Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 May 1998

Vol. 490 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Light Rail Project: Motion.

Mr. Yates

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government's failure to approve the Luas proposal as designed involving the loss of £114 million in Structural Funds to this project and thereby prolonging the very severe traffic congestion problems of Dublin indefinitely and further deplores the manner in which the Government has announced a plan which is uncosted, has no technical design or specification and for which there is no timeframe.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Olivia Mitchell and Lowry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Yates

When I heard the Government's decision on this matter last week after a lengthy and fractious Cabinet meeting I was shocked. I said then, and time will bear it out, that this is the worst decision the Government has taken since it took office. Traffic congestion is the primary political problem for most Dubliners. There was a time when crime was the biggest problem. However, the daily frustration, aggression and anger people feel at having to get up earlier and get home from work later due to traffic gridlock is affecting greatly the quality of life for people in Dublin.

It has been estimated that the cost of traffic gridlock in delay alone, leaving aside fuel, pollution and accident costs, is £500 million per annum. The morning rush hour used to be from 7.45 a.m. to 9.15 a.m. but it has been extended to at least 7.15 a.m. to 10 a.m. The problem can only worsen. The growth in population projected for the greater Dublin area and for the peripheral counties of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow indicates that travel journeys will increase. Since 1990 it is estimated that travel journeys in Dublin have doubled.

Given the urgency of this crisis, the analysis we have had for the past ten years and the almost inexhaustible supply of reports it is incomprehensible that this Government has deliberately deferred the revitalised transport system for Dublin in the Luas proposals. The expert reports and consultative studies came to a central conclusion — the solution to Dublin's traffic gridlock lies in a modal shift from private motoring to public transport. We must get people out of cars into vehicles which make efficient use of road space, be they heavy or light rail or buses. Road space is finite and it cannot cope with the exponential growth in demand.

The Luas project with lines from Dundrum and Tallaght to the city centre had its limitations. Its proponents always acknowledged that it was not a panacea for Dublin's traffic congestion. Rather it was part of a comprehensive DTI package. I resent the out of context use of the statistic in the Atkins report that Luas would only have brought about a 1 per cent shift from private motoring to public transport. That is true because there are 11 radial routes in Dublin and Luas only dealt with two of them. However, for those two routes from Dundrum and Tallaght it would have effected a 15 per cent shift.

On the DART route one in two commuters goes to work by public transport but on the rest of the city routes less than one in four does so. The objective must be to raise the figure on all those routes to one in two. That would have happened on the Dundrum and Tallaght lines. As the "Prime Time" programme showed, the buses are full halfway into their journeys because there is inadequate capacity and many motorists have little option given the lack of quality bus corridors.

The Government has stretched credulity on this issue and its approach has not worked. The Minister created a deception through the Atkins report. She emphasised repeatedly that another examination by an independent group of experts was needed before Luas was signed off. We disagreed with the delay and argued that it would jeopardise the funds. However, it was a new Government and it was entitled to hear from its experts before committing itself to such large expenditure.

The Minister assured us repeatedly at Question Time that the EU funding would not be lost. However, we know that a secret meeting took place on 2 January between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister and it was known all along that the Luas project was to be abandoned. When the Atkins report recommended the existing proposal as the best option she and her Government colleagues clutched at soundbites, such as the 1 per cent figure, to draw a different conclusion.

Hurriedly and in a confused manner the Government drew up its own Dublin transport blueprint. It had various vested interests spin this stunt into a visionary project and a panacea for Dublin's traffic woes. That mirage is collapsing. The reality is that we have awakened not to a vision but to a nightmare. We have ended up with a project for which there has been no technical appraisal ten years after the DTI began, let alone a detailed route, underground or overground, or a specification. The project has no phasing and no start or completion dates. It is uncosted and I am told by experts that the full cost is likely to be about £1.2 billion.

The Atkins report stated that the earliest an underground system would be available to the Dublin commuters would be 2005. By then there will have been a further 20 per cent increase in traffic journeys in the Dublin area. We are told that the Government is committed to an underground tunnel in the city centre. We do not know its depth, the subsidence risk or the geological problems. Given the construction activities in Dublin over the past 20 years, I would give the project about ten boreholes before a professor finds another Wood Quay site. Halfway through the tunnelling a prehistoric find will be discovered that must be examined with a tooth-brush. This project will be a black hole into which will pour the Minister's political epitaph. It is a pig in a poke if ever there was one.

There will have to be 130 bore holes to analyse the rock structure under the city centre and, in some cases, up to a depth of 60 metres. Houses, offices and shops will be disrupted by these large bore holes. Some hydrologists and geologists have said a former river structure involving up to seven rivers existed under the city centre and this will lead to severe problems of sand and sediment. I can put it no better than a geologist expert who said it is like drilling into a water main.

The Minister, blithely and bizarrely, is not only unable to answer any of these questions relating to design, cost and timetable, she even has the outrageous temerity to pretend this project, in its totality, will cost in the order of £400 million.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I said £400 million plus.

Mr. Yates

Let us be fair, if the Minister meant £800 million plus she would have said that. We are talking about something in the plus range of £400 million. If the Minister does not know this to be a blatant falsehood, she is even more naive than many of her worst critics accuse her.

Mrs. O'Rourke

They never accuse me of that.

Mr. Yates

The Atkins report estimated that the cost of the city centre tunnel and the previous online Luas proposal would be of the order of £363 million. Are we to believe we can get spurs and extensions of the onstreet system to Ballymun, the airport and Finglas, across to the docklands, linking Dublin's heavy rail stations, back to Cabinteely and out to Swords for £30 million or £40 million on top of £363 million? It is absolute nonsense. The truth is the Government does not have a clue what this will cost or when it will be done, if ever.

Various kites have been flown as to the method of funding of this Disneyland deception. We were told there will be the proceeds of the sale of semi-State assets, including ICC, ACC and the IPO from Telecom Éireann. We were told the private sector as far away as Japan is queuing up to fund it. This is not proper Government procedure. The Department of Finance controls the annual public capital programme. The constraints in the future will be greater, not less. Because of the single currency, there will be annual limitations on public expenditure, the current budget deficit and the national debt. Structural Funds will be reduced after 1999, irrespective of whether the entire country or part of it retains Objective One status.

There will have to be a rate of return on capital for private sector funding, as with a toll road or any joint funded project. This will probably exceed the rates at which Governments can borrow money. We have long experience, through successive Governments, of transport — CIE — requiring a public subsidy. On top of that annual subvention — in some cases, as with Dublin Bus, the subvention is not enough — we will have to repay this capital to the private sector finance. It is not funny money or money which does not have an annual current cost. The only certainties of the Government's decision to abort Luas are that Dublin's traffic gridlock will receive no practical resolution in the form of the proposed public transport for over eight years.

