I propose to share my time with Deputies Seán Ryan and Shortall.
Private Members' Business. - Light Rail Project: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Yates on 12 May 1998:
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.
Debate resumed on 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 to proceed with the implementation of a number of road schemes required for traffic management in Dublin City.".
-(Minister for Public Enterprise)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I hope the Labour Party amendment will be accepted. Having come through a successful by-election campaign, I can confirm that one of the major concerns for the constituents of Dublin North is the way traffic congestion is damaging the economic, social and environmental aspects of their lives. This is also true of the greater Dublin area. The traffic situation is untenable and getting worse by the day. Action is demanded now, not in the timeframe outlined by the Minister for Public Enterprise in the Dáil last night. Some of her proposals will not be in place by 2010.
As an ardent believer in public transport, I was appalled when the Minister jettisoned the comprehensive on-street Luas proposals drawn up and approved by the previous Government. Because of this decision, the light rail project has lost £114 million in Structural Funds. Such a loss is galling when Ireland, and its eastern region in particular, needs huge transport investment. The eastern region will lose out on the next tranche of Structural Funds.
The LRT project was a Labour Party proposal and I was particularly pleased that I and my Labour Party colleagues, including then MEP Barry Desmond, made a detailed submission to Mr. Bruce Millan, the Commissioner for Regional Policies, on 1 October 1991. Following detailed negotiations, we secured funding for this project. Is it any wonder then that I am furious at the possible loss of £114 million in funding for Dublin transport?
Given that contracts must be signed by the end of 1999 to enable the drawing down of existing funding, it is imperative that proposals be drawn up with a view to going to contract for that date. Serious consideration must be given to doubling the railway track from Clonsilla to Maynooth, which would be of huge benefit to that catchment area, and the provision of additional diesel cars. New DART carriages are also required. I have witnessed intolerable and potentially dangerous situations where commuters must stand on trains from Balbriggan to Dublin. People are cramped like sardines on trains leaving Skerries, Donabate and Malahide. The extension of the DART to Portmarnock and Malahide, which has been hugely successful in attracting people off the roads along the existing DART corridor, is promised for next year. New buses and bus corridors are also necessary. I blame the local authorities to some degree for not implementing the bus corridors.
Dublin is the only EU capital without a direct air link from its airport to the city, and it is predicted that 11.3 million passengers will use that airport this year. The congestion for both travellers and workers endeavouring to access the airport is intolerable and not in the interests of the tourism industry.
With up to 90 per cent of commuters using the roads in the city centre, we are left with continual gridlock, which has major economic and health implications. The Minister is unable to give a timescale for a rail connection to the airport. I propose a rail connection between the airport and the main Dublin-Belfast line. That could be implemented in time to draw down the money.
As a northside Deputy, I welcome the opportunity to speak. When announcing her light rail plans last week, the Minister made great play of the fact that her version of light rail was an expanded project, that it included links to Dublin Airport, among other places, and that the northside of Dublin would get a light rail line as part of phase one.
However, the Minister's claims do not stand up to scrutiny. The prospect of light rail being extended to Dublin's northside has been further delayed as a result of her grand plan. A northside light rail plan was an integral part of the original Luas plan, which the Minister scrapped. There was a clear commitment to the planning and design stage of the northside line and this work was well under way. In the past year, detailed evaluation and a certain amount of public consultation on the two possible northside routes took place. This work, undertaken by CIE's project management team, has come to naught because of the Minister's obsession with building a tunnel in the city centre.
That venture is fraught with technical difficulties and its feasibility remains in doubt. What is not in doubt is the fact that the Minister's decision has further delayed construction of the northside line. She admitted as much in the timetable attached to her press statement. There is no clear route indicated in the Minister's proposals. No dates are given for a public inquiry into the northside route, for the beginning of construction of the route or for the route to become operational. Behind the colourful maps and the Minister's fine words, the needs of Dublin's northside have again been put on the long finger.
Given the absence of information on the northside route, the Minister should explain her plans in this regard. What route is to be taken? The Minister's plan was heavily influenced by the recent Progressive Democrats policy document on Dublin traffic. Does she intend following the route outlined in that document, which proposes tunnelling underground from Liffey Junction, under Glasnevin Cemetery and the Botanic Gardens to Ballymun Road? Does she intend boring tunnels under these highly sensitive areas? Surely she does not propose the line goes overground.
Where will the line go? My constituents deserve answers, and the Minister must outline her intentions. It is also important for my constituents and for Dublin that the £114 million in EU funding previously earmarked for Luas, and which will now not be spent on that project, should be ringfenced to implement other aspects of the DTI report. At the Dublin city council meeting last Monday night I proposed a motion calling on the Government to ringfence that money for the Dublin area to improve public transport and relieve traffic congestion. That motion was unanimously adopted by the council, including the 20 Fianna Fáil members and one PD member.
Where are the Deputy's supporters tonight?
Given that the Minister's preoccupation with tunnelling under the centre of Dublin was responsible for the loss of EU funding for the Luas project, there is a duty on her to ensure this money will be invested to address the urgent traffic problems facing our capital city.
The public transport system in Dublin requires significant investment. An expanded bus fleet and enhanced DART rolling stock are crucial to ensure the capacity problems currently turning commuters away from public transport are resolved. The implementation of the 11 QBCs recommended by the DTI could be rapidly advanced by a substantial injection of capital. Environmental traffic cells in the city centre and enhanced traffic calming measures for our suburbs could also be radically improved if the funding were provided.
The Deputy was not listening to the manager on Monday night.
I was listening to him.
Then the Deputy heard what he said.
I heard clearly what he said.
We should proceed without interruption.
The Deputy is gilding the lily.
If the Dublin Deputies on the Government benches are serious about representing their area properly, they will support the Labour Party's amendment tonight.
The Deputy listened to some points and not to others.
I call for that money to be ringfenced for the Dublin area. We do not want it to be allocated to the Kinnegad bypass or somewhere else. There is an urgent and serious traffic problem in the Dublin area.
The Deputy's party was in Government last year and it did nothing to relieve the problem of packed trains in Dublin.
Any member of the public who has to endure those conditions in Dublin would confirm the public transport system is completely inadequate. All the £114 million should be committed to projects in the Dublin area. That situation in Dublin which Dublin people and people from the rest of the country must endure on a daily basis can only be relieved in the short term if the Government is prepared to put the money where its mouth is and invest all the £114 million in transport and traffic proposals for the Dublin area. I call on the Government to support our amendment.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Haughey, Brian Lenihan, Martin Brady, Noel Ahern, Séamus Brennan and Eoin Ryan.
