Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Jun 2000

Vol. 520 No. 3

Order of Business. - Public Transport Policy: Statements.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I am glad to have this opportunity to tell the House about the proposals for the institutional and regulatory reform of public transport and the important changes that will take place to improve public transport in the coming years. I thank Deputies Stagg and Yates for putting forward the idea that time be allocated to debate the issue.

It is my firm intention that the proposed institutional and regulatory changes will be implemented in a spirit of partnership in full consultation with the social partners. To begin this process, I will consult the social partners on the proposed framework through the Public Transport Partnership Forum being established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The first meeting of the forum will take place on 9 June.

It is widely acknowledged that public transport in Ireland has suffered from serious under-investment in years gone by. For a long time we were enthralled by the prospect of the private car and treated public transport as the poor relation when it came to investment.

I pay tribute to the contribution made by CIE and its subsidiary companies over the years. Man agement and staff have often had to work through very difficult times, dealing with the consequences of under-investment.

The most recent institutional change in public transport was the establishment of Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann as subsidiaries of CIE at the start of 1987. My Department is still regulating the private bus sector under an Act that dates back to 1932. That date speaks for itself.

The Operational Programme for Transport, 1994 to 1999, provided the first tentative evidence of a major change in policy towards increased investment in public transport. However, the main impetus for a change of policy in favour of public transport has been the urgent need to deal with the traffic congestion problems in Dublin and to forestall similar problems in our other major urban areas. There is also a strong awareness of the need to improve railway safety, to reduce transport-related pollution and to address the social inclusion of people in rural areas and people with mobility impairments.

Therefore, the National Development Plan 2000 to 2006 provides for a major acceleration of investment in public transport and, for the first time, commits the Exchequer to very substantial capital expenditure on bus and rail. While this enormous £2.2 billion investment is essential and welcome, it alone will not transform our public transport services. We must also consider institutional and regulatory reform.

The sheer scale of the investment required, by itself, makes it essential that we review our institutional and regulatory structures. This raises two potential constraints, the availability of finance and the availability of sufficient management skills for the new infrastructure and to operate the services subsequently in a safe, cost effective and customer friendly way. Thankfully, the availability of finance is now less of a constraint than it was in the past. However, resources are not unlimited and we will look to public private partnerships as a way of providing some of the funding as well as bringing in specialist skills and innovation.

Ireland's traditional approach to such an investment and development challenge was to establish a State company – the ESB and Bord Gáis are obvious examples. However, this policy approach reflected a belief at the time that the private sector was not in a position to mobilise the necessary finance and the management skills to take on large projects. That is clearly not the case now because as Ireland's economy has grown, so also has the capacity of the private sector to contribute to major infrastructural development. Furthermore, our membership of the EU brings with it access to similar capabilities in other member states, coupled with their existing experience of building and operating the sorts of projects we are now contemplating.

Another change that has taken root over the years has been our preference for competition rather than monopoly supply of goods and ser vices. Many activities, such as air travel and telecommunications, that we previously assumed could be carried out successfully only on a monopoly basis have been shown to improve very substantially when exposed to competition.

Closely coupled with competition is the issue of independent regulation. It is an essential part of creating a level playing field and facilitating the development of market sectors. The need for funds and additional management skills, examining the capability developed in the private sector, the wider experience in other EU countries and the benefits of competition and independent regulation are factors that influenced this review of the institutional and regulatory approach to public transport.

The first institutional change for the public transport sector was outlined in the announcement last December that I would establish an independent body to oversee railway safety. Up to now the regulation of safety has been a matter for the Department. However, in the review of railway safety in 1998 the independent consultants recommended that our railway safety legislation should be updated to reflect current trends and practice. The Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport, which deals with matters related to the Department, has been to the fore in pressing for that railway safety legislation. My Department has been working on the preparation of new legislation and I will have the heads of the Bill detailed in a consultation paper before the end of June.

In deciding to establish an independent railway inspectorate, I am going further than the minimum recommendation of the railway safety consultants because I am satisfied that such an important issue should be dealt with on an independent basis, removing any perception of a conflict of interest.

Recently I submitted two policy papers to the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructural Development and Public Private Partnerships, entitled A New Institutional Framework for Public Transport and Regulation of the Bus Market in the Greater Dublin Area. Both papers are in the public domain, on the Department's website and were issued to all Members of the Dáil and Seanad. I look forward to hearing the views of Members of this House on both papers today and in the future.

I intend to seek Government approval shortly for publication of a composite policy paper based on those two submissions. I will also consult the social partners, beginning tomorrow week, on the proposed framework and we will work through all the proposals in that fashion.

The papers set out a policy framework or direction. Much painstaking work will be required to flesh out the details of those reforms and I have no doubt there will be lengthy discussions on those details. Those papers clearly signpost the future direction of policy. The job which now faces the Depart ment is to develop the details in consultation with the social partners and to see them through to implementation.

In framing my proposals for new institutional arrangements, I had in mind three overall objectives which should underpin our public transport policy. These are: to ensure the provision of a well functioning, integrated public transport system which enhances competitiveness, sustains economic progress and contributes to social cohesion; to ensure the provision of a defined standard of public transport, at reasonable cost to the customer and the taxpayer; and to ensure the timely and cost effective delivery of the accelerated investment in infrastructure and facilities necessary to ensure improved public transport provision.

The definition of an appropriate standard of public transport provision has historically been the responsibility of CIE, having regard to the resources available to it. CIE has been given an annual revenue subvention by the State and the company has from time to time been given financial targets to achieve. However, the Government has not ever explicitly defined what the standard of public transport provision should be.

In recent years the city of Dublin has changed beyond recognition. It was once a much smaller, compact city. The suburbs of Dublin now spread into the neighbouring counties of Wicklow, Kildare and Meath and even beyond. Likewise, many other cities and towns are growing rapidly. The challenge of getting people from A to B is all the greater and requires a new approach. Commuting by car within our cities is no longer a sustainable option, in terms of congestion, effective use of limited road space and environmental damage. If people who have traditionally used their cars to commute to work are to be coaxed onto public transport, we must provide the service demanded by commuters.

I propose that the State should, on behalf of the people, broadly define what standard of public transport services it wishes to see provided having regard to the needs of public transport users and the financial capacity of the Exchequer. As a first step, the DTO proposals for a future transportation strategy for the greater Dublin area, which are being finalised and will be published later this year, can provide the basis for defining an appropriate standard of public transport provision for the capital city. I suggest the State should then put in place the necessary legislative, regulatory and institutional measures to procure that standard of public transport service as efficiently and cost effectively as possible.

However, while the State has a responsibility to ensure that the defined standard of public transport provision is procured in an effective way, it does not need to be directly involved in the provision of those services through State owned companies. Instead, I propose that the public transport market should be opened up to private participation, as a way of better exposing it to market forces, improving its quality and efficiency and increasing attention to customer requirements.

I propose a number of institutional changes to the present public transport set-up. These are: the establishment of Bus Átha Cliath and Bus Éireann as separate, independent companies, with the freedom to operate transport services in each other's current area of business; the transfer to private ownership of one of these companies, probably Bus Átha Cliath; the division of Iarnród Éireann into two separate State owned companies, one responsible for railway infrastructure and the other for the operation of railway services; the possible dissolution of the CIE holding company; the establishment of a separate independent body with the function of procuring major infrastructural projects on a public private partnership basis; and the establishment of an independent public transport regulatory function.

Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath are large public transport companies with extensive experience of providing scheduled services. These companies will obviously be significant players in any new public transport market. However, they cannot compete for business in each other's territory as both are owned by one company – CIE – and because they are directly prevented from doing so under the Transport (Re-organisation of CIÉ) Act, 1986.

Giving them their legal and commercial independence from CIE and introducing amending legislation to remove the artificial restriction on their area of operations is not enough to allow them compete effectively. Common State ownership would lead to conflicts of interest and impede their ability to be fully effective in a competitive bus market. I have proposed that the State divest itself of at least one of these companies.

