saying that he told a deliberate lie. Let us not make accusations. Does the Deputy agree in retrospect that he ought not to have said "deliberately"?

Mr. Cowen

Yes. In his statement to the House on 17 April about the light rail the Minister distorted the facts. He claims the EU investigation was inevitable. That is not the case. When the EU Commissioner for Regional Affairs ordered an investigation into Mutton Island she had to point out to Deputy Lowry's colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, that she had such an entitlement. Based on the Commissioner's letter it appears Deputy Howlin argued that such an investigation was very unusual.

In his statement in the Dáil on 17 April, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, failed to give the true position on the studies done by the Government. I understand a socio economic cost benefit analysis which is required for projects attracting over £20 million in EU funding was done by Ireland and submitted to the European Union as part of a multi criteria analysis. I understand also that Ireland was doing another independent cost benefit analysis at the time the Irish officials met the Commission on 29 November 1995. The first socio economic cost benefit analysis appears to have been dismissed by the European Union as insufficient and not detailed enough. The second cost benefit analysis was not completed at the time of the 29 November meeting and does not appear to have been acceptable to the European Union. The fresh independent investigation demanded by the European Union at the 29 November meeting was sought under a little used provision in the Community Support Framework where it is noted that "the Commission reserves the right to make its own assessments particularly if the information supplied by the member state is inadequate". I am not questioning the European Union's right to have such an investigation. It is obliged to ensure that Community money is being spent properly. I am questioning why the investigation was not disclosed by the Minister, Deputy Lowry, five months ago. The Minister has sought to justify his non-disclosure by pointing to statements made by the last Government. He should remember that it was he who announced the lines, to a fanfare of publicity, even though the European Union had ordered an investigation.

It is obvious from this controversy and others that there has been a rapid decline in relations between the Irish Government and the European Union. Why has there been such a deterioration and souring of relations? This is the third instance of the European Union requiring Ireland to jump every hurdle and go through every hoop. The first two involved the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, and the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, and the attitudes of those two gentlemen to the European Union appears to have copperfastened the difficulties.

Recent developments in the mobile telephones controversy have also raised the spectre that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications may have misled the Dáil on this matter during Question Time on 22 November 1995. The handling of the strategic alliance for Telecom Éireann is also of major public concern. Indeed, the Minister has overseen the disappearance of most of the main bidders. Some of the best seem to have disappeared due to the controversy over the telephone licence. The Minister, however, has refused to give a full account to the Dáil of the options now open to Bord Telecom.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us not forget the subject of our debate, the Dublin light rail plan.

Mr. Cowen

In our motion we have called on the Minister, Deputy Lowry, to lay before the Oireachtas all correspondence between himself and the European Commission about the project. His colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, did this in relation to Mutton Island and we urge the Minister to follow this precedent.

I urge the Minister, Deputy Lowry, to answer the many questions that have been raised about the light rail project and we can assess his performance in the light of the Government's claims of openness, transparency and accountability.

Mr. Lawlor

In the view of the greater Dublin region, the frustrating point about this project is the protracted delay and the risks inherent in that delay. It defies logic that when the national plan was being completed the studies mentioned by Deputy Cowen had not been submitted, agreed or negotiated or the socio-economic benefit analysis of what was necessary had not been foreseen by the Minister and his Department. As the national plan comes up for mid-term review it is a disgrace to think that there will be no work done on the scheme.

The dogs in the street are barking about the Chamber of Commerce's concerns about the scheme. Industries, small businesses and those in Brussels and Dublin endeavouring to co-operate with what should be a major improvement in public transport appear to be getting into a terrible tangle. Looking at the two lines announced by the Minister, the Tallaght and Dundrum lines, and the potential of the Ballymun-Dublin Airport link, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that, given the spatial development, particularly of Tallaght, and the potential customer base for the light rail both here and in Dundrum and comparing it with the Ballymun and airport line, the greater customer base, movement of passengers and potential usage of the Dublin light rail scheme probably will be on the Ballymun and airport line. There are settled populations in the other two communities and the potential passenger usage of the two southside lines is easily measured.

The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, in his representation of the northside of Dublin, defies logic. The potential passenger projections calculated by the Department and the recent announcements by Aer Rianta of the projected number of airline passengers should demonstrate that the northside line would be the most desirable and would stand the test of any economic or socio-economic study.

However, this country appears to have its projects paved by studies, reports, consultants' views and so forth which seem to take forever to compile. Unfortunately, Dublin is the victim of these protracted delays in this and other areas of infrastructure.

I cannot understand the attitude of the Chamber of Commerce speaking on behalf of those who are directly affected by the project. This morning on the Pat Kenny Show we heard that a small business operation in old Kilmainham has retained a consultant to offer a logical and intelligent conclusion as to what impact the light rail system might have on that part of Dublin. The consultant concluded that the operator will not be able to continue his builders' provides business. I am in no position to judge whether that is fact or fiction. However, that is the type of protracted debate that is emerging about something that has already been announced. Everybody is trying to see how it will work. Consultation is only being embarked upon in the aftermath of the announcement.

The people of Dublin assumed that work would commence following the launch. That does not seem to be the case. In his comments the Minister gave the impression that work can commence but a protracted, detailed and potentially delaying debate is arising before any work can commence. It is most unfortunate tha this project should have to be the subject of studies and reports and be sent to Brussels for adjudication before work on it can commence.

Was this financial cloth cut to measure, possibly by successive Governments? Was it the case that the third line should have been part of the scheme but, because of the Government's contribution to the financial package that was likely to be available from Brussels, we decided to go ahead with only two lines even though, given its desirability and correctness, the third line should have been an integral part of the original launch? What happens if Brussels says that the three lines should proceed, given the benefits of having a northside line and, particularly, a connection to the airport?

