In accordance with the order of the Dáil today, the Minister for Public Enterprise will now take questions on Luas. The questions must be brought to a conclusion not later than 4.45 p.m.
Light Rail Project: Statements (Resumed).
The Minister can make this a useful exercise from the Opposition's perspective by giving short sharp answers rather than engaging in the usual flowery, rhetorical discourse which makes our job impossible.
The Deputy should ask sharp questions.
Does the Minister have any idea of how much the tunnel will cost and how long it will take to build? If one was building a house, it would be prudent to conduct a technical assessment before committing oneself to a blank cheque.
I will be brisk if the Deputy will. The Deputy is the most tautological man I have ever met. I do not know how much the tunnel will cost and how long it will take to build. I have outlined an indicative timetable. The technical evaluation will be advertised in the EU and national journals within the next few days.
May I take it the Government has agreed that, irrespective of the cost, the tunnel will be built?
The Government has made its decision.
Will the Minister agree that this is a serious matter and that there is gridlock in Dublin city? Will she agree that her response earlier today in which she failed to mention the subject matter of this debate even once was an insult to the House and the people of Dublin?
I had exactly one minute——
That was the Minister's own doing.
I fail to understand how I am supposed to be brief and the questioners can be as long-winded as they like. I had exactly one minute in which to respond. I allowed Deputy Mitchell, who has a huge interest in this matter which he has raised with me on a number of occasions, to contribute. I thought it was the least I should do. One would want to be a wizard to respond within a minute. I am answering questions willingly.
The Minister willingly shared time with an Opposition Deputy whom she thought might support her position but, no more than the consultants, he did not do so.
He has done so.
In relation to the Minister's wish list which she has compiled over a period of four days, including rail links all over Dublin and a tunnel without a price, will she agree that the Government has decided to scrap the light rail system for Dublin and that she has no intention of implementing any part of it within the lifetime of the Government given that she has said that the best we can hope for is that some elements of the old scheme which she has jettisoned will be put in place by 2003?
That was a long-winded question. I have every intention of implementing all of it.
Yesterday the Minister outlined an indicative timetable for the Luas project which she said is subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary statutory processes and technical evaluations. Does she expect the timetable to be met?
I hope so but I cannot interfere with the judicial process. There has been no public consultation by the inspector except for one day last September.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, the process has effectively been delayed by one year. In relation to the timetable outlined will she agree that the public inquiries for the Tallaght-Abbey Street and Sandyford-St. Stephen's Green sections will have been held by the time the local elections are held next summer?
That is the position. The indicative timetable is subject to the statutory requirements over which I have no control.
I refer to the transmission between the secretary general of the Department and Mr. Richard Cuthbert of Atkins. Was pressure exerted on Atkins by the Minister or the Department to highlight the level of disturbance during construction of an on-street project? Will she agree that the doctoring of a report to highlight one aspect, which was argumentative, was improper?
It was not.
Will the Minister agree that it was illogical to spend £200,000 of taxpayers' money to state on three occasions in the House that she would implement the recommendations and then blithely ignore them?
We are about to implement its recommendations, which are broadly in line with the previous Government's plan. The key issue of going underground at the city centre section was not subject to business interference.
The key issue was whether to go underground or overground.
It is incorrect and damaging for the Deputy to suggest there was such interference. I have had no interface with business on this. As I said before in this House, I have no business connections and have had nothing to do with business; I am a consumer. It is incorrect to say the decision was subject to business interference.
The Secretary General of the Department referred to interference with Mr. Atkins when he was compiling and presenting his report. A Secretary General can only act with the authority of a Minister and has no independent authority otherwise. In spite of such interference and given that the Atkins report, which cost £200,000, gave a clear unequivocal recommendation for the onstreet option, will the Minister explain why when she gave an absolute commitment to the House on 12 November 1997 and 16 December 1997 that she would implement its recommendations, she failed to honour it?
Advisers advise and Government decides.