The public inquiry will have to be terminated and a new ministerial order put in place as the route will have to be redesigned from scratch in some cases. The European funding agreed with the previous Government and the Commission of £114 million will be lost to the project. I support the amendment tabled by the Labour Party ensuring that, as an outcome of this disaster or as a consolation prize, the money will be retained for transport projects in Dublin.

I am not a bit surprised many Ministers supported the proposal because they saw that after the mid-term review most did not get what they wanted in terms of extra Structural Funding from agriculture to heritage to enterprise and employment. They will all have their hands out for the £114 million. It is no wonder they wilfully supported the Minister in dropping that European funding.

How can Fianna Fáil and PD Deputies representing the Tallaght and Dundrum areas vote for this Government cock-up? This must mark itself as the worst decision the Government has taken since elected to office. It was a decision based on the gutless cowardice of avoiding any construction disruption this side of a general election. When researching my party's document, Capital Crisis, last autumn, a senior business source asked me privately if I really thought someone as cute and cunning as the Taoiseach would allow the streets of Dublin to be ripped up for the next general election. He told me to cop myself on and said that there is no way the Taoiseach would tolerate the political backlash in an election campaign. I naively discounted such a short-term prospect of expediency ruling the day. This politics of cuteness and cunning will rebound on this Government because by the next election, Dublin voters will see it has done nothing to deal with traffic chaos. The Government has dressed up a non-decision as a bigger and brighter transport project. This stunt will haunt this Government.

Fine Gael is happy to support the proposal that £114 million of lost European funds should be diverted back to public transport needs in the greater Dublin area. We have outlined proposals, including £10 million for quality bus corridors, construction of park and ride facilities, the improvement of heavy rail links from Kilcock to Connolly Station, from Maynooth to Clonsilla and to and from Heuston Station. Dublin Corporation's traffic management has put forward an investment programme. These measures are urgent and necessitous but they do not take from the overriding need to provide an enhanced public transport system on a permanent basis.

This Government's cop-out and cowardice will become apparent with each passing and planning implementation phase of its proposals. Fine Gael believes the Government has engaged in a con trick and hoax of the worst order. It is only a matter of time before the cheated motorist has pay back time with this Government in the next election on this crucial issue.

Ms O. Mitchell

I congratulate the Minister on the most masterly stroke of deception ever perpetrated on the people of Dublin. Although she has scuttled any hope for this generation of a public transport system, the Minister is still selling it as something better than they already had within their grasp. As a spin, it is admirable and breathtaking in its audacity. The Minister has traded the reality of a planned and immediately implementable and designed system for what is a fairy tale. History has a habit of disproving even the most credible fairy tales and when the history of this issue is written, it will prove that last week's bombshell was a bad day for Dublin. It will also have been a bad day for the Minister unless she rapidly introduces and implements interim measures, otherwise this decision will come back to haunt her.

In my constituency, the Minister is already being referred to as the latter day Todd Andrews. That is not a compliment because he was the Minister who closed the Harcourt Street line.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am opening it up.

Ms O. Mitchell

We will see. This is unfortunate because it was not what the Minister wanted and was forced on her by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. As recently as ten to 14 days ago, the Minister said she would accept the Atkins report but she was forced to accept a completely new scheme proposed by a friend of the Tánaiste. I believe the Minister when she says that every member of the Cabinet had their say because the scheme and the lovely colourful map produced last week has signs of everyone's hand. It is a mishmash of everything which was suggested over the past 20 years in terms of a train or light rail system. There are lines to Tallaght, Sandyford, Connolly Station, the airport, Clondalkin, Cabinteely, the Docklands and Swords and an on-street and underground system. No matter where one lives, what one wants or what one's interest is, there is a little appeasement for everyone. There is something for everybody in the audience except the audience has not been born yet and that is the rub. It provides nothing for Dubliners, especially those in the city centre and the long suffering suburbs. This plan presents no immediate hope for traffic relief, no interim relief and for most of us there will be no relief in our lifetimes.

It resulted from the ultimate political cop-out by the Cabinet as it bowed to vested interests and was afraid of any on street disruption prior to a general election. This was done for short-term gain as the Government ignored every recommendation, study, consultants' report and expert, including those commissioned by the Minister who took a year to produce a report which she then threw away. Five years of design work has been thrown out and the Luas team who worked diligently for five years on a plan which no longer exists are completely demoralised. The Dublin Transportation Office, which produced the DTI strategy and is revising it, had all the local authorities working to the same agenda now find the plug has been pulled on the core element of its strategy.

Last week the Minister made the point that the Government was agreeing to the implementation of environmental traffic cells in the city but failed to realise their purpose is to facilitate public transport. If there is no public transport, there is no point in having them. Local authorities in Dublin have built their development plans around the Dublin transportation strategy and this was ignored. My local authority has already allocated higher density developments along planned public transport routes but now we find that is no longer the case and do not know when it will happen.

What confidence can the public have in a Government that throws out this amount of work and then sits down to design a Legoland public transport system? What confidence can we have in a Government which a few weeks ago was accepting the on-street system for which work was done and this week is selling Telecom Éireann for a totally new system, designed partly by it and the Tánaiste's friends, against the advice of the Minister for Finance who apparently had already committed the Telecom funds to reducing the national debt?

I was amused when I received a glossy document from the Department of Finance on its strategy up until 2000. That is gone out of the window.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is no harm.

Ms O. Mitchell

I must tell the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Public Enterprise will have to forgive us for believing that she is making this up as she goes along. The scheme, apart from the indeterminate tunnel is not that different from the previous one but the stop-start approach to it is damaging, wrong and totally reprehensible, especially the overturning of a detailed plan causing years of delays to satisfy a vested interest.

The Taoiseach was also behind this and it is not the first time he has interfered on behalf of a vested interest in regard to public transport. Does anybody recall the taxi forum where the work of the Dublin local authorities was completely over-turned for one vested interest? He was wrong on both occasions and this will be proven. Lobbying is a legitimate activity for any group, including taxi drivers, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the loose alliance of consultants who have been wandering around with various schemes over recent years but it is the duty of Government to legislate for the common good, and not for one group. The common good was not well served last week through this decision. It was the wrong decision functionally and politically for Fianna Fáil, whatever the Taoiseach may think. Dublin Chamber of Commerce may have a great deal of muscle but it has only a handful of votes.