There will be a substantial shortfall in the financial structure on which the national plan is based and that will have to be met by the Government. It is unfortunate that a most desirable project which would be of great advantage to the greater Dublin region should get bogged down in studies. The Minister, his Department and the Commission should have synchronised their plans in a more cohesive way so that the work could have commenced at the first available opportunity.

I do not know what are the rights of individual companies or what are the intentions of the Chamber of Commerce regarding the companies it fears will be adversely affected by the light rail system. There is a vague figure for potential compensation. The Minister, who must look after the taxpayers' money, is concerned not to make an early judgment. What about the right of access to the courts and the delay it causes? On the southside the completion of the southern cross route has been bogged down for years because of court challenges. I hope that will not be the case with the light rail system and that the Department will find its way through the many objections that appear to be looming.

I have watched the growth of the satellite towns in County Dublin and am aware of the traffic problems associated with such towns. In assessing the need for a form of light rail transport, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that it is difficult to project passenger numbers. The northern part of the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg's, constituency adjoins Dublin west. The road infrastructure there, which was built at great cost, is severely congested and some form of light rail or bus lane arrangement is urgently needed. The national primary road network cannot cope adequately with morning and evening traffic flows when cars are bumper to bumper on most round-abouts and junctions. My area is not considered under the plans to extend the light rail system. Having regard to the growth of Tallaght and the potential movement of passengers to and from that area, the light rail line to Tallaght will probably be a complex and marginal financial operation.

Regarding the canal area a case has been made for the provision of an underground rail system, but the Department has opted for a service above ground, the cost involved was probably the determining factor. Unless cars in the city are banned, many are concerned that cars, trucks and the light rail service will compete for narrow road space along the designated light rail routes. That will pose problems for the success of LUAS, traders and those who wish to use their own transport.

I hope the Minister can deal with the studies and meet the necessary requirements to ensure that the greater Dublin area is serviced by what has been decided will be the main public transport option for the future and that the provision of the two lines will proceed. I hope the study will recommend extension of the service to the northside, particularly to take advantage of the potential offered by the airport.

Mr. Cullen

When an opportunity arises to speak in the House, particularly on the areas of transport, energy and communications, it appears that since the Government took office it has been embroiled in controversy led by the Minister. In the almost ten years I have been a Member I do not recall a Minister who has sustained the level of controversy sustained by this Minister on practically every issue in which he has been involved. That leads one to wonder if the manner in which the Minister operates is akin to his left hand not knowing what his right hand is doing. At best he has been economical with the truth in dealing with issues in this House. His modus operandi appears to have arisen out of the manner in which he put this tripartite Government together, as if he is some type of overlord who can walk on water, treat this House in a manner he and his Cabinet colleagues see fit, as we have learned in the recent past. His arrogance knows no bounds because he has also adopted that attitude towards the European Commission.

The Minister's suggestion that the Commission's investigation into the light rail proposal is common practice is not true. Many of us on this side of the House have dealt with officials in Brussels on various matters and we have some knowledge of the approaches taken, particularly during the implementation of the national plan. At the end of 1995, in a blaze of publicity, the Minister announced the provision of light rail lines for Tallaght and Dundrum and suggested that the service would be extended to Ballymun in the next millenium when he knew and had been told by officials in Europe that they were not satisfied with his approach and wanted to carry out a further independent investigation into the proposal. It was extraordinary that he ignored that request and treated those officials with disdain by the manner in which he made the announcement.

The Minister's track record since he took office is in keeping with the manner in which he approached most issues in the semi-State sector. He is regarded throughout that sector as somewhat of a lame duck Minister because of his attitude and the manner in which he has dealt with practically every arm of that sector.

Young travellers, in particular, confirm that Dublin is one of the most popular capital cities in Europe. In the past Paris and London were the most popular. The fact that Dublin is one of the most popular highlights the urgent need to deal with its traffic problems. Does part of the agenda from Brussels place a question mark over the system chosen for Dublin? Irrespective of the cost implications and accepting that one must work within a budget, if the wrong decision is made having regard to the budget, the selected system must be reviewed.

As the Minister may be aware I have some experience of the transport area. I do not put myself forward as an expert, but I am familiar with a number of light rail systems in Europe. I am concerned that a straight line light rail service is not conducive to serving the population spread of Dublin, which is suburban based rather than a large infilled circular populated city. Has that question been raised by officials in the EU in the context of questioning the extension of the proposed service to Ballymun? A professor from Birmingham polytechnic, speaking on transport, said that light rail systems will be to the 1990s what high rise buildings were in the 1960s. The ability of such light rail systems to sustain high levels of capacity to break even is considerable. They need in excess of 70 per cent capacity and must operate 23 out of every 24 hours to break even. Achieving that level of service is not considered possible in a straight line system. There is some chance of achieving it in a circular system serving a mobile population, which is not the case in Dublin. That may not be the most appropriate question for a Deputy representing a constituency outside Dublin to raise, but I put it to the Minister having some knowledge of the transport area. An underground system would be more suitable and if it could not be provided in two or three years, it should be the starting point for a development that might take place over ten years. In the long-term development of this city such a system would better serve future generations.