That is agreed.
I compliment the Government and the Minister on bringing forward this visionary proposal. I am amazed at the sudden conversion of the opposite side to the needs of the northside. The previous proposal was minimalist and the provision for the northside would have been very much "crumbs from the table", and the northside might get something eventually.
(Interruptions.)
An Ceann Comhairle: Let the Deputy proceed without interruption.
Mr. P. Carey: When any long-term visionary planning is brought forward the same people tend to throw cold water on it. Some of the people who talked about Knock Airport being constructed on top of a boggy foggy hillside went on to glory in its success only last year.
Ms Shortall: That is a very appropriate comparison.
Mr. P. Carey: The Deputy's colleagues in Government gloried in it. A little clear thinking——
Ms Shortall: And action.
Mr. P. Carey:——might be appropriate when we are talking about the Dublin region. There is need for long-term planning and rightly or wrongly the Luas proposal initially did not address the long-term issues. I am not in the habit of trying to score political points. This project needs to be thought through rationally and much more carefully. It was far too European driven. I welcome that £114 million EU funding was designated for it.
Mr. S. Ryan: We have lost it.
Mr. P. Carey: We have not lost it.
Ms Shortall: We have lost it for Luas.
The Deputies who interrupted know that, as the Minister said last night, the money is not being kept in a glass jar and being put on the top shelf. The money will be reallocated.
The Government could sell some of the semi-State bodies.
I support the thrust of Deputy Shortall's proposal that the money should be largely spent in the Dublin region. That we do not have a rail link to Dublin Airport is a crying shame, but it is important that the Government is committed to providing one and to the regeneration of Ballymun. That the spur to Finglas is also contemplated and existing, albeit disused, lines will be used is also welcome. It is foolhardy and infantile for some people to criticise the project by saying it will involve digging under the graves in Glasnevin. The graves in Glasnevin will not fall into the tunnel any more than the Harp Bar, as was suggested by some speakers last night.
We need to address the problems of Dublin's traffic. The QBCs need to be brought on stream. There needs to be proper traffic regulation enforcement and proper clamping. The traffic warden service should be transferred to the remit of local authorities. Those measures need to be implemented urgently and there needs to the political will to do that. It is ridiculous that there is double and treble parking in the city. A comprehensive plan has been proposed by the Government and I commend it.
I am amazed at the dogmatic attitude of the Deputies from the Labour Party.
The contribution from Deputy Stagg on "Morning Ireland" last week could be described as hysterical. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on this. We should have a rational debate on it.
We should have some action.
The attitude of the Labour Party Deputies is dogmatic and they will not facilitate a debate because they keep interrupting.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's decision on Luas. This involves a surface line from Tallaght to Connolly Station and a line from Sandyford to Ballymun and Dublin Airport. This decision was a brave one and takes the long-term view into account. The Government has shown vision and I totally defend its right to take a political decision like this following consultation with a wide variety of interests. I also welcome the fact that the Sandyford-Ballymun-Dublin Airport line will be underground from St. Stephen's Green to Broadstone. Total traffic chaos in O'Connell Street, Westmoreland Street, Lower Grafton Street and Dawson Street will be avoided and business in this area will not now be disrupted. That decision has been most welcomed by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
I am very encouraged with the statement by the Minister and the city manager's statement that the Tallaght-city centre and Sandyford-St. Stephen's Green lines will be constructed in the short term. The city manager at a city council meeting last Monday night said this was a bigger and better scheme and he welcomed the fact that a decision had been made.
I am encouraged that the technical planning of the northside line by the project team will commence immediately. Three cheers for the northside of Dublin. For too long, public policy makers — I include the Civil Service in this category — as well as opinion makers generally have been biased against that part of Dublin. The line to Ballymun and the airport is now an integral part of this project and is no longer confined to never never land.
I welcome the fact we will have an integrated transport system. I congratulate the Government on its decision to proceed with a number of road schemes. I ask the Government to support the submission from Dublin Corporation to the effect that £114 million should be given to traffic projects in Dublin involving roads and traffic management, on which we all agree. I call for a speedy implementation of the Government's action plan on traffic measures in Dublin together with the DTO strategy.
It is now official Government policy that motorists should leave their cars at home when travelling to Dublin city centre. Nothing more than a radical change of attitude is needed in this regard. People talk about the chaotic traffic in
Dublin but they do not realise they are causing it. Motorists do not realise that it is public policy that they should not take their cars into the city centre, that cars should be taken off the road and that public transport, quality bus corridors and so on should be encouraged. I welcome the measures brought forward by the DTO and look forward to the action plan from the Government.
I welcome this courageous and astute plan. As Deputy Haughey said, there is considerable traffic congestion in the city. Sometimes it takes me an hour and a quarter to get here from my home six miles away. It is time something was done about it and this is a good start. The Government was anxious to ensure Dublin got a light rail system which met its long-term rather than short-term transport requirements. It is not something into which we should rush. If we are to do it properly, we must look at all aspects.
Put it on the long finger.
Deputy Ryan seems to think this is a circus as he is having a great laugh. This is a serious issue about which we should not joke.
Deputy Eoin Ryan or Deputy Seán Ryan?
Deputy Seán Ryan of the Labour Party.
The underground option for the city centre removes the concerns about the capacity of the on street system to meet the long-term passenger demand, particularly in the light of the recent high economic growth and trends indicating that further growth is likely.
The underground route was identified and selected in the Atkins report and influenced the Government's decision. Significant traffic disruption would occur on key routes along Lower O'Connell Street, Westmoreland Street, lower Grafton Street, Nassau Street and Dawson Street. By using an underground section along this line and Broadstone as the site from which most of the tunnelling work will be done, the major disadvantage of the on street proposal will be avoided.
I welcome the widespread support the Government's plan has received, in particular the call to action by those who may not fully agree with it. The mood among the public is that there has been enough talking, that we should get on with the project and that it should not be opposed for the sake of doing so. There has been much talk about whether it should go underground or overground. Let us talk about what it will do for the citizens of Dublin and for future generations. That is what is important, not coming into the House to take cheap shots and joke about it.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue as somebody who has fought and campaigned for an integrated public transport system since I was first elected to Dublin City Council. I congratulate the Minister on this brave decision because she and the Government knew that once they changed the previous decision they would face much opposition. I have no doubt that in 20 years' time, people will look back and say it was the right decision. Many members of the Opposition know that.