The future regulatory framework for the Dublin market has been broadly defined, while the regulatory environment for the inter-city and rural transport market will be considered at a later stage of the review. As the future regulation of the Dublin market is clearer, I propose that Bus Átha Cliath is the logical first choice for private ownership.

The third of my proposed institutional changes, separating the railway infrastructure from the provision of services, will have a number of advantages. It will allow both infrastructure operations to concentrate on their respective responsibilities and is in line with best practice in Europe. It is also consistent with EU requirements to eliminate conflicts of interest where competing operators may wish to use the railway. While that may seem a remote possibility for mainline rail services in Ireland, the public private partnership development of new commuter rail services means there is a real prospect that Iarnród Éireann will no longer be the only train operator at some time in the not too distant future.

As regards my fourth proposal, I see the light rail project office as providing the nucleus of the body whose function will be to procure major infrastructural projects on a public private partnership basis. The light rail project office will need to be suitably expanded and restructured to take on this enhanced role.

The independent public transport regulatory function would have a number of functions in relation to bus and rail, including: regulation of the bus market, through franchising and licensing as appropriate; allocation of State financial support for public transport services, through public service contracts; and other market regulation responsibilities arising from public private partnerships and EU legislation.

The Cabinet committee will address the future institutional arrangements for transport in Dublin later this year. This review will address public transport, roads and traffic and possibly the interaction of land use and transport. That is why I have spoken about a regulatory function rather than a body. It is possible that in Dublin the regulatory function could be part of the mandate of a body with a wider range of functions. I would welcome the views of Members on this issue.

The paper on bus regulation is the outcome of a review of the 1932 Act, requested by Government last November, with a view to introducing competition in bus transport in the Dublin area. A public consultation process was initiated and 39 written submissions were received. These submissions came from a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Follow-up meetings were held in recent months with key stakeholders to further explore their views. As part of this review, the Department carried out extensive research and visited three European capitals, Helsinki, Stockholm and London, to view at first hand how those cities had tackled the challenge of providing an efficient public transport service and to hear from those involved the lessons to be learned.

There was a strong consensus from both the consultation and study visits on two issues. First, competition resulted in a significant reduction in cost. Second, competition should be used to choose which operator should provide services on a particular route or group of routes. Where several operators have been permitted to compete on individual routes on a fully deregulated basis, bus usage and the reliability of service have declined significantly. This view was generally shared by the people and organisations making submissions to the Department.

While competition can be expected to reduce the cost of providing bus services, I am conscious of the need to increase the quantity of services in Dublin as quickly as possible. This is likely to require a substantial increase in the level of State revenue support for necessary but uneconomic services even if those services are franchised on a competitive basis. No matter what steps are taken, recipients of free travel will continue to have free travel. Any contract or franchise given out will carry that element within it and the cash that goes with it. However, my proposal to award franchises on a contractual basis, specifying the payments to be made for a defined quantity and quality of service, will ensure that the best value for money is obtained.

I am not under any illusions as to the scale of institutional and regulatory changes proposed and the length of time it will take to implement them. These proposals will take a number of years to implement fully. A number of Bills will be necessary in addition to those already being prepared in the areas of railway safety and light rail.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has exceeded the time limit.

Mr. Stagg

She could circulate the rest of her script.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Deputies can read the script. Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for reminding me of the time.

Mr. Yates

I welcome this debate. I have been very critical of the Government for not having a transport policy. In so far as it now has a series of policies relating to bus competition and institutional reform, I very much welcome that. I have exhorted the Minister to move in this direction. Given that she has moved, I support the thrust to modernise public transport and, in that regard, she has my good will. This will be an arduous road needing absolute political determination.

In the nature of things, the Dáil has a political cycle, and we are in the latter half of the lifetime of this Dáil and of this Government. It concerns me that it would be very easy for all this to go off track in many respects. It will require serious dedication and commitment not only from the Minister but the entire Government to make this happen.

My biggest concern relates to the understanding of the gravity of the problem of Dublin traffic gridlock. The inevitability of it getting much worse is utterly predictable. An extra 1,000 cars are being registered every week in Dublin. On average, there are 250,000 commuting journeys per day in the Dublin area, which is set to rise to 450,000 over the next decade. This means that during the morning and evening peaks, from 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., speed will be reduced from an average 14 kph to 8 kph, which is a brisk walking pace. This is certain to happen because of lack of progress over the past three to five years, and it will impact negatively on the growth of Dublin and on the quality of life. It is very frustrating. I attended a meeting this week with IBEC to which they brought their top people from Brussels. I left the meeting seriously dismayed.

There are four aspects to solving this problem. The first is infrastructure, investments and projects; the second is competition; the third is administrative structures; and the fourth is the question of CIE and the semi-State companies.

In regard to the most urgent aspect, increasing capacity, which involves everything from Luas to public transport development, to the eastern relief route, port tunnel and so on, and modernising the whole Dublin area, I am now told that the Community Support Framework Funds have not yet been approved by the Commission and that the plan envisages that annual spending will go from £2.4 billion to £6 billion or £7 billion per year. I am told that most of the projects will not now be in the Official Journal for tender by the end of this year and that, therefore, the whole proposal to front-load the national development plan will not now happen as it has to be appraised by various committees in Brussels and we are well behind schedule. The entire plan is in jeopardy. This relates not just to the Department of Public Enterprise but to the Department of the Environment and Local Government. It is in danger of being pushed beyond 2006 and that it will not happen because we are already so far behind. We had the fudge of the £500 million contingency fund plus public private partnership schemes for the Navan link, the airport link and the Luas tunnel. Where is the PPPS to make that happen? I will come back to that. Since then the Minister has flirted with the Mitsui proposal to go underground from Ranelagh to Blanchardstown; CIE has published an Ove Arup report to go underground to the Spencer Dock; and the Dublin Transportation Office has presented to the Cabinet sub-committee a mega metro underground plan. Every plan we have is superimposed by a new plan that is even bigger than the previous one, but none of the previous plans is being implemented. Not even the 11 quality bus corridors have been completed. I welcome the extra buses and the few extra DART rail cars, but in the lifetime of this Government the only extra thing that will be provided, other than the extra buses, is the two Luas lines with the city centre modification to which the last Government was committed.

Mr. Stagg

There is no sign of that yet.

Mr. Yates

That is the best that can happen. My biggest concern is that this project is not being implemented and delivered on the ground. I just cannot exhort the Minister strongly enough to move fast to establish a separate independent body with the function of procuring major infrastructural projects on a public private partnership basis. If the Minister introduces emergency legislation we will support it. What I heard about the Department in relation to the PPPS unit – and this is not a political point – is that it is the worst of all the Departments, relative to the Department of Finance and the Department of the Environment and Local Government. This is what IBEC found. We cannot have such a body quickly enough to get going and build this.

My biggest concern relates to the projects and project implementation. My first concern about the Government's proposals on bus competition and the paper on institutional reform is the status of these papers. If those proposals were included in a Government White Paper on transport and we knew the Government was committed to introducing legislation in relation to them and could ask about them on the Order of Business, we would have something real on which to proceed. However, my understanding is that these are discussion documents in so far as the Taoiseach has not confirmed that this is Government policy. It is being discussed by a sub-committee of the Cabinet. We need clarification as to the status of these papers before we can tease them out. While they represent progress in the area of institutional reform of bus competition they do not have the endorsement of Government approval and legislative commitment.

I understand the need for a transport forum. The Minister will decry me for being anti-democratic, but I shudder when I think of the taxi forum. The taxi forum was a basis for a lovely cosy consensus.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am not having a taxi forum.

Mr. Yates

I understand that. If this is anything like the taxi forum, it will be a disaster, because in that case everyone went out happy and two years later nothing has been done – we have no more taxi plates now than we had then. Let us not have a forum, or a plan like the viability plan for CIE, that moves at the pace of the slowest snail and is then scrapped. I am for consultation. If the Minister can persuade someone, she should do it, but the forum should not be a basis for kicking everything to touch so that when the Taoiseach is asked about the privatisation of Dublin Bus he can say it is a matter for the forum. The Minister can sell this every which way. She can say great progress is being made, but that the forum is there. Let the forum not be an excuse for lack of progress.