The Minister's handling of this project has damaged the Government's relationship with the Commission. We are nearing the mid-term review in 1997, some parts of it will be dealt with during this year. Our ability to secure the additional resources to which we are entitled before the mid-term review has been severely damaged by the manner in which the Minister and his ministerial colleagues, Deputies Howlin and Yates, have approached officials in the Commission. That is no way to do business. Over many years the Fianna Fáil Party, in particular, gained the highest respect for the proposals, propositions and development plans it presented to officials in the Commission. It is incumbent on the Minister to repair with some urgency whatever damage he has caused. When dealing with matters in this House, whether answering questions or making statements, he should give the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is something he has not done on a range of issues since taking office.

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Lowry)

I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann:

(1) condemns the attempts by Fianna Fáil to undermine light rail for Dublin and to damage the good relationship which exists between the Government and the European Commission, particularly in circumstances where Fianna Fáil had prior knowledge of the regulations governing the proposed socio-economic evaluation of the light rail project which were negotiated while they were in Government;

(2) supports the actions of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications in pursuit of the firm objective of having light rail in operation in Dublin during the year 2000;

(3) welcomes the commitment in the Operational Programme for Transport, 1994-1999, to provide substantial European Union funding for light rail and in particular the tangible demonstration of that commitment in the form of the £3 million already paid to CIE for preparatory work on the project;

(4) supports the Government commitment to construct the core light rail network to Ballymun, Cabinteely and Tallaght recommended by the Dublin Transportation Initiative;

(5) notes that the study requested by the European Commission involves a comparative evaluation of the Tallaght-Ballymun and Tallaght-Dundrum lines, not a fundamental re-evaluation of light rail;

(6) confirms the assurances repeatedly given by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications that no final decision will be taken on the routes until the public consultation programme launched last December by the Minister has been completed, a statutory public inqury has been held and the EU approval procedures have been finalised."

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. In the main, Deputy Cowen has made a reasonable contribution, although many of its details are not founded in fact. Deputy Lawlor has explained the problems in the city and made a genuine attempt to convey the concerns of the public. Deputy Cullen, however, has decided to question my integrity, which he has done repeatedly, and lecture me on it. He has no mandate whatsoever to represent Waterford, never mind Dublin.

Mr. Cullen

What does the Minister mean by that?

Mr. Lowry

The Deputy talked about the Minister's arrogance. He was elected to represent the Progressive Democrats, but jumped ship in an opportunistic fashion.

Mr. Cullen

On a point of order, how can the Minister say that I have no mandate to represent the constituency I was elected to represent?

An Ceann Comhairle

As the Deputy well knows, there is a time limit to this debte.

Mr. Cullen

The Minister should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Lowry

I have no intention of doing so.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a political charge, nothing more and nothing personal.

Mr. Lowry

The Deputy talked about the Minister's arrogance. His arrogance was very evident in the brazen and cavalier manner in which he jumped the Progressive Democrats ship. He received a mandate from the public to represent them.

Mr. Cullen

Which I do to the best of my ability and I will not be bullied by the Minister.

Mr. Lowry

The Deputy should not lecture me about credibility. He has no credibility and will learn that lesson in the next general election.

Mr. Cullen

The Minister will not faze me. He is talking to someone who comes from a county which is good at ground hurling.

Mr. Lowry

The Deputy broke the confidence and trust of the people who elected him. He should be very careful.

Mr. Cullen

I will give as good as I get at any time the Minister wishes to exchange views.

Mr. Lowry

This has to be one of the most mischievious and cynical motions to come before the House for a very long time.

Mr. Cullen

It is normal for the Minister to say everything is mischevious.

Mr. Lowry

There are no grounds whatsoever for alleging that I misled the Dáil or Seanad, as I will clearly show in my contribution to this debate.

Mr. Cullen

The Minister did so.

An Ceann Comhairle

I insist that from now on we have an orderly debate.

Mr. Cullen

The Minister provoked me.

An Ceann Comhairle

There should be no more interruptions.

Mr. Lowry

The Deputy will have to learn a little bit more about self-control.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, let us not aggravate matters.

Mr. Lowry

The motion is founded on a deliberate distortion of the facts and an analysis which Deputy Bertie Ahern and those who support him know to be false. The motion also deliberately attempts to sow discord between the Government and the European Commission. This is a blatant example of Fianna Fáil putting short-term political advantage above the long-term national interest. The Government has a good working relationship with the Commission on both an individual and collective basis and we will not allow attempts at cynical manipulation by the Opposition to put that relationship at risk.

Fianna Fáil is so bereft of ideas that it is unable to engage in constructive opposition and is struck with the desperate tactic of ritual condemnation and shallow rhetoric.

Mr. Cullen

We have heard this speech before on every issue.

Mr. Lowry

By its actions it is seeking to undermine the very light rail project which it claims to champion and damage the very relationship with the Commission which it claims is so important to Ireland's economic well-being.

Mr. Cullen

That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Lowry

I will deal in turn with each of the allegations in the motion. I want to refute in the strongest possible terms the allegation that I showed any disrespect for the Oireachtas or misled either House in my public statements on light rail. Let me set down the facts about the proposed study requested by the European Commission.

Mr. Cullen

It is amazing that every speech the Minister makes contains that sentence. He refutes allegations every time he comes into the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should desist. Let us have an orderly debate.

Mr. Lowry

I will demonstrate beyond any doubt that the Opposition Deputies pretending to be surprised about the European Union study knew all along that a study was a legal requirement. More than that, it was a legal requirement which they negotiated when in office. They have either chosen to ignore that fact for partisan political purposes or forgotten what they agreed to, which obviously betrays political incompetence.

Mr. Cullen

That is not true in terms of the investigation in question.

