Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 May 2000

Vol. 519 No. 1

EU Transport Legislation: Motion.

Mr. Durkan

I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on European Affairs on EU legislation: Transport – Proposals for Directives on Railway Infrastructure and on Combined Transport.

I welcome the opportunity to continue the process of debating in the House the reports my committee has produced over the past two years. The current committee was established in December 1997 and over the past two and a half years it has produced a series of reports inspired by the various legislative proposals of the European Union. The joint committee has examined the impact and import of these reports on the quality of life in this country. The joint committee has also examined in considerable detail several transport proposals last year. In particular, the joint committee examined detailed proposals concerning combined transport and changes in vehicle weights, as well as proposals relating to railway infrastructure.

Under the proposed changes, the structure of which has been agreed, it may be possible for various entities to share in the various aspects and modes of transport available in Ireland. That means that at a future stage an investor could become involved in rail and other transport. In order to get a better grasp of the likely impact of the proposals, the joint committee met a series of groups in order to examine our current transport infrastructure and how it is likely to be affected by the proposed EU directives. In that regard we met representatives from the Dublin Port authority, the Road Haulage Association, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the Department of Public Enterprise's transport section, and a number of others who addressed the joint committee.

Some extraordinary things transpired. The Department of Public Enterprise did not seem to be as conscious or concerned as we were about the possible impact on transport here of the involvement of other bodies and agencies in the transport network. This will emerge to a greater extent in due course.

The joint committee also examined the Dublin Port and Docks Board. We discovered that a huge volume of transport is generated by the port, which is a welcome development. Traffic to and from the country's main port is an indication of the state of the economy. It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the growth of that volume of transport in recent years. For example, in 1990 the number of roll-on/roll-off units using Dublin Port amounted to 102,000. In 1991 the figure had risen to 123,000, but by 1998 the total had risen to 399,000. Those units all had to go through the main streets of the capital to gain access to the port. It is imperative to find alternative means of channelling such transport volumes away from sensitive urban areas. This matter is currently being examined in other European cities.

There has been a fourfold increase in freight traffic in Dublin Port in the past ten years. In 1990, 142,000 load-on/load-off units were using Dublin Port, but by 1998 the figure had risen to 356,000 such units. The number of passengers travelling through Dublin Port in 1990 was 630,000, while by 1998 the figure had reached 1.28 million. The number of tourist cars has increased dramatically from 115,000 in 1990 to 237,000 in 1998. All these figures provide an indication of the way in which traffic volumes have increased in recent years. Consequently, in all major European cities an examination is being undertaken to ascertain how best to enable traffic to move more easily to and from ports.

EU transport directives will also affect deliveries in various EU cities. We will have to decide whether such deliveries occur in the middle of the working day or at night. In order to alleviate traffic problems, most other EU member states are taking seriously the need to make deliveries at night or during other off-peak times. In this way, unnecessary traffic jams can be eliminated. The Road Haulage Association indicated that it could reduce costs to the consumer by a considerable margin if its members could operate in off-peak periods. Coincidentally, the Dublin Port and Docks Board is willing to consider such options but, to the best of my knowledge, little progress has been made up to now.

In commending this motion to the House, I would point out that forthcoming EU transport directives will affect the manner and methodology of handling our road traffic. It would be useful for us now to take whatever steps are necessary to put in place a structure whereby we can at least alleviate the worst aspects of the traffic congestion that affects us at present by taking on board those simple tips our European colleagues are already putting into operation. We will, in any event, have to put them into operation in the not too distant future.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I thank Deputy Durkan and the other committee members for their detailed consideration of the proposed EU legis lation in relation to the railways and combined transport.

Transport has in recent years assumed an enormous significance across the EU member states. In Ireland, as in the other states, we are in the process of urgently addressing the problems that are clearly evident to everyone. In particular, we must ease the chronic traffic congestion that afflicts all our major cities and towns and is spreading to many smaller towns and villages. The reason for this congestion is the over-reliance on road transport by both commuters and businesses due a perceived lack of acceptable alternatives. The Government is seeking to put in place those acceptable alternatives.

In this context, the vital role of the railways in our transport policy has now been recognised and programmes are in place to address the deficiencies which exist. The national development plan provides for unprecedented levels of investment in transport infrastructure. For the rail sector this will, on the one hand, improve the safety of the rail network and, on the other hand, increase its reach and capacity.

