Deputy Haughey has seven minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Dublin Light Rail Plan: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Cowen on 23 April 1996:
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 lines, 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.
Debate resumed on 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 reevaluation 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 inquiry has been held and the EU approval procedures have been finalised."
—(Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications).
Is that seven minutes for myself as the Fianna Fáil spokesman?
Yes, seven minutes is all that is left of the time allotted to the Deputy and his colleagues who spoke earlier.
Dublin traffic is chaotic and has been for many years. We have an over reliance on the private motor car and an increase in car ownership and there are no designated routes through Dublin for heavy commercial vehicles.
The Dublin Transport Initiative was the first real attempt to produce a comprehensive blueprint to deal with this ever worsening problem. The DTI involved widespread public consultation on a scale never seen before and many members of the public got involved in that process. The initiative recommended, among other things, a port access route and three rail transit lines going to Dundrum, Tallaght and Ballymun.
I understood the details announced by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications on 12 December last on the routes for the Dublin light rail plan to be a fait accompli. They proposed the designation of Tallaght and Dundrum lines as the priority involving an expenditure of £114 million, with the deferral of the Ballymun line to a later date at best, or indeed its cancellation. I thought at the time that that was the end of the matter. Ballymun had a good case but it lost out and at the time I accepted that, albeit regretfully. I was astonished to learn that this was not the case, that the EU had called for an investigation and had sought comparative socio-economic studies of the various route options. This information was withheld from the Dáil; these facts were concealed. I regret that all of us were misled on this matter. The Ballymun case has merit and it should have been heard. It is a deprived area of Dublin's northside and job creation there is extremely important.
The people of the north side of Dublin hold the view that they always lose out and this would seem to be the case in this instance. I am sure Deputy Ryan would agree with me on that.
Absolutely.
I agree.
There is a widespread public perception on the northside of Dublin that we lose out time and again when it covers to providing amenities and facilities and this would seem to have happened in this case. While not to discuss the technical merits of the three routes — that is for other people to consider and decide — I welcome the investigation requested by the European Commission in the interests of fair play and equity.
Our dealings with the European Commission generally are under the spotlight once again. The European Commission and its Commissioners are not to be messed with or taken for granted; they are involved in serious business. Once again, Government Ministers have let us down in this regard. I ask Ministers to demonstrate in future that we have a competent system of Government and administration in this country and that we are capable of adhering to high standards, rules and procedures. We need to demonstrate that our Ministers are not fly-by-nights or three-card-trick men, that we are capable of adhering to democratic Government, that we can function as a modern State with a modern system of Government and have modern proceedures in place. We need to demonstrate that there is openness, transparency and accountability. It is important to bring this to the fore in our future dealings with the European Commission.
Another aspect of the DTI is the Dublin port access route. The Government gave the go-ahead for the Dublin port tunnel. It is important that the port of Dublin be allowed to function, it is the commercial backbone of the city and its hinterland and it is important that manufacturing business have proper access to it. I am in favour of the Dublin port tunnel in principle but the local residents, who will be directly affected by it, must be permitted to have an input into the debate on the proposed route and the many other associated issues. The public consultation process has been totally inadequate. Many of the residents of Dublin North Central have been badly treated and it is very important that their legitimate concerns about this tunnel be addressed quickly for the benefit of all the citizens of this county.
On a point of Order, a Cheann Comhairle, am I to take it that the sharing arrangement between Fianna Fáil and the Independent TDs is not applying tonight?
I am not aware of any arrangement, Deputy.
It was a standing arrangement.
I would like very much that the Deputy would be facilitated.
When I rose to speak, there was no Independent member present.
I wish to share my time with the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, and Deputies Seán Ryan, Eric Byrne and Flaherty.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
Many Members wish to speak on this motion. As a Dublin TD, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is very clear that the Dublin light rail system is a critical initiative and it is essential that we move ahead with all speed to implement this most worth-while project. My constituents are extremely interested in it, are very positive about it and are keen to see the project proceed. I accept Deputy Brennan had to make his point as an Opposition spokesperson on transport but it is most unfortunate that he should do so at the cost of possibly undermining the project.
Members of Fianna Fáil must make up their minds whether they are in favour of the light rail system because, at present, they are giving an ambivalent message, which is unhelpful. What is needed for the completion of the project is an all-party approach and a major public information campaign to inform people about the project, the timescale and the advantages of this method of transport which has clearly worked extremely well in other cities in Europe. Anybody driving, walking or taking a bus in Dublin can see and experience the dreadful traffic gridlock in the city. We must move fast on this problem.
It is not an exaggeration to say that we are at an important crossroads and that the next four years will be decisive in determining the future of transportation and the quality of life in Dublin. It would be a great tragedy if the controversy of recent days undermined the real progress being made by the Minister, Deputy Lowry, in tackling Dublin's traffic and transport problems. As Deputy Haughey said, we all recognise that transportation is one of the most important factors influencing the city. Transport influences the growth, shape, size and environment of urban areas. The traffic congestion in Dublin is a serious threat to the efficient running of the city. It imposes heavy social costs on the community through pollution, wasted time, accidents and so forth.
For years these problems have been the subject of discussion, argument and reports. Too frequently there have been no productive results. We cannot afford to debate the fundamental issue any longer, we must deal with it. The problems with Dublin's traffic have been growing since the economic boom of the 1960s and action must be taken to prevent further gridlock. In 1971 the results of the Dublin Transportation Study were given to the then Minister for Local Government. It recommended the development of an integrated transportation system to accommodate anticipated increased travel in the period to 1991. However, the DTS recommendations were never implemented and the chance was missed. In 1978 the Transport Consultative Commission was established and presented its report. Again, nothing was done. The commission was given responsibility but was dissolved a little over 12 months later.
Time and again we have had opportunities — which we did not grasp — to do something about Dublin's transport and traffic. The DTI is the latest attempt to come to grips with the problem and we cannot afford to miss this opportunity as it can succeed where others did not. It looked at the financial implications of its recommendations and that is important. The DTI was carried out with financial support from the European Commission which meant that its recommendations could be included in the operational programme for transport.
The European Commission is committed to providing financial assistance for light rail in Dublin and it is a distortion of the facts to suggest otherwise. The Commission has already paid £3 million towards the preparatory costs of the project. It is important that a socio-economic analysis is carried out, that there will be a public inquiry and that an environmental impact study will be carried out. The public consultation procedure has already begun and, in my experience in Dublin South-East, it is working well. People are getting involved in meetings and with their local residents' associations in making recommendations on how the project could be improved. Public consultation will mean that we will have an effective light rail system that will have the support of people living in the affected areas.