The Minister came to this House, not an adviser. She said that whatever recommendations would be in the consultant's report would be implemented. I am not talking about advisers, but the Minister coming into this House on a number of occasions and giving a commitment to it and to the people of Dublin that she would act quickly on the recommendations in the Atkins Report. The Minister rejected it and I want to get an explanation from her about why she did that about turn.
I did not reject the report. The recommendations in the report will be implemented except for the provision for the inner city section. There is a Cabinet and a Government and the Government make decisions——
The Minister misled the House.
I came straight to the House the next day. All Members were given a copy of the major report, the executive summary and a smaller more consumer friendly study. I am proud to be a member of the Cabinet and, of course, I had an input in the Government's decision.
Will the Minister accept it was grossly dishonest of her to come to this House on a number of occasions in the expectation that the recommendations in the report would be along the lines of what she wanted, an underground option?
How dare the Deputy say that.
There was interference by the Secretary General of her Department at the Minister's behest, because he cannot act otherwise, and there is now evidence of that. The Minister was dishonest because she came into this House and gave commitments day in and day out about what she would do. There was no mention of the Cabinet. She said she would implement the report on three separate occasions and that is stated in the Official Report. I want some explanation as to why you misled the House and why you were dishonest with it and with the people of Dublin?
The Deputy should address his comments through the Chair.
I totally refute the lies the Deputy has told about me.
I did not tell lies.
This type of language should not be used in the House.
Exactly.
I ask Deputies to temper their remarks.
I stated what the Minister said to this House on three separate occasions and what is stated in the Official Report. I did not tell any lies.
How dare the Deputy say I was dishonest.
The Minister came into the House and said she would do one thing, but then did the opposite.
The Minister said "away we go".
She said we would go "hell for leather".
The report went to Cabinet. Deputy Stagg was not a member of Cabinet, but Deputy Yates was, and I am amazed——
I appeal to all Members of the House to address their remarks through the Chair. I ask Members to allow each other the courtesy to speak one at a time.
Will the Minister tell us why when she gave an absolute commitment to the House that she would implement the recommendations of the Atkins Report on light rail for Dublin on 12 November 1997, 16 December 1997 and on an Adjournment Debate, she did an about turn when she got the report because its recommendations did not suit her interests? I describe that as dishonest and misleading this House.
It is not appropriate to accuse the Minister of being dishonest and I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.
I withdraw that word. The Minister is on record as saying she would do one thing, but she did the opposite. One can describe that as anything one likes, but I want an explanation from the Minister as to why she gave a commitment——
Will the Deputy withdraw the word "dishonest"?
He used it four times.
I withdrew it. I did so because the Leas-Cheann Comhairle asked me to do so, but I want an explanation from the Minister as to why she promised one thing, but did the opposite.
We were misled.
The House was misled.
I did not get any redress until the Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair. How dare any Member call me dishonest.
I withdrew the word "dishonest"——
I thank the Deputy for withdrawing it.
——but I have not withdrawn the substance of my remarks.
Deputy Yates said he wished there would be a genuine toing and froing and then proceeded to tell me I should be brisk when replying. When I am brisk he proceeds to go on at length as does Deputy Stagg. The Atkins report was delivered to me. I brought it to Cabinet on the following Tuesday. There was a long Cabinet debate on it. Every Member got copies of the three documents.
We read them, but we might as well have put them in the bin as the Minister did.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
Why did the Minister say she would implement the report?
May I give my answer, Deputy Yates? You know everything, but you could not be in Wexford and in Dublin Airport at the same time.
I did not make those three statements.
Members should address their remarks through the Chair to avoid provocation.
There was a lively Cabinet debate on the report. There were also several meetings on it with the Taoiseach and between the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and myself and then we went back to the Cabinet.
The Tánaiste won.
The project that will be implemented will be broadly the same as that set out in the report except for the city centre section. One line is the same as that set out in the report except it will be extended.
It has been scuppered.
I did not interrupt the Deputy because it is rude to do so.