It is strange that the Labour Party, which was a junior member in Government, is saying there is something wrong with the Progressive Democrats, the junior members of this Government, having an influence on policy. What is wrong with that? It is a good decision and if it had an influence on it, good for it. There is nothing wrong with the Progressive Democrats or any small party having an input into Government policy. That is the reason they are in Government.
The Government outlined a definitive programme and has given overall direction to the plan for the development not only of Luas but of public transport in Dublin. The decision to develop the north-south, Ballymun to Sandyford, and the east-west, Tallaght to Connolly Station, routes acts as a major impetus to public transport in this city by adding four new rail based corridors to the network. Atkins stated that each of these lines will carry the same number of passengers as the DART.
The immediate implementation of the Tallaght to Connolly Station line means it will be in operation by 2002 which was the original plan for the Tallaght to city centre line, as outlined by CIE. The implementation of the Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green line will follow shortly afterwards. What is agreed by all is that Luas is one part only of an overall traffic and public transport strategy for the city. The Government's decision has given the Dublin Transport Initiative strategy a major boost and has set the scene for Dublin Corporation to press ahead with the implementation of the traffic cells and quality bus corridors. As a party, we have always been committed to the link to the airport. This plan has put in place the process to provide such an adequate transport connection.
This visionary transport plan has divided the Opposition. Deputy Jim Mitchell seems to agree with the Government because he knows it is a good plan. Deputy Quinn, the Leader of the Labour Party, had to reel in Deputy Stagg as his spokesman on public transport because he knows northside Labour Deputies want this plan. I do not understand why they seem to be so much against it.
The Opposition knows it is a better plan than that proposed by the last Government. Where was the extension to Connolly Station and the commitment to providing a service to the airport? It did much talking about a fully integrated transport system but little was done about it. The time for talking is over and the time for action and implementation is now. By clearing the way and extending the original plan, it is possible to advance the public consultation on the Ballymun-airport line to take place early in the autumn. The light rail system will be a basic part of the regeneration and reconstruction of Ballymun and the northside of Dublin. Similarly, the decision to extend to Connolly Station and continue into the Dublin docklands area ensures that a new transport infrastructure will be put in place while the major development of the docks occurs.
The phasing of the overall plan will predict the immediate implementation of the system and afford the opportunity to extend the system to Clondalkin, Swords and Cabinteely. This is a good plan and I have no doubt that in 20 years' time people will see it as a good decision.
If it is finished.
I was horrified by the Opposition's negative reaction to the Government's announcement last week. It has tried to turn it into an art form. The Government has made a decision. Why all this mindless negative slagging? One wonders if the Opposition is interested in putting what is good for the city first or if it is a case of trying to make political capital. We are all frustrated by the delays and problems. I was on the DTA in the 1980s, the DTI in the 1990s and now the DTO.
The Deputy will end up with the DTs.
I spent ten to 12 years of my life talking about traffic and major schemes to tackle it. We all hope to see the day when people are out with drills or bulldozers working on Luas or the port tunnel. We have become almost too democratic and there is almost too much consultation. We all want action, and action will be taken if all of us do something to bring it about rather than agree with every group that puts forward objections.
This is not a simple decision. When we get down to the nitty gritty of putting tracks underground many problems will arise. I do not know much about tunnelling, but presumably rather than dig straight down one would have to dig at a slope. In order to dig under city centre buildings one might have to go back 500 or 600 yards. Regardless of what infrastructure is envisaged many problems will arise before the job is complete. There must be some pain if we are to have good, viable long-term infrastructure that benefits all of us.
Many crocodile tears are shed about city traffic and blame is put on the Government of the day, the DTO or the city manager. The people who cause the traffic jams, however, are ourselves and we are not prepared to accept that. We all want the other person to leave his car at home and use public transport. Much good work is being done at present, even if it is slow to come to fruition. We all agree in theory with quality bus corridors, but some of the people who support them — I have witnessed this on the city council — object when one is planned because they want to protect a local shop. We must consider the overall picture rather than object to everything that is proposed because somebody is unhappy about it. If that is the way we proceed we will never get anything done. Similar problems will arise when the detailed planning of the underground system is put forward. We cannot all be winners and we must face up to that.
The DTO and local authorities should make the best use of the present road space. I recall a recent city council meeting at which peak-time traffic problems were discussed. Many employees operate flexitime which is of benefit in terms of easing traffic jams, but one of the major contributors to city traffic is school transport. There is a huge difference in the amount of traffic on a school day compared with a non-school day. If we want to solve some of the traffic problems we should consider changing school starting time to an hour earlier or an hour later. School should not be considered as a glorified child-minding service, with everybody leaving their children to school at the same time on the way to work. On school holidays there is much less traffic on the streets. It is not necessary for 50 per cent of people to leave their cars at home. If 5 or 6 per cent of people transferred to public transport it would make a huge difference. There are some issues such as this which we are not prepared to tackle. Regardless of what party is in power we should face up to those issues. This matter should be considered in an overall manner and improvements made that benefit the city as a whole.
I agree with speakers who referred to the £140 million that will be diverted to other projects. I am sure every politician will have plans for their constituencies, but since this money was earmarked for Dublin much of it should be spent on the city.
All of it.
All of it if possible, but I am not greedy. I would be happy if a sizeable portion of it was spent on Dublin. I heard Deputy Sean Ryan speak earlier about bus coaches and carriages. It does not matter whether the money is spent on public transport or roads or a combination of both. I do not know if the Minister for Public Enterprise will keep the money or if it will go back to the Department of Finance, but there are many projects that could be speeded up, either under the Department of Public Enterprise or the Department of the Environment and Local Government, with that money. There are plans for a new bridge over the Liffey near Macken Street which would probably be of greater benefit to the city than some of the projects that would cost much more. Most of the money should be spent in Dublin because that is where most problems are experienced. We must make full use of the road space that is available.
Some people object to quality bus corridors because motorists are not allowed stop in the morning outside newsagents shops to buy newspapers and cigarettes, yet if we are to spend so much money there will be no choice. Nobody will be allowed park in those areas. Why must we spend £200 million or £400 million to get the message through that parking is not allowed outside newsagents in the morning? It should not be necessary to spend that amount of money. All parties should work together to get the message across to people that everybody cannot be winners. Some people will lose, and if some businesses do not fare as well as they did previously that will have to be considered.
I worked in CIE for 25 years and bus transport does not have the upmarket image that the DART enjoys. We must change the image of bus transport so that a greater number of people will use buses.
We should change the buses.