We must build on the success of DART by improving the attractiveness of public transport. A capital city the size of Dublin requires a mass transit system which can move large numbers of people along main transport corridors quickly and easily in a reliable way. Implementing DTI is the best way forward. An integral part of the DTI recommendations was that we should have a rail based system. It suggested that it could be implemented at a far lower cost than an extended DART network. The experience of other cities has been that a rail based system works well. The Dublin City Business Association sent representatives to look at transport in a number of European cities and concluded that the light rail system was the way forward. The evidence from around the world is that it is the way to reverse the decline in public transport in urban areas.
It is important to move quickly on this issue. A huge amount of preparatory work must be done and it is important that the opportunities which have been created already are not lost. The Government — Fianna Fáil also had a role in this — has decided to prioritise the lines. It is inevitable that this will be challenged and those who are on the second stage sections will want to make a contribution to the discussion and give their input on the priorities that have been agreed. We are still a long way from a final decision but we are making progress and that is the important point. There has been a huge amount of debate already and it is inevitable that there will be further debate.
The request from the European Commission should not cause the alarm it appears to have caused. From the beginning it was a built-in legal requirement. All major projects funded by the EU have this requirement so I cannot see what the fuss is about. We still have to pass legislation on this issue, we have to look at the environmental impact statement and the outcome of the public inquiries. It is important that we maintain the momentum.
I would like to say more about this subject but I am sharing my time with a number of other speakers.
Will the Ceann Comhairle explain the order of speakers? The tradition of the House and the agreement of the Whips is that a half hour of Government time should be shared three ways — Labour, Fine Gael and Democratic Left.
The sharing of times is a matter for Deputies. The Chair will not become involved in it.
For the information of Deputy Byrne, the arrangement is that I, Deputy Seán Ryan, Deputy Eric Byrne and Deputy Flaherty will share the remaining time.
I am sorry to disagree with the Minister of State but if she checks with the Whips she will find out that half an hour of Government time is divided three ways.
The Deputy will have ten minutes at 7.30 p.m.
As the Deputy has adverted to the fact that there is disagreement, the Whips should be consulted. It is not a matter for the House.
When I was preparing the national plan there was much pressure on me not to allocate money for the light rail system and to spend it on roads or other projects. However, I included the light rail system in the national plan for the Structural Funds because it is, as recommended by the Dublin Transport Initiative, an important element in solving Dublin's traffic chaos. It is widely known and has been discussed previously in this House in the context of other projects, such as the Tallaght Hospital and the peat station for the midlands, that the EU Commission requires a detailed evaluation of all projects worth £20 million or more. Evaluation studies carried out to date in relation to the light rail project confirm that the light rail system makes strong economic and traffic sense and that the two lines suggested for the first phase of the project, Dundrum and Tallaght, will perform extremely well. The full return from the light rail system will only be realised when the three lines of the system are in place.
The previous Government and its Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, and the Government and its Minister, Deputy Lowry, would have been remiss not to proceed with detailed planning of the light rail system pending the final go-ahead from Brussels. The decision to proceed with detailed planning for the Dundrum and Tallaght lines was taken by the previous Government in light of the preliminary cost benefit studies of how the project would be best phased — six options were examined at that stage — in conjunction with the planning go-ahead for the proposed port access tunnel from Santry to Dublin Port.
I was born and reared on Dublin's northside and spent my first 21 years there. This issue is not, nor should it become, a northside versus southside debate. The line to Ballymun makes clear economic sense and completes the Luas project. The question at issue with regard to Ballymun is not whether but when; it is a question of timing. It makes more sense from a timing perspective to start with the one line which has a dedicated right of way — the Harcourt Street line. It would also minimise traffic disruption during the construction phase. The logistics suggest it is preferable to build the port access tunnel first to offer an alternative access route into town during the construction phase of the Ballymun line.
I have read many reports on the current controversy which use the shorthand of "northside poor, southside rich". As a northsider living in the southside, I want to challenge both of those stereotypes. The northside has areas of deep poverty. Equally, the catchment area of the Ballymun line has areas of comfortable prosperity. Along the catchment area of the Dundrum line there are areas of good incomes and also unemployment blackspots which are well documented in, for example, Dublin County Council's CODEM report.
Extending the Dundrum route the extra mile to Sandyford industrial estate makes huge economic sense. That industrial estate has factories employing nearly 7,000 people. The economics of running full trains in both directions during the morning and evening commuter peaks make sense. An extra £10 million, which is small money in a project of this scale, would bring the Dundrum track that vital extra mile to the Sandyford industrial estate and would also serve some of our unemployment blackspots in that area.
The EU Commission is rightly concerned about the employment impact of the construction phase of a major project like Luas and in ensuring that people living in jobless blackspots can benefit during the construction phase. I repeatedly pursued this issue with Commissioner Bruce Millan with regard to Structural Fund spending and I am delighted to see Commissioner Monika Wulf-Mathies taking such an interest in this aspect of the project. Commissioner Millan said that every project seeking EU funding had to go for tender on a European scale and it would be extremely difficult to impose conditions as to where the workers on the construction phase of the project would come from. I hope that out of these evaluations we will achieve what I have sought for so long, that those who get the jobs for the building phase of the project will be those who might not otherwise get work, who have been unemployed for a long time and whose skills we should build up to ensure they are able to benefit from these jobs along the route.
I welcome the study commissioned by the European Commission. In the wake of the studies carried out by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and CIE, I am confident that the phasing of the project, as it has proceeded to date, will come about and the full economic benefits will be reaped when the three phases of the light rail system are in place and all areas of the city, north, south and west, can benefit from it.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the LRT system which, when completed, will have major implications for the environmental and economic life of Dublin and its people. It is my hope that the political charges made by the Opposition over the past few weeks will not delay this project.
As far back as 1991, Labour Party councillors from both Dublin city and county made a detailed submission, with the able assistance from the then MEP, Barry Desmond, to the EU for Structural Funds to put in place a co-ordinated transport infrastructure incorporating a light rail transit system for Dublin. I was pleased to be a member of the delegation which presented the Labour Party document Transport Development for Economic Growth to Commissioner Bruce Millan in November 1991.
It was our view that the LRT would be cheaper to build than either a metro or DART system. The system is user and environmentally friendly and the vehicles ride comfortably and quietly. Cars, vans and buses are significantly noisier. I was pleased that the EU sanctioned these Structural Funds, especially given that the previous operational programme from 1989-93 was biased in favour of roads against the rail system — the ratio was around 17:1.