I am not opposed in principle to the privatisation of Dublin Bus. However, the Minister is biting off more than she can chew by proceeding with the privatisation of Dublin Bus at the same time as she is introducing a new regulatory and competitive framework. Competition should come first. That is the most urgent aspect. The structures should be reformed and a proper Dublin transport authority established to implement policy rather than analyse it. Those are the two most important aspects. If the Minister superimposes on that a major industrial relations row about CIE, legislation disbanding CIE, competition and privatisation, she is biting off more than she can chew and she will be ambushed in the industrial relations debate. Competition should come first and privatisation afterwards. The Minister has kindly invited suggestions on the wider range of functions of the Dublin regulatory authority.

Earlier this year Fine Gael published a White Paper on Dublin transport. I have a clear view of what is required to make things happen in the greater Dublin area. A Dublin area transport authority must be established with a 15 member board to which the Minister would nominate eight members and each of the local authorities would nominate one. It would be responsible for the implementation of the project I mentioned earlier and would have CPO powers for bus depots. It would provide park and ride facilities to make QBCs more attractive. It would meet the local authorities, set targets for public transport and be responsible for them.

At present no-one is to blame for traffic gridlock. It is not the fault of the Minister but that of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. It is not Eoin Keegan's fault as there are so many local authorities outside his jurisdiction, it is the fault of CIE. It is not responsible for the subvention. We have operation free flow. We have gone around in circles with 13 different bodies involved. Someone must be the Dublin traffic supremo and be accountable. The same applies to taxis. A proper structure must be set up to licence bus competition. New quality standards must be put in place.

The 1986 legislation was not all bad. The Minister's job should be to set policy and standards and give money to the authority who should then get on with the job. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would divest themselves of their transport functions and give them to that body. There would be a Minister for Transport who would be responsible for it. I am putting my cards face up on the table.

As regards bus competition I note the Department's study. I regret it did not look at the system in Copenhagen which has worked superbly. I favour the implementation of such a system. The HT group which is the equivalent of the Dublin transport authority set up a sub-committee on bus competition. Relating it to our case, it took 100 core Dublin Bus routes and divided them into tranches of five. Each year for five years they put 20% of them out to tender on seven year contracts. Dublin Bus and other operators could compete. If Dublin Bus did not win the contract it could put extra buses on the remaining 80% of the services. There would be a massive increase in bus capacity which is a problem at present. The subvention would have to be doubled from its present £16 million. There would be a level playing pitch as regards complying with standards, regulations and so on. It would be done by way of public service contract. I appreciate the Attorney General's advice but the lack of public service contracts has prevented competition. We have transparency and know that a given route in Finglas or Stillorgan can be costed as to what is economic and viable and how many extra buses would make it non-viable. A subsidy could be applied or it could be tendered out. New feeder and radial routes could be put in place. There would be standards and an inspectorate. This has been done in Copenhagen which, with its population of 1.7 million, is not dissimilar to Dublin.

These problems have been resolved elsewhere. I agree with the Minister the experience is that the cost of the service decreases and its quality and reliability improves. As the contracts are for seven years there is secure employment for everyone concerned. This is not intended to get at anyone, it is focusing on delivery. Have I much more time?

An Ceann Comhairle

One minute.

Mrs. O'Rourke

How much time has every speaker?

An Ceann Comhairle

There are 15 minutes for the main speakers.

Mr. Yates

Operation freeflow should operate throughout the year. Something needs to be done urgently as regards park and ride facilities. The DTO should be given responsibility to provide such facilities adjacent to QBCs. Perhaps it could be provided for in next year's budget that if someone purchases a travel card, be it a rail card, an integrated ticket, Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann card, for £500 per year they would get a tax credit. We need imaginative schemes to encourage people to use public transport and leave their cars at home.

I wish the Minister a fair wind with this. I believe it will be another Minister who will make it happen but in so far as we can accelerate this I have goodwill towards it. However, I warn the Minister that there is slippage on the national development plan and there is much uncertainty about the public transport project delivery that requires urgent attention.

An Ceann Comhairle

To clarify the position, the opening statements by the Minister and spokespersons are confined to 15 minutes. Other speakers have ten minutes. The debate will conclude at 12.53 p.m. and the Minister will have ten minutes to reply prior to that.

Mr. Stagg

I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter. This is not the first series of statements on public transport that this House has heard during this Minister's term of office. The last time we addressed these issues substantively, if I recall correctly, was last November. The sad fact is that we will probably have many more statements before we get clarity or an idea from the Minister as to what she intends for public transport.

The Government has been in office for three years, three wasted years. We got 50 buses, a few carriages and a train.

Mrs. O'Rourke

One hundred and fifty.

Mr. Stagg

We have not seen them yet.

Mrs. O'Rourke

They are there.

Mr. Stagg

At a time when unprecedented resources are at the Government's disposal, it has shown neither the energy nor the political will to undo the historical and damaging underfunding of our public transport system. It is in vogue now.

When the Government is eventually removed from office, its failure to radically address the crisis in public transport, not just in Dublin although the problem there is particularly acute, will be one of the reasons. It is time to return to the basics that the Government appears to have forgotten. People work for many reasons. Some enjoy it, some revel in it but most people work because it enables them to do other things like raising families or enjoying active social lives. They do not enjoy spending up to an additional five hours a week commuting to and from work. As one commentator put it recently, it is the equivalent of working on a Saturday morning and they are not particularly enamoured of a Government that cares so little about their plight. They know that there is no real solution to Dublin's traffic problem based on the motor car. Perhaps some of them think it is critical for other people to use public transport but not them. However, they know that traffic congestion is costing much money. Indeed in a society where the needs of the economy are valued more significantly than the needs of people, we hear this argument a lot.

However, as I have stated on other occasions, it is only one side of the coin. In a more rounded society we would be hearing as much and more about the implications of traffic congestion for our environment and health. Maeve Ann Wren is to be congratulated on putting the case so cogently in her recent series of articles in The Irish Times. Nobody should be arguing the case more for public transport than the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Our commitments at Kyoto to marginally increase our CO2 emissions by 2010 stands, like many of our international commitments, in tatters. The Minister's abatement strategy has yet to see the light of day but it is difficult to see how he could envisage any realistic attempt to meet targets that do not involve a reduction in our dependence on the motor car. I read during the week that the regime to be introduced post-Kyoto will be far more punishing and vigorous. The sad reality is that Ireland is already gearing itself up to miss those targets too.

On the health side, families are dealing with its effects on a daily basis. The increase in respiratory illnesses, particularly among our young, is well documented and needs no further elaboration. Suffice to say that it cannot be allowed continue. The case for public transport is well established and is unarguable. That it has merited no substantive response from the Government beggars belief. The reality is that this is a Government unprepared to take the tough decisions necessary to resolve this issue.

The Minister spoke about the national development plan. As far as public transport goes, there is no radical plan. For instance, there are no new rail lines of any substance. The Government made a virtue of its commitment to the BMW region but has singularly failed to provide it with a rail link, not just to Dublin, but inside its own borders. Donegal, like Britain of old, remains in splendid isolation.

The £1.5 billion figure allocated begrudgingly by the Minister for Finance to the Minister for Public Enterprise for Dublin is but a drop in the ocean, given the level of investment required. To invest, a plan is needed but the Government has failed to produce a spatial plan for the country as a whole and has also ducked the issue for Dublin. Mr. Frank McDonald may feel he has an idea of what is being discussed by the Government in these regularly reported half daily sessions, but Dubliners have long given up hope that this Government will provide their city with a modern and efficient rail-based system. The underground-overground debate about the Luas, for instance, has long since given way to an overwhelming "up in the air and going nowhere" sentiment that abounds among the public.