I would prefer if the Minister did not reply to interruptions.
The line will be underground for two and a quarter kilometres in the city centre. That decision has been greatly welcomed, not least by Members of every party in this House.
That is not true.
It was not welcomed by the Deputy's party, but it has been by Members of the two main Opposition parties.
(Interruptions.)
I have letters about that——
I would like to ask the Minister a question about the future rather than the past.
We all have letters.
I have a letter from the Secretary General——
Allow Deputy Gilmore to continue without interruption.
What about the next decision that has to be made, on the fate of the £114 million which was lost in EU funding as a result of the decision on Luas? The Minister stated that the Department and CIE were in a position to identify a range of potentially suitable public transport projects which could be contractually committed by the end of 1999 and on which work could be completed by 2001. Will the Minister list those projects?
I will gladly do so. I will answer the Deputy's question directly, but it will take some time. The EU aid amount of £114 million is the net aid figure. The gross project cost involved is £175 million. Projects totalling £175 million will have to be identified to draw down all of the EU aid. We have submitted projects totalling £230 million and they are separated into four categories. They include light rail planning and design, £34 million; Dublin suburban rail, £88 million; Dublin Bus, £8.5 million; and mainline rail, £100 million. Those capable of completion before the end of the year 2000 have the best chance of support. The document lists the submissions. Other projects, such as the Dublin Bus corridors, come under the Department of the Environment and Local Government in applications for EU aid. This Department and others will also make submissions. The document states that Government approval for a package will be sought by 16 June and this will be submitted to the Community Support Framework monitoring committee for its 25 June meeting.
The total for planning and design of the Dublin light rail system to the end of 1999 is £29.5 million with a sum of £4.5 million to the end of 2000. Regarding Dublin suburban rail, the submission includes £5 million for suburban platform lengthening, £3 million for the Dublin to Mullingar line, £24 million for 16 DART units, £20 million for 20 suburban rail cars, £11 million for the Maynooth line, £2.5 million for DART signalling, £2.5 million for phase two of Barrow Street station and £20 million for track and signalling at Heuston Station. The total for Dublin suburban rail is £88 million.
A sum of £8.5 million has been submitted for Dublin Bus. Submissions have also been made for mainline rail services, including the Mallow to Killarney, Cherryville and Kilkenny lines. The submission includes track renewal on the Mullingar to Carrick-on-Shannon line. The total in this area is £14 million while a sum of £24 million has been submitted for 18 inner city carriages. Other work, such as upgrading level crossings, on the Carrick-on-Shannon, Sligo, Killarney, Tralee, Kilkenny, Waterford, Athlone, Westport and Ballina lines is included in the total for mainline rail services of £100 million.
It appears that Mullingar and Athlone feature more prominently in the list than Dublin where the traffic problem exists. From a total of £230 million, why has only £8.5 million been submitted for Dublin Bus? This is the mode of public transport which the vast majority of people in Dublin city and county and surrounding areas will have to rely on now that the Luas project is not going ahead.
Does the Minister accept that the Dublin Bus fleet and the service provided by the company is dilapidated, inadequate and unattractive to passengers? It will require much more than the £8.5 million the Minister mentioned to address the traffic problems in Dublin city.
I remind the Deputy that he was in Government for two and a half years. The service did not become dilapidated in the last year.
We made a decision on Luas which the Minister overturned.
The total submitted for Dublin suburban rail services is £88 million.
Part of that is for the Mullingar line.
The Kinnegad bypass.
That is not the case. I will not accept the type of insinuations made by the Deputy. Other people may accept them but I will not take them.
I am only asking questions.
The Minister without interruption.
A total of £88 million for Dublin suburban rail has been submitted. A total of 50 buses for quality bus corridors has been requested at a total cost of £8.5 million.
Buses cannot be bought with EU money.