Yes, if necessary. Much of the criticism of bus transport is not deserved. Bus transport is as good as any other service. There is a perception that it is not as good, that drivers are grumpy and so on, but that is not true and we must get rid of that perception. We discussed a second Finance Bill today and it is unlikely there will be a third one, but some innovative measure should be introduced for employers to give weekly or monthly bus tickets to their staff or sell tickets to them on a tax free basis. There must be positive intervention to encourage people to leave their cars at home and use public transport.
The DTI was considered an overall integrated plan, but the proposed new underground system is much better than the previous proposal in that it would link into existing infrastructure. As well as this measure and the quality bus corridors, we must consider other measures to encourage people to use public transport. Something must be done about the thousands of private car parking spaces in the city. Some charge must be levied through benefit-in-kind or otherwise. Many people who bring their cars into the city do not need them during the day. They use them only to travel to and from work. Most public representatives would say that we need our cars to go to constituency meetings and so on and that there should be an exception for us. There should be an exception for many people who need their cars during the day, but those who do not need them should be given some incentive to leave them at home. A penalty on them would direct a small percentage of them from their cars into public transport.
Overall, I welcome the proposals on the underground. I look forward to the day the work starts. I hope we can all combine to make that day as soon as possible. In the long-term this proposal will be seen to have been right and, for once, politicians will be congratulated for taking a long-term view.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Richard Bruton, Hayes, Cosgrave and Barnes.
Is that agreed?
Agreed.
The saga of the promised light rail system for Dublin is beginning to appear like that of the draining of the Shannon. For several decades there were repeated announcements at election times that the Shannon would be drained. As we know that never happened. The same will be the case with the light rail plan for Dublin. It has been talked about for more than a decade. In 1991 a Fianna Fáil election manifesto promised a feasibility study for a light rail system on the former Harcourt Street line and a possible rail link to Dublin Airport. The previous three Governments have discussed the proposal and announced various decisions, yet we have not seen a single tram. The prospect of seeing a Dublin light rail system has faded further into the distant future.
The Cabinet's decision to reject the advice of the independent consultants to proceed with the proposals agreed by the rainbow Government was a disaster. Had the Minister's plan been devised and launched ten or 15 years ago it might have been a sensible way to proceed. However, the traffic in Dublin city and county has deteriorated in the interim to such an extent that the priority must be to get a satisfactory public system up and running without further delay.
The plans approved by the rainbow Government would have ensured and provided for the extension of the system to Ballymun and the airport. The Minister has taken a leap in the dark with her proposals. She is unable to say how much the project will cost, she can only estimate the starting date and can only hazard a guess at possible completion dates. The necessary preliminary work to justify the decision to go underground has not been done. We do not know what geological or hydrological problems will arise. We do not know what problems will be faced with regard to historic buildings or sites of archaeological interest. We do not know what legal problems will arise, although we should know from previous experiences that the legal challenges will be many and prolonged.
If the project ever goes ahead the impression given by some that staying overground would create major traffic disruption while going underground will create virtually no disruption will prove to be a myth. I was interested by a number of points made by former Minister, Deputy Lowry, in his contribution yesterday to which the Minister did not respond and which received little attention. He said that he was informed by technical staff in the Department that each underground station would cost at least £30 million and in construction terms each station would be the equivalent of putting Liberty Hall on its side underground. If the underground line goes from Harcourt Street to Broadstone a minimum of six underground stations will be required to give adequate coverage. That alone would cost about £200 million and the disruption likely to be caused by building six horizontal Liberty Halls under the city centre is frightening.
What is more, the £30 million cost of each such station would be sufficient to replace the dilapidated vehicles of the Dublin Bus fleet. Given the doubt and uncertainty surrounding the Luas project the immediate priority must be to improve radically other public transport services in Dublin. Despite many requests to do so neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister has been willing to give a commitment that the £114 million of EU funds which had been earmarked for the Luas project will be retained to improve public transport in Dublin. Calls to divert the money to finance the pet projects of particular Ministers from outside Dublin must be resisted.
While the Minister has been dithering, commissioning consultants' reports which she ignores, changing her mind, fighting internal battles at Cabinet, holding press conferences and publishing grand plans, Dublin has been grinding to a halt gradually. Week by week the situation worsens. Traffic conditions which were the norm for an hour at peak times in the morning and evening are now experienced throughout the day. Relatively short journeys at peak times take on epic proportions.
There are public transport projects on which the £114 million could usefully be spent. There is a need to upgrade the Dublin to Maynooth line to service the growing population in the areas along it, there is scope for improvement in DART services and the building of quality bus corridors must be accelerated. There is also a need to increase substantially the public subvention for Dublin Bus. Bus services will remain the only public transport option for the vast majority of Dubliners for the foreseeable future. Contrary to public perception the level of subvention for Dublin Bus at 3.8p per passenger journey remains among the lowest for any similar sized city in Europe.
The combination of poor service, relatively high fares and chronic traffic problems is forcing more people away from public transport and into their cars. This is worsening the traffic problem, further slowing down the buses and particularly inconveniencing people who have no alternative to public transport. The pricing and ticketing policy of Dublin Bus must also be examined. This is an integral part of the solution to Dublin's traffic problems. The introduction of one person operated buses has significantly slowed down the buses and contributed to the worsening traffic situation. This has been so because many people pay in cash as they board the buses leading to long delays at bus stops and consequent blockages in the traffic flow.
When one person buses were first introduced Dublin Bus launched a series of multi-journey tickets which offered commuters a real financial incentive to buy them. For example, a ten journey ticket for a £1 fare cost £8. However, instead of promoting these tickets Dublin Bus has departed from their use and there is no economic benefit to buying them. The ticketing policy needs to be reversed.
The social and economic costs of crawling traffic and congested streets are well known. The solution requires an efficient public transport system with economic fares. This cannot be provided on the level of subvention currently provided to Dublin Bus. The £114 million earmarked for the Luas project should be allocated to address immediately the public transport problem in Dublin.
The Minister is proving to be the emperor with no clothes. She should be going underground in shame rather than suggest that the light rail project should be delayed for a further three years so that it can go underground. The Minister took office saying that she was unwilling to go ahead with a project that was in the starting trap. She wanted to have it carefully examined and get expert opinions. She was going to ensure that EU funding for the project would not be jeopardised. She declared this openly and repeatedly. After a ten month delay the Atkins report was produced and it recommended clearly the best underground option and assessed its merit against the surface option. In both cases the
Government has rejected the experts' advice. It has selected the inferior of the underground options and rejected the advice that a surface system would be best. It was a con job to say that experts would guide the decision. It was always going to be a political choice and the Government has made a hash of it.