The final nail in the coffin of the grand public transport vision for Dublin is that the Taoiseach is now becoming personally involved in the deliberations of the Cabinet sub-committee. As the Taoiseach is not known for making and taking decisions, I fear this issue, which affects the quality of life of all Dubliners, will take a back seat to more important projects such as building Stadium Ireland in Abbotstown.

I have spent some time addressing matters the Government has failed to do, but I would like to turn now to things the Government has done. A decision was made some months ago to increase fares on Dublin Bus. The mind-boggling stupidity of this decision is hard to fathom. Public policy should have one focus – getting people onto public transport. No impediment should be allowed in the pursuit of that policy which is critical to Dublin's well being. If new rolling stock in required it should be purchased immediately, not as part of a national development plan – the implementation of which is already behind schedule – to which it has little relevance. The idea that the Minister would increase fares in the current circumstances is sheer lunacy.

The Minister is in thrall to a group of people who believe the only thing wrong with public transport in Dublin is its structure. The same people, few if any of whom probably use public transport, believe the system is merely inefficient, not underfunded. The same people's unquestioning belief in their own economic models has caused them to forget one simple fact of life they should have learnt as children. At its most basic, that lesson is that one does not get silk purses from sows' ears. Or, alternatively, "what you put in, you get out". These two concepts are readily understandable to children but are seemingly beyond the comprehension of many of our well remunerated so-called economists. The reality of the matter is that we put in very little. No other public transport system in Europe receives as little State support. The begrudging intervention for Dublin Bus is without comparison in Europe in terms of its meanness. Is the concept that "you get what you pay for" too difficult for some people to understand?

Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann could probably be made more efficient. However, if people seriously believe addressing that issue, or the introduction of competition on certain routes – a move my party supports – will solve an historic funding deficit, they are dafter than I thought. It is always useful to have whipping boys to blame for one's own faults, but in this case it cuts no ice. This should be a debate about volumes not structures.

The Minister and her acolytes' view of public transport remains locked into the 1980s, an era in which we were unable to afford to properly subvent our public transport system. We pressurised all our State companies to rely on ever smaller investment and to break even in a fashion that not one single public transport company in Europe was asked to do. The real surprise is not that the service does not measure up to that available in other European cities, but that the State companies were able to operate under such conditions.

If the truth were told, it would be admitted that the need for subvention in a low density city like Dublin is even greater that in higher density cities. Rather than address this issue by substantially increasing funding for public transport, including Dublin Bus, the Minister has chosen to take another route. Instead of investment we are being asked to buy into further structural reforms. We and the workers at these companies are being asked to buy into the mantra of privatisation as a real option by a Minister from whom the public, rightly or wrongly, would not buy a used car. Make no mistake about it, there will be no IPO for Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann.

In effect, the Minister's response to Dublin's transport crisis is to change a public monopoly – Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann – into private and, most probably, foreign monopolies. Competition will take time. I note that the main Opposition Party also supports that position. The participation of my party in any Government with either of the main parties in the House will ensure that type of policy will not be tolerated or accepted. It will not be implemented if we are in office.

The Minister is deluding herself and makes great play of the fact that she has no political advisers, but I have never come across a Minister who needs them more. This plan for public transport is a fraud on the people of Ireland and, in particular, on those in Dublin. It is no substitute for real investment in a service that the capital city requires and that, for the first time in the history of our nation, we can afford.

The Government has effectively abandoned any rail-based solution to Dublin's traffic problems. Any system that emerges from that decision will be the property of future generations and that is why investment in our bus companies is so important. Whether we like it or not they will continue to do the lion's share of public transport work in the capital. That is why the recent proposals published by the Government are so dangerous. At best they represent an utter and total distraction from the real job of work at hand. They portray a Minister with no comprehension of, and certainly no sense of urgency about, the real task. They portray a Government in the hands of right-wing ideologues who view our public transport system as a guinea-pig on which to test out their latest theories.

The losers will be the public and the Minister. If an example of privatisation of public transport is needed one need go no further than our nearest neighbour, Britain, where the effects can be seen. The day of reckoning will come for this Government which has failed on three major fronts – public transport is in a mess, housing policy is also in a mess, and people continue to die while waiting for basic health care. That is an unacceptable scandal. The Progressive Democrats may be able to live with this but God help members of Fianna Fáil when the public meet them on the doorsteps at election time.

Mr. McGuinness

I support the Minister in what she has outlined in her statement on public transport policy. Having listened to contributions from the Opposition benches, it is almost as if they were locked in a time-warp. While I listened carefully I did not hear anything innovative from them. The Fine Gael representatives said they were willing to go along with the Minister, but they also said she is doing nothing about transport. Deputy Stagg spoke about the past, non-co-operation and public-private partnerships, but he does not understand what is going on. I also listened to many statements about Dublin's transport system, as if there were no problems in other parts of the country. While I admit that it is a modern, dynamic and vibrant capital city, Dublin's public transport service does not live up to that image. The Minister's proposals for future transport policy do measure up to that image, but they will not be achieved overnight.

Past Governments, comprising many other political parties, were confronted with the same problem but sat on their hands and did nothing. They did not even consult people or discuss the matter. I do not know how Opposition speakers can live in the past as if the problems are associated only with Dublin. There are transport problems in the regions also, including towns and cities far from the capital. The national development plan clearly spells out how much money will be invested for specific operations in each region. Contrary to what has been said in the debate, private companies – J. J. Kavanagh and Sons of Urlingford, in my constituency, is but one – are delivering a national service of exceptionally good quality. Those companies are responding to the marketplace, understanding their market, driven by an ambition to be com panies of excellence in the field of operational transport and successful nationally. If private companies could do that, why could the main operators in the field during those years not have achieved the same level of operation? I can only assume that because we pumped so much money into them, they did not bother.

I would encourage the Government to ensure that what it intends to do in the regions is done on the basis of a public private partnership. The companies operating successfully should be given the opportunity to lock into Government policy and perhaps access some of the existing funds to extend their own operations and deliver the service. If that service is delivered on the bus routes throughout the country, there will be fewer cars clogging up the centre of Dublin.

It would be interesting to know the number of rural TDs who can take a bus or a train to Dublin, do their business during the week and go home at their leisure using that transport. I cannot do that because the buses and trains leave at irregular times – I am talking about Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann – and I cannot get home at the right time. Those companies are not responding to the market. If I went by private transport I could almost do it, so who is responding to the market first? It is the private operator. If we want to take cars out of Dublin we should do it by way of public private partnership. The bus routes and the companies are there. I am asking the Minister and the Government to reach out, in the context of investment, and assist those companies to grow and develop. Let us make use of the success stories like J. J. Kavanagh and Sons of Urlingford.

In relation to Iarnród Éireann, a number of pathetic statements and investments have been made in terms of the national development plan for the regions. I will not accept that Kilkenny city should not have a commuter service. Twelve months ago I asked the officials of Iarnród Éireann, at a meeting of the Oireachtas committee on European affairs, when that service would be delivered to Kilkenny and they told me "shortly". That was 12 months ago. In my book "shortly" is a week or two weeks. It is immediately. The market is demanding that it should happen, but it has not happened. Someone should light a fire under the executives of that company to ensure they deliver the service to the regions in a far more speedy fashion than they have done up to now. Doing that would reduce the number of cars travelling in and out of the capital city.

In terms of the Government's policy on decentralisation, I understand more than 92 applications have been made. As soon as that decentralised "train" begins to move out of the offices in Dublin, there will be further demand on public transport in the regional cities and towns. The Minister will appreciate my saying that, in spite of the recent argument with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Kilkenny is a city and it should be included among the major cities in this region for development. Various Government statements refer to growth centres and cities but they exclude Kilkenny. When I was elected to this House I said that Kilkenny and Carlow were like Brigadoon – they came at election time and vanished soon after. I would like to think my tenure in this House will ensure that they stay long after election time. I ask the Government to recognise the fact that Kilkenny is a city which deserves investment and a better rail and bus service. We have a decentralised Government office and I have no doubt we would have far greater success in terms of developing our decentralised status if there was a better service in and out of the city.