Mr. Lowry

The Community Support Framework which the leader of the Opposition, Deputy Bertie Ahern, negotiated with the European Commission when Minister for Finance stated in plain, unambiguous language that a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis would be needed for any elements of the DTI package costing over £20 million.

Mr. Cullen

The Minister's was rejected.

Mr. Lowry

Let me quote the relevant extract from page 46 of the CSF document which deals with the DTI investment package: "Individual elements of the package which exceed a cost of 25 million ECU will be subject to socio-economic cost-benefit analysis, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation 2083/93".

Mr. Cullen

We are aware of that.

Mr. Lowry

A similar point was made on page 62 of the Operational Programme for Transport negotiated when Deputy Cowen was Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. I will help the Deputies opposite to refresh their memories by quoting the precise words:

Applications for EU assistance under the Programme for major infrastructural projects costing over 25 MECU (IR£20 million) will provide the information referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2083/93, including an analysis of the socio-economic costs and benefits of the project and an indication of its expected impact on development.

Mr. Cullen

Why did the Minister announce it in November and not tell us it had been rejected?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will not allow Deputies to disregard the Chair. We will have either an orderly debate or none. I am mindful that Private Members' time is precious.

Mr. Cullen

The Minister is being provocative.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to desist.

Mr. Cullen

He thinks he is talking to children. We know about it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy continues I will ask him a different question. I am loath to do that but it is my last warning.

Mr. Cullen

I do not wish to be disruptive.

Mr. Lowry

Could anything be clearer? The EU regulations require a study for all Structural Fund supported infrastructure projects costing more than £20 million. The light rail project will cost more than £200 million, well in excess of the EU minimum threshold for studies. These experienced former Ministers, now in Opposition, were in office when these requirements were agreed. They should be well aware of the requirement for studies.

Requests from the Commission for independent studies on major projects are not unusual. The Regional Affairs Commissioner was quoted in last Thursday's The Irish Times as making this very point. In my Department, one was sought in respect of the peat power station and another will be sought for the biomass project. In addition, the Commission can and does seek independent consultancy advice on particular projects — this happened in relation to the gas pipeline project and on a number of mainline and suburban rail projects. The external evaluator for the operational programme for transport, an independent consultant reporting to the programme monitoring committee, also reviews individual projects from time to time. For example, under the 1989 to 1993 programme there was a review of the Dublin to Belfast rail project before the original EU assistance for it was approved. Rigorous evaluation by the Commission is part of the EU funding process. It is a routine part of the work which must be done to secure funding for projects. It is part of the day to day work of my officials. No reasonable person in the private or public sector expects finance to be provided for a major project simply because the developer thinks it is a good idea. All the partners must be satisfied as to its merits. In the case of light rail that includes the European Commission which will provide a large part of the funding. It is also in the interest of the Irish taxpayer that there should be a full and proper evaluation.

I call on the Opposition to say here and now whether it supports full and exhaustive evaluation of the project in the interests of both the Irish and the European taxpayer.

The proposed study is a comparative evaluation of the Tallaght-Ballymun and Tallaght-Dundrum routes. It is not a fundamental re-evaluation of light rail. There is a commitment in the Operational Programme for Transport to provide EU funding for light rail. The European Commission has already agreed to provide assistance for the preparatory work and £3 million has been spent to date by CIE. This clearly knows in a practical way that the Commission supports the light rail project and rubbishes the suggestion in the Opposition motion that a serious question mark hangs over EU funding.

Mr. Cullen

That is not true.

Mr. Lowry

The Opposition will put the funding for this project at risk. It is trying to deliberately sabotage the project by its reckless and irresponsible behaviour.

Mr. Cullen

On a point of order, the Minister should withdraw that last sentence. He said we are deliberately trying to wreck this project. Nothing in the Fianna Fáil motion suggests that such is the case. It is fantasy. The Minister is misquoting everyone as usual.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. It is a political charge.

Mr. Cullen

It should be withdrawn.

Mr. Lowry

The light rail project provides a unique chance to tackle chronic congestion and regenerate the economic life of the city of Dublin. By its deliberately mischievous actions, the Opposition is attempting to undermine the Government's efforts to provide this critically important transport infrastructure for the city. I call on the Opposition to set aside all thoughts of party political point scoring by supporting the Government's amendment which underlines its commitment to the implementation of the light rail system by the year 2000. If it fails to do so, the voters of Dublin city can draw their own conclusions.

Mr. Cullen

There is the threat. We are shaking.

Mr. Lawlor

Thirteen per cent in Dublin West. The Minister need not worry about them. Thirteen, unlucky for some.

Mr. Lowry

I emphatically reject the accusation in the motion that I misled the Dáil or Seanad. I have consistently said that final decisions on routes would not be taken until the public consultation process has been completed, a public inquiry had been held and EU approval procedures had been finalised. I said this in reply to a parliamentary question on 31 January last and repeated it in a further reply on 6 March.

The motion also raises questions about the public consultation programme I launched on 12 December last. It is important to place this consultation process in its proper context. The core light rail network recommended by the Dublin Transportation Initiative provides for lines to Tallaght, Cabinteely and Ballymun at an estimated cost of £300 million in 1993 prices. The Operational Programme for Transport provides for a total expenditure of £200 million on light rail in the programme period. The DTI final report endorsed this expenditure as about the limit of what could be physically implemented in the period.

I notice that no Member of the Opposition referred to the fact that the three core line had to be reduced to two lines as a result of its failure when in Government to bring home the billions it promised. Deputies will recall the shrinking billions.

Mr. Cullen

It is a good job the Minister was not involved in the negotiations at the time. There would be shag-all in the kitty.