At EU level, it is accepted that a renewed railway sector is vital for the future of Europe's transport system and current EU policy is designed to reverse the railways' long-term decline in market share, particularly in relation to freight. The proposed directives we are discussing today are part of a broader package of proposals for the rail sector. Other issues currently under discussion relate to interoperability of conventional rail systems and safety regulation and standards of the European railways.

The proposed directives which were addressed by the committee are first, three draft directives which form part of what is termed the "railway package" and comprise directives amending Directive 91/440/EC and Directive 95/18/EC, and a new directive, replacing Directive 95/19/EC, on establishing the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of the railway infrastructure and safety certification and, second, the committee considered a proposed directive on combined transport which was to amend Directives 92/106/EEC and 96/53/EC. The latter proposal was designed, inter alia, to increase the use of combined transport as an alternative to road transport, and also to bring down the minimum distance in which combined transport is competitive.

The combined transport directive was discussed at a Transport Council meeting in March 1999. A number of the provisions of the draft directive were problematic for some member states, including Ireland, and, unfortunately, agreement could not be reached. The proposed directive has not been raised at the Council since. In relation to the "railway package", substantial progress has been made on the draft directives and these are expected to be adopted during this year.

The current proposals have their origins in Directive 91/440/EEC. This directive is regarded as the first step in the revitalisation of the European railways. It opened up access to European railways for international services, where such services were provided by a grouping of at least two railway companies, and enabled access for individual railway companies providing international combined transport freight services. The directive also provided that the management of the railways be independent of the state and included provisions to allow greater commercial freedom and the separation of accounts for infrastructure from rail transport operations.

Many of the provisions of this directive were at that time already enshrined in Irish law, for example, the statutory independence and commercial nature of larnród Éireann. The only obligation on Ireland arising from the directive was that concerning access rights, and this obligation was met by Statutory Instrument No. 204 of 1996, which allows suitably qualified operators to exercise the right of access to the Irish rail network for international transport operations.

Subsequent to Directive 91/440/EEC, two further complementary directives were adopted in 1995. Directive 95/18/EC sets down rules for licensing rail operators and Directive 95/19/EC provides for the allocation of infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees. Both directives were transposed into Irish law in 1999.

Notwithstanding these initiatives, the railways have continued to lose market share to road transport and it was recognised that the broad frameworks created by these directives needed to be expanded in order to make liberalisation practical and thereby improve the competitive position of the railways.

The objectives of the current proposals are twofold – first, to ensure that all railway undertakings are treated in a fair and equitable manner and, second, to provide for the efficient and competitive use of infrastructure. It may be useful to summarise the provisions of these three draft directives and to outline Ireland's position on them and the likely impact they will have on the Irish rail sector.

The draft directive amending Directive 91/440/EEC provides for a more extensive compulsory separation of the accounts of the infrastructure manager and the provider of the transport services. Licensed undertakings will be entitled to access for the purposes of operating international freight services to what is termed the trans-European rail freight network. This is an extensive network of railway lines in all member states, and on the island of Ireland comprises the rail line from Derry through Belfast and Dublin to Cork.

There are also a number of administrative changes. The most significant from an Irish perspective is the requirement to ensure that the functions of determining equitable and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure and of levying charges for the use of such infrastructure are entrusted to bodies independent from the rail undertakings. Ireland has sought and received a derogation from this requirement of establishing separate bodies.

The main objective of the draft directive amending Directive 95/18/EC is to extend the licensing system to all rail undertakings in the Community rather than limiting it to those which provide international services as is currently the case. The draft directive to replace Directive 95/19/EC is a more extensive piece of legislation with a large volume of regulatory detail. Its main purpose is to oblige member states to treat applicants for access to railway infrastructure in a non-discriminatory manner by establishing procedures and charging systems for access to, and use of, infrastructure.

The question arises, therefore, as to what impact these directives will have on the rail sector in Ireland. Deputies will be aware that the Irish rail network is in many respects unique within the EU. A number of factors must be taken into account by Ireland in considering and developing proposals at EU level. In particular, the fact that the rail network on the island of Ireland is isolated from the rest of the Community, the unique gauge of our rail network, the low population base and the uneconomic nature of train services are significant barriers to the development of real competition.