The towns along the routes into Kilkenny and the stations there need further investment. Kilkenny Corporation designated the Kilkenny station as part of the integrated action plan. Part of that station is now to be sold and developed. I welcome that, as a member of the sub-group of Kilkenny Corporation. Will the Minister speed up that development so that as well as a commuter service we will have a modern bus and rail station and that the other rail stations in the region – I am not being totally parochial – will be modernised? We should encourage the general population to use the public transport system with confidence because it works. It works in many countries around the world and all we have to do is examine those models and adapt them to this country. For a rail system to operate, this must be the best and easiest model to put in place.

We have consulted on this matter, and there is no better Minister to listen and take on board the views of people, particularly those from rural Ireland, and deal with them efficiently and properly. In the context of the national plan, I would ask that places like Kilkenny and Carlow should not be forgotten and that the services be brought up to date as quickly as possible because demand will follow the announcement on decentralisation.

I refer to the quality of the carriages currently in use. Anyone responding to the marketplace would constantly upgrade the type of carriage in operation. They would be aware of the standard they wished to achieve. We all talk about the 9002 quality standard and listening to the customers, but I do not believe they listen to their customers. The train from Kilkenny to Dublin is full on a regular basis. The carriages are ancient and uncomfortable. The service offered is certainly friendly but the quality of the service is not what it should be. I did not think we would have to ask the Minister to ensure upgrading of carriages. I would have thought the company would respond on a regular basis. Surely it is not so inexperienced as a company operator that it has to constantly come back to the Minister. Surely it has its own plan of action. It should respond to what is happening in the marketplace just as the private operators respond to it, but does not. That is the reason we continue to debate the issue in this House.

I wish the Minister well with the plan but I ask her to take into consideration the successful private operators in rural Ireland who are making things happen.

Ms O. Mitchell

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the documents submitted recently to the Cabinet on infrastructure and development but I cannot help coming to the view that if statements and comment were to be of any real benefit, we would have the best, most modern and comprehensive transport system in the world. In the past three years, no topic has been more talked about and reported upon. We have had committees, sub-committees, quangos, reviews, consultants and consultants to consultants, and now we are to have a transport forum. The output at the end of all of that, in terms of concrete decisions or real action on any of the projects, has been zero – a few buses and a few rail carriages.

I want to reiterate what my colleague, Deputy Yates, said about the slippage on all projects as well as the failure to make firm decisions on future projects. We have been loaded down with plans. We have had proposal after proposal from various groups and yet no concrete decisions have been made. Every week in the papers we read about a new transport plan. Frank McDonald in The Irish Times was beside himself with excitement publishing maps of trains going hither and thither. However, it was all just a puff of smoke as not a single part of the plan was adopted.

Three years ago Fine Gael published a traffic document entitled "Capital Crisis", in which we identified the two priority issues as the need for an integrating regulatory body for Dublin transport and the importance of bus competition in the short and long term. I rejoice in the fact, now that the first Government documents on public transport have been published, that maybe somebody in the Government was listening to us. I emphasise, however, the status of those documents. They are reports which outline options for future decisions, although they were reported in the media as if the decisions had been made and all we had to do was wait for the trains and buses to start rolling any day now.

The Minister has invited comment. I want to comment on the document on institutional framework recommendations. First, while I recognise the need for a national regulatory authority, the first priority should be the Dublin region. Second, it should not be answerable to the Department of Public Enterprise, which has been the dead hand on transport and has left us in this mess. That is no reflection on the Minister, her predecessors or the many good people in the Department but it is an historic fact. If the promised privatisation of buses, trains and so on takes place, what will be left that is public and why should it come under the Department of Public Enterprise?

The major flaw in this proposal is that it fails to take the opportunity to amalgamate all the traffic functions, which flows from the previous point. The last thing Dublin needs is another body dealing with transport. It has been bedevilled by a plethora of agencies dealing with the various aspects of traffic, roads, transport and so on. Any solution must immediately address that inbuilt inefficiency.

Any successful urban transport system in Europe is based on the city or the region. We should adopt a similar approach to Dublin transport, based on the local authorities which make up the greater Dublin area, and which are accountable to the people of Dublin in a way which the structure the Minister is talking about could never be. The root of the inertia problem that has bedevilled public transport has been the dispersal of responsibility over a variety of agencies. We need a single autonomous body with statutory powers, which would embrace the structures and functions of the DTO, the director of traffic, the traffic management, roads and land use functions of the region's local authorities and the enforcement functions of the Garda, as well as the new regulatory functions for bus competition and the procurement function for transport infrastructure, including public-private partnerships. If we are to really move to a new era of worthwhile change in public transport, a body which can plan, procure, regulate, co-ordinate, enforce and, most important, implement is absolutely critical for Dublin.

Every agency, public or private, which deals with any aspect of life in Dublin is less efficient today because of the failure of the Department of Public Enterprise to provide public transport, and its failure in the past to let anybody else do it either. It is not just the local authorities that are suffering but all bodies, such as the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the business associations, Dublin Port and Dublin Tourism. All these bodies spend inordinate amounts of time trying, and totally failing, to cope with the fall-out of the failure of the public transport system. If this new Dublin transport body is to come under the remit of any Department, it should come under the remit of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The functions of that body, such as environmental concerns, roads and, in particular, land use, have far more to do with the Department of the Environment and Local Government than with the Department of Public Enterprise. Transport has always been inextricably linked with land use and it should be placed firmly in that area.

I want to make some comments on the document on bus competition. I am delighted the Government now accepts the inevitability and desirability of competition as the way to increase capacity and to ensure a responsive, frequent and high quality service to the customer, which is the aim of any public transport service. We need to attract people to public transport rather than forcing them out of their cars. I have no problem with the broad principles and objectives outlined in the document. However, when it comes to how these objectives are to be achieved and over what time period, the document is timid, cautious and unambitious in the extreme. Unfortunately, the traffic situation in Dublin is too urgent and critical to take this tentative approach.

The recommended mode and timetable for the move to competitive tendering might have been devised by the CIE unions. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the only real players in terms of future competition will be Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, with a supporting role played by smaller private operators, whose role seems to be largely one of subcontractors to the main players. There is no reason to assume companies will not emerge that can compete with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. There seems to be a fear that opening up the system to competition too quickly will result in chaos and disgruntled unions, and that CIE companies must be nursed into the market to ensure their survival. I suspect this is an underestimation of CIE workers and management, who, I believe, are far readier for change than anyone gives them credit for. The lack of clarity about their future has, until now, been a debilitating cancer throughout every level of the organisation. What is required now is honesty and openness with them, rather than false promises of slow and tentative change that might never happen.

There is no reason that the competitive tendering competition must wait until Dublin Bus is privatised. That is an excuse to long finger any real progress towards competition. Even with the best will in the world, as my colleague said, this could take years and would be an excuse to do nothing. We need a radical and brave move. I welcome the acceptance in the document that there really are no legislative barriers to allowing private operators into the market. I hope that move takes place as quickly as possible.

There is no need for me to restate the projections for travel growth in Dublin or to describe again what it is doing to the quality of life in Dublin, in terms of the stress levels of people who have to live here, business costs, our environment, our children, our air quality and our economy.

I know the response required from the Government is enormous and that many difficult decisions need to be made. However, Governments are elected to make decisions and the Minister can no longer continue to dance around the problem. At some point, the debate must end, the consultants must be sent home and the hard decisions must be made. The Minister can set up a transport forum if she wants but she must not use it as an excuse for inaction. It cannot be a decision making body and it cannot have a veto. For too long, we have had experts and interest groups making decisions, or failing to allow anybody else make decisions. The people of Dublin are begging for leadership on the issue of transport above all others. If I can offer some consolation to the Minister in the difficult time she has ahead of her, it is that the only bad decision she can make now is to make no decision.

Mr. Haughey

The planning and development of the greater Dublin area is now at a critical stage. Rapid economic growth and an increase in population have resulted in a shortage of houses and an escalating housing market. Various estimates have been made of the future population of the greater Dublin area, with one forecast predicting a population of 1.93 million by 2011. It is obvious, therefore, that we need to plan for this. A radical change in planning policy is now being implemented. The urban environment as we know it is completely changing and I am not sure this is widely recognised.