No analysis has been given by the Government for its decision. There have been years' worth of reports examining traffic flows and passenger numbers but the Government has made its decision without any such justification. What did the best underground option offer in comparison to the surface option?
It offered higher operating costs, six million fewer passengers, £100 million extra in capital investment, and additional commercial loss, discounted at the present time, of £276 million — a massive additional cost with fewer passengers. That was the best underground option, but the Government chose one that was worse than that. The only merit in an underground option is that it should reduce congestion overhead, but the key reason the consultants rejected the option we now see the Government adopting was that it would not reduce congestion overground.
The final ignominy from the Minister's point of view was that she tried to con this House and the public by saying she could implement a plan for the whole city, north and south, for £400 million plus. Everyone was mystified as to how that could be done. The consultants said the basic project would cost £263 million, that there would be an extra £100 million for an underground, or £50 million if we give the Government the benefit of the doubt because only half as much was being put underground, and that it would cost £252 million to provide the extensions. That adds up to a minimum of £550 million, but the Government said it would cost much less. It would still have to pay for rolling stock. How was it to be done? The answer we got last night was that it would not be done. The Government made no commitment to include the north side. It remains relegated to the third phase which will be pushed out well into the second decade of the next century. The Government tried to curry favour with the people of the north side by telling them they were included. They now see they were had.
On tunnelling, I have no objection to the Government deciding on some underground options as a way of easing city traffic. However, a light railway system should not be put underground; cars should be put underground. A system that has problems with gradients should not be forced underground, where there has to be a long run-in, where stations have to be constructed underground at enormous cost and where there is difficulty coming back out of the tunnel. For reasons of cost as well as for social reasons, it is inappropriate to put public transport underground. It is wrong to force traffic and pedestrians to share limited space overground and force public transport underground. Public transport and pedestrians should have the benefit of the sunshine and the opportunity to look at their city. We should put cars underground if an underground is required. It could be done at less cost, and cars are more suited to negotiating underground.
I am mystified as to why the Government made its decision. It has jeopardised £114 million towards addressing Dublin's transport problems. By its own admission it has pushed back solutions by a minimum of three years, and it has tried to con the people into thinking that in some way this is a more integrated and inclusive project. We found out, sadly, that there is no commitment to that. As far as Dubliners are concerned this will be seen as one of the most serious decisions by the Government, not only because the merits of it were wrong but, more important, because it is becoming clearer every day that no thinking went into the decision and that the Government tried, when it made its announcement, to conceal what it was doing with all sorts of glossy frills which are falling away day by day.
I strongly support Deputy Yates's initiative in tabling this motion of condemnation of the Government.
Traffic growth within the capital is such that immediate solutions must be sought and any prospect of delay in the creation of new light rail services must be rejected. Infrastructure which will have longevity must be put in place.
The difficulty that ordinary people are experiencing is set to increase rapidly in the immediate years ahead. The decision to put the system underground must not be allowed to be the cause of further hardship for the workers and commuters of Dublin, but delays in the provision of this service will occur owing to the decision of this Government. We need a medium-term improvement in the transportation methods which are used to serve the capital city while we wait for the promised light rail service to become a fact.
There is no rationale to the Cabinet's decision to put the service underground in the city centre. The impact on the commercial sector has not yet been adequately assessed. When one considers the financial strain placed on the business community when even short-term projects are in progress it becomes obvious that a real and complex compensation scheme will be required to meet the traders' immediate losses and losses which they may or may not suffer in re-establishing their trade or business.
No consideration appears to have been given to the loss of revenue from the tourism sector as areas of historic importance are interfered with and, in some cases, damaged. The impact of any construction work undertaken must be minimised. Plans must be developed to ameliorate the negative impact on the city and its people. There must be maximum use of street traffic space. That means that supports must be put in place. We have to be radical and immediate in the manner in which we promote the transfer of commuters to public transport.
While accepting that a light rail scheme, in some form, must be the central plank of the long-term conversion to a freer-running city, we have to take action to encourage people to use public transport now. Only in this way will we be able to keep some level of control on the city during the long periods of disruption which the Government now proposes to impose on the community. How to maximise the current services is a question which must be asked. There must be additional facilities along the existing DART and rail routes if people are to use those transport systems. The provision of a new DART station at Grange Road, Baldoyle, beside the bridge, is a necessity. In the growing areas of Donaghmede, Claremanor, Grange Abbey and Baldoyle itself, many motorists could be encouraged off the road, helping to ease traffic congestion, if this station were built. I am equally sure that there would be a considerable increase in usage in other areas if a similar option were provided.
An aspect of the long-term transportation development will be park and ride facilities. The structure to support this must be put in place now. Such a development, if correctly managed and marketed, could reduce private car use considerably. The argument that insufficient public transport vehicles are available to support the scheme is not good enough. There are considerable reserves of coaches within the private sector to meet the demands which this move would generate. Land banks are readily available to be converted into parking areas suitably located on the outer fringes of the city. The cost of establishing these changes should be borne within the overall cost of the Luas project. Light rail schemes, whether underground or overground, which will not be delivered for years are not of much use to a city which is daily crawling towards paralysis.
The failure of the Government to clearly detail how it intends to fund the project while it runs the risk of losing European funding is also unacceptable not only to Dubliners but to every right thinking Irish person. The switchback railway approach of the Minister on this issue is regrettable. She appears to have lost her way along the route. Reports that the Cabinet is all over the place do not boost confidence. This Government has many questions to answer. That same Government has to sort itself out and put in place the means to address the traffic gridlock which daily builds in the city of Dublin.
I speak as one of the Members of Dáil Éireann who does not drive a car. Therefore, I am an expert on trying to get from A to B on public transport. I know why people have to use their cars. Public transport in Dublin is so clogged up and erratic that it is not an alternative, much less something that offers a better choice. That is why people are disappointed, appalled and cynical about the decision taken after many expensive, time consuming consultants' reports. There is gridlock on the streets of Dublin and people believed progress and a freeing up of traffic would begin before the end of this year, 2002 was a bright, gleaming vision where we would come through whatever disruption was required and have a clean, direct, well regulated and effective public transport system to compensate for the frustration and loss of time and money.
Will Deputies who alleged we were making a meal out of this as part of Opposition politics talk to Dublin commuters? They will find we are reflecting the disappointment and depression people are feeling with regard to the never never plan that has been offered. It has not been properly integrated or costed and offers us an underground system, which in theory has a great deal to commend it, but in reality is a nightmare. Apart from the cost and length of time involved, there will be problems tunnelling in such an ancient city because there are no geological surveys to decide or even indicate what is involved. Whatever we believe is involved will be much worse and almost impossible as well as time consuming and costly. Many people do not see that as an option, especially when the sheer logistics of the plan are considered.