Mr. Lowry

Deputies will recall that they lost in the region of £3 or £4 billion overnight as a result of which this programme has to be dramatically reduced. Deputy Cullen was a member of the Progressive Democrats Party at the time and would not remember that.

Mr. Cullen

The Minister should be thankful for what he was given.

Mr. Lowry

A high level project team comprising CIE personnel and consultants analysed a range of possible two line combinations from the core light rail network which could be implemented within the £200 million allocation. That is the £200 million limitation placed as a result of the Opposition's incompetence in Government at the time.

Mr. Lawlor

Does the Minister remember Dick? He messed that one up.

Mr. Lowry

These options were examined against a number of criteria including their contribution to DTI objectives, financial performance, congestion alleviation, environmental impact and ease of construction. The provisional finding of the CIE project team and its consultants was that priority should be given to the construction of the Tallaght and Dundrum routes. This was noted and approved by the previous Government in October 1994. I want the House to be crystal clear as to what the previous Government decided.

On 5 October 1994 it noted and approved the provisional finding of the CIE project team that light rail links to Tallaght and Dundrum should be constructed during the period of the national plan with the remaining links to be constructed thereafter. I ask the House to take note of the words "provisional finding" which puts it beyond a shred of doubt that the previous Government was aware this was not a final decision on route priorities. Deputy Bertie Ahern is guilty of the very thing of which he wrongfully accused me. When he announced the construction of the Tallaght and Dundrum lines in his speech to Dublin Chamber of Commerce on 20 October 1994 he conveniently neglected to mention that the decision to route priorities was not final. I will quote his press release: "Two of the three LRT lines will be constructed at a cost of £200 million, bringing a clean efficient transport system to Leopardstown via Dundrum, and to Ireland's third biggest urban population in Tallaght."

Mr. T. Kitt

Did the Minister notice the word "Leopardstown"? He is only bringing it to Dundrum.

Mr. Lawlor

Is that before or after Greystones?

Mr. Lowry

That is everything he said lest I be accused of quoting him selectively. It was not mentioned that this was a provisional decision or that it was subject to the EU approval procedures he negotiated. He suggested it would go to Leopardstown when the Government decided it would go to Dundrum. He did not refer to statutory procedures or public consultation and he among other former Ministers has the cheek to stand up in this House and accuse me of misleading people. Irrespective of how embarrassing it was for the Opposition I put the record straight shortly after I came into office. In answer to a parliamentary question on 31 January 1995, I stated the factual position as follows:

The provisional finding arising from this work is that links to Tallaght and Dundrum should be constructed during the period of the operational programme and this position was noted and approved by the Government in October 1994.

On foot of the Government's provisional decision of October 1994 the CIE project team went ahead with detailed planning on the Tallaght to Dundrum line, through the city centre. When it had identified the preferred technical route alignment, the public consultation process got under way.

What was put before the public last December was the clear but provisional view of successive Governments, the CIE project team and international consultants that Tallaght and Dundrum should be built first, to be followed by the rest of the core network. Others, both nationally and at EU level, have a right to challenge that view. I have openly recognised that right. We have a lengthy public consultation programme, a mandatory public inquiry and an EU approval process which provide a more than adequate opportunity to debate the issue.

I did not launch the construction of the light rail project last December. I launched an extensive public consultation programme on the project. To be absolutely clear I will quote the headline on my press release of 12 December. It said: "Decision Making Process on New Dublin Transport System Gives Public a Full Say". Will somebody please tell me what is misleading about that?

Mr. Cullen

The Minister knows what that means. It had to do with the local effects on the ground where the lines were to be laid.

Mr. Lowry

On that day I said:

What we are launching here today is not the construction of the LRT. It is the start of a public consultation process with the people of Dublin that I see as an essential part of the preparation for the project.

What is misleading about that? The Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, repeaeted this position in a Dáil Adjournment debate two days later.

Mr. Cullen

Quote the whole paragraph. Put it in context.

Mr. Lowry

Barely two months ago, replying to a Seanad motion on 14 February, I made it clear that the proposed statutory public inquiry into all aspects of the proposed light rail network would:

...enable people who believe that light rail is not the appropriate solution to Dublin's transport problems or that other routes should be given priority to put forward their views and challenge the DTI recommendations and the detailed planning work of CIÉ's project team.

I repeated that in reply to a parliamentary question on 28 March and went on to state:

Notwithstanding the stated policy position on light rail, I, as the responsible Minister will be obliged by the legislation to fully and objectively consider the inspector's report on the public inquiry and the submissions made by interested parties before making a final decision on CIÉ's application for the statutory powers to construct light rail.

Mr. Cullen

That is a separate issue.

Mr. Lowry

In short, my position has been clear, unambiguous and consistent.

Mr. T. Kitt

Squeaky clean.

Mr. Lowry

The Government has made a clear but provisional policy choice. That choice will be fully examined at both national and EU level and only then can definitive decisions be taken.

It is a pity that some people, especially Deputies opposite, assumed that the national and EU consultation and approval procedures were a mere formality. I was never under such an illusion and that is why the EU request for a comparative evaluation did not cause me or any of my officials any alarm. Unfortunately, Fianna Fáil seems to have a much more cavalier attitude to these processes. Their approach seems to be to decide first and consult afterwards.

One of the factors which influenced the Government's provisional choice of the Tallaght to Dundrum option was the fact that the bulk of the city centre to Dundrum section would use the old Harcourt Street railway alignment. By contrast, all the Ballymun line would be on-street with a consequent higher level of disruption during construction. There is also a real doubt about the wisdom of closing Drumcondra Road, which is the main artery to the North, to build the light rail before the port tunnel has been built as it could act as a relief road during construction. Another factor is that the Dundrum line would get more people out of their cars than a line to Ballymun.