I represent a suburban constituency and in the housing estates there is a seething, burning and barely suppressed anger at the impact of traffic congestion on their quality of life. It is an anger that is very close to revolution and the Government has effectively spat in the face of those who thought they had a solution within their grasp and relief was close at hand. The irony of this volte face is that it is to no avail because the tunnel will never be built. The Taoiseach and the Minister know this and already signalled this when they factored the expectation of delays and court challenges into the time span involved. It is unique in terms of the public projects with which I have been involved at local government level. A Government has never announced a project that it knew the public would not like and to which it would object without providing any costing.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We did.

Ms O. Mitchell

The public will not like it when, having wasted many years and millions of pounds, it will suddenly realise what is involved in this project. When the public realises the tunnel will not serve the city centre, will take people away from it, there will be massive disruption in building even one underground station, the chaos of shifting millions of tonnes of rock through the city streets and the cost, risk, uncertainty involved, there will be objections, lobbying and threatened court challenges like we have never seen before. The very people objecting will be the same people for whom this new scheme was conceived.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is always the way.

Ms O. Mitchell

The spine chilling scenario is that when that happens the Government will bow to pressure again, abandon the new plan and everyone will be back to the drawing board. However, long before that happens, Dublin will have completely ground to a halt, the economy will be destroyed and there will be a new set of problems to contend with, the very least of which will be how we get people from St. Stephen's Green to Broadstone.

However, knowing the intolerable position in which the Minister has been placed by the Tánaiste, I was impressed with the spin but one week later it is beginning to unravel a little. She stretched our ability to believe a little too far when she parcelled all the lines ever dreamt up together, extended them in a few directions and went underground as well; even her supporters found that a little difficult to believe. Already people living on the northside of the city realise they have been sold a pup and that they have traded the certainty of phase two in the previous project for a fantasy, the remote possibility of a tunnel appearing in Broadstone in their lifetimes.

When the dust settles, the Minister will have to pick up the pieces and make choices to salvage something from this fiasco. The latest predictions from the Dublin Transportation Office are nothing short of frightening and we cannot spend five years drilling holes in the ground to no avail. The Minister must proceed immediately with the Tallaght — O'Connell Street and Sandyford — St. Stephen's Green lines and allow them to open and operate independently of work on tunnels. We do not want to know about tunnels and are only interested in what can be opened now.

The Minister must immediately resource Dublin Bus and equip it to meet demand. It is, and always will be, the main public transport provider. It was never true that Luas would be the total solution. We need more buses and routes to deal with the change in demand patterns for travel which has been recognised by Dublin Bus, but it has not been in a position to respond. Over the past five years there have been enormous changes due to changing land use and population and economic growth. Those changes are causing chaos in the suburbs and the new demands can be met only by a comprehensive network of orbital bus routes.

The Minister must provide funding immediately for the construction and policing of quality bus corridors, park and ride facilities, the Maynooth line and all the other interim measures recommended by the Dublin Transportation Office. Those are the minimum measures necessary to prevent a complete breakdown of the Dublin transport network. They are the minimum measures needed to even stay at the current level of congestion, a frightening thought. I sympathise with the Minister because she has to do all this as well as build two Luas lines without EU funding. It gives me no pleasure to say I told her so, but I did.

Ihope the Minister had an opportunity in the past week to consider some of the questions she could not answer last week. While I have several questions I want to ask her, I will concentrate on a parochial issue. What is the position in regard to the Sandyford-Stephen's Green line? While I realise changes are necessary to the light rail application and that a fresh order will have to be prepared, will it be ready when the inspector opens his public inquiry, which is rumoured will take place in the autumn? Will it proceed in tandem with the Tallaght line? Will the carriages for which tenders have already been sought be suitable for the Sandyford line? Will they have the capacity to serve what is supposed to be an airport route? Will they meet the fire standards required for the tunnel route? In short, will the tunnelling consideration delay progress on that portion of the line or can it proceed and open as scheduled in 2002?

Mr. Lowry

I thank Deputy Yates for sharing time with me. Given my involvement with Luas in the previous Government, I believe I can speak with some authority on this issue. As Minister responsible for transport, I launched the successful public consultation process in December l995 and brought forward legislation to make Luas possible in July l996 which was steered through the Oireachtas by the then Minister of State, Deputy Stagg. I also negotiated and secured approval for the allocation of £114 million of European Union funding for the project. I was proud to be associated with the on-street Luas project during my time in office and I strongly endorse the project which is practical and a realistic attempt to address Dublin's traffic problems. This is in contrast to the aspirational and elaborate charade being indulged in by the Government.

The Luas project has been studied to death and the Dublin Transport Initiative has, in effect, been buried with it by the Government. In the past five years a number of distinguished international transportation consultants have exhaustively evaluated the options for Luas. All their advice, plus the collective recommendations of such bodies as the DTI, Dublin Corporation, CIE and relevant Government Departments, have strongly supported the original on-street Luas project for Dublin. This advice has been rubbished by the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, and her Government colleagues, although I note reports that Ministers Cowen and Brennan — no doubt arising from their personal experiences as former Ministers with responsibility for transport — support the on-street light rail system and are backed by the Minister for Finance.

What confidence can the people of Dublin have in the commitment of the Minister for Public Enterprise to this project? She told the House on several occasions, and repeated it at innumerable transport gatherings in the past 12 months, that regardless of the outcome of the Atkins consultancy study, the Government would implement the project recommended by it. That is some commitment on implementation. The Luas project proposed by the Government is a pipe dream and constitutes a cocktail of dithering, fudging and passing the buck. There are no realistic costs for the project, funds have not been locked down for it and neither a start nor a completion date has been set. That is a ludicrous basis for a Government to proceed with a project. Is there any understanding in Government circles of the implications of such an approach for our reputation in Europe as a country that can be relied on to deliver on our European Union Structural Fund commitments? In the case of Luas that reputation lies in tatters. Brussels has undoubtedly become weary of the endless delays and cop-outs on the project. The Minister has admitted this by meekly giving up the £114 million of European Union funding for it.

Up to £20 million of European Union funding has already been spent on planning and design work for a system which has been scrapped by the Government. During my time as Minister I recall being advised by the European Union authorities that the funds being spent on planning and design work would have to be refunded if the on-street project did not go ahead. Will the Minister enlighten the House on this issue?