I will deal with that aspect later. There is nothing about the line from Mullingar onwards. I mentioned the section from Dublin to Mullingar which is now regarded as a commuter line, although Deputy Gilmore may not consider it as such. The Deputy can forget it if he thinks that is something untoward in my constituency.
I only asked about it.
Deputies from other parties who represent rural areas have requested work on rural lines. A safety report which was leaked last week also identified that need. The Deputy asked what projects——
I ask the Minister to address her remarks to the Chair. Otherwise, she tends to invite provocation from across the floor.
It is delightful to look at the Chair but it is difficult to ignore the remarks. I outlined the list of projects which have been submitted that could be completed in time to draw down the money. However, there is no guarantee that they will be accepted. In addition, the Government must also provide matching funds for the projects.
Regarding buses, it was the case previously that the EU would not support expenditure on mobile assets. This remains to be resolved but there are encouraging signs. The EU previously would not underwrite expenditure on mobile assets such as buses although DART carriages were not included. It is not definite but it appears the EU may now support such expenditure.
Why has the Dublin Transportation Office's short-term plan to relieve traffic congestion in Dublin not been included in the list of projects for funding?
It is included.
The Minister did not mention it.
The Dublin Transportation Office is under the remit of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. I understand it has also made extensive applications.
Has every Department lobbed in applications?
Yes.
Does that include the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources?
The Deputy is particularly interested in that matter.
I ask the Minister to address her remarks to the Chair. She should not answer questions which come by way of interruption because she then invites further interruptions.
It is difficult not to reply to such points.
I understand that, but it would be better for the order of the House.
All Departments will submit momentous lists regarding the decommittal of the funds.
The Chair and the Minister took exception to the use of the word "dishonest" earlier. However, on the evening of Tuesday, 12 May at a press conference she stood in front of a big map of Dublin and outlined the main selling point that the Government's decision on the new proposed Luas plan included Broadstone, Ballymun and Dublin Airport. There was also a reference to Swords, the docklands, Cabinteely and Clondalkin.
Did it include Cavan?
Is it not the case that this was, if not dishonest, disingenuous? On 12 May, no formal Government decision was taken about Swords, Finglas, the docklands, Cabinteely or Clondalkin. It was grossly misleading of the Minister to try to sell the plan as a bigger, better project when that did not accord with the Government decision.
The Deputy is incorrect.
Is it not the case that when this matter was debated in the House during Private Members' time on 19 and 20 May, the Minister stated it was not part of the formal Government decision? There is a total inconsistency in what the Minister said when she was trying to sell the Government decision on 12 May and what she said in the House the following week.
That is not the case.
It is a statement of fact.
It was not in the formal Government decision.
Why did the Minister pretend it was part of it on 12 May? The Minister sold a pup.
I stated in the House that it was not part of the formal Government decision but that the attractiveness of including Swords, the docklands and Finglas in the new proposals was discussed.
They were in the previous Government's proposals.
It was not included.
It was.
The Minister, without interruption.
The Minister is inviting interruptions.
I must continue to look at the Chair.
The Minister needs the protection of the Chair.
I do not need protection and I will not be subjected to the comments of the Deputy who is an old fogey.
The Minister misled the public when she gave the impression that the whole plan had been approved.
The first thing I outlined at the press conference was the formal Government decision. I read it out and the 40 members of the press who attended can confirm that. I then went on to state that the adoption by the Government of the enhanced line, taking in north Dublin which was not part of a previous formal Government decision, meant that links would be possible on the northern route to Ballymun to service the docklands.
The Minister did not mention a timetable. The public was grossly misled. The Minister was disingenuous.
The Minister, without interruption.
She knows it.
Deputy Yates should be fair to his colleagues, a number of whom wish to ask questions.
The Minister knows it.
I will be quite clear. A formal Government decision was taken which I read into the record the next day. In the course of my meeting with the press at 8 p.m. that day I said that that was the formal Government decision. I went through the plan to show which areas could be linked into it. The next day in the Dáil I read the formal Government decision into the record.