It was always my view, obviously wrongly held, that the Government approved the findings of the Dublin Transport Initiative report in 1994, which recommended that in phase I CIE would proceed with the rail link to Tallaght and Dundrum. The Glasnevin/Ballymun route and ultimately the link to Dublin Airport was for some unknown reason relegated to phase II. In effect, this meant that work would not commence on this phase until the next century, depending on the availability of finance. This was another incidence where the northside and its socio-economic problems, particularly unemployment, were forgotten.
I am pleased to know that a socio-economic cost benefit analysis on a number of routes is under consideration, particularly as I understand, and I am open to correction on this, that the DTI did not take into consideration the impact on north Dublin of the staggering growth of Dublin Airport, which had a throughput of 8 million passengers in 1995 and has a projected level of 13 million passengers by 2003. Hopefully this will be brought to the attention of the EU in its review and perhaps the Ballymun route will get the go ahead in phase I.
The DART system, which has been an unqualified success, has taken significant numbers of private cars off our roads. The DTI has recommended the extension of the DART to Greystones and Malahide on the basis that the conversion of an existing rail link is a worthwhile option. Given that the Greystones extension received approval during a recent by-election, I recommend the Government to approve the extension to Portmarnock and Malahide. This would facilitate another option, such as linking the DART to the airport and Swords, one of the fastest growing towns in Ireland. There is a cast iron case for a rail extension to the airport. Apart from the fact that Dublin is the only European capital without a direct rail link from its airport, it is also an industrial centre in itself with over 100 companies and some 8,000 people are employed there.
I strongly recommend this proposal and urge that the Opposition should stop playing political football with this important issue which is so vital for the future of Dublin and in job creation for its people.
I listened last night to Deputy Tom Kitt, a good friend of mine, make the most outrageous attack on the Minister for many unsustainable reasons. The last time I heard him speak in a similar vein was in regard to the Minister for Defence, Deputy Barrett, and his accusations will prove to be equally unfounded in this case.
As one of the Deputies representing Ballymun, I was anxious to put on record my welcome for any re-evaluation which might bring the line there more quickly. The northside did reasonably well from the distribution of Structural Funds because of the substantial investment in the proposed tunnel route. It is not without its controversies. Environmental issues are involved and we are fighting hard at every level in this regard. However, it is a substantial investment. We shared the view of many that it was hard to see where any additional public facility could go on northside roads without putting that tunnel in place first. However, we welcome the commitment to commence with planning there.
The opening of the Drumcondra station, which will allow northside commuters access to the Maynooth commuter line over the next year, the construction of this tunnel and this review makes the northside feel that these funds have been spent reasonably. We do not wish to be set off against any other area of the city. The needs of each sector should be evaluated fairly. While we see merit in all the proposals, we would welcome any new emphasis given to Ballymun in addition to the commitments already made to the area.
I call Deputy Eric Byrne who has seven minutes.
It used to be ten minutes but I will make the best use I can of the time.
It is called coalition.
The Deputy should use his time.
It is one of the disadvantages of being in the smallest party in Government. We are at the end of the list.
Fianna Fáil's capacity for scoring own goals in Private Members' time never ceases to amaze me. The fourth part of the motion condemns the Government for "overseeing a serious deterioration in relations between Ireland and the European Commission." Deputies should reread that part and savour it because it represents the most extraordinary example of political amnesia. What are they preparing next? Perhaps a Private Members' motion on the intricate connections between passports and pet foods or on export credit insurance.
Printing presses.
The Deputy is a joke.
About the way the Deputy's party used to carry coffins at funerals or the way it used to bomb the railway line.
I look forward to the next 18 months with curiosity and, I hope, enjoyment in responding to the Fianna Fáil Private Members' motions.
This motion comes from the party whose one time leader was accused by the President of the European Commission of telling untruths with regard to the Structural Funds. Have the Fianna Fáil Deputies forgotten the saga of the incredible shrinking billions? The then Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, returned from Edinburgh like a latter day Braveheart with £8 billion. A few months later his Government published the national plan and slid down the slippery slope of half truths, untruths, rumours and leaks. We were confronted with the unedifying spectacle of Fianna Fáil Ministers engaging in stout denial cloaked in bluster and then passing the blame for their own miscalculations to Commissioners, officials and other cohesion countries — not necessarily in that order.
No matter what way our comrades in Fianna Fáil may wish to present the figures, the Fianna Fáil led Administration managed to mislay about £1 billion on its ill-fated journeys between Brussels and Dublin. That was not a bad day's work. The loss of £1 billion was small beer compared to the damage to the country's reputation in Europe. The EU mendicants went to the well once too often and, in the process, managed to alienate the EU Commission, its officials and other EU member states. If one wants to know why the taxpayers will have to pay a fine of £75 million for the behaviour of our beef processors, one should look carefully at the party in power during that period.
This Government is repairing the damage inflicted by the previous Fianna Fáil led Administration on our relations with Europe. We have succeeded in restoring the trust and confidence which is necessary if Ireland is to play a full and equal role in the EU.
Not content with bad housekeeping when it was in power, Fianna Fáil is now engaging in a blatant and cynical attempt to sow renewed discord between the Government and the European Commission. It would happily fritter away the strength in the relationship between Ireland and the EU for the sake of a few cheap headlines. The Fianna Fáil motion centres on the study requested by the European Commission. Its wide-eyed amazement at this requirement is, at best, disingenuous. The lack of sufficient research, analysis and additonality was one of the reasons the national plan had to be subjected to radical surgery.
The need for a cost benefit analysis of the DTI package was included in the Community Support Framework, which Deputy Bertie Ahern may recall, and in the operational programme for transport which Deputy Cowen may recall. If the Deputies in Fianna Fáil were aware of this their motion is no more than the normal bluff and bluster. If they were not, it becomes clear why they made such a mess of the EU funding saga. Fianna Fáil cannot have it both ways. Are we once again to be treated to the incompetence theory?
The EU Commission is fully entitled to seek independent studies of various projects. In doing so it is protecting the interests of the hard-pressed European taxpayers, to whom we are eternally grateful. The proposed study will simply provide a comparative evaluation of alternative routes — Tallaght-Ballymun and Tallaght-Dundrum. It has nothing to do with the light rail projects, for which funding is already committed in the operational programme. I understand money has already been paid to CIE for the preparatory work. The only threat to the funding for this project comes from those mischievous souls in Fianna Fáil who view the role of an Opposition as being destructive rather than constructive.
Is this serious?
The Deputy will have to do better than that. He should speak from the heart.
For over a year Fianna Fáil has sought in vain for an issue on which it could challenge the Government. Recent Private Members' motions reflect its desperation. Time and again, Fianna Fáil attempts to erect political sand castles in the air which only fall upon them, disappearing when the foundations are swept away by cold political reality.
We won two by-elections.