In announcing the new project with customary fanfare and her magic crayon, the Minister claimed the project will cost £400 million plus. Unfortunately, she has been steadfast and characteristically vague about how much "plus" means. On the basis of the technical advice available to me about the project during my time as Minister, I am satisfied the final outturn cost will be closer to £800 million. The House should note in this context that the projected cost for the underground Dublin Port access tunnel is running in excess of £200 million, or two-and-a-half times the original figure, before even a shovel of earth has been dug.

There are a number of other aspects about which the Minister has also been noticeably vague. For example, from where will the funds come? It is obvious there is no formal Government decision to allocate Exchequer funding to the programme. References which the Minister made to the public capital programme do not give any comfort in this connection. The entire episode smacks of a questionable system of Government procedure. Now that the European Union funds for Luas have gone, who will fund the necessary work to bring the new project forward? It is obvious that at least another £20 million will be needed for technical and evaluation work on the new scheme. Has the Minister made provision for this expenditure or secured the Government's approval for the additional funds?

There are so many imponderables about the underground option it is no wonder the Minister for Finance is apparently having nightmares about the project. Any Minister for Finance would have nightmares about the spectre of more Wood Quays, massive compensation payments, flooding, possible damage to public and other historic buildings between St. Stephen's Green and Broadstone and a large unquantified financial black hole looming large on the horizon into which all the experts agree money will have to be poured. The lack of detail about the Government's proposal is extraordinary for a project of such magnitude and importance to the people of Dublin.

How many underground stations are envisaged by the Government? The Atkins report assumed three stations in its analysis. In l996 I was advised by the Department's technical experts that one underground station would cost at least £30 million and that each station's size would be roughly equivalent to placing Liberty Hall on its side underground. We are told underground stations will not cause disruption. In broader transportation terms, the cost of one underground station would be sufficient to enable Dublin Bus to buy more than 200 buses which would do wonders for its ability to provide a proper bus service for the people of Dublin. This extra fleet, with the implementation of the DTI's recommendation for 11 quality bus corridors, would make a significant difference to public transport users.

Great store was placed in media reports over the weekend on the opposition by Dublin Chamber of Commerce to on-street light rail and the pressure exerted by it on Government. I am baffled by the Government's capitulation, lack of courage and leadership in this regard. During my time as Minister certain elements within Dublin Chamber of Commerce exercised similar opposition to Luas, but we were careful to also ascertain the views of other business representative bodies, such as Dublin City Business Association, the South Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Dundrum Chamber of Commerce and Dún Laoghaire Chamber of Commerce, who together represent more than 800 businesses and some 20,000 employees. All these bodies were strongly supportive of the on-street solution.

Nothing less than the allocation of the £220 million for the substitute public transport projects will reassure the House of the commitment of the Minister and the Government to invest in Dublin's transport infrastructure. I know from my time in Government that there are many suitable projects on the drawing board. However, it will require commitment, determination and vision on the Minister's part to deliver these projects to Dublin. It will not happen under a Minister and a Government who are lamentably intent on placing the consideration of political expediency ahead of sound, sensible, realistic transport initiatives for our capital city.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I move amendment No. a1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann

(a) welcomes the Government decision to proceed with a light rail network comprising:

a surface line from Tallaght to Connolly Station based on the CIE preferred alignment from Tallaght to O'Connell Street, and a line from Sandyford to Ballymun and Dublin Airport, using the Harcourt Street and Broadstone disused railway alignments and with an underground section in the City Centre;

(b) supports the Government's objective of proceeding without delay with the construction of the Tallaght to City Centre and Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green sections and notes that this is subject to the relevant statutory procedures and detailed technical confirmation;

(c) endorses the Government's reaffirmation of its commitment to the implementation of the current transportation strategy recommended by the Dublin Transportation Office and notes that the Office will shortly publish an Action Plan recommending short-term measures to address Dublin's traffic problems;

(d) welcomes the Government decision tojyproceed with the implementation of a number of road schemes required for traffic management in Dublin City.".

I thank the Members who put forward their ideas. A Private Members' debate should always be conducted in a reasonably civilised fashion and that has been the case today. I welcome back Deputy Lowry, if that was his first speech since his contribution in December 1996.

Mr. Lowry

If I may correct the Minister, it was not my first speech since then as I am sure she is well aware.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I did say "if that was". It is nice to see him in the House again.

Ms O. Mitchell

Nasty.

Mr. Hayes

As gracious as ever.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I noted his phrase "elaborate charade"— one could apply it to many other things but I do not intend to engage in that activity tonight.

Mr. Lowry

Now that the Minister has started she should finish.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I will first correct some misconceptions. Deputy Yates said there was a secret meeting between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and myself on 2 January. That meeting was attended by the Taoiseach, public officials and myself and it was not secret, it was in the Taoiseach's diary, arranged through his private office and civil servants were present. The purpose of the meeting, which I had sought, was to alert the Taoiseach that, whatever option was chosen, I did not want the £114 million to be lost to Ireland, so I flagged that in advance. We also spoke about other matters, some of a festive nature.

I agree with the Deputy's remarks about quality bus corridors and hope that those in public office in Dublin city and county encourage people to bring those proposals forward. I received notifications of the various objections; people have a right to object but the matter has gone on for a long time.

Deputy Mitchell said their plan could be implemented immediately but it could not because the inspector had not held a public inquiry.

Ms O. Mitchell

That was because the Minister cancelled it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us have order, please.

Mrs. O'Rourke

One cannot have an implementation policy without a public inquiry. She said I was spitting in someone's face but I have never done that. She asked what section could be opened now — I indicated that in my implementation timetable.

I welcome Deputy Lowry's contribution. Any previous Minister, irrespective of the outcome of his or her period in office, is fully entitled to be heard and to get respect but his contribution was odd. He said there was no formal Government contribution but there was, and £400 million plus was provided. That is unlike the Ballymun decision, of which I approve but for which no money was provided. The Deputy was not part of Cabinet when that decision was taken but Deputy Yates would have been, unless he was in Brussels which is quite possible. That was an eight year scheme but no Government money was provided. It was the most amazing decision I ever saw.

Deputy Lowry also said there was an element of capitulation. I have neither land, property nor money, as I indicated in the register of Members' interests; nor do I wish them, nor am I envious of anyone who has them. I am glad my life is uncluttered and unencumbered.

Mr. Stagg

The Minister is as bad or as good as myself in that regard.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes, each of us has one line in the register. As to the idea that I would succumb to pressure, I am interested in commerciality purely because I am a consumer. I cannot be more emphatic in rejecting the idea that I had any kind of vested interest because that is outrageous and ridiculous.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the decision which the Government has taken to reenergise the Dublin light rail project, in line with its commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium. The Government took a clear decision on the development of Dublin's transportation system which future generations, if not today's Opposition, will recognise as far-sighted. The light rail project has been the subject of a difficult and sometimes contentious debate. We now need to focus all our energies and considerable skills on delivering the light rail network to the citizens of Dublin without delay. We need a sense of common purpose to find solutions to problems. It is easy to criticise, but the real challenge is to channel that critical energy into solving problems.