I refer to off peak times in underground stations in other cities around the world. Women will not use them because the lack of security and danger is such that they do not feel safe. That should have been considered and there also has been no commitment regarding what we can salvage from this botched plan and selling out the expectations of the people not just of Dublin, but nationwide. We are not just talking about urban dwellers in Dublin who want traffic alleviated. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout Ireland depend on travelling through Dublin to allow them to continue their work. This is not a selfish scheme in the hinterland of Dublin; it concerns the lifeblood of the country and the investment and industry in it. We will pay a high cost with regard to people thinking seriously about investing further in this country if the transport difficulties are not quickly attended to.
We already know from surveys that traffic has become the number one crisis for people in Dublin and those travelling to the city. Many people from the country who wish to visit Dublin and have a pleasant time will not come near it at this stage. The entire population is denied as a result of the messing in Dublin.
People are disappointed and disillusioned because of the new plan which has been foisted on them, as Deputy Bruton said and even the underground element, which is unfeasible and unrealistic means the best option has not been taken up by the Minister. There has been no explanation from her or any other member of Government as to whether any of the plans and changes she made are valid. As elected Members we deserved that because answers should be provided regarding the consultation and cost involved and she has not been forthcoming.
The Minister has not made a commitment regarding the sum of £114 million which is not going into the system and it may not be used exclusively for that which it was intended initially — the traffic of Dublin — and this fills everyone with suspicion. Unless and until the Minister gives a commitment that every penny of that money will go to alternative or support systems to ameliorate public transport immediately there will be an outcry, particularly in Dublin. The needs for that money are huge and many Deputies referred to them earlier.
I refer to quality bus corridors. For example, last Monday I stood outside Dún Laoghaire Community College and waited half an hour for a bus home. Fortunately, I did not have an appointment but people with business appointments and a heavy work schedule cannot wait that long. When a bus arrived eventually it was so old that, as we chugged up each hill, I expected it to slide back down again. Deputy Ahern referred to the DART having a certain status. Until the quality of buses is improved, snobbery or status will not keep people away from them, but sheer survival will. We must ensure they are attractive and are given priority within the transport system. As a commuter, I will be glad to use them if they are effective. This money must be committed immediately to updating the bus system.
I am privileged to be on the DART line but more seats are being removed on a weekly basis so that people can stand. However, the difficulty is this increases congestion and people pass out because there are not enough carriages. A mobile Garda task force is needed to ensure the flow of traffic. It would be of comfort to people to see a botched plan being replaced by one that had been consulted on, agreed and anticipated by 2002. When during the next millennium can we expect this great plan to finish?
I appreciate the contributions to the debate. The widespread agreement on the need to improve traffic congestion in Dublin is obvious. All Deputies acknowledged that a variety of measures are needed to achieve this and that while light rail is vital, it is only one element in a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing Dublin's transport problems.
The Government has addressed this problem by renewing its commitment to the implementation of the current DTO transport strategy. The Government's decision on the light rail project also gave the go-ahead for three road projects identified as essential for effective traffic management in the city, involving a total expenditure of about £30 million. It will also give urgent consideration to the action plan being finalised by the Dublin Transportation Office to address the growing transportation deficit arising from the unprecedented level of traffic growth in recent years. That plan will propose short-term measures which can be taken over the next two years to deal with the problems.
The Government has also approved a comprehensive plan for light rail. Before making its decision it gave long and serious consideration to the issues set out in the Atkins report. This plainly spelt out the facts on matters such as disruption during construction, long-term passenger capacity of the system and the impact of light rail operations on the traffic system generally. Many of the restricting factors of a full on-street system, including capacity problems identified by Atkins, will now be overcome by providing the short tunnel from St. Stephen's Green to Broadstone. The proposed short underground section will also address many of the concerns about disruption during construction.
What we now need, as the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, stated in the House last night, is to focus all our energies and considerable skills on delivering the light rail network to the citizens of Dublin without delay. There is widespread support for the Government's plan, which I welcome. The Government's objective, subject to the relevant statutory procedures and the necessary detailed technical confirmation, is to proceed without delay with the construction of the Tallaght to city centre and Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green sections. This will make use of most of the work done to date by CIE. Based on discussions which have already taken place with the company, applications for light railway orders can be submitted for the Tallaght to Abbey Street and the Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green sections before the end of this year.
As Deputies may be aware, work was already under way on the selection of possible surface route alignments for the line to Ballymun. This will be completed without delay and will take account of the continuation of the line to Dublin Airport. The project team hope to begin public consultation on possible route options this autumn. Further work, including a detailed technical evaluation, is needed on the underground section. This will proceed in parallel with the work on the Tallaght to Connolly Station and Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green sections.
The Government's decision will deliver an integrated system which will finally provide a direct link between Heuston and Connolly stations and a direct interchange between light rail, DART and suburban rail systems at Connolly Station. Dublin airport and provincial bus services at Busaras will also be directly served by the new light rail network. Funding will be provided to deliver on the Government's commitment to the project. It is also the Government's intention to submit the project for the next round of EU funding.
A sensible and prudent decision has been taken to decommit EU funding from the project in the current round. The Minister for Public Enterprise will work to ensure a reasonable proportion of the EU funds not used for Luas will be reallocated to address public transport requirements. The Government has taken a realistic and farsighted decision to deal with the major issues of capacity and disruption in the city of Dublin. It has also set out a clear strategy for making parallel progress on the various elements of the project, with a clear objective of starting construction early in 2000.
We should now get on with the job of delivering a quality transport system to the citizens of Dublin.
Mr. Hayes
I wish to share time with Deputies Shatter and Yates.
Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Mr. Hayes
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this debate and congratulate Deputy Yates and his team on being the only Opposition party to produce a comprehensive plan since going into Opposition. I encourage other Opposition parties to produce similar documents.
This is a political issue because my constituents in Dublin South-West are frustrated by the Government's actions. There is a sense of disbelief that the project will ever get off the ground. If the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, had not come into office, we could have started building the Tallaght line into the city centre this year. There is a complete sense of shock and disbelief in the Tallaght community at the Government's actions. Nobody inside or outside the House believes the Government when it says it is committed to the plan. It could have been delivered by the year 2002 if the political will was there to make it happen. The political will to do that does not exist.