Central to the new policy is the introduction of higher residential densities and the development of a more comprehensive and efficient public transport system. These objectives are set out in the strategic planning guidelines and the residential density guidelines issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. A development framework for the region covering transport, housing and economic development is now in place.

I have some concerns about this new policy, particularly the higher density provisions. These are affecting existing amenities and the quality of the environment. Standards of design are questionable. In some areas, lovely old houses in traditional suburbs are being knocked down to make way for poor quality, high density apartment blocks, thus drastically altering the character of the locality. The planning authorities must give more careful consideration to planning applications like this in the selected areas to which I referred.

I recognise the reality of public transport which confronts us as public representatives. Urban sprawl and the consequent traffic congestion cannot be allowed to continue. This congestion is an everyday occurrence in Counties Wicklow, Kildare, Meath and Dublin. The Minister recognised there has been a lack of investment in public transport by successive Governments. In effect, we have only tinkered with the problem. As other speakers said, the public is now demanding a high quality public transport system. They want it revitalised and transformed. It is obvious that what is needed is an integrated package of measures, covering bus, rail and light rail transport as well as traffic management.

In the longer term, the further development of the rail network is required. I congratulate the Minister for grasping this nettle once and for all. The National Development Plan 2000-2006 is the blueprint. It calls for balanced regional development but also makes provision for a substantial investment in public transport as part of a comprehensive strategy. Regarding the greater Dublin area, the plan provides for the implementation of the light rail network and major short-term investment in suburban rail, including the phased purchase of 46 additional DART cars and 58 diesel rail cars, the upgrading of the Greystones to Arklow line, the linking of Heuston and Con nolly stations to permit the Kildare Arrow service to run through to Connolly, the quadrupling of track between Hazelhatch and Sallins to separate long distance and suburban services, new stations at Intel, Lucan, north and south, and Ashington, and the signalling of Howth to Barrow Street.

The plan provides for a substantial enhancement and expansion of the bus service. There are provisions for the implementation of traffic management measures, including measures to respond to the needs of mobility-impaired and disabled people and additional cycling facilities. There is also a substantial contingency provision to meet the cost of implementing the recommendations of the strategic rail study and the underground section of Luas. According to the plan, the strategic rail study was completed by the end of 1999 and examines a range of options for the long-term development of the suburban rail network. A public private partnership approach to the implementation of light rail and rail projects will be used where appropriate. The investment programme will be complemented by a demand management strategy which will be developed by the Dublin Transportation Office during 2000 and implemented thereafter. This is set out clearly in pages 13 and 14 of the summary of the national development plan.

Chronic traffic congestion means that motorists are forced to consider abandoning their cars in an attempt to get to work. Nevertheless, car owners in this city realised the alternative was hopeless. They discovered that the much discussed park and ride facilities were almost non-existent. They also discovered there were too few buses on the quality bus corridors. The QBC experience deserves to be examined further. The planning and introduction of these caused much controversy and many people were affected. Consultation was endless, which I know as a public representative. Businesses and households were inconvenienced. Eventually they were built, the road space was reduced and the inevitable massive traffic jams ensued. Journey times for motorists increased substantially. As they sat in traffic jams, they became even more frustrated as they observed the empty bus lanes. When they finally decided to take the bus instead, they found an unreliable, poor quality, infrequent bus service despite all the promises made.

The QBC experience has almost irredeemably damaged motorists' view of public transport. The lesson is clear – a much enhanced bus network is required. That is why the deliberations of the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructural Development and Public Private Partnerships are so important. These provide for a new institutional framework for public transport and for limited competition on route franchising in the greater Dublin area bus market. I am glad the proposals of the committee come out against deregulation of the bus service. By any criteria, these are radical proposals and if they are successful, the Minister will have secured her place in history.

The Minister wants a review of the Road Transport Act, 1932, and increased competition generally. Public private partnerships will also be used. I urge her to press ahead with her programme, but, as she said, in full consultation with CIE, PAMBO and the trade unions, under the provisions set out in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. I welcome the fact that the public transport partnership forum will meet later this month to begin that process. The Minister has made radical proposals, involving the setting up of a public transport regulatory body. Massive changes are proposed for Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann and private bus operators. It is proposed to establish a railway infrastructure company, a railway operating company and an infrastructure procurement body. These are all big changes which are necessary. I wish the Minister every success in her endeavours.

A regulatory body for the Dublin area is being considered. We need a separate regulatory body. There has been criticism that there are too many organisations and vested interests looking after traffic and transportation in the Dublin area. I would welcome a separate regulatory body. On the institutional side, the time has come to consider a Minister with sole responsibility for transport issues. The previous speaker, Deputy Mitchell, also highlighted this issue. Transport is such a serious and comprehensive matter that consideration should be given to having a Minister with sole responsibility for transport.

A light rail line is proposed from Dublin Airport and there are private buses operating on the route. However, it is unbelievable that in this day and age the airport is still not satisfactorily serviced by public transport. I would welcome any new provisions in relation to a metro system for the Dublin area. I call on the Minister to implement in total the report on rail safety and, to be parochial, particularly in relation to the DART service, though also in relation to the rail network throughout the country. I congratulate the Minister and wish her every success with her programme.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): The Government does not have a transport policy; it has proposals for privatisation. That is not a policy but a substitute for policy and is in line with the general trend of Government opinion on the State and semi-State sectors as well as on the public services. Unfortunately, the people of Ireland, and those of Dublin in particular, who are suffering acutely from the lack of public transport investment over many decades, can have no confidence in this Government providing any real relief.

Privatisation may well satisfy those who make large political donations to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats, but it is not a policy to provide frequent, efficient and cheap public transport for those who need it for work and other reasons. The Government now proposes to privatise sections of Dublin Bus and there can be no question that privatising all of Dublin Bus is the agenda. It will then see what it can do with Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann. However, the Eircom debacle should be a warning to ordinary people about what can be expected from a privatisation programme. We had an incredibly cynical circus for months leading up to that privatisation trying to induce ordinary people to become involved in purchasing shares as this critical State company was to be sold off. Once people contributed and became enmeshed in the Government's privatisation programme they were thrown to the wolves as operators from the stock exchanges and financial markets came into play.

Privatisation may be a route for some people to become super rich and we have had obscene examples of private individuals being given valuable State assets in the form of telecommunications licences or being handed the companies themselves and who are or have become millionaires tens or even hundreds of times over. That is the cynical approach of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in Government and it does not augur well for providing a proper transport policy.

For generations Dublin Bus relied on the disgracefully low wage regime of the bus workers to subsidise its operation in an absolutely incredible situation; even the Minister had to acknowledge the low wage regime in Dublin Bus. However, successive Governments, including the current Administration and its predecessor, stood aside and allowed inadequate subsidies to prevail so that low pay and the forbearance of Dublin Bus workers were keeping the service on the road. At the end of the day, the patience of the workers naturally snapped and, quite correctly, they demanded their rights. The wrongs to which they were subjected have begun to be redressed, though there is still some way to go. The Dublin Bus subsidy was wholly inadequate and when trying to defend it the Minister has used the low point the subsidy reached in the late 1980s or early 1990s, stating the Government has increased the subsidy from that figure. However, we should look at a 20-year period, as that shows it has gone down. In comparison with Europe and even the United States, the bastion of capitalism, the subsidy for the public transport system in the capital city was pathetically inadequate. Instead of coming up with sufficient investment and a plan to provide a proper public transport system we have privatisation

The thrust of successive Governments over many decades has been to pour money in massive quantities into road developments. It would be true to say that since the foundation of the State not a single kilometre of new rail track has been laid down. That is an indictment of successive Governments and their attitude to public transport. We have a national development plan promising more than £40 billion in five to seven years, yet we do not have proposals for new areas of public transport. We do not, for example, have a proposal to reinstate the railway line between Galway and Sligo and to extend it up into Donegal. That would be a critical infrastructural development in a national plan of this nature to have proper transport and to solve the environmental crisis we are in due to emissions from road transport. However, there are no proposals in this regard.