The reality for Fianna Fáil is that it will have to remain in Opposition for another 18 months. Hopefully, my colleagues in the Labour Party and Fine Gael will not afford it a banana skin with which to trip the Government.
Deputy Eric Byrne has surpassed himself. It is hard to believe that even he believes what he says about his party's record in Opposition when he accuses others of being destructive. For years his party has been destructive in Opposition. It never came up with a positive idea.
Deputy Eoin Ryan's party self-destructed.
It came up with all kinds of innuendo and made wild allegations in this House. I wish to share my time with Deputies Flood and Batt O'Keeffe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
There is concern in Dublin that the Dublin light rail transit system will not be constructed because of the evident mishandling of the issue by the Government and, in particular, the Minister, Deputy Lowry. The Minister launched Luas in all its glory last year and the publicity was favourable about the return of light rail transit systems to Dublin. We were told Luas would play a key role in reducing traffic congestion in the city and how the Dublin light transit system would help modernise our public transport operation in Dublin. We support these noble aims and objectives.
In Government Fianna Fáil pioneered the return of a modern light rail transit system to Dublin city when it formulated the priorities under the EU backed Operational Programme for Transport 1994-99. The other major political parties backed this idea. When Luas was launched we were not told that the EU Commission had not approved the specific plans for the initiative as laid down by the Government. It is evident the EU Commission had been and is seeking further evaluations on the socio-economic cost benefits of the Luas scheme as put forward by the Minister, Deputy Lowry.
In other words, the Minister launched a project worth £122 million in EU Structural Funds without the approval of the EU Commission. The Commission is a tough paymaster and sets stringent monetarist criteria for the implementation of EU backed schemes. It is angry with the Minister and rightly so. No Minister should ever take the Commission for granted. It is a friend to Ireland and does not approve of Ministers trying to spend moneys without its approval.
The Luas project is now in real danger. A sum of £15 million has been allocated for the project this year and £27 million next year. However, it appears that because of the Government's mishandling of the issue there is a real risk of it not being able to draw down the allocated funds in the necessary time. The Minister has done little to advance the cause of good relations with the EU Commission. He has been recklessly irresponsible with the spending of enormous amounts of Structural Funds. It is hard to believe that this Government is supposed to be operating behind a pane of glass as the most open and transparent Administration in the history of the State. The Minister has not answered the questions put to him.
His statements speak of Fianna Fáil misleading others but who is misleading whom? It is not only Fianna Fáil who thought the money was available and that the project was going ahead — his colleagues thought so too. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, who represents my constituency, held a public meeting for the people of Ranelagh, Rathmines and Rathgar to announce that this would go ahead and to detail the great benefits it would bring. It was a successful meeting and people were delighted with the advances which would be made. Deputy Frances Fitzgerald held another meeting with the same purpose. I do not want to get into argument about this. It is an important matter and we do not bring it up for cheap political gain. We were told this was going ahead and the Minister's colleagues in Government believed so too — the proof of that is the public meetings they held.
The Minister must answer the questions on this issue, he cannot leave it hanging. A traffic management plan is to be introduced in my constituency, much of which depends on whether the Harcourt Street line is established. The Ballymun-Airport line is needed but if we want to get traffic out of the city centre there is an advantage in first introducing the Harcourt Street line. The Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, made a good point in saying that if the tunnel was built first it would alleviate problems when the Ballymun line was built. We should not have a northside-southside row about this. The strong impression was given that the first two parts of the project would go ahead but we are now told that they will not.
If there is a problem, the Minister should admit it and one hopes it can be resolved. However, claiming that he did not say something when it is obvious that he did is ludicrous. This project is very important to Dublin. Everyone wants it and it should go ahead as quickly as possible, with everyone working together. The Minister should be much clearer on this issue and explain where the project stands.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Eoin Ryan, for sharing his time on this important debate. I was sorry to hear the remarks of Deputy Eric Byrne — I thought he might speak about the need for the project but he decided to spend time dealing with Fianna Fáil. Why that should be the case is beyond me.
It is important for a modern capital city like Dublin to be provided with the type of facility we are discussing. Everyone in the House strongly supports it but we on this side are concerned about the confusion surrounding the project, arising from the actions of the Minister, Deputy Lowry. We regret that because if there are difficulties they will impinge on all of us, particularly those who represent constituencies in the greater Dublin area, and we do not want that to happen.
Existing public transport is sketchy and cumbersome, despite the best efforts of those who work in it, such as the managers, workers and drivers of Dublin Bus. It is not sufficient to meet the needs of the greater Dublin region and consequently it is extremely important that light rail goes ahead without a hitch. There are differing views on where the lines are going; my concern is that the Tallaght line goes through areas which contain people with access to their own private transport.
I am familiar with the route of the Tallaght line because I have met people in the organisation which is planning the physical provision of the structure. Unfortunately, the western part of Tallaght is being ignored. I live in Tallaght and represent its people in the House, so I cannot understand why the line does not extend to west Tallaght, which is a hugely built up area, heavily dependent on public transport, in which substantial housing development is continuing. It was short-sighted of the planners not to extend the line to Fettercairn, Brookfield, Killinarden and Old Bawn and then have it circle back to the Square. That would have made sense as it would have taken the line through a catchment area with a vast number of people without their own transport. Public transport in those areas is sketchy and when there are incidents on buses they are arbitrarily withdrawn by Dublin Bus to protect their workers, which punishes the entire community. This is an intolerable position and it increases the need to provide the service to west Tallaght.
The way the Minister is handling the issue has caused a great deal of doubt. People do no know whether the system will be put in place. We in this House are trying to aid the Government in clarifying the position, as our party leader and our spokesman have asked, so that it can get on with the project.
I was amused to hear the Minister, Deputy Lowry, castigate my good friend and colleague, Deputy Cullen, because he had the temerity to change political parties. If I had been in the House at the time, I would have asked the Minister if he ever heard of former Deputy Michael O'Leary. It is not long ago since the leader of Labour decided to change parties — and he joined Fine Gael.
This Minister is concerned about the level of abuse and allegations against him. He is like a child who bleats and cries not to be hit again because everyone is at him. We should see where the Minister is coming from — the man who is now crying foul had no problem using the privilege of the Dáil to castigate people outside the House. He had no problem reacting to anonymous letters in the hope that it would gain publicity for him and increase his profile.
The Minister of State should have told that to his colleague in Government.
Do not blame me.
The Minister would never do any of that.