It was decided not to proceed with the tunnel option so that more funds could be provided for the suburbs. The objective of the transport bible from which we are all quoting, the original DTI, was to ensure the new suburbs and the west and south west of the city would be given a decent public transport system. However, because the Government has committed more money for an underground route, west Tallaght, where the rate of car ownership is lower than anywhere else in the country, will not get a proper transport system.
We can thank the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, for that.
Mr. Hayes
I am surprised the Minister gave way to the vested interests in the city because some years ago she had the courage to take on the fuel lobby and won the debate for the people of Dublin. However, in this case, city centre traders won out against the people in the new suburbs in my constituency. What influence have the vested interests in the city that allowed them win the debate? The money that was supposed to provide a decent public transport system for people in the suburbs has been lost forever.
At the next local elections we will ensure Government parties suffer at the hands of the electorate in Dublin. The Minister will not be allowed to forget this. Once again in the tradition of Fianna Fáil, as Todd Andrews or Kevin Boland destroyed our city in the l950s and l960s, the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, has destroyed a public transport opportunity for Dublin in the l990s.
The promises made by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in successive elections during the l980s and l990s, and constantly repeated in Dublin South, to reopen the Harcourt Street line are now of equal status in Irish political mythology and folklore, to promises made in earlier decades to drain the River Shannon. As traffic gridlock extends throughout the Dublin South constituency, the issue is not whether Luas should go underground or overground, but whether the Government has a credible commitment to the provision of a light rail system or whether there is reason to believe the parties in Government will live up to their promises. The Luas indicative timetable announced by the Minister last night lacks credibility. There is minimal possibility that it will be remotely adhered to.
Prior to the last election Deputies Brennan, Kitt and O'Donnell stated their individual parties' commitment to Luas. As recently as three weeks ago the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Brennan, at a meeting with Dundrum Chamber of Commerce, gave assurances that Luas would proceed without delay and indicated that the Government was likely to implement the overground option. Those three Deputies grievously misled the electorate in Dublin South as to the nature of their commitment. It is time they and other Government Ministers admitted the announced extended and enhanced project is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to deflect criticism from the Government's intention to abandon the project. This Government, and the three Ministers representing my constituency, have betrayed the electorate and abandoned any attempt to resolve the traffic problems experienced on a daily basis.
In this context it is also worth noting that since taking office the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has had before him the inspector's report into the inquiry into the construction of the Dundrum bypass and the Ballinteer Road-Wyckham Park bypass. There is no justification for having failed to date to make the orders necessary to allow these essential projects to be undertaken. This failure, together with the Government decision on Luas, shows a contemptuous disregard for the daily traffic problems experienced by all those who live in south Dublin.
In recent days there have been various media reports about what might happen to the public inquiry into Luas which is to reconvene on 4 June. When making its announcement last week the Government gave no consideration to this issue. Last night the Minister told the House that, having taken legal advice, the Luas project team was of the view that the existing applications for light railway orders should be withdrawn and new ones submitted. It is astonishing that prior to last week's announcement the Government did not seek legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General on this issue, and apparently it has still not done so.
The Government has failed to come to terms with the fact that pursuant to section 8 of the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act, 1996, Judge O'Leary is obliged in law to hold an inquiry into the original Luas scheme in relation to which CIE applied to the Government one year ago for a light railway order. It is that proposed scheme which must be central to the inquiry and the report which he is required by statute to prepare and submit to the Minister. There is no specific provision in the 1996 Act for the withdrawal of an application previously made by CIE for a light railway order after the appointment of a person under the Act to hold the statutorily prescribed inquiry. Judge O'Leary could quite properly decide to proceed with the inquiry, as he is required by section 8 of the legislation to be "independent in the performance of his functions" and could be regarded as in breach of this statutory obligation if he unduly delays the hearing over which he has been appointed to preside.
If the Government is serious about the new Luas proposal and is not merely playing political games, new legislation is required to determine what should happen to the public inquiry now properly ordered and scheduled to take place. At this point it appears the Government has abdicated its responsibility to provide for this new legislation and is leaving future developments in the hands of Judge O'Leary. This is particularly inappropriate because, as the Minister finally acknowledged last night, if the Government intends to proceed with the new proposed light rail system CIE will have to make new applications under the 1996 Act for new light railway orders, a new public inquiry would have to be called and a qualified person under the terms of the Act appointed to preside over it, and a new environmental impact statement would be required. Under the Act the current inquiry cannot simply be adjourned or put into abeyance while these issues are addressed. Such an approach is fatally flawed and would inevitably result in any subsequent light rail orders made by Government being struck down as invalid by the courts.
The Government's approach to this issue in recent weeks is unprecedented in the context of a public inquiry already ordered under statute. It can be regarded as an attack on the independent role of the judge appointed to conduct the inquiry and as intended to undermine his statutory independence. Interestingly, section 21 of the Act states that a person who obstructs, interferes with or assists someone to obstruct or interfere with anyone in the performance of a function conferred on him or her by this Act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both. The Minister for Public Enterprise and each member of the Government can be properly regarded as having obstructed, interfered with or having attempted to obstruct or interfere with the performance by Judge O'Leary of his statutory duty with regard to the inquiry, and with the functions of the CIE board as conferred by the Act. I presume it is too much to ask that the behaviour of the Minister and members of the Government be investigated in this context and papers referred to the DPP with a view to ascertaining whether the appropriate prosecutions should be brought.
I thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate. The Labour Party, Democratic Left and the Green Party, who did not get an opportunity to speak support the motion and we support the Labour party amendment which provides that the £114 million should be allocated for public transport purposes in the greater Dublin area.
The Minister's speech should be carefully preserved by all Dublin Deputies because it will form the basis of her political epitaph. I always knew she had the capacity blithely to ignore criticism but her brazen hard neck became apparent last night when she said that all criticism of her decision to scrap the existing blueprint would be deflected by the knowledge that she had opted for a bigger and better plan. However, she admitted that the formal Government decision did not include the extensions to Swords, the docklands, Cabinteely and Clondalkin, and that the spur to Finglas is the subject of a feasibility study. This means her great selling point — that this was a massive new proposal for the northside — is not even part of the formal Government decision.
The debate has given us some idea of the tunnel, more properly called a black hole. In fun park terms, I cannot decide whether this will be a ghost train in the dark or a roller coaster ride. First there will be 130 boreholes, then there is the risk of subsidence. One geology professor said there was a risk of drilling into a water main. When we reach a certain level professors of archaeology may say there is a need for special preservation along the lines of Wood Quay. Engineering analysts now tell us that, because of the differences in depth combined with the short length, passengers will have to wear seat belts to cope with the sharp ascent and descent of the tunnel through the city's sedimentary rock base while avoiding the seven underground rivers.