Mr. Lawlor

I hope the Minister is right.

Mr. Lowry

This would better contribute to reduced congestion, which is essential to protecting the city's economy and creating the jobs people throughout the city need. All these issues will be fully addressed in the planned comparative evaluation.

However, the Government remains committed to the construction of the full core light rail network recommended by the Dublin Transportation Initiative — that is the three lines to Ballymun, Cabinteely and Tallaght.

I wish to speak briefly about the background to the proposed study. On 29 November my Department and the CIE project team made a detailed presentation on the light rail project to Commission officials, including an outline of the basis for the provisional decision taken by Fianna Fáil in Government in October 1994. The Commission suggested that a comparative socio-economic evaluation of the Tallaght-Dundrum and Tallaght-Ballymun lines should be carried out. My Department agreed in principle and said it would suggest terms of reference for such an evaluation.

The Ballymun issue would have been addressed whether or not the Commission had sought a study. It has arisen during the public consultation and will no doubt be raised at the statutory public inquiry. The CIE project team will have to convince the inquiry, and me as Minister acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, that the previous Government's provisional choice of the Tallaght-Dundrum line was the correct one.

On 19 January my Department wrote to the Commission suggesting draft terms of reference and a methodology for the study. During February and March there was further correspondence and detailed discussions on these issues and on the list of consultants to be invited to tender for the study. Agreement on the final issues was reached on 29 March. On 4 April a number of consultants were invited to submit proposals by a deadline of 3 May. An appointment will be made shortly in agreement with the Commission. I do not propose to publish the correspondence between the Commission and the Department as it would serve no useful purpose.

Mr. Cullen

It might bring us closer to the truth.

Mr. Lowry

I will, however, be happy to provide Deputies with copies of the terms of reference agreed for the study, which was the end product of the correspondence and discussions with the Commission.

In the intervening period, while the discussions with the Commission were under way, the CIE project team carried out a substantial amount of preparatory work for the study. This will be passed over to the consultants immediately after they are appointed. While the study is in progress, the public consultation programme will continue in parallel with it, legislation will be introduced in the Oireachtas and the CIE project team will continue its detailed preparations for the statutory public inquiry. In short, every possible effort is being made to keep to the implementation timetable by proceeding with a range of activities in parallel. It is my firm objective to have the new legislation in place by the summer recess, to have the statutory procedures completed in time to let construction start as early as possible next year and to have light rail in operation in Dublin during 2000. I invite the House to give me its full support in pursuit of this objective.

The drafting of legislation to provide the statutory basis for light rail has been completed. Consultations with other Departments are more or less finalised and I will submit the Bill to the Government for approval over the next few days. The Bill proposes to vest the power to construct, maintain and operate light rail in the board of CIÉ. Those powers will be procured for individual projects through a light rail order made by the Minister. Before any such order is made, people will be able to make written submissions to the Minister and there will be a mandatory public inquiry in each case to allow people put forward their views.

The final issue I wish to address is our relationship with the Commission. I reject the implication in the Fianna Fáil motion that we have a poor and deteriorating relationship with the Commission. That is simply not true. The Commission has always been a friend to Ireland and we in turn have been broadly supportive of its position on many issues. The strength of any friendship is the ability to disagree occasionally. We do not always agree but we have a good working relationship at official and ministerial level which allows us deal with difficult issues in a rational, non-confrontational, low key way. The best description of my Department's relationship with the Commission is, business as usual. We each recognise that the other has a job to do and that we may have differing positions from time to time but we always aim to find a solution which is mutually acceptable.

In conclusion, I invite the House to reject the Fianna Fáil motion for what it is — a blustering attempt to make cheap political capital out of a vital infrastructural project for the city of Dublin and an inept attempt to damage relationships between the Government and the Commission for base political motives. I call on the Opposition to put the national interest first by supporting my actions in pursuit of the firm objective of having light rail in operation during the year 2000.

Mr. T. Kitt

I am amazed at what I heard from the Minister. It is sad that when he has come to the House to make speeches on important issues, he has been on the defensive. He has been so again tonight by trawling through various press statements issued by representatives of my party. We support the light rail system for Dublin and it is disingenuous of the Minister to imply otherwise.

On two occasions recently he demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the relationship between the Commission and the Government. In awarding of a second mobile telephone licence, and his decision to cap the licence fee at £15 million, the Minister claimed the Commission was involved all the way. There are many similarities with this issue. However, an EU official, Mr. Willie Heelan, said he was astonished to see copies of two letters from the Department to representatives of Persona, the unsuccessful bidder, in which it was suggested that the EU had caused delays in the licence process and that the Commission and the Department fixed a £15 million extrance fee for the new operator and a corresponding £10 million fee for Eircell, Telecom Éireann's mobile telephone division.

The Minister told the Dáil he took advice from the Attorney General with regard to the GSM licence and that his Department entered discussions with the Commission which led to a cap of £15 million being put on the licence fee. However, last week a spokesman for the Commission said they do not set a price like that, it is none of their business and it not up to them to fix entrance fees.

In the final part of our motion we condemn the Government for overseeing a serious deterioration in the relationship between Ireland and the Commission. The Minister has not satisfied us with regard to that relationship. The mobile telephone licence is directly related to this issue because it reflects the same incompetence. Who is telling the truth about the second mobile telephone licence and the capping of the fee, the Minister or the Commission? The Minister should make available to the House all the documentation and correspondence involving his Department and the Commission on this matter. The serious discrepancies between his version of events and that of the Commission need to be clarified. The Minister, as our party leader said, should make a statement on this matter. He has shown a remarkable degree of incompetence and created a lot of confusion among the business community and the general public.