This is the Minister who gave erroneous information to the Dáil about the Horgan Quay site. He said the man who had purchased the site had it for over 12 months but had not paid a penny; yet the Minister's Department had sent the contract to that man only one week before. The allegations about receipts and travel had to be withdrawn in this House also. Even yesterday, when the Minister was replying at Question Time in his usual condescending and pompous manner, he refused to give information to this House which was its right to receive. He refused to confirm whether he appointed a certain individual to the Aviation Authority. Does he ever learn? Ministers from other parties, such as the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, and ethics herself, the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, told people about the grandiose scheme which had the approval not only of the Cabinet but also of the EU, only to find out there had been concealment.
This is extremely serious. The Minister concealed information from the Dáil and from his Cabinet colleagues. He also tried to conceal information from the EU. Of what are these instances of concealment and secrecy a manifestation? When we read editorials describing the Minister as prone to error, we can only conclude that he is suffering from lack of confidence and belief in his ability. If this were not so, he would have no problem openly telling the House that exact position.
The Progressive Democrats have long favoured the provision of a light rail transit system for Dublin and we continue to be enthusaistic supporters of the project. The availability of substantial funding from the European Union gives us the opportunity to proceed with a project which would simply not be affordable if we had to finance it from our own resources. Within five years Dublin could have an excellent rapid transit system, comparable with the best in any city in the developed world.
The motion before the House focuses on the handling of the LRT issue by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. I am not interested in political point-scoring; instead I want to use the opportunity of this debate to set out the Progressive Democrats' policy on the transport requirements of the capital. I must say, however, that I am not surprised that the Minister finds himself at the receiving end of yet another critical motion in this House. As the most accident prone member of an increasingly accident-prone Administration, he could aptly be dubbed the Minister for continuing chaos. Several of his Government colleagues are claiming that they only became aware of the EU's demand for further studies on the LRT project when they read it in the papers — so much for collective Cabinet responsibility.
Our basic objective should be to use the available money to build the best possible rapid transit system for the whole of Dublin, yet the Government's plan will serve only one side of the city — the south side. We cannot proceed with a rapid transit proposal that ignores the north side of Dublin. To do so would fly in the face of social justice, economic logic and transport efficiency, as we have already heard from a Labour Party Member from the northside. There are 400,000 people living on the north side. The Ballymun-Dublin Airport link has been dropped, apparently because, due to lower car ownership in places like Ballymun, rapid transit would take fewer vehicles off the road. What kind of crazy policy is it that people on the south side must have rapid transit because they have cars, but people on the north side cannot have it because they do not have cars? The Ballymun link must be reinstated as an essential part of the whole LRT proposal.
It is a sad commentary on the present Administration's handling of this issue that it takes a European Commission official in Brussels to tell it that Ballymun is a deprived and disadvantaged area and that its social needs must be catered for. Was the Minister for social Welfare, Deputy Proinsias De Rossa, not aware of this already? I ask the Minister to state precisely when the Ballymun link was dropped from the LRT plan and why. Was it because CIE seriously underestimated the cost of building the whole system and, having gone to Brussels with an overall project cover of £200 million, subsequently discovered that they could only deliver two lines for this price?
I also ask the Minister to state whether money earmarked for the Ballymun line has been siphoned off to fund the construction of the north-south post access road tunnel from Whitehall to East Wall. One only has to stand on O'Connell Bridge and watch the trucks grinding their way along the quays to know that what the port needs is an east-west road tunnel, linking it directly with the main routes out of the city to Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway. Commercial interests put forward a fully costed proposal for the construction and operation of such an east-west tunnel using private money. Instead, we are to get a north-south tunnel built with public money. Can anybody in this Administration explain why? Is this part of a plan to create such traffic congestion in the East Wall area to ensure that the eastern by-pass is ultimately built across Sandymount Strand, at a probably cost to the taxpayer of £500 million or more? Clearly, we need more transparency and accountability in this whole process. I urge the Government to re-examine its plans for the north side. Can it not look at the feasibility of the privately funded east-west road tunnel? If that option was chosen, then the north-south tunnel could be scrapped and the money saved could be used to complete the Ballymun-Dublin Airport link. The Government should be honest enough to admit that the Ballymun line is not being postponed; it is being cancelled.
Enlargement of the EU will greatly reduce our access to Structural and Cohesion Funds from the end of the decade. Without such funding it is unlikely that the Exchequer would be able to finance the cost of such a project. It is a pity that we have not adopted a more innovative and imaginative approach to the funding of the whole LRT system. There seems to be strong ideological opposition to the private provision of public infrastructure. The attitude of the Labour Party, in particular, appears to be that we can have a State service or no service. There is no reason why commercial capital cannot be attracted into the construction of the rapid transit system.
Is the Department currently engaged in a consultation process for the LRT or a propaganda process? Has it investigated the feasibility of running the centre-city sections of the system underground? Have the Minister or his officials met with the promoters of the unified proposal, who have advocated such a strategy? Has the Minister sought detailed figures from independent experts as to the cost and practicality of providing rail tunnels to carry the LRT from the Grand Canal inwards towards the city? Assuming that the underground option has been investigated, could the Minister, in the interests of openness, transparency and accountability, publish the studies which led to it being rejected? If we do not go underground, what kind of traffic are we likely to see in the city centre area? Picture the present situation at College Green at five o'clock on a Friday evening. Thousands of cars, buses, trucks and motorcycles are grinding their way slowly through the rush-hour traffic, all competing for scarce road space. Now add half a dozen trains to this mess. This is a recipe for chaos, not for rapid transit.
What time savings will this road-bound LRT system deliver that could not be achieved by simply converting the Harcourt Street line, for instance, into a dedicated busway? If it does not deliver appreciable time savings, then why spend £220 million on it?
Has the Department made any efforts to quantify the cost of the disruption that will be caused during the construction phase of this project? I have already seen estimates that in the Mount Brown area alone up to 1,000 jobs could be lost in local business because of the disruption caused by the building of the LRT system. The Minister should also clarify how many buildings will have to be demolished to make way for the on-street sections of the LRT. Can he confirm that, in some instances, whole streets may have to be demolished in the oldest parts of the city, with a devastating impact on local communities?
The whole idea of a rapid transit system is that it can convey people quickly from place to place by avoiding all other forms of traffic. If a transit system has to fight for space with other modes of transport — cars and buses, for example — then it can no longer claim to be a rapid transit system. The new LRT systems recently installed in Manchester and Sheffield support this view. Both systems run on segregated track for almost all of their length. This means that in the Manchester system only 3 kilometres out of a total route length of 31 kilometres run on the street, and less than half this is in conflict with other traffic. In Sheffield, virtually all of the system runs on segregated track and, out of a total route length of 33 kilometres, only 600 metres is in conflict with other traffic.