The burgeoning community of greater Blanchardstown in Dublin 15 is at the end of its tether regarding the provision of public transport. There are 70,000 people living there and according to the old plan this figure was set to rise to 100,000, though the latest development plan adopted by Fingal County Council suggests that the population will soon be 120,000. The area is served by 24 trains daily, 17 on Saturday and none on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The Minister has committed some funds to this area, but implementation of the investment is painfully slow. There is also appalling overcrowding on trains coming from Maynooth through Clonsilla and Blanchardstown to the city centre and in the opposite direction. Areas that are growing rapidly need specialised investment. We need a DART standard service for Dublin 15 and major investment in the bus routes. I am wholly in favour of bus lanes – we must change people from private to public transport by providing a better service – but if one gets a bus in Dublin 15 at 7.30 a.m., the inadequate bus lanes mean one gets to the city centre at the same time as a private car. While we have that situation we will not convince people to leave their cars at home and to take the bus. We need urgent investment and action in this area.

Excuse me if I am cynical about public-private partnerships. The West Link toll bridge in my constituency is an example. In that case a private company has been given permission to build a new bridge across the Liffey valley. In less than one year, with traffic at the expected peak, it will clear the capital cost of that co-called enterprise and for the next 20 years it will generate profit for a private firm whose only contribution to transport in Dublin is to create a massive obstacle on the M50. This morning the traffic was backed up from the toll bridge not only to the Navan Road but further towards Finglas. This is simply to cream off funds for a private firm. If this is to be the pattern of public private partnerships, people will wait in vain for a decent transport system.

Cecilia Keaveney

I wish to share my time with Deputy Sargent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Cecilia Keaveney

I congratulate the Minister on her transport policy and on her tremendous work in office. We have listened to many contributors who were in a position to do something different but they did not. I am seeking to bring balance to this debate because Members appear to think that transport begins and ends in Dublin. It should be pointed out that there is a large area outside Dublin.

That is not to detract from the fact that Dublin needs help and a policy focused on Dublin. I left Leinster House before rush hour last Thursday. Usually I wait until after rush hour but by now I am not sure exactly when it is. It took me an hour to get from Leinster House to Finglas. From my point of view that was a bad delay although many others would say it was not. The bus corridors are helpful but the sheer volume of traffic is huge. The number of cars, an indication of the burgeoning economy being overseen by the Government, is leading to problems but the Minister is well on the way to controlling them.

There is life outside Dublin. I continued my journey last Thursday and it took me five and a half hours to get home. It is unfair that an Ulster Deputy should not have the same facilities as Deputies from Leinster, Munster and Connacht. It is also unfair that my constituents do not have the same facilities as their constituents. They have a right to decent road, rail and air access. In that regard, I thank the Minister for the level of interest she has shown in creating the Dublin-Derry air link. It is most important. People tend to forget that Derry is the fourth largest city in the country. It should have a link to the largest city. It is the least that should happen given that Belfast is linked with Cork. I am happy Aer Arann has announced that it will commence the Derry-Dublin air link from 12 June. It is up to us to make it work but I urge the Minister to keep her finger on the pulse in relation to the PSO for that service. It is badly needed and will be useful.

However, it is just one part of a three part development. We also need road and rail links. Now that the Executive is re-established, I urge the Minister to work on the Derry to Dublin direct train service. An existing line from Belfast to Derry could be upgraded and alternative routes could be pursued. I do not exclude the concept of Sligo being linked to Donegal and on to Derry. We, too, live on the island and we deserve this type of service. There is support in Europe for this type of development and the Minister is also sympathetic to ensuring that County Donegal is brought more in touch in real terms with the hub of Dublin.

I also ask the Minister to put pressure on the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive to upgrade the A5 road. I am aware it is within the remit of the Department of the Environment and Local Government but buses and cars travel this road which links the fourth largest city with the capital. The rural transport policy will get support under the national development plan. It is vital for rural areas that this policy is improved. In many areas of my constituency the free bus pass is of little use to people because there are no buses or bus routes. I am aware that the Minister has a particular interest in this issue. It is open for development and development is not impossible. There should be support for upgrading and pro viding buses. There is a large project in relation to Dublin Bus but it should expand beyond that.

At present, one can benefit from student fares when one is under 16 years of age and over 18 years. What happens to the 16 to 18 year olds? They seem to fall between the two stools and I hope the Minister will address that problem.

Donegal is seeking decentralisation. The county has many merits to attract people. It is a relatively undiscovered gem and decentralisation would assist in resolving Dublin's transport problems. Transport policy must have relevance to and an impact on all areas of the country. All support devoted to areas outside Dublin will also assist Dublin because it will ease pressure in the city. I trust the national development plan and the Objective One status of Donegal will do that.

Mr. Sargent

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Keaveney agus leis an Rialtas as a gcuid ama a roinnt chomh maith. Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht ar chúrsaí taistil phoiblí anseo inniu. The Minister said that neither she nor her Department claims to have all the answers and that they would welcome suggestions. I hope my contribution will be taken in that spirit.

Until now there have been different analyses from the left and right perspectives with regard to public or private management of transport. The Green Party favours public control of public transport but it also supports competition within a public regulatory framework. I hope that will happen. The Minister also said that resources are not unlimited and that she will look to private public partnerships as a means of providing some of the funding as well as bringing in specialist skills and innovation. The Minister has had either limited advice or limited foresight in relation to demand for public transport. The Dublin Transportation Office has warned that investment in transport in the capital – I accept Deputy Keaveney's point that Dublin is not the rest of the country – will have to be five times what is planned. In other words, it will require not £1.5 billion but up to £10 billion to meet projected need.

A sum of £6 billion is earmarked in the national development plan for roads while £2 billion is set aside for public transport. We must look at where public transport fits within the priority list of needs in the country. If £1.5 billion is to go to public transport in Dublin, £500 million will be left. Approximately £600 million will be required for remedial safety work. In effect, the rest of the country will simply be subject to remedial work rather than improvements, unless there is other funding that has not so far been mentioned.

Additional railway lines have not been built since Independence. However, many lines have been ripped up and used as spare parts. As a result, our railway lines are badly maintained compared with those in the rest of Europe. This country, therefore, is starting from a low base and we must be conscious of that. One must also bear in mind the growing trends which in the case of the UK were outlined in a BBC television programme – the Minister might tell us if there are comparative Irish figures – in relation to the average distance the citizen travels each year and how that is increasing. In the UK in 1950, the average distance travelled by a citizen was five miles per day. This year the average distance has increased to 30 miles per day and in 2020 it will be 60 miles per day. There is a hyper mobility trend on which the Government has no policy and the Minister should address this aspect rather than following the trend. She should ensure there is a reduction in demand rather than continuing to cater for the rising demand.

There has been no policy decision on the park and ride facility. Who is responsible for providing this service? Iarnród Éireann says it is the local authority's responsibility and the local authority says it is the responsibility of Iarnród Éireann. Meanwhile the customer and commuter is blocking up emergency services and streets in small towns where people literally drop cars, go to work and hope for the best.

A customer charter is needed to deal with the basic rights of customers, such as bus shelters, notice of timetables, punctuality and explanations in the event of their not being forthcoming. There is a lot of talk about public transport but I cannot improve on the Chinese proverb in relation to delivering this service which states that if one is not going to lay an egg, one should not make a sound like a chicken. In terms of public transport, there have been an awful lot of sounds like chickens.

Mr. Coveney

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ulick Burke.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Coveney

I wish to comment on the transport requirements for Ireland's second largest city, Cork, because the majority of speakers have concentrated on the Dublin area. The transport and traffic problems in Dublin are widespread and need radical action. I agree with some of the measures being taken by the Minister. However, the concentration on the capital's needs has resulted in other urban centres throughout the country being neglected.