I welcome the widespread support the Government's plan has received and in particular the call to action by those few who may not fully agree with it. I detect a public mood, evident tonight, which says: "Enough talk, let us get on with the project". I responded to that mood by meeting the CIE light rail project team last Friday morning to emphasise the Government's determination to see the project implemented as quickly as possible. We discussed the most appropriate strategy for progressing the project and I will deal with this in more detail later. Contrary to what was said, there were no disconsolate people on Mr. Mangan's project team — they were keen to start work.

Before dealing with the strategy I will set out the background to last week's Government decision. The Programme for Government contained a commitment to an independent study of the option of putting the light rail system underground in the city centre. Immediately I came to office — at the second Cabinet meeting — I obtained Government approval to go ahead with that study, which was conducted by W S Atkins. The report is a valuable and important piece of work and its detailed analysis deserves to be carefully read. It sets out the facts in a clear and unambiguous way. It deals with the issues which have for some time concerned Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and a range of commentators. These include matters such as disruption during construction, the long-term passenger capacity of the system and the impact of light rail operations on the traffic system generally.

When I came to office I was determined to get the facts. Up to then there had been a series of claims and counter-claims about the impact of the light rail project and I wanted an objective report from independent consultants. No matter how many years I spend in public life I will never apologise for seeking advice, or for asking questions and challenging a system which tells me what I must do.

The Government gave long and serious consideration to the Atkins report before making its decision. Ministers heard a presentation from the consultants, and the Cabinet debated the issue on two separate occasions, between which a Cabinet sub-committee met. The Government was determined to take a decision which was in the best long-term interests of the capital city and its citizens. I emphasise the "long-term" because we are deciding a transport network that will have a useful life of well over 100 years and there seems little merit in opting for a system which Atkins said would have capacity limitations within at most 25 to 30 years. Part of the complicated solution to these constraints would have required the use of 50 metre trams on our city streets, which is about the length of O'Connell Bridge. Until Atkins reported I had heard no one speak about trams of this length snaking through our streets as part of a vision for Dublin.

On 5 May the Government decided to proceed with a light rail network comprising a surface line from Tallaght to Connolly Station based on the CIE preferred surface alignment from Tallaght to O'Connell Street, and a line from Sandyford to Ballymun and Dublin Airport, using the Harcourt Street and Broadstone disused railway alignments and with an underground section in the city centre. While the late Todd Andrews will be remembered for the many useful things he did, I am reopening Harcourt Street station.

It is the Government's objective to proceed without delay with the construction of the Tallaght to city centre and Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green sections. This is subject to the relevant statutory procedures and to the necessary detailed technical confirmation.

I emphasise that the Government decision takes full account of the invaluable work done to date by the CIE light rail project team in designing surface lines from Tallaght and from Sandyford to the city centre. I commend the professionalism and dedication of the project team. The bulk of its detailed work to date is encompassed by the Government decision.

The Atkins report convinced the Government of the merit of proceeding with a substantially surface-based light rail system. Atkins pointed to capacity difficulties ahead and suggested possible alternative ways of addressing these difficulties which would ensure the system was adequate for about the next 30 years. The Government took a longer-term view. Nevertheless, in revitalising and extending the overall project it will only be necessary to make significant changes to less than 1.5 kilometres of the 25 kilometres already designed by the CIE team on the Tallaght and Sandyford lines.

While not wishing to engage in tautology, what we are about to embark upon, except for the tunnel section, are the same alignments, as identified and approved by the previous Government, and added to by the Ballymun to Dublin Airport to city centre to Connolly Station link and a link to Busáras. The idea that everything is being thrown out is incorrect. We will then have direct lines from Heuston Station to Connolly Station to Busáras overground and from Sandyford to city centre to Ballymun to Dublin Airport and a renewal of the disused alignments at Harcourt Street and Broadstone.

The two lines approved by Government should be seen as part of a longer-term vision for the development of an extended light rail network for the city serving destinations such as Swords, docklands, Cabinteely and Clondalkin. This extended network is consistent with the DTI strategy and the expanded network considered in the Atkins study. While the Government took no formal decision on Swords, docklands, Cabinteely and Clondalkin, it was most anxious to ensure that its decision on the two lines would facilitate the longer-term development of the network on these broad lines. The CIE project team will look at the technical feasibility of serving Finglas as part of the line from Broadstone to Ballymun and Dublin Airport.

While the Government is committed to speedy implementation of the project, it is anxious to ensure that the project is handled in a way which avoids technical or legal pitfalls. When I met the CIE light rail project team on Friday last, it gave me its initial assessment of the most appropriate strategy for programming all the individual elements of the project into an overall comprehensive implementation plan. That is attached at the back of the Luas indicative timetable.

Having taken legal advice, the project team was of the view that the speediest way forward would be to withdraw the existing applications for light railway orders and to quickly submit fresh applications which take account of the revised situation arising from the Government decision. This suggested approach is subject to the approval of the CIE board. It would bring the present inquiry to an end and require the convening of a new inquiry following receipt of the fresh applications.

The project team's assessment is that it should be possible to submit a fresh application for a light railway order for the Tallaght to Abbey Street section during the summer of this year. The applications for the Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green and the Abbey Street to Connolly Station sections would follow on afterwards.

Mr. Yates

There is no formal Government decision on those.

Mrs. O'Rourke

A public inquiry on the Tallaght to O'Connell Street section could then be held in the winter.

Mr. Stagg

I cannot find it here.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy never had it.

Mr. Yates

It is very different from what was announced last week.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies will get their opportunity. Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

Mrs. O'Rourke

If the statutory procedures were satisfactorily completed——

Mr. Yates

When you are in a hole you should stop digging. On a point of order, we did not receive a copy of the Minister's amendment.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not send out the amendments.

Mr. Yates

We do not have the wording of the amendment.

Mrs. O'Rourke

A public inquiry on the Tallaght to O'Connell Street section could then be held in the winter.

Mr. Stagg

Which winter?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not intend ever to interrupt Deputy Stagg and would expect to receive the same courtesy.

Mr. Stagg

The Minister has interrupted me previously.