Will the Minister accept that she came into Government determined to scuttle the Luas project, and that in pursuit of that determination she appointed consultants with the sole objective of getting a decision that would scuttle the project? However, she was gazumped by her own consultants, despite the interference of the Secretary General of her Department at her request. Does she accept that she then had to replace the original Luas plan — which she supported in Government — with a wish list of pious aspirations without a plan, timetable or costing and without a penny of the £114 million that had been originally earmarked for Luas, which is now gone? Where does the Minister intend to get £400 million plus which is needed?
The Deputy used the words "scuttled" and "gazumped", which sound grand. I did not come into Government prepared to scuttle anything. I was delighted to get a job which I hoped to have for the next four years. I did not seek to gazump anybody. The manifesto for Government we put before the people included a proposed study of Luas. The Atkins report came out and I gave copies of it to the Cabinet, which spent portions of two sessions discussing it. The result I revealed publicly, and this is my fourth occasion discussing it.
There is a great new interest in financial probity in the House, and costs seem to be everybody's overriding concern.
We have lost hundreds of millions of pounds.
Even guesses would help.
The Minister without interruption.
I do not like scuttling to people for protection, but if I am to give answers, I will give them. The Government decision was a formal one and detailed £400 million plus. If Deputy Stagg has difficulties in spending money on Dublin transport, his attitude is wrong.
That is not my attitude and the Minister knows it.
That is a gross misrepresentation.
The Minister without interruption.
The Deputies are like the chorus of a bad opera or pantomime, and I am the wicked witch.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Stagg is being very vicious.
We want honesty.
The Minister should continue with her reply.
The north Dublin Labour Party likes what I am doing. I have letters from its chairman and from other political parties.
The Minister has codded them as well, but they will see the light.
They thought they were getting a huge project.
The Minister should be allowed to conclude her remarks.
The Minister has not dealt with my principal question: where does she expect to get £400 million to construct her fairy tale?
What was the question?
If the Minister listened to the questions, I would not have to repeat them. Where does she expect to get £400 million for Luas?
I spoke on that matter this morning. First, in the normal budgetary process this goes into the capital programme. Second, we are making an application to 1999 and onwards for funding from Europe. Third, the Department of Finance is undertaking a public-private partnership study. Luas will be part of that.
Does that mean we do not have one penny?
This is funny money.
Does the Minister agree that when she did not get her stated preferred option, she came out with a PR exercise, which gave the people of Ballymun——
The Deputy should ask a question as time is limited.
——Swords and elsewhere the impression they would get the Luas at the same time? Dublin is the only European capital which does not have a direct rail link to its airport. There are 11.3 million people expected to use that airport this year, and the Minister's projected timescale for an airport connection goes as far as 2004 or 2006. Does she agree there is a need for a connection between the airport and the main Dublin-Belfast line? Does she have any plans for such a connection?
The Minister referred to £85 million for suburban rail. Is she aware that passengers in train carriages from Balbriggan, Skerries, Donabate and Malahide are packed in like sardines? Is there any proposal for extra carriages? When does she expect a decision on this matter?
Deputy Gilmore asked about Dublin Bus. Does the Minister accept that £8.5 million is totally inadequate, given that the £114 million was originally earmarked for Dublin. It is a major loss——
That is a statement, not a question.
Will the Minister respond objectively?
I thank Deputy Ryan for the measured way in which he posed his questions. I had no stated preferred option when I came into Government.
One would not think that after reading the Sunday Times.
The Sunday Business Post.
Do Deputies want me to answer?
Yes.
I would prefer if the Minister did not answer. She will have an opportunity to answer questions again.
On a point of order, on what basis are Deputy Ryan's questions being ruled out of order?
I rule that the question he asked across the floor is out of order. I have not ruled his other questions out of order.
For the information of the Chair, Deputy Ryan asked no question across the floor. The Minister should answer his question.
The Minister to conclude.
I find it odd that Members opposite are arguing amongst themselves——
We are not.