This is lunacy, a black hole from which there will be no escape in cost terms. The port tunnel cost three times what was projected and the Channel tunnel, from an initial estimate of £500 million, ended up costing £9 billion. This is not proper procedure, it is Government without analysis which is ignoring expert reports. The Minister and the Government neglected to tell the truth and misled the House about the basis of the delay. Only the Atkins report prevented the Government from having the public inquiry into the Tallaght and Dundrum lines concluded by now. That report clearly stated that its favoured conclusion, taking all factors into account, was an overground option. As to the public inquiry, the eminent legal advice of Deputy Shatter and many others is that the original legislation which set up the Luas inquiry never envisaged a piecemeal approach of one route and one public inquiry at a time. We will need new legislation and must return to the drawing board.
Government backbench Deputies lamely limped into the House to say there was something in this proposal for the northside. The Minister's timetable, circulated with her script, did not mention either Ballymun or the Airport, let alone the extensions which she shelved and which were not part of the formal Government decision. The Ballymun route is further away under this proposal than it was previously and people on the northside have been sold a pup in this spectacular charade.
In the process we have lost the European funding. As a former office holder I know the Department of Finance will fight a rearguard action every year through the public capital programme; it will misinterpret and re-interpret the decision into an extremely long-term proposal. All the while, 60,000 new cars are registered in the greater Dublin area each year.
We have abandoned ten years of analysis, painstaking scrutiny and detailed design, culminating in a public inquiry to allow the tenders be sent out for the construction of something that will give imminent relief to the people of Tallaght and commuters travelling in from Dundrum. We have ended up with a pipe dream which will never see the light of day.
As it is now 8.30 p.m. I am obliged to put the question on amendment No. a1.
On a point of order, may I seek the guidance of the Chair? I tabled amendment No. 1 which I understand was the first to reach the Ceann Comhairle's office. Will my amendment be put now?
No. The first question to be put is on the amendment in the name of the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke.
I understand you received my amendment before that of the Minister.
The procedure we are adopting is the correct procedure.
I have checked Standing Orders and I can find nothing in those to say the amendment received first would not be put first. I am anxious to give an opportunity to the Government side to vote in favour of ring-fencing the moneys for Dublin. If we proceed as the Chair suggests, there will be no opportunity for either the Opposition or the Government to indicate their support for our amendment.
The question is now being put——
On a point of order——
A point of order is not in order when the Chair is on his feet putting a question.
May I seek your guidance, a Cheann Comhairle? I tried to move my amendment last night but I was told I could not move it at that time. When can I move my amendment?
If the amendment now being put to the House is defeated, the Deputy can move his amendment. I must now carry out the Order of the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 57.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
|
Tá: |
|
|
Ahern, Michael. |
Dennehy, John. |
|
Ahern, Noel. |
Doherty, Seán. |
|
Ardagh, Seán. |
Ellis, John. |
|
Aylward, Liam. |
Fleming, Seán. |
|
Blaney, Harry. |
Flood, Chris. |
|
Brady, Johnny. |
Foley, Denis. |
|
Brady, Martin. |
Fox, Mildred. |
|
Brennan, Matt. |
Hanafin, Mary. |
|
Browne, John (Wexford). |
Brennan, Séamus. |
|
Callely, Ivor. |
Harney, Mary. |
|
Carey, Pat. |
Haughey, Seán. |
|
Collins, Michael. |
Healy-Rae, Jackie. |
|
Cooper-Flynn, Beverley. |
Jacob, Joe. |
|
Cowen, Brian. |
Keaveney, Cecilia. |
|
Cullen, Martin. |
Kelleher, Billy. |
|
Daly, Brendan. |
Kenneally, Brendan. |
|
Davern, Noel. |
Killeen, Tony. |
|
de Valera, Síle. |
Kirk, Séamus. |
|
Dempsey, Noel. |
Kitt, Michael. |
|
Kitt, Tom. |
|
|
Lawlor, Liam. |
O'Keeffe, Ned. |
|
Lenihan, Brian. |
O'Kennedy, Michael. |
|
Martin, Micheál. |
O'Malley, Desmond. |
|
McDaid, James. |
O'Rourke, Mary. |
|
McGuinness, John. |
Power, Seán. |
|
Moffatt, Thomas. |
Roche, Dick. |
|
Molloy, Robert. |
Ryan, Eoin. |
|
Moloney, John. |
Smith, Brendan. |
|
Moynihan, Michael. |
Smith, Michael. |
|
Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
Treacy, Noel. |
|
O'Dea, Willie. |
Wade, Eddie. |
|
O'Donnell, Liz. |
Wallace, Dan. |
|
O'Donoghue, John. |
Walsh, Joe. |
|
O'Flynn, Noel. |
Woods, Michael. |
|
O'Hanlon, Rory. |
Wright, G.V. |
|
O'Keeffe, Batt. |
|
Níl: |
|
|
Allen, Bernard. |
McDowell, Derek. |
|
Barnes, Monica. |
McGinley, Dinny. |
|
Barrett, Seán. |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Bell, Michael. |
Mitchell, Jim. |
|
Boylan, Andrew. |
Mitchell, Olivia. |
|
Bradford, Paul. |
Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda. |
|
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny). |
Naughten, Denis. |
|
Bruton, Richard. |
Neville, Dan. |
|
Burke, Liam. |
Noonan, Michael. |
|
Burke, Ulick. |
O'Keeffe, Jim. |
|
Carey, Donal. |
O'Shea, Brian. |
|
Clune, Deirdre. |
O'Sullivan, Jan. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Owen, Nora. |
|
Cosgrave, Michael. |
Penrose, William. |
|
Creed, Michael. |
Perry, John. |
|
Currie, Austin. |
Quinn, Ruairí. |
|
Enright, Thomas. |
Rabbitte, Pat. |
|
Finucane, Michael. |
Reynolds, Gerard. |
|
Flanagan, Charles. |
Ring, Michael. |
|
Gilmore, Éamon. |
Ryan, Seán. |
|
Gormley, John. |
Shatter, Alan. |
|
Hayes, Brian. |
Sheehan, Patrick. |
|
Higgins, Jim. |
Shortall, Róisín. |
|
Higgins, Michael. |
Stagg, Emmet. |
|
Hogan, Philip. |
Stanton, David. |
|
Kenny, Enda. |
Timmins, Billy. |
|
Lowry, Michael. |
Upton, Pat. |
|
McCormack, Pádraic. |
Wall, Jack. |
|
Yates, Ivan. |
Question, "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.