Contrast this with what is planned for Dublin. Under the proposed LRT system more than half the total 40 kilometres of track length would run along suburban roads and busy city streets in direct conflict with motorised traffic. Every major junction between the canals would be a battleground for trains, buses, trucks and cars with the travelling public being the ultimate losers. The mind boggles at the traffic chaos that would result from building twin train tracks along the central reservation of the Naas Road, one of the busiest arterial routes in the country and a vital commercial link between Dublin and the rest of the country. Will intending passengers be expected to walk across three lanes of heavy traffic in order to clamber aboard their train in the middle of the road? The Minister should explain how this will work.
The proposed system for Dublin also has serious drawbacks from the standpoint of safety. Research into light rail transit conducted for the Department of Transport in Britain established that the accident rate on non-segregated systems is five times higher than on segregated systems. In other words, are we about to install in Dublin a system that may be not just unsatisfactory but potentially unsafe as well?
I would like to see LRT routes running through the suburbs on segregated track, as far as possible, away from roads and other traffic. Has the Minister given any consideration to the unified proposal to which I have referred already? That proposal envisages using the old Harcourt Street line as already planned. For the Tallaght line, however, it would utilise the bus-way reservation which is already in place. This would enable the Tallaght line to serve the densely populated suburbs of Crumliin, Drimnagh, Walkinstown and Kimmage, instead of running down the middle of the Naas Road. As they reach the line of the Grand Canal both routes would go underground from there to the city centre, providing a fast, safe and reliable link to the suburban centres. Nowhere is the busy area between the canals would the trains clash with existing traffic.
Would the Minister accept that a segregated system running underground through the centre and on designated track in the suburbs would be able to use high capacity vehicles similar to those used on the DART?
I understand that the Luas proposal favoured by the Government may be overstating the carrying capacity of the tram-type vehicles that will be used on it. Can the Minister confirm that the purchase of additional trams will add up to £25 million to the capital cost of the project?
Would the Minister also accept that a segregated system running underground in the city centre would be able to carry more passengers, offer faster journey times, operate at lower cost and reduce the risk of accidents, or has his Department made any study of these issues? This option would, in effect, be an extension of the existing, highly successful DART system to the rest of the city.
The unified proposal showed how a comprehensive, integrated light-rail network for the whole city could be provided within five years. This proposal would comprise three lines, including a vital link to the airport, with all the city centre sections running underground. It would also allow for the extension of the proposed Dundrum link to Sandyford and later, one would hope, to Cabinteely. Everybody agrees that traffic congestion in Dundrum village is already so bad that extension to the Sandyford industrial estate, where there is adequate space for park-and-ride facilities, is absolutely essential. The proposal would comprise: Sandyford to Dublin Airport — a DART-type service would run along the Harcourt Street line, go underground at the Grand Canal, re-emerging at the old Broadstone line and proceeding overground to Dublin Airport; Tallaght to Connolly — a similar service would run from Tallaght along the reserved busway, going underground at Sundrive Road and re-emerging at Connolly to provide a link with the Bray-Howth DART line, and Temple Bar Interchange — an underground station at Temple Bar would provide a hub for the whole system, enabling journeys to be made, with interchanges, from Tallaght to the airport, from Dundrum to Howth, from Bray to Ballymun.
Has the Minister or his Department given any consideration to the feasibility of this citywide proposal and, if so, will he publish the result of those deliberations? Would the Minister accept that, with appropriate funding from the commercial sector, this proposal could be brought on stream without any increase in the current level of public funding available for the Luas project as currently envisaged? Has the Minister or his Department investigated the possibility of putting the whole project out to competitive public tender as happens with road projects of this size? If we are not prepared to engage in new thinking, we are unlikely to arrive at practical and affordable solutions to any of the major problems confronting our capital city.
The whole LRT debate focuses on the transport requirements of Dublin. We must not forget that there are other cities in the country which also have transport problems. Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford all have to put up with inefficient and unreliable bus services operated, incidentally, by a Dublin-based company. I am not advocating light rail for these cities but at the very least could the Minister not make it an operational requirement of Bus Éireann that its provincial city services be operated to quality management standards such as ISO 9000? This would go a long way towards ensuring a better and more reliable service for the people of those cities without the need for huge additional expenditure.
The Minister has many questions to address which have been left unanswered and which merit full accountability.
: I welcome this opportunity to clarify the position in relation to the process which has been followed on the light rail issue. Despite my limited ministerial experience I can bring an overview to this debate which I hope will be helpful.
I worked initially with Deputy Michael Smith when he was Minister for the Environment. He was, and is, the Fianna Fáil representative for North Tipperary. We had an excellent working relationship and I was very sorry when it ended. By coincidence my current post also involves working with a Minister from North Tipperary.
: It's a long way to Tipperary.
: I am pleased to say again that the Minister, Deputy Lowry, and I have an excellent working relationship. In these portfolios I have been aware of the ongoing developments on DTI and of the light rail project in particular. In many ways this has been a seamless progress from stage to stage. The light rail project was given initial political direction by Deputy Cowen who, as Minister, ensured the necessary work was undertaken to secure agreements on funding. Following the Edinburgh Summit he and his officials worked to ensure that this project would be part of the National Development Plan and subsequently included for funding under the Operational Programme for Transport. Naturally, challenges have been encountered at each stage but these have been overcome and we have moved on.
As Minister, Deputy Cowen secured Government approval of the provisional funding that the links to Tallaght and Dundrum be constructed during the period of the national plan with the remaining links to be constructed at a later stage. That was the time the decision was made, and the priorities of Government established. This decision enabled the CIE project team and its consultants to undertake more detailed work on the project. They got on with the job of checking technical aspects of the routes. They started to identify underground services that would be affected. They also commenced preparatory work on land ownership and other issues. When the current Minister, Deputy Lowry, came to office he built on the work done to date. He strengthened the Department's team and ensured that the CIE management team was augmented by the appointment of a head of programme and projects responsible for investment, including light rail. When more detailed preparatory work was completed he ensured that this was presented to the Irish public and to the European Commission at the first available opportunity. This was done so as to be certain that views would be listened to and evaluated before anything was set in stone. These two events — the presentation to the Irish public and to the Commission — happened at almost the same time and have given rise to the present unnecessary controversy.
Some points need to be clarified. When the Commission were given details of the planning and evaluation work in progress they did not reject it. They did not question the light rail concept. They did not seek to have the overall project re-evaluated. They did not question the core network as recommended by DTI. They did ask that the Department have more work done in relation to the Ballymun option.
They need this information before a final decision can be taken. CIE had evaluated six options — this analysis is available from CIE — and the Commission asked that further work be done on two of these options. These were the Tallaght-Ballymun and Tallaght-Dundrum proposals. One of these was the option given priority by both Governments and both included the Tallaght-city centre section. This puts the request in context.