——when I want to answer. I was asked about my stated preferred option. I ask Deputies to accept that I did not have a stated preferred option. When I entered office I read the information pertaining to the project and to the ongoing study. I was never passionate about whether the light rail system should operate above or below ground. That was the best attitude to adopt.
The Deputy stated that I was selling the idea as if Ballymun would be included. Ballymun and Dublin Airport are included under the formal decision taken by the Government.
There is no timescale.
And no money.
I will send Deputy Ryan a copy of our indicative timescale.
It does not refer to the town.
Deputy Yates cannot have it every way. He is a verbose old fogey and stated earlier that I should be brisk. When I am being brisk, he does not want to listen to what I have to say.
I asked the Minister to be brief.
Deputy Yates is a young fogey.
Exactly.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the time available for this question and answer session is limited. I would like to facilitate all the Members who wish to ask questions but I will not be able to do so if they continue to interrupt. The debate must conclude at 4.45 p.m. and I ask Deputies to use the time constructively.
Dublin Airport is included in the plan and it was also included in the Government decision. Deputy Ryan asked a further valid question about Dublin Airport, namely, that with the number of passengers using the airport is there not a need to link it with the Dublin-Belfast rail line? It seems there would be a need for such a link, apart from the link we propose to put in place to Dublin Airport — which was not included in a previous Government decision. From studies carried out, I understand that a link from the Dublin-Belfast line or the Dublin-Maynooth line would cost in the region of £140 million.
Deputy Ryan also inquired about buses and rail carriages. In the section of our proposal to the commission dealing with Dublin suburban rail, we have included 20 suburban rail cars at a cost of £20 million. It remains to be seen whether that proposal is accepted. I do not know where CIE plans to put these carriages. Heretofore, the EU did not co-fund buses because it regards them as mobile assets. However, it appears to have relented somewhat in this regard.
For the next three hours, commuters travelling home from work will be stuck in traffic. What is the Minister's message to those people? From the replies she gave earlier, is she informing them she is not clear about when Luas will be built, that she does not know how much it will cost, that less that 4 per cent of the claim she made in respect of the £114 million of EU funding lost to the project relates to buses and that the £114 million is up for grabs for every second division project in every Department which failed to attract funding on previous occasions? Meanwhile, the unfortunate people stuck in traffic this evening——
The Deputy is making a statement.
I am asking a question. What message is the Minister sending to the commuters stuck in traffic this evening who are seeking a solution to this problem from the Government? The Minister does not seem to know when Luas will be built or how much it will cost and it appears that the £114 million which could do much to alleviate traffic chaos in Dublin will be frittered away on projects encompassing 15 or 16 Departments.
The Deputy is wrong in all his assumptions.
The Minister should put me right.
There is no traffic problem in Dublin.
By continuing in that manner, the Deputies are diminishing themselves. They should allow me to answer.
The Minister did not answer our questions.
The Deputy is a young fogey.
Is that a parliamentary term?
Yes.
The Minister was using it in the pejorative sense.
I ask the Minister to address her remarks through the Chair.
I have an adviser at long last, I did not have one until now. Deputy Gilmore may be sending a message of the sort to which he referred to commuters but I am not doing so. It would be interesting to know if the Deputy would have made his remarks if Luas had proceeded because the same dreadful traffic conditions would continue to obtain in the city.
At least people would have hope.
There would also be light at the end of the tunnel.
Our proposal in respect of the £114 million includes projects which will cost £230 million.
That is a wish list. Does the Minister intend to deliver? The money could go to the Departments of Agriculture and Food, the Marine and Natural Resources or Defence.
Dublin traffic problems can be reduced by at least 50 per cent.
The Minister to continue without interruption.
When the Deputies' parties were in Government, decommittal occurred in respect of a small amount of money. At that time every Department, particularly the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, made a strong play for that money. I thank Deputy Yates for having the grace to laugh because I researched this information earlier.
Is the Minister making the case for the Department of Agriculture and Food?