The Minister's main concern, therefore, in the discussions on the development of these proposals was to ensure that any directives adopted would not impose significant bureaucratic costs, with little or no associated benefits. The uniqueness of the Irish position is acknowledged by counterparts in the other member states. The Council has agreed with the Minister on the need for derogations for Ireland, Northern Ireland and Greece to the more onerous administrative requirements in the draft directives. These derogations relate to the establishment of an independent body for allocating access to infrastructure and determining infrastructure charges, and also for dealing with appeals in relation to these matters. The derogations also cover a range of related measures in the proposed directive.

These derogations are not without conditions and are for a five year period but can be renewed. More importantly, they are conditional on no railway undertaking from outside the island of Ireland applying to operate competing services and no railway undertaking operating in Ireland applying to operate services in another member state.

The fact that the Minister has sought these derogations should not be viewed in any way as an attempt to hinder the possible advent of competition in the rail sector. Rather it is an indication of the reality of the unique characteristics of the sector in Ireland. The Minister's record on introducing competition in other sectors is well known and it is something which she is also considering in the rail sector.

In recent weeks the Minister has put forward a number of proposals to the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure setting out options for the future of the public transport sector. These proposals are wide-ranging and include a number of measures impacting on the rail sector, in particular, the establishment of an independent public transport regulatory body; possible separation of Iarnród Éireann into two independent companies – one responsible for the infrastructure and the other for the operation of train services and in the longer term, the possible transfer of the rail operating company to the private sector or of franchising the operation of some or all railway services.

These proposals are currently under consideration. Depending on the outcome of these deliberations, the requirements for the derogation provisions in the draft directives will need to be reviewed.

I again thank the House for the opportunity to discuss these matters today. It is recognised by the Government that the rail sector has a vital role to play in the development of a sustainable transport policy. It is an exciting time for the rail industry. For the first time in many years its future is assured and the necessary finance is available to enhance the quality and quantity of the services it offers. The main concern is to ensure that the necessary framework is in place to enable it to reach its full potential, and the nature of this framework, both at national and EU level, is an issue which is now being addressed.

Mr. Wall

I compliment the chairman of the committee, Deputy Durkan, and his staff on producing another report, which is before the House today. I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution on this report of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, although it has to be said that the subject matter, Proposals for Directives on Railway Infrastructure and on Combined Transport, has limited application to this country, largely because we rely to such an extent on one form of transport for both passenger and freight, that is, road transport.

It is at times like this that we really regret the way in which our rail network was largely dismantled and limited to a handful of mainline routes. The rail system is an efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transport. At a time when the road system is in danger of choking to death the principal regret is that we do not have a more substantial rail system. Some 40 years after Dr. Todd Andrews cut a swathe of destruction through our rail network, we can all now acknowledge how short-sighted that policy was. It is ironic that 40 years after the last train ran on the Harcourt Street-Bray rail line, CIE is at the moment surveying the line, preparing to rebuild bridges that were demolished and reclaiming the permanent way to facilitate the Luas project.

Had the Harcourt Street-Bray line not been chopped prematurely in the 1950s, it could have been providing the same efficient DART service as the coastal line, saving huge traffic congestion in much of the southern suburbs. The potential of rail to reduce traffic flows through Dublin has not been fully exploited. One does not have to be a traffic engineer to recognise that a huge element of the now almost permanent traffic congestion in Dublin city arises from the huge volume of container lorries travelling to and from the port. Astonishingly, only 10% of imports and exports through Dublin Port transfer to or from rail and most of this is made up of ore and oil. Only a small proportion – some 4% to 6% – is container traffic. Given that there is an existing rail network from the port to the outer suburbs, why has no serious effort been made to get this container traffic off the streets and on the rail line?

The time has long gone since traffic problems were confined to Dublin. Many towns and villages, especially along primary routes are being choked to death. Anyone who has travelled through Kildare town in my constituency, for instance, will know what I mean. As with the problem of the cities, much of the traffic congestion is caused by freight transport on huge juggernauts that cause enormous environmental damage. Again the question that must be asked is, why is more of this freight not moved by rail.

The rail system is also an enormously expensive operation and it eats up the vast bulk of the £100 million plus subsidy CIE receives from the Exchequer. Despite the cost, money spent on the rail system is money well spent. The railways cause little environmental damage or pollution and they are a lifeline to many communities along the lines. It should also be emphasised that despite the very worrying findings of some recent reports, the railway has been a generally safe mode of transport with a safety record as good or better than any of the alternative means of transport available.