From a physical infrastructural point of view, Cork has developed well in the past 20 years with the implementation of the LUTS study. However, the public transport side of LUTS has not developed. Various studies have been done on investment requirements and traffic plans for Cork city and surrounding areas. The one that carries most weight was commissioned by the Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport last year. It is entitled Public Transport Investment Priorities for the Millennium. A number of Cork Deputies, in consultation with managers from Cork Corporation and Cork County Council, together with representatives from CIE, Bus Éireann and the local traffic gardaí, put a huge amount of work into providing information for this document. If even the majority of what is being proposed in this document were implemented, Cork would become a model for cities seeking solutions to public transport problems.

Suburban rail has huge possibilities in Cork city. The present rail lines need to be extended and improved. If given an efficient rail service, the public have shown an increasing willingness to use it. The passenger numbers, for example, on the Cork to Cobh line have doubled in the past eight years. Surely this suggests we should extend the service to other areas on the north side of the city as the rail lines already exist. The report proposes the creation of new urban stations on the lines from Cork to Cobh and Mallow to Cork and on the new extension from Cork to Midleton. As local authorities in Cork desperately seek suitable nodes for housing development around the city, by providing a commuter rail service now we are anticipating public transport problems before they arise. This is called spatial planning and should be happening when we can afford to do so and before the population builds up. On the wider rail issue, the main links between centres of population need drastic improvement. People should be able to travel from Cork to Dublin in close to 90 minutes. This is planned in the national development plan but I would like to see it implemented sooner rather than later. Other European countries have rail systems that travel at the speeds required in this era.

The bus fleet in Cork at present comprises 63 buses. A conservative estimate of what is needed is an increase in fleet size by one quarter. I welcome the new buses that have been provided and the further additions promised. I particularly welcome the fact that they are all wheelchair accessible. We laboured that point with the Minister and I thank her for taking note of it. However, I regret that the new additions are merely replacing old buses that have been put out to grass, some of which were 15 and 16 years old. The overall fleet size is not increasing, despite the drastic increase in populations, particularly in the satellite towns around Cork city. The message is simple from Bus Éireann in Cork. We need more buses to increase the fleet size and we need to modernise it. If this does not happen, we will never persuade people to leave their cars at home on a daily basis. I welcome the improvements and plans for the Parnell Place bus station in Cork city.

An incredibly frustrating situation has existed in both Cork and Limerick for over two years. Mini and Midi buses in both cities have been sitting idle while an industrial relations dispute between Bus Éireann drivers and management has not been resolved. As a result, an area with more than 4,000 houses in my constituency has no real bus service. Solutions to this problem have been promised since I was first elected 18 months ago, yet nothing has happened. It is a scandal that children and parents cannot even get the bus to school or to work should they choose to do so. As a result, this is a traffic blackspot in my city.

There has been no development in Cork on the issue of park and ride facilities. Aer Rianta came to Cork a number of months ago and promised expensive and very ambitious plans involving an investment programme of approximately £70 million for the airport. There has been no progress in this regard, apart from beginning a hotel project. I would like the Minister to make inquiries in this regard.

Mr. U. Burke

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I will take up from where Deputy Keaveney left off in relation to public transport policy. We in the west are starting from a very low base. Indeed the Minister will recall not too long ago the rumour that the Dublin-Galway Iarnród Éireann link would cease in Athlone. As one looks westwards from Athlone across the Shannon, one can see that transport policy simply does not exist. Transport exists and rumbles on in one way or other, but there is no transport policy for the west. The conditions in the area necessitate greater thought. I hope any forum established by the Minister will link together the fragmentation of policy throughout the country. Transport policy should not just focus on Dublin.

Mrs. O'Rourke

This paper relates to Dublin.

Mr. U. Burke

I would like the Minister to be open to suggestions for a wider public service throughout the country. If she is seriously interested in public transport and co-operation with public private partnerships, she has an ideal opportunity available to her in that there is an almost completely disused railway link between Sligo and Limerick, passing through Tuam and Gort in my constituency. This link is utilised just once a day. The Minister should investigate the potential of this rail line by asking a private company to utilise and develop the facility. It is an ideal opportunity to transfer commuters from road to rail at no cost. The rail line is already in existence but it may need slight upgrading. This facility should be investigated on a pilot scheme basis to see if it is a feasible alternative. If it was open for private development it would work. The line was run down in the 1980s by CIE which operated a parallel bus service at the same times, or immediately prior to the arrival of the train from Limerick which travelled onwards to Sligo. Naturally, people took the first available form of transport. By doing this CIE, or Iarnród Éireann as it is now, choked that service. It is not good enough to allow that continue and I ask the Minister to investigate it.

The other morning while travelling to the House I listened to Galway Bay FM when the Minister of State, Éamon Ó Cuív, who supports a new airport at Oranmore, said grants should no longer be provided to Galway Airport, while the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Frank Fahey, supported the existing airport at Carnmore. The Minister for Public Enterprise is the ham in the sandwich as she will say she will give money to both or the best option. However, that does not constitute a transport policy. While we are kicking public transport policy around like a football it will not work.

Will the Minister examine the possibility of operating, on a pilot basis, a small commuter rail service between towns such as Tuam, Athenry and Galway as an alternative to road transport? If Iarnród Éireann had the initiative to use the railway line at times when it is under utilised we could make progress in an area which needs attention because of the infrastructure in the west.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I thank those who contributed to the debate which was extremely interesting. The subject of the debate was the regulatory and institutional papers on reform, but it was good that the debate mentioned different parts of the country, including Donegal, where there is no railway, Galway, Athenry, Tuam, Sligo and Dublin City and County, which was mentioned by Deputy Joe Higgins. Many interesting points were raised and I thank those who contributed, in particular for the encouragement given by the Opposition spokesperson, Deputy Yates. He and I have barneys from time to time, as do I and Deputy Stagg, but his comments were helpful and I will bear them in mind.

I have no doubt all these reforms will cost money, so nobody should think that instituting them is a cheap way out. Several questions were posed regarding the advisability of a forum in the context of being in favour of discussions in general but wondering if nothing would be done if we kept talking. The only way to do business is by talking and we will endeavour to ensure discussions are brisk and in line with a set programme. In the end,"jaw-jaw" is better than "war-war", and it works. Neither have I any illusions about the challenges – much stronger words could be used – in this process.

These papers are just the beginning of the process, but we have appended to them what we aim to do during 2000, 2001 and so on. Deputy Stagg and others are correct in saying it will be some time and that there will be a change of Government before it is all realised. It is up to a future Government to undo what is done if it so wishes – that will be its democratic right and I have always accepted this. It would take brave people to start to undo the process, but why not if they want to do so.

I will make as much haste as possible as I am conscious of time going by. We are in the second half of the life of the Government and I want to do the business in terms of institutional and regu latory reform. This is not done out of a sense of malice or ill-will. In fact I paid tribute to the countless thousands of men and some women who over the years have contributed to CIE. Those of us who come from railway towns are aware of this. I was brought up 50 yards from Athlone railway station, and the noises, people and activities associated with a major railway crossing have always been very strong in my mind. However, change is necessary and we must offer consumers an attractive, available and accessible option.

I am very happy with what is taking place in terms of accessibility. The 230 buses bought this year will be accessible. Deputy Coveney spoke about the new buses in Cork being accessible. Within a few years every bus will be accessible. This should have happened long ago and there is no great patronage involved. Many stations have become more accessible, although this is very difficult for some of the older stations because of their geography and design. However, some very imaginative steps have been taken and I hope this will happen increasingly.

Several very interesting questions were raised about rural areas and I will endeavour to give written replies to the Deputies concerned – I will talk to the officials in charge.

I thank the House for its interest in the topic. Transport is an abiding and now an imperative interest for all of us if we are not to find ourselves unable to make progress. When I came into the Department I did not think I would get as far as publishing a paper on institutional and regulatory reform. Circumstances over recent months meant urgent debate was necessary if there were to be changes, and that is what we will have at the forum, starting tomorrow week. I will certainly take on board the comments made today and I hope we can have a review of progress in a few months.