Let us also be clear on who is doing this evaluation work. It was agreed that the additional work would be arranged by the Department. It is misleading to give the impression that this was some sort of unilateral Commission investigation. Both parties recognised that no final decision had been taken. Both parties agreed jointly on the terms of reference for a study. Both agreed jointly on the procedures to be followed. Both agreed jointly on the list of consultants who were to be invited to tender. There has been no disagreement with the Commission.
Never at any time since the request for a study was made has there been any attempt to avoid that study. In one form or another both administrations need this study for their respective approval procedures. There has been a difference of emphasis but no breakdown in relations with the Commission. Indeed, working relationships with the Commission continue to be good, both friendly and businesslike.
While I am on this aspect I also want to clarify the points made last night about the need to synchronise Commission and departmental activities. This was done. The Commission was advised of the provisional decision taken by Government and was subsequently presented with the detailed information as I have outlined. There are so many parallel strands to be brought together that I do not see how it could have been otherwise.
There is no way to get Commission approval before the detailed planning and evaluation work is done. There is no way to do the detailed work without having a focus and we are not finished yet. In case there is any doubt, let me state that other information is needed for the formal EU application. This includes, for example, the environmental impact statement which is currently being prepared and which is also needed for our national procedures. Let nobody feign surprise when issues raised in this process have to be addressed.
I was dismayed to see the manner in which wider issues have been tied into this debate. These, while part of the national consultative process, have nothing to do with the Commission request. Issues like extensions to Sandyford or to the airport are separate. Abandoning on-street light rail in favour of an underground system is not something the Commission has even hinted at, and it is not on our agenda.
Minister Lowry rightly made the point in the Seanad when he said we could not afford the luxury of more studies to re-examine the fundamental basis of the DTI strategy. This strategy included building a phase 1 of an on-street light rail network to Cabinteely, Dundrum and Ballymun and recognised that only part of that could be built before 1999. Successive Governments and the EU Commission have accepted this.
There is an enormous amount of work to be done to ensure we have light rail by 2000 AD. It is time to stop this ballyhoo which is only putting at risk funding which has been included in the operational programme for transport. Let us get on with building this first stage. The danger is if we argue too long, we may all end up as losers.
This Private Members' motion was deliberately tabled by Fianna Fáil because the party stands by its charges that the Minister, Deputy Lowry, has grossly misled this House, the Seanad and the public in relation to the Dublin light rail project. Misleading this House was not an accident or a one-off. The information about the EU investigation of phasing the light rail plan was knowingly concealed by the Minister on the following ten occasions: at the announcement of the two lines on 12 December 1995; in an Adjournment debate on 14 December; in parliamentary questions from Deputy Shatter and me on 31 January; in a major debate in Seanad Éireann on 14 February; in reply to parliamentary questions from Deputy Molloy, Deputy Callely and me on 5 March; in reply to a parliamentary question from Deputy Haughey on 6 March; in newspaper reports on 8 March; in reply to parliamentary questions from Deputy Quill on 26 March; in reply to a parliamentary question from me on 28 March; and in a major speech to the Dublin City Business Association on 28 March.
The Fianna Fáil Private Members' motion calls on the Minister to lay before the Dáil all the correspondence between him and the European Commission in relation to the light rail. We believe that the Minister, in the interests of openness and transparency — as they like to call it — should take that course of action immediately. We are not alone in that view. In an editorial in this week's Sunday Business Post the Minister was requested to be more open in his policies.
There is a strong recent precedent for such disclosure of information and for that information to be laid before the House. After the Mutton Island controversy, for example, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, laid before the Dáil the correspondence between him and the EU Commissioner for Regional Affairs. Why will the Minister, Deputy Lowry, not do the same? The previous material is available in the Library for all Deputies to examine.
However, in his speech last night the Minister, Deputy Lowry, refused the request to lay this correspondence before the Dáil or to place it in the Library. Instead, he tried to fob us off by laying just the terms of reference of the EU investigation in the Library. That is a cop-out and a form of censorship. Why does he not take the course taken by his colleagues and lay this correspondence before the House? The Minister, Deputy Lowry, claimed that doing so would serve no useful purpose. The Minister is acting as judge and jury, which is clearly wrong. If he has nothing to hide, why not lay the correspondence before this House? Will we have to wait until there is another story in the newspapers about what happened at the Commission and what the Minister agreed behind closed doors with the EU before we get disclosure, only to be told at that stage it is normal?
The Minister's refusal to publish the full correspondence means he has, in a way, redefined this Government's commitment to transparency. He has produced his own minimalist type of transparency. Quite frankly, I find this version unacceptable. It is against the spirit of the Programme for a Government of Renewal which brought this Government into office. I ask the Taoiseach and the leaders of the other parties in Government to exercise their political influence in this regard.
The Minister's version is unacceptable to the media. In an editorial in The Irish Times last week the leader writer said that this debate about the Dublin light rail was more than a political skirmish. It stated:
At the heart of the dispute are very serious questions about the Government's respect for the Dáil, its relations with the European Commission in Brussels and, not least, the apparent lack of any community or local involvement in transport policy.
The accident-prone Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Mr. Lowry, who has been accused by Fianna Fáil of misleading the Dáil, has yet again got some explaining to do. His statement last night does not satisfactorily answer the many questions raised.
...The Fianna Fáil charge that Mr. Lowry was involved in a "gross deception of both Houses of the Oireachtas" is thus not entirely without substance. And the Taoiseach's sturdy defence of his ministerial colleague in the Dáil yesterday would appear to fly in face of the facts as now known. The truth is that Mr. Lowry allowed the impression to build that the Government's decision to proceed with the Tallaght and Dundrum projects, at the expense of Ballymun, was a fait accompli. The Minister has only himself to blame if his political judgment is again being questioned.
...As it is, this whole episode will serve as a further reminder of how this Government's much-vaunted commitment to openness and accountability means very little in practice.
The Sunday Business Post editorial was equally critical and is worth quoting:
[Minister] Lowry is now attempting to make little of this matter, but it is of no small importance. If a Fianna Fáil politician behaved in such a way, he or she would be hounded by the likes of Lowry and Fine Gael ... Yet Lowry apparently feels he has no case to answer in relation to the Luas project. We do not agree. If we propose to use huge amounts of EU cash for a piece of infrastructure, then we must first convince the EU of the merits of that investment. And the citizens of Dublin deserve quite precise information regarding the status of the project.
The Minister's refusal to publish the correspondence between himself and the European Commission looks like a cover-up. The Minister knows the case is threadbare and to publish would expose this concealment. I again invite the Minister to publish the correspondence between his Department and the EU.