Given all these factors, it is very disappointing that the national development plan did not contain any proposals for new rail lines and restricted itself to proposals to simply upgrade existing lines. We need to upgrade mainline routes. The Labour Party would like to see the principal mainline routes, like Dublin-Cork, Dublin-Belfast and Dublin-Galway, not just upgraded, but also electrified. We should look for potential new routes. In the context of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and a new chapter in North-South co-operation, there is real potential for a new rail line linking Dublin and Derry. This would not only provide a vital link with Derry but would provide a significant boost for many towns and counties along the route, which currently do not have a rail connection.

However, even allowing for the underdeveloped state of our railway system, the directive is worth supporting. Any steps that can lead to a more efficient use of and better integration between the various transport options are worth supporting. We must, however, ensure that in the rush to create more efficiency, we do not sacrifice safety standards. Part of the directive proposes the removal of restrictions operating in some countries, but not in Ireland, on night time and weekend driving. Rather than seeking to have these restrictions lifted, should we not seek to have these higher standards implemented in all member states, including Ireland?

In addition, the proposal to increase the weight limit for freight vehicles by four tonnes will have implications for Ireland. Forty-two tonne, five axle articulated vehicles may be fine on six lane autobahns in Germany, but they are an entirely different proposition on Ireland's main routes, many of which still pass through small towns and villages and in which bridges were built in the last century. One wonders what impact this new development will have on that. Has the Department carried out an assessment of the environmental implications of such an increase in the weight limit?

Mr. P. Carey

Like previous speakers, I compliment the chairman on bringing forward, with the committee, the third in a series of reports which, in their own way, are interesting to debate in this House. I pay tribute to the clerk of the committee and his staff on the diligent and efficient way in which they compile these reports on our behalf. Members of the committee will be aware that on a fortnightly or monthly basis, we get a raft of directives from the EU. I pay tribute to the consultants who have been working on behalf of the committee for several years. Some of the directives are obscure, perhaps those about which we are talking today, and had the consultant not suggested these might merit further discussion and had the chairman not agreed to that, discussion might not have taken place on these directives.

We had a wide range of submissions, written and oral, from Departments and, significantly, from bodies like the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the Dublin Port authority and the Irish Road Hauliers Association. It is probably a mark of where we are in terms of rail transport that all the submissions from the private sector suggested the proposed directives had very little relevance to the Irish situation. Our colleague, Deputy McGuinness, put his finger on it during the course of the discussion after the road hauliers made their presentation when he suggested that the railway infrastructure is very much akin to what the telephone was not so long ago. We have all seen what grabbing that issue by the neck and investing significantly in it have done.

I acknowledge the significant resources which will be invested by the Government in the rail sector through the national development plan. It is hoped that when the development plan is realised, we will have a railway infrastructure like those of our European partners. Deputy Durkan mentioned the volume of traffic spoken of by the Dublin Port Company. The contributions of the company and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce were ad idem. Both bodies and the members of the committee were concerned at the large volumes of heavy traffic which trundle into Dublin on a daily basis. We talked about the city quays being clogged by traffic, much of it heavy traffic, from morning to night and about the issues which this raised for the viability of the port. There was a lively debate on what could be done by the Dublin Port Company to contribute to easing the traffic problem. The company stressed the need to improve our capacity to deliver infrastructural projects and it was supported in this by the chamber of commerce. There is concern at the delay in furthering the port tunnel project. The Taoiseach was Minister for Finance when the order for the port tunnel was originally signed and very little progress has been made since then. Until we start digging, many people will be sceptical about the future of the project.

The chamber of commerce also talked about the perennial problem of deliveries to commercial and retail premises in the city. The chamber can play its part in solving this problem. Companies such as Arnotts and Marks and Spencer are playing their part in trying to have overnight deliveries but I particularly criticise brewing companies for their capacities to clog up streets, and almost invariably street corners, from 10.30 a.m. until lunch time. I cannot understand why some directive cannot be issued to have those deliveries made earlier in the day. We have heard arguments regarding additional costs to the licensed trade but licensed vintners appeared to have no difficulty in putting 5p on the pint, without notice to their customers, to meet additional costs. Surely some way could be found to meet the cost of having deliveries made earlier. Dublin Corporation and its staff have also played their part, and many refuse collections are now done during the night.

The Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the port company reiterated their desires to see the eastern port relief route developed as soon as possible. Once the port tunnel is operational the eastern port relief route should, logically, be provided. This relief route would have a great deal to offer.

The Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure is doing much in examining traffic in Dublin and elsewhere throughout the country. It is no longer only the city and suburbs of Dublin which are clogged with traffic. Members of the committee who live in Drogheda, Kilkenny and elsewhere throughout the country were critical of the difficulties which commercial bodies such as hauliers have in having loads transported efficiently and on time to adjacent ports. There is a future for improving the railway infrastructure. I hope we will soon be in a position to have, for example, the rail line from Dublin to Navan investigated further. I note that Iarnród Éireann is considering the possibility of a heavy rail line from Cabra to Dublin Airport. This will facilitate the move to rail transport.

The question of the east-west corridor and the need for efficient links between Ireland and the United Kingdom was also discussed. Under the INTERREG programme, a considerable study was done of the need for this corridor to be made more efficient, more streamlined and more attractive. If we are to move from current models of transport to more efficient, more environmentally friendly and more cost effective ones we will need to promote initiatives such as this.

The submissions from the road haulage interest and the chamber of commerce spoke very much of on-time deliveries and the difficulties posed in this regard by the lack of a good road network. This matter is also being tackled in the national development plan. While the report is not a pana cea for all our ills, the submissions made to the committee provide valuable food for thought. It is not often possible to bring significant interests together in one arena to explore ways of improving matters such as transport infrastructure. These proposed directives, like many which come before the committee, do not appear to have any immediate application. However, the representative of the road hauliers association suggested that directives such as these can be issued, almost by sleight of hand so that there is a need to be constantly watchful. Fortunately, we have the watchdog of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Mr. Gormley

I have listened very carefully to what Deputy Carey had to say and I shall respond to a number of the points he made. Deputy Carey makes the point that if the port tunnel is built, the so-called eastern bypass should go ahead. The Green Party has constantly made this point. We said the tunnel was a Trojan horse for the eastern bypass. The questions Deputy Carey and others must ask are whether this will alleviate the traffic in congested areas such as Sandymount and what modelling has been done on this important question. This project is not a panacea for congestion. All the evidence shows that when roads are built more traffic is attracted onto them.

The EU is attempting to look at this problem very comprehensively and the answer which emerges constantly is that rail transport is the way forward. Commissioner Neil Kinnock, for example, has tried to do tremendous work in this area. Emissions of CO2 are rising dramatically, with 60% of them coming from cars. If we are to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, we will have to invest more heavily in rail. Under the Kyoto Protocol, we are entitled to increase our CO2 emissions by 13% over the 1990 level. That is a huge increase. If we do not reduce our emissions we cannot afford this huge increase.

During the Glen of the Downs controversy we saw vigil-keepers, or eco-warriors, being jailed. This was a very good example of our failure to understand the transport problem. That road was built in 1970. Thirty years on it has had to be widened and there is no question that it will have to be widened further, probably in 15 years because of exponential growth in traffic volumes. As a result it takes commuters 40 seconds less to reach Dublin but as car numbers increase they will not reach the city as quickly. Given that cars in Dublin move at the same pace as the old horse and cart, it is increasingly a myth that the car offers mobility, so much so that in countries such as Japan it is not worth while buying one. Investment in the rail network therefore is of huge importance.

It is the case that Todd Andrews wreaked havoc with the rail network. When it was proposed that a number of railway lines be closed in County Kerry a delegation travelled to Dublin to see him. The first question he asked was, "How did you get here?" When the delegation replied, "By car" he said, "That is the end of the meeting". That anecdote is often told. While the day of simplistic solutions is gone, there are those who still believe that road is best and ignore the advantages of the rail network. A bulletin published by the Department of the Environment and Local Government states that the way towards sustainability is by improving the eco-efficiency of our roads. If there was ever a contradiction that is it. That is pure bunkum. We cannot talk about sustainability if we are not prepared to talk about investment in the rail network.

There have been successes. It takes the Enterprise service about 25 minutes to travel from Drogheda to Dublin. It is packed every single day. This proves that if a service is provided it will be used. The same applies to the DART, along the route of which house prices have increased. I doubt if the same can be said about houses built adjacent to certain roads. There is a view that one buys a house outside the city adjacent to a main road and commutes but, like Dublin, these roads will soon become congested. On bank holiday weekends one simply cannot move on the roads.

Huge investment in the rail network is required in excess of what is provided for in the national development plan. Despite the great promises made by the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, sufficient funds are not being invested. There is an imbalance. Almost four times as much will be invested in the road network. There is therefore a need to reassess our priorities.