An Ceann Comhairle

Can the Minister be allowed continue without interruption?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I was going to be polite and not mention this. I welcome Deputies Broughan, Shortall, Seán Ryan and McDowell, north county Dublin Labour Deputies, all of whom said Deputy Stagg did not speak for them.

An Ceann Comhairle

The presence of the Chair should be acknowledged too.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. O'Rourke

North County Dublin said no to Deputy Stagg.

The detailed technical evaluation of the underground section will go ahead in parallel with the work on Tallaght to Connolly Station and Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green sections. CIE will shortly go to tender to recruit consultants to undertake this work. Work is already under way on the selection of possible surface route alignments for the line from Broadstone to Ballymun and Dublin Airport. The project team hope to be able to bring that work to a stage which will permit public consultation on possible route options in the autumn.

I have circulated with the text of my speech a tabular statement setting out an indicative timetable for the various elements of the project to which I have already referred. Members will understand the target dates are subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary statutory procedures and to the necessary technical evaluations.

It is clear from what I have said that a programme is being put in place which will enable progress to be made in parallel on the different elements of the project. It should be possible also to begin construction of a light rail system in Dublin early in 2000, provided there are no legal problems on the lines which had been agreed by the previous Government. Neither Deputies opposite nor I have control over legal difficulties.

It is proposed that the underground section in the city centre will run from St. Stephen's Green to Broadstone. It is designed to address two important issues raised in the Atkins report. These are disruption during construction and potential longer-term capacity constraints in the central area as the network is extended.

The Atkins report sets out a vivid picture of the scale of disruption which would occur on many of the capital city's principal streets. It made it clear that the impact of building the surface system in the city centre was likely to be significantly more severe than for the underground alternative.

Construction of the surface option would take place within the city centre at various times and at various locations over a period of some two years. The Atkins report acknowledged that construction of the underground option would also have significant environmental impact. However, it made the point that the overall impact would be limited to a small number of specific locations compared with the significant construction disruption along the full length of the on-street section.

The report highlighted the substantial disadvantages in terms of reduced accessibility to properties and inconvenience to bus movements and pedestrians likely to be unavoidable during the construction of the surface option. The Government was particularly concerned about the potential impact of this disruption on Lower O'Connell Street, Westmoreland Street, College Green, Nassau Street and Dawson Street.

The Atkins report also identified the potential for capacity problems as the network expanded, particularly on that part of the route which is now going overground. While Atkins suggested options such as longer vehicles — the 50 metre ones to which I referred — and a loop line through the docklands to provide some relief, the Government decided to take the long-term view. What we build now will serve the city for many generations to come. The Government, therefore, decided to address the capacity problem by building a tunnel under the city centre section. This is a much more sensible approach than attempting an increasingly complex patchwork of solutions along the way as traffic grows.

The first phase network now proposed also provides for much greater integration with the rest of the public transport system. Heuston and Connolly stations will be directly linked by a light rail line; there will be direct interchange between light rail and the DART and suburban rail systems at Connolly Station; there will be a link to provincial bus services at Busaras; the airport will be directly served by the light rail network and will also have much improved links with the mainline and suburban rail systems; and both the Harcourt Street and Broadstone disused rail alignments are being brought back into service as part of a revitalised public transport network. This is in line with the recommendations of the Dublin Transportation Initiative. I listened with interest to the comments made by the city manager the day after the Government decision was announced. He appeared to be comfortable with it. I never met him.

Ms O. Mitchell

He welcomed a decision.

Mr. Yates

He went as far as any public official could go.

Mrs. O'Rourke

While light rail will make a vital contribution within the corridors which it serves, the Atkins report makes it clear that light rail on its own will not solve Dublin's traffic problems. The stark figure of a 1 per cent transfer from car to public transport across the city's transport network, which has been much quoted, makes that point very well. In this regard, I agree with those who spoke about the need for better and more Dublin buses. I also agree with better and more DART services and carriages. Deputy Olivia Mitchell and others previously intimated that Luas would solve all our problems.

Ms O. Mitchell

I never intimated that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It is clear from what the Deputy has said tonight that it would not.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Minister told me she read my document.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I did. A comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing Dublin's transport problem is essential. In this regard, the Government took particular account of the Atkins view that traffic management had to be addressed whatever light rail option was chosen, either surface or underground. At the same Cabinet meeting the Minister for the Environment and Local Government obtained funding for the Macken Street Bridge, the Cork Street-Coombe relief route and a minor scheme at Mercer Street amounting to £30 million. This was also itemised and included in the Government decision.

The Dublin Transportation Office is also nearing the completion of an action plan designed to address the growing transportation deficit arising from the unprecedented level of traffic growth over the past two years. The plan will propose short-term measures which can be taken over the next two years to deal with the problems. It will be presented to us at the end of May.

When deciding the development of the light rail network for Dublin, which I have already outlined, the Government noted that the cost had been estimated in excess of £400 million. That is written into the Government decision. As is proper, the Opposition constantly seeks money for various projects. I did this when I was in Opposition.

Mr. Stagg

There is a lot of it about.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am unable to understand why the Opposition does not want the Government, after introducing a good, progressive plan, to spend the money on Dublin's transport.

Mr. Stagg

We do not want the Government to throw away £114 million.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy's party has an amendment to the motion. There is a lot of detailed technical work to be carried out. This will lead to a firm cost estimate. I see no point in getting into a debate on figures until that work is done. It would serve no useful purpose until we have detailed information. The Government decision was emphatic about the scope and extent of the project. There is no doubt about what the Government wants to see implemented and funding will be provided to give effect to that decision.

The Government has provided a firm policy direction for the project, based on careful consideration of the objective information in the Atkins report. It has cleared the way to get on with implementation of a much enhanced and more sensible project. This is the essence of good Government. I assure the House that appropriate funding arrangements will be put in place to deliver on its commitment to the project.

The question of a Japanese financial input was raised in a newspaper. It does not arise as they never made any application to my Department. However, the possibility of private financing for infrastructure projects is being addressed by the Department of Finance. I expect that the approach to this general issue will be considered by the Government in the near future. It would, therefore, be prudent to await the outcome of Government deliberations on general policy before taking any decision on the scope for private financing of the light rail project.

I have always made it clear that the EU funding would not be the determining factor in making a decision on Luas. My primary concern has been to ensure that Ireland does not lose the EU funding involved. That objective will now be achieved through the timely transfer of this money to other suitable projects. This is the most sensible course of action, given that the draw-down of EU funding is dependent on two crucial deadlines — contractual commitments have to be entered by the end of 1999 and eligible expenditure has to be incurred by the end of 2000. Since the light rail project still has to go through the statutory approval process and potential subsequent legal challenges, over which nobody in this House will have any control, I judged the risk to be too high. That was the purpose of my socalled secret meeting on 2 January, which was attended by public officials. It is in the overall national interest that the EU funding be used elsewhere, rather than potentially irretrievably lost because of any delay in the legal process for the project, which is outside the Government's control.