In his speech last night the Minister tried to maintain that the investigation ordered is normal. He quoted quite selectively from the Community Support Framework to back this up. However, he decided not to quote from page 78 which outlines that such investigations are ordered only when the information supplied by a member state is inadequate. Ireland had supplied the information required and this investigation signalled a serious development which should have been disclosed to the country, and to this House in particular.
The Minister, Deputy Lowry, also quoted very selectively last night from the correspondence of the EU Regional Affairs Commissioner to his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Howlin. He did not quote the Commissioner when she expressed concern to the Minister for the Environment that the Mutton Island project was being announced while it was still being examined and without any prior exchange of information with the EU. Did the Minister get a similar letter from the same Commissioner, Dr. Monika Wulf-Mathies?
The Minister announced plans for the two lines when the matter was still being examined and without letting the EU know, even though his officials met the Commission on 29 November 1995, two weeks before the official announcement.
Another interesting observation arises on this controversy from correspondence laid before the Oireachtas by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin. In those letters the EU had to disabuse the Minister of the notion that the Commissioner's investigation into Mutton Island was very unusual. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, claims such investigations are par for the course. He must be the only member of this Administration who believes that such EU investigations are normal.
In his speech last night, the Minister lists projects which were the subject of EU investigations. Will he answer how many of them were announced without the disclosure of the investigation or before the investigation was completed? As far as I can establish, there were none apart from this one.
The Minister reiterated the pathetic claim last night that he had not announced plans for the two light rail lines and that he had referred early to a public consultation process. This is a distortion of the facts. There is no doubt that, on 12 December 1995, Minister Lowry announced plans for the two lines and expressed regret that Ballymun would not be part of the first phase. He also said that the public consultation process he launched was in connection only with these two lines, nothing more. This is borne out in parliamentary replies and speeches and in the leaflets circulated by the light rail team. I am not aware that any of them went to Ballymun. All the leaflets I have were circulated near the proposed Dundrum and Tallaght lines.
It was a gross distortion for the Minister to claim last night that Ballymun arose only during the public consultation process. The leaflets on light rail also scotch the claim by the Minister that he never launched the first two lines. In a leaflet entitled Between the Lines, circulated in the Dundrum area in the last few days, there are three pictures of the Minister and one of a train.
Is it on the back or the front?
The front page of the leaflet states:
The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Mr. Lowry T.D., has stated that the Light Rail line to Dundrum will travel across the Taney Road Junction and on to Sandyford Road North. The Minister made this announcement at the launch of the public consultation process last December.
These leaflets are in wide circulation in Dundrum and Tallaght. I cannot find one of them in Ballymun. It is clear, therefore, that the Minister was forging ahead with the two lines and it was only when he was pulled up by the EU that the question of the Ballymun line emerged.
Is the Minister suggesting that he could set the route for the line, distribute brochures advising where it was going, order public consultations on two specific lines but not on the third and that all this means nothing? I do not believe this, nor does anybody else. The reality is that the only thing the Minister did not announce in his speech on 12 December was the EU investigation, which he should have.
Why did the Minister not announce the EU investigation, given that it was so significant? Why was a year lost? Why are detailed maps for the light rail routes not available at this stage? Why were five months lost since the EU investigation was agreed? It is only now that the procedures are being put in place for the investigation. Given the delays, there is a great danger that, by the time the operational programme for transport review comes up next year, Ireland could lose out, for example to Portugal, unless headway is now made.
These latest delays pose serious threats to the light rail. In a speech to the Dublin City Business Association on 28 March, the Minister warned that there is a fixed timescale for the EU funding that underpins the project and no guarantee this money will be maintained unless the timetable is adhered to. What is the position today on this timetable? If the light rail phasing is changed by the EU, as is now likely, will there be funds for all three lines to go ahead at once or will the Government have to withdraw its announcement on the two lines? I would be interested in attending such a press conference. Will the lines be completed by the deadline for the operational programme for transport? If lines have not been laid by this time next year, will Ireland lose EU funding for the light rail to, for example, Portugal, which is already very advanced in this area?
This controversy does not just raise the matter of the Minister's respect for the Dáil but also for the EU. He proceeded with the announcement of plans for the light rail when an investigation had been ordered. He did not even acknowledge that investigation on ten different occasions in this House when I raised the issue with him. He brushed it off as insignificant. Is it any wonder that Irish-EU relations are at such a low? If there are to be further controversies after this one and those already involving the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, we can say good-bye to any goodwill we have built up painfully over the years.
This motion relates to light rail. However, there are many other areas within the Transport, Energy and Communications portfolio where the Minister's judgment is also in serious question. There is the second mobile telephone licence controversy, about which we will hear more next Tuesday. The Minister's handling of a strategic alliance partner for Telecom Éireann is now a shambles. Eight of the ten top bidders have withdrawn from the competition with just two left. This side of the House will oppose any shabby attempt to sell off 35 per cent of Telecom Éireann at a panic, knock-down price. This process is also being pursued in a secretive and misguided fashion. It should be abandoned and there should be a full debate in the House as to how we go forward.
In recent days we have seen media headlines about practices in the semi-State organisations. Are the leaks in this morning's newspapers another tactical diversion? Last year the Minister questioned tendering processes which led to a witch-hunt for weeks on end. Various diversionary tactics were tried during that time. Is this another one?
In his speech last night, the Minister conveniently forgot to tackle the issue of whether he informed his Government colleagues about the light rail investigation. At the weekend, the Sunday Business Post reported that the other Ministers were, like the Dáil, the Seanad and the public, kept in the dark with regard to the EU investigation.
How would it know?
Is the Minister for Social Welfare being ignored?
This information communicates the lack of respect the Minister has for our institutions of State. The Minister has a seriously secretive attitude to ministerial office——
Is that how it knew?
——and the duties and responsibilities that go with it. The question of the Minister's political judgment comes into focus in this debate as it has so often in recent times.
The Minister has recently been described in one newspaper as the teflon Minister, to which nothing sticks. However, would it not be more appropriate to call him the velcro Minister because that sticks together?
What would it call the Deputy?
The motion before the House accuses the Minister of misleading this House and the public. We accuse him of concealing critical information that the EU had stopped the process when we should have been told.
That is a lie.
We accuse the Minister of refusing to lay the correspondence before the House when asked to do so and hiding in that way. We accuse him of showing an enormous lack of respect for the Dáil, EU procedures, the Seanad and the people. We accuse him of damaging our relations with the EU and we ask that the motion roundly condemn his misleading the House on this issue.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Haughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald: Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.