Deputy Gilmore inquired if this money would be frittered away on a variety of second division projects. Every Department has a right to apply for mid-term funding or decommittal funds and they have all done so in respect of the £114 million. My Department has applied for funding in respect of projects costing £230 million, the majority of which — the ones that are achievable in the given timespan — are Dublin based.
I return to the issue of the tunnel which forms the core of the Minister's proposal and is at variance with the previous Government's proposal. Is the Minister stating that she intends to allow the construction of gaping holes at St. Stephen's Green and on O'Connell Street? Is she informing us that, in the first nine months of 1999, there will be 138 boreholes throughout Dublin? Will the Minister elaborate on the nature of these boreholes because I have been informed that they may have to be dug to a depth of 100 metres? Has she given consideration to the points made by Dr. Adrian Phillips and others about the rollercoaster effect, the geology and the fact that this project may degenerate into the type of controversy which surrounded Wood Quay, which involved the construction of a building on the surface? Does the Minister not acknowledge that this proposal is so fantastic as to be unbelievable?
It is not fantastic or unbelievable. I have given much consideration to this issue and spoken to Professor Atkins and other geologists who have differing viewpoints. It is interesting how those viewpoints vary. Our project has been the subject of a formal Government decision, particularly the enhanced lines northwards from Heuston to Connolly and outwards to Sandyford as laid down. This will be achieved. A formal, written decision on funding was put in place by the Government, unlike other projects where formal financial allocations were not made. I look forward to the implementation of the plan.
Deputy Yates made a point earlier in respect of the Secretary General of my Department which it is my duty to refute. Is the Deputy aware that my reply to his earlier question did not relate to the main report?
It related to the summary, it was an exercise in spin doctoring.
It relates to the Secretary General and the accusations made against him by the Deputy. Every Member of the House received a copy of the main report and it was not as if we were trying to mislead anyone. We were keen that there would be a summary but the main report was available to be read by all.
It seems that the Taoiseach, a Deputy for a Dublin constituency, decided to fundamentally change the Luas project. Why was £200,000 spent on a consultant's report? Why was a decision not made beforehand? The Minister is noted for her decisiveness and she made a decision on 12 May. Proposals were made by Japanese financial institutions with regard to the funding for the project. It is said they have experience in financing and building of such projects. The Minister mentioned the public and private funding issue. Is it the likely outcome that a private foreign concern may build this network over a number of years and operate it? Is that a desirable outcome?
Does the Minister anticipate that the Luas line to Tallaght will be of a heavier gauge and may follow a different route to that outlined in May? The argument is based on an alternative route through more heavily populated areas of south city. Will the Sandyford to the airport line be of a heavier gauge? Has any thought been given to this matter? The previous Government decided to extend the DART from Donaghmede to Malahide. It was also decided before a notable by-election to extend it to Greystones. Will the DART extensions take place?
I am disgusted at the fact that——
I must ask the Deputy to put a brief supplementary question.
I am disgusted too.
Arising from my disgust at the fact that only £8.5 million is being sought for Dublin bus services following the abandonment of the Luas project, does the Minister intend to make additional resources available to Dublin Bus to enable it to renew and modernise its fleet so that the unfortunate traffic choked——
The Deputy has put his question.
Deputy Broughan referred to the Taoiseach. He played a full role in the Cabinet's discussions on Luas. The Japanese Mitsui Bank made proposals to a group of engineers but they were not fleshed out fully. I would like to see a mix of public and private finance but I wish to see the service run by CIE-Luas. The Mitsui proposal was not put in full to us.
The Deputy also asked about the gauge of the Tallaght and Sandyford lines. I do not know what gauge they will be — I presume they will be whatever the correct gauge is. I do not see the point of the question.
It refers to the difference between an extended DART line and the Luas.
It will be the Luas as envisaged. I will come back to the Deputy on the Malahide line as I do not have the details to hand.
It was announced during the byelection.
I will come back to the Deputy with the details.