The Minister has shown a total lack of competence in his dealings with the European Commission in relation to the Dublin light rail system; I heave heard nothing here tonight to convince me otherwise. The Minister should have cleared his lines with the European Commission before he launched his plans for the Dublin light rail system in a blaze of publicity last December. Only last week a glossy brochure was delivered to my home and to others in my constituency; I have a copy with me tonight. It has a colour photograph of the Minister on the front page and extols the light rail system. It also refers to the huge benefits the light rail system will bring to Dundrum. I look forward to the benefits it will bring to Dundrum, but it is remarkable that the Minister proceeded with his launch of the system last December while knowingly withholding critical information on the EU investigation into the exclusion of the Ballymun line from the first phase of the development.

The Minister spoke about Fianna Fáil knowing about the socio-economic analysis; we know all about it. However, we mentioned in our motion that further studies were required; that is the crucial point which the Minister does not seem to comprehend. Further studies were required by the European Commission and the Minister glossed over that issue here tonight. The Minister's attempt to ride roughshod over the European Commission has backfired. It has led to chaos and confusion among the public and business community in the greater Dublin area and the Minister's glossy brochure, which is still being circulated throughout the city and county, is a major embarrassment to him and his Government colleagues. He has also shown a complete disregard for the EU Regional Affairs Commissioner in particular.

I omitted to say that I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Noel Ahern.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is in order and agreed.

Mr. T. Kitt

We on this side of the House strongly support the light rail system for the greater Dublin area. As public representatives for the Dublin area, it is time we ended this practice of drawing a line between north and south of Dublin. The Ballymun line should be given the same priority as the Dundrum and Tallaght lines, and the Minister has given us some comfort in his statement on that issue.

The Government and the European Commission will have my full support if they decide to proceed with the three lines as quickly as possible, ideally simultaneously, because the whole idea of proceeding with two lines and not proceeding with the other is not in the interests of the greater Dublin area. If the Minister worked closely with the Commission, as he should be doing, he could end up with the best option, but sadly that is not the case. The Commission has, rightly, taken a close interest in this matter and as we have seen from various articles by commentators and journalists, the European Commisison is showing its genuine involvement and interest in issues of this nature, which have a socio-economic dimension. The Minister has not understood that special relationship which, if put to good use by him, would benefit all the people of Dublin, north and south.

There is widespread agreement among political parties, the business sector and the public in my constituency that the Dundrum line must be extended to the Sandyford Industrial Estate. I urge the Government to make the necessary changes and allow for this extension in the interests of common sense and the proper infrastructural and environmental development of south Dublin. If the light rail line ends at Dundrum this will merely result in additional traffic chaos and congestion in the village and surrounding area. The three lines should get the same priority, and it would be a waste of time for whatever Government deals with this — it will clearly be the next Government — to bring a line to Dundrum and end it there. That is the view of every political representative from the area, including those form the Minister's own party and that of the business community.

This line must go to Sandyford Industrial Estate as it would not involve any great additional cost. There is a huge workforce in that area, adequate space for car parking and whatever is required for this major infrastructural development. I make that point in a constructive manner. We are in huge danger of losing the whole project to some other country, perhaps Portugal, if we do not proceed with speed.

In relation to two key socio-economic issues, the mobile phone licence which I mentioned earlier, and the issue of the light rail, the Minister has shown a remarkable degree of incompetence. He has lost his credibility as a Minister with responsibility for many semi-State companies. He has lost the confidence of that sector and the trade union movement, representing thousands of workers. I make that point as somebody who has, since the change of Government, been my party spokesperson for Labour affairs. The time has come for the Minister, who has presided over one disaster after another, to pack his bags and take the last train to Thurles before he does any more damage.

I am sick and tired of listening to the Minister come into this House with well-crafted speeches which are defensive from the word go. When the Minister is defending, he is losing. That is the nature of his speech tonight. I have no doubt that my colleagues will analyse his speech word for word tomorrow night, but in the one chance he had to redeem himself he said he does not propose to publish the correspondence between the European Commission and his Department as it would serve no useful purpose. Why did the Minister not follow the example of his colleague in Government, Deputy Howlin, in relation to his problems with the Commission, and produce the necessary correspondence?

Irreparable damage has been done by the Minister to the excellent reputation which successive Irish Governments have enjoyed in their dealings with the European Commission, thanks to the commitment and dedication shown at ministerial and official level. There is no criticism on my part at the official level because I have had some experience as Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs with the kind of work that has been done and continues to be done by our officials in dealing with the European Commission. They have done excellent work over the years but unfortunately irreparable damage has been done by this Minister and I ask him now to do the honourable thing. This incompetent Minister must go.

Mr. N. Ahern

I am glad this fuss has blown up over the past days. It gives the House the opportunity to talk about it and it gives me as a northsider the opportunity to bring the northside line back on the agenda and to analyse the situation.

Mr. T. Kitt

It gives us the opportunity to unite the north and southsides.

Mr. N. Ahern

As a Dubliner I welcomed the Government's decision last December to make a commitment to light rail, although there was great disappointment about the way the north side line had been excluded. It had been rumoured for some time that we would not get a northside line, but when the decision was made we were simply told the Government was going ahead with the two southside lines that it would look again at the northside line in phase two, if there is ever a phase two, in the next century. We were not given any hope.