The community support framework monitoring committee has responsibility for making decisions on the reallocation of Structural Fund assistance decommitted from the light rail project and will consider the matter at its June meeting. In this regard, I acknowledge the amendment put down by the Labour Party. One would think I had the £114 million in a glass jar in my Department.

Mr. Stagg

Why does the Minister not keep it there?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Deputies from all parties have sought this money. Rural Deputies from the Fine Gael Party and my party have sought it for rural networks while Dublin Deputies have sought it for city-wide projects and public transport. It is for the Minister for Finance, in conjunction with other Departments and the monitoring committee, to decide. However, I am working hard to ensure that a reasonable proportion of these funds are used to address public transport requirements.

The Atkins report highlighted a number of areas where investment is needed in transport infrastructure in Dublin. I also have had no shortage of advice on projects which could benefit from EU aid. My Department has been working with CIE to identify suitable projects on Dublin suburban rail, including the DART and the Maynooth line, and on the mainline rail network. The light rail project, as decided by Government on 5 May, will also be submitted for EU assistance under the next round of EU Structural and Cohesion Funding. It addresses a number of the Commission's particular areas of interest. It serves Ballymun, something which has been of continuing interest to Commissioner Wulf-Mathies. It also serves Dublin Airport, to which her officials are very committed. They are also committed to improved integration of the public transport network.

The Government decision has cleared the way to get on with the project. It has dealt with the major issues of capacity and disruption, which had been bedevilling it for some years. I ask Members to support the Government amendment.

Mr. Stagg

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion proposed by the Fine Gael Party. The Labour Party supports the motion and has proposed an amendment which I hope will be accepted by the House.

There is a transport crisis strangling Dublin city which needs an urgent, comprehensive and realistic response. The city is paying an enormous price in economic, environmental and social terms for this chaos to which solutions must be found which politicians must have the courage to implement. The Government has failed to do this. Its decision last Tuesday represents one of its greatest derelictions of duty since it attained office. It has decided to jettison the comprehensive on-street proposal initiated by the Dublin Transportation Initiative and supported by every Government up to the current Administration. What it has proposed in its place is a wish list of aspirations with no budget, timetable or basis in reality. It has single-handedly halted progress on relieving Dublin's chronic traffic problem and brought the light rail project back to the drawing board for another five years at least.

The concept of light rail has been central to proposals for public transport in Dublin for the past two decades. It was recommended by the DTI as a core element of its integrated transport plan for Dublin. It conducted the most wide-ranging and detailed examination of the transport needs of the city. Its final report received all-party support and has formed the basis of the city's transport planning since. It recommended an on-street light rail system for Dublin. This conclusion was backed by the Labour Party. In Government we insisted that planning for the project commence. We also insisted that finance should be provided to fund it. This approach was agreed to by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael when in Government with the Labour Party.

It is worthwhile outlining the extent of the DTI light rail proposal as an impression has been created in the public mind that it was confined to two routes and did not extend to the north side. Nothing could be further from the truth. It involved constructing a core light rail system in Dublin with three routes — Tallaght, Dundrum and Ballymun — which would form the first phase, to be followed by extensions to Clondalkin, Finglas, Dublin Airport and Swords. It is as extensive as that proposed by the Minister last Tuesday. The difference between them is that the DTI proposal was costed and had a timetable for implementation. The Minister's proposal has neither. She appeared to think that the absence of detail was a virtue. I am sure her colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, will have words to say on that.

The DTI Luas proposal was planned in detail and fully costed. To ensure the available £114 million in EU funding was drawn down the project had to be divided into different phases. Phase one included the construction of the Tallaght and Dundrum lines at a cost £263 million. Planning for the Ballymun line continued apace. EU funding for phase one was dependent on a Government commitment to proceed with the Ballymun line. This commitment was readily given by the previous Government. The project was to be complemented by other proposals from the DTI such as traffic management measures, quality bus corridors, cycle-ways and park and ride facilities.

The proposal found favour with all traffic experts and consultants who have examined the matter and was supported by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil when in Government with the Labour Party. Fianna Fáil, however, has had a change of heart. With the Progressive Democrats, it insisted on reviving the underground option. The Minister's first action on taking office was to halt all progress on the light rail system and to commission the W S Atkins report at a cost to the taxpayer of £200,000. The public inquiry into the DTI Luas proposal had to be adjourned to accommodate this review.

The light rail project was delayed by eight months while W S Atkins compiled its report. In common with all previous experts, it has come down on the side of the original Luas proposal backed by the Labour Party. During the eight months it took to compile the report the Minister repeatedly reassured the Dáil that she would accept and implement the recommendations of W. S. Atkins. On 12 November she stated, "Regardless of the outcome of the consultancy study, we will engage in the project recommended by it". On 16 December she said, "I have made it as plain as I can, if the study concludes in favour of the overground option, tight as the timetable may be, the money earmarked for Luas will go to Luas". In an Adjournment debate on the matter on 13 December she stated, "Whatever is the result of that [the independent consultants' report] I will go at it hell for leather and it will be implemented". We now have the Atkins report and we can see how hollow the Minister's words ring. The report states at page 68: "The recommendation of this study is that the surface option is the most appropriate and cost-effective in meeting the transport needs of the city and providing capacity to meet long-term passenger demands". The Minister must explain why she has failed to honour her word.

After a week-long Cabinet wrangle the Minister finally managed to present her own light rail proposal. This plan has not been costed. Nobody knows how much her pipedream will cost the tax-payer. There will be no detailed plan of the underground route until an extensive geological examination of underground conditions has been completed. This will probably involve the drilling of up to 100 boreholes which will plunge Dublin city into further traffic chaos. Added to this, we have no start date for the project, no idea of how long construction will take and no notion of when, if at all, the first passengers will be carried on light rail in Dublin.

I remind the Minister of the words she spoke in the House about her own principles regarding the light rail proposal. She said, "I will do it with knowledge based on certainty, I will not do it based on half truths and studies which do not exist. I want truth and knowledge". If the wish list presented last Tuesday is not based on half truths and studies which do not exist, I do not know what is.