The Green Party recognises the need for port access. To this end we suggest that access be gained by the Liffey tunnel. It is clear however that the only route this can take is across Sandymount strand. Will it be a cut and cover or bore tunnel? I find it difficult to believe that one would go to the expense of boring a tunnel for a distance of two miles. I do not know whether this is possible in engineering terms but of most importance to my constituents is whether it will alleviate the traffic problems in the area. There is no evidence that it will. In all likelihood it will be a public-private partnership project, which means the imposition of a toll which members of the public do not like paying, which means, in turn, that they will continue to take short cuts. My constituents were informed that the East Link Bridge would alleviate the traffic problems in the area but it has not worked out that way. The problems in Ringsend and Irishtown are worse than ever. If one looks at the air pollution monitoring results, in particular the levels of PM 10 which damages people's health, one will find that Ringsend and Irishtown are black spots. One in four children in the area suffer from asthma. This is appalling.

The idea that the construction of new roads is the panacea to our transport ills is complete bunkum. There is a need to invest in the rail network. We are repeating the mistakes made by other countries many years ago rather than learning from their experience. With an increase in the number of Greens elected at the next election I hope the agenda will change.

Mr. Durkan

I thank the Members who contributed to the debate on what is always an interesting subject. I thank the members of the joint committee for their support and contributions in compiling the report. I thank those who gave evidence, the clerk, Micheál Ó Corcora, and the committee secretariat. Iarnród Éireann and Dublin Corporation were among those which made submissions.

On the question of European directives on transport, European institutions are looking at alternatives in attempting to determine how existing resources can best be managed. While I appreciate the points made by Deputy Gormley in respect of investment in railway infrastructure, given the size of the country, investment in passenger transport presents itself more readily than investment in goods transport. From the point of view of the efficient use of resources it is therefore much more effective to invest in passenger transport.

I do not entirely agree with what the Deputy said about the road network in which we have not invested to the same degree as other European countries. Those countries which invested heavily in road infrastructure 40 to 50 years ago have reaped the benefit. They have also invested in railway infrastructure. As a result they are able to transport both passengers and goods in large volumes over short and long distances in a very efficient manner. The same cannot be said about Dublin where, in trying to access the city from any angle on any morning of the week, one has to compete with a series of factors, which include the number of cars on the road.

By a long shot this is not the biggest capital city in the world. I cannot understand why we cannot get our heads together to try to alleviate some of the problems. Road hauliers were very quick to point out before the joint committee that they could reduce their costs to consumers by up to 15% if they were allowed to transport goods to the port unimpeded at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. and conclude their business by 6.30 a.m. They also said they could considerably reduce their costs to the commercial sector throughout the city if they were allowed to access routes at an earlier or later hour, as the case may be.

The competitors one has to meet are those referred to by Deputy Pat Carey and those to which I referred in the context of heavy goods vehicles. These people do not want to be in the city at that time because they are wasting time and money. The simple and realistic solution is to open the port earlier. This will not solve the problem but it will not do any harm either. We called for an experiment in this regard lasting a fortnight, three weeks, a month or whatever because practical tests are the best option. I take on board the points raised by Deputies but the EU is looking at traffic movement and trying to find ways and means of improving efficiency. The greater the efficiencies the better economies will function, producing benefits for all.

The work undertaken by the committee over the past two years, involving a number of other reports which will be discussed and laid before the House in the not too distant future, was tedious, difficult, time consuming and important. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the committee and all associated with it, including witnesses who freely and readily gave of their time, energy and expertise in an effort to participate in the parliamentary process and to contribute towards improving society.

This process has been ongoing month after month, often to the exclusion of competing demands and urgent business to which Members have to attend. I thank them for their work.

During the compilation of this report, the committee discussed the options which might be brought forward to alleviate the problem. For example, there was an unfortunate fire on the quays this morning and the whole city came to a halt.

Mrs. Owen

It was a very good morning for traffic coming from the north side. People stopped coming into town.

Mr. Durkan

Traffic cannot get through when a road is blocked. Obviously traffic from other directions can get through but it was a very difficult morning for traffic trying to access the city from a particular direction. The port and transport authorities are willing to co-operate and they should work with the corporation, traders and anyone else involved and recognise that the EU is working on directives with which we will have to comply and try to rationalise the situation and alleviate the chaos facing us.

Question put and agreed to.