I was a member of the DTI for a couple of years and attended endless meetings at the local authority committee and the steering committee on which I gladly served as one of two public representatives. I had followed with interest the whole light rail saga and hoped and expected that the three lines would get the go-ahead. I know what the Minister said in October or November 1994 but no statement of Government policy was made at that stage. The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, was trying to push a Government decision in a certain direction and I heard the Minister's quote from Deputy Bertie Ahern's speech at the time. Leopardstown and Tallaght could have been included in one line, which was a possibility at one stage. The Minister said the final decision was nearly made in October 1994. Why then did it take another 14 months? I had hoped that with the northside Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa and the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, our interests would have been represented. There were leaks and snippets in the newspapers over the weekend that Minister X and Minister Y raised this matter and pushed it strongly at Cabinet but were overruled by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Most of those snippets had the Minister for Social Welfare's name behind them; he must have been calling in some favours from the media. That is no way to operate. If that Minister had a strong point of view on the matter, he should have said it at the time and not tried to latch on to a decision that went against him.

The promise by the Government, when it made its final decision, to examine the possibility of having a LRT line for the northside in the next century was too vague. What the northside people wanted was a commitment at least to start preparatory work on the line and that this proposal would be in the pipeline as soon as construction of the other two lines began.

There was further nervousness in the northside when the Government made its announcement last December. At the time, reference was made to having a second airport for the city at Baldonnel. Thankfully, that proposal is no longer being considered. However, some northside people sensed a message behind it. The proposed LRT line to Tallaght would be close to Baldonnel while the northside, with Dublin Airport which had 8 million passengers coming through it last year, would not get the nod for a LRT line. I hope the Government's decision has ended the possibility of any reduction in status of Dublin Airport. Dublin city is divided between the northside and southside. However, any fair or logical assessment would suggest that if the EU provided funds for two LRT lines, there should be one northside and one southside line.

Some people refer to the proposed northside line as the Ballymun line. The proposed northside line would cater for more than Ballymun. It would serve Dorset Street, Drumcondra, Whitehall, Dublin City University, Ballymun and, hopefully, Dublin Airport. Building the line as far as Ballymun and not extending it to the airport would be lunacy. Some 8 million passengers came through Dublin Airport last year. We must be the only EU capital or major European city without a rapid transit system from its airport to its city centre. I am not an engineer, but perhaps we could construct a mile of the line through the countryside between Ballymun and the airport for the same cost as 100 metres through Drumcondra Road or O'Connell Street. It would be scandalous and stupid to bring the line as far as Ballymun but not to the airport.

While I accept the Government decision was in line with the technical assessment carried out by the CIE and departmental officials, this depends on what they were asked to do and the criteria set down. We get a lot of funding from the EU and we must conform to its criteria. The word "criteria" is continually cropping up, whether it is in relation to LRT lines, mobile phone licences, etc. We have asked about this at various committees. The criteria against which the decision was reached have never been made public. Perhaps if we knew what they were we might be a little wiser and decide whether they were right or wrong. In many cases, the criteria are laid down and that is the end of it. Nobody knows what they are or from where this came. However, we are told that everything flows on from them and we cannot veer away from them.

If the primary criterion, as some officials have told us, was which line would take the most cars off the road, then Dundrum would be the better option because it has a far higher usage of cars than Ballymun. Obviously it would be different if the airport had to be taken into account. Another criterion may be which line would make the most profit or at least break even. However, if the EU gives £114 million and said that social integration must be taken into account, it is obvious that the Ballymun line would score much higher on that scale. While CIE officials said they will release this information, I would like to see all the criteria against which that professional assessment was made.

I fear we may end up losing EU funding for this project. I do not know how long this socio-economic study will take, but what if it takes a number of months and the EU says that the northside line must return to phase 1? That is fine, but will we be too late? While I am northside and I support an LRT line there, there is no point in the northside and the southside arguing with each other if it ends up with a hollow victory for the northside — it would be like winning 6p in a court case — only to be told that we are too, late and the money is no longer available.

A mid-term review will take place next year and I am concerned that this country will end up looking very foolish. I hope a solution or compromise can be found and that the Minister and the Department get the EU back on board. The Minister should mend his bridges with the EU because he has rubbed it up the wrong way. We need a compromise which will allow the two existing proposals to go ahead but will put the northside line back on the agenda and begin the detailed technical and routine work as soon as possible. While the other two lines should be constructed, the northside line should come rapidly on their heels. I do not know how this can be done. Maybe there is scope for transferring funds within the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications or from the roads programme to the LRT line.

I am concerned with the delay in the process. I asked the Taoiseach about this last December and he told me the legislation would be in place in March. Last week he said it would be introduced in July. However, the Minister said this evening that he hoped it will be passed in July. We are running into big problems. We must go through the process of having an environmental impact statement and public inquiry. Will we decide to introduce regulations granting construction without having to get planning permission? Will we have the same argument with the Department as with the mobile phone masts when certain set procedures were set aside? We are months behind schedule. I am concerned that we seem to be behind on every major project — the Dublin Port tunnel, the convention centre and the LRT; I am concerned that some of the money will be withdrawn at the mid-term review next year and that all these matters will gang up on us. If something like that is going to happen, is there any merit in a huge northside-southside row?

The Minister referred to the fact that the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, knew of the need for this cost-benefit analysis back in 1994. Of course he did. He signed it; he knew about it. I presume he would have expected that when the announcement took 14 months and the statement was made, all that had been completed. I accept that the Minister made some good points about Drumcondra Road but one could make that argument for any route.

Debate adjourned.