It took five years to complete the planning process for the original Luas proposal. Do we now have to go back to the drawing board for another half decade before work can start? The answer is probably yes. That is why I object so strongly to this new unplanned, uncosted and unfinanced wish list. If this Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats pipedream is to proceed, it will be another ten years before it is completed and the first passengers travel on the system. In the meantime the rate of car ownership will continue to grow, congestion in the city will worsen and the cost of this mayhem in economic, environmental and social terms will continue to rocket. Dublin cannot afford this delay. The traffic crisis needs immediate and effective action. It does not require a project cobbled together out of political cowardice that will take a decade to complete, if it ever proceeds beyond planning stage.

The Government caved in to vested interests in reaching its decision last Tuesday. However, it by no means satisfied all the business interests in the city. The Dublin City Centre Business Association issued a statement after the Government's decision was announced which said:

Dublin City Centre Business Association deplores the Government's failure to adopt the Atkins report recommendation that on street Luas will cost less to build and operate, carry more passengers in off peak and attract 50 per cent more passengers than the alternative proposal. Minister O'Rourke's proposed extensions are not new. They were included in the DTI final report of 1994 which the Government then accepted.

Minister O'Rourke's specific underground city centre section does not indicate a proven route, the portals at both ends, the number of city centre stops, a timetable, costs based and bore hole tests or whether surface Luas units comply with the underground technical requirements. Jam in the millennium is not a solution to Dublin's traffic management needs of today let alone 1999.

However, now that the Government has decided on this irrational course what will become of the £114 million of EU funding earmarked for the project? By ditching the on street Luas proposal, the Minister and the Government have turned their backs on a fundamental element of the DTI proposals. Given the continued mayhem the Government decision will foist on the people of Dublin, it is imperative that the £114 million is ringfenced and spent on implementing other aspects of the DTI proposals for Dublin, for example, quality bus corridors and cycle routes. Dublin is the only city in Europe with a publicly owned public transport system which does not receive a subsidy. As a result, it cannot provide the buses to carry passengers or develop new routes. The company has been given a commercial mandate to carry out a social service and the two do not mix.

The £114 million should be used for environmental traffic cells in the centre of Dublin, enhanced traffic calming measures in the suburbs, investment in new rolling stock and infrastructure on suburban and DART lines to adequately accommodate passenger demand, investment in the bus fleet for Dublin Bus and immediate construction of the Tallaght-city centre and Sandy-ford-city centre on street lines. All these should be implemented through the ringfencing of the £114 million that is now available. Members should take note of the point made by Deputy Lowry that the EU has warned the Department and the Minister that the £20 million already spent on the original Luas proposal must be refunded. Consideration must be given to this aspect in adding up the total cost. Perhaps that is part of the plus to which the Minister for Public Enterprise referred.

Action on the light rail system should also continue while studies on the underground section of the Minister's route are carried out. To salvage some credibility the Government must proceed without delay with the construction of the Tallaght-Connolly Station line, the Sandyford-St. Stephen's Green line and, when the relevant procedures are complete, the Ballymun-Broadstone line. I welcome the Minister's statement that she proposes to get these elements of the project moving while waiting for the studies on the underground section. The geological and engineering studies required for the proposed underground element should proceed while this work is being carried out on the Tallaght-Connolly Station, Sandyford-St. Stephen's Green and Ballymun-Broad-stone lines. We cannot allow the entire light rail project to be deferred so the pet project of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is investigated.

The engineering difficulties in constructing the short tunnel proposed by the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, are immense. The Minister's plan involves tunnelling from the relative height of Harcourt Street to a depth of 100 metres under the city before emerging at Broadstone. I have received professional advice that such a short tunnel to such a depth will have a roller coaster effect on any train using the system and poses serious implications in terms of comfort and safety. The chamber is approximately five metres in height. However, the tunnel must go to a depth of 100 metres to cross under the river Liffey and trains will encounter a rapid decline. They will need special braking systems which will cause environmental problems in the tunnel. They will also need special engines to take them out of the tunnel at the other side. It will have serious effects on the comfort and safety of passengers.

It should be noted that the Atkins report specifically outlined that the underground option would not serve the needs of people with disabilities. Much lip service is paid in the House to transport for people with disabilities. The Atkins report specifically stated that the underground section would be unsuitable for people with disabilities. The Minister's proposals when they finally emerge must include measures that seek to rectify this serious problem.

If, as I expect, the tunnel is shown to be the financial, technical and social nightmare predicted, the on street connections can proceed and we can at last have an integrated light rail system for the capital. If the Minister proceeds with the lines as previously planned to Ballymun, Tallaght and Sandyford as far as the mouth of the proposed tunnel, by the time they are built I am confident it will have been shown that the tunnel is not a viable proposal. We then will have saved something because the other tracks will be in place and can be connected on surface.

I am convinced that the underground option proposed by the Minister will not be taken up. I am also convinced that the Government decided to scuttle the light rail project and replace it with a wish list of pious aspirations that it has no intention of putting into practice. I am further convinced that, following the strong reaction of the public and the Opposition, the Government has been forced to effectively reverse its decision and start building the light rail system on street as originally planned.

Mr. Dempsey

More wishful thinking.

Mr. Stagg

The Minister told the House today that she is proceeding with the on street elements from Tallaght to Connolly Station and Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green. I do not know about the Ballymun line because it is more difficult for the Minister. However, at least she is starting the consultation process and I hope the line will also go ahead. The Minister realises that the tunnel is a non-starter. If the rest of the construction commences, we will get something from it in the long run.

The Minister for Public Enterprise and the Taoiseach did not have the courage to go ahead with the Labour Party proposal they previously supported. The Minister has failed to keep her promise to accept and implement the recommendations of the Atkins report. The hypocrisy of their decision and their lame excuses are staggering in their audacity while all the time Dublin chokes to death on its private car traffic.

The Labour Party when in Government insisted on a light rail public transport system for Dublin and accepted the model put forward by the DTI. If the Labour Party is in Government again, it will insist on having a practical working light rail system put in place that is properly costed and financed. Anybody who wishes to be in Government with the Labour Party in the future should take note.

Mr. Dempsey

Is that Labour Party policy or the Deputy's policy?

Mr. Stagg

The Labour Party had such a realistic proposal but the Government arbitrarily decided to scrap it.

Mr. P. Carey

Revisionism.

Mr. Stagg

The Government's supposed alternative is so vague that I firmly believe not one inch of track will have been laid by the time it leaves office. If I am correct in my assessment, and for the sake of the capital city I hope I am wrong, Dublin will not forget or forgive those responsible for the debacle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On a point of information, Deputy Stagg cannot move his amendment until the Government amendment has been disposed of tomorrow evening.

Debate adjourned.