I wish to share time with Deputies O'Flynn, Eoin Ryan, Glennon, Martin Brady and Peter Power.
Private Members' Business. - National Transport Authority Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This Bill gives the House an opportunity to debate some of the problems with transport and transport infrastructure. It is regrettable that its proposers are not represented in the House but that is their prerogative. It is probably another one of their efforts to gain cheap publicity at the expense of the Government. The main Opposition parties and Members on this side of the House will have to keep the debate going.
When discussing transport, it is important to include all forms of transport – road, rail and air. The Bill proposes to establish a board which would run the entire transport infrastructure of the country. This would be detrimental to the sector. None of us would support handing over the running of road and rail transport to a board. There should always be ministerial responsibility for every Department and all infrastructural projects.
It is also necessary to continue the roads programme. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, and the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, are committed to delivering the proposed infrastructural projects on time. There is a need to take a long hard look at some of the costings for projects and the overruns that occur. If this is not done, we will end up spending enormous amounts of money on projects that are way over budget. The value to the communities they will serve is important but some are over budget. We see this every day in public projects.
It is probably time to examine the mechanisms used. There has been much talk about the port tunnel recently. I had the pleasure of visiting the project and seeing the work being done. When it was explained by the NRA and those working on the tunnel, I understood where the costs were arising. Acquiring the property needed for the structure and the ancillary facilities that have to be provided have led to the extra costs. In the case of Luas, the proposed metro and other projects, however, it is time to take a close look at the cost of compensation for the property needed for the provision of these services in the city.
The Government decision to put many of the proposed national road and motorway projects out to tender as large contracts such as the Kinnegad to Kilcock road is the proper way to proceed with these infrastructural projects. Make them as large as possible in order that there will be maximum tendering. In many cases we will discover that along the way rock or other such materials might become available which help to reduce the costs and inconvenience to those living in the neighbourhood.
Infrastructural projects will always cause problems for some but we cannot continue with a transport network that cannot serve our needs. In this regard, it is worth looking at rail transport and rail freight transport. If there is to be any shake up in the sector, it will have to be done by the private sector. Iarnród Éireann will have to be asked to make available to those who want to become involved in rail transport the necessary background information and the necessary rail time, that is, the times that railway lines are left unused. A number of lines are only used for half the 24 hours in the day. I hope this will be examined.
The Bill has much to recommend it but the Minister who has taken over this brief is entitled to have an opportunity to deliver before his stewardship should be questioned, which is what the Bill does.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge the efforts of the Green Party in bringing this legislation before the House. Nobody can deny the contribution its Members make to ensuring the issue of transport is always to the forefront of policy debate. Everybody is committed to a transport policy, even if we differ as to how it should be introduced.
The Government's commitment to improving our transport system was demonstrated by the establishment of the Department of Transport last June. Responsibility for roads and public transport was brought together from two separate Departments. The Department of Transport now fulfils many of the objectives set out in the Bill. I do not believe the establishment of the type of authority proposed in it would bring about the necessary reforms. The RPA has the task of developing the Luas and the metro while the NRA has the task of developing our road system. At a time when it is necessary to focus on our transport needs the last thing that is needed is institutional upheaval. It is time for action, not more legislation.
The NRA and RPA are in place. The latter is not long established and we should give it time to work. I welcome the Minister's commitment to the establishment of an independent regulator for public transport and his intention to appoint a regulator for transport outside the Dublin area. All Members are committed to accountability but the Bill before the House would remove virtually all policy formulation from the Government of the day. The Department must remain responsible to the House for the strategies assigned to the agencies. It should be noted that the existing bodies are accountable to Oireachtas committees.
I am glad the Minister is considering the introduction of a special infrastructural Bill which will deal with issues of land ownership with regard to critical infrastructure. The appeals process, while necessary, can be unduly time consuming while our infrastructural needs are urgent. We also must not forget that time is money in this case. I compliment the Minister on his work since taking office. I have no doubt of the seriousness of his commitment and that of the Minister of State to our transport needs.
I acknowledge the NRA's funding for Cork city and county. A sum of €130 million has been spent in Cork city over the last five years while €350 million has been spent in Cork county on roads projects. These include the Jack Lynch tunnel, the Blackpool bypass, Ballincollig bypass, Watergrasshill, the South Link Road and Mallow Road roadworks, to name a few. In addition, the Youghal bypass will be opened by the Minister next week.
The rail service in Cork is also improving, with 67 new mainline rail carriages being assigned to the Cork-Dublin line. The Cork-Cobh line will receive four new carriages and I am hoping the long awaited development at Kent Station will begin. Perhaps the chairman of the CIE board is listening because we are waiting a long time for that development to start. He assured me at a recent meeting that he had plans to get it started as soon as possible.
I must also acknowledge the work of Bus Éireann in Cork. I have spoken in the House on several occasions about the improvement in public transport in Cork. Since 2000, for example, it has received 54 additional new buses. I believe almost all the Cork bus fleet has been replaced by now. There are also new park and ride facilities and bus priority lanes. Much is happening in this regard in the Cork city and county area. Without the NRA and the commitment of the Department, through CIE, to getting work done and improving transport infrastructure, Cork would be in a sorry state.
How much time do I have left, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It is up now.
Was that five minutes?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Yes.
Unbelievable. I am like a train on time.
The Deputy would still be going if he was like a train on time.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and I congratulate the Green Party on having introduced it. Public transport is an issue that the Green Party has pushed since the party's inception and I recognise that the issue has always been at the forefront of that party's policy. Many years ago on the city council the Green Party always discussed public transport needs at length.
The idea of a National Transport Authority sounds good but the Bill is somewhat flawed because I do not see how it will deliver much of what is required. I do not see how it will deliver what the NRA or the RPA are delivering and, even though we may criticise those bodies, I see a significant improvement taking place in Dublin's public transport over the next few years.
We have always sought a three-pronged approach to traffic in the capital involving better public transport, roads and traffic management. We are heading in that direction although I would agree that progress has been slow. We should not divert ourselves from what is happening at the moment, however. For example, we will have the Luas on-line along with significant improvements in the DART service, which were announced a few days ago. Similarly, significant improvements will be taking place in Dublin Bus which deserves to be congratulated on the work it is doing. The number of people using buses has increased because people's perception of the bus service has improved enormously in the last few years. In addition, investments are being made in the suburban rail system which needs to be improved.
The M50 continues to be developed in addition to the Dublin Port tunnel. Some members of the Joint Committee on Transport recently visited the port tunnel which is an exciting engineering project. I would recommend anybody to have a look at it because it is fantastic and will make an improvement by reducing the number of trucks using the city centre. Getting trucks out of the city centre has been a goal of everyone who has been elected to Dublin City Council over many years and now we will see that coming about with major improvements as a result. Once we get 6,000 to 7,000 trucks out of the city centre every day by using the tunnel we will be able to introduce many more traffic management improvements.
Quality bus corridors and the work that Dublin City Council is doing to co-ordinate traffic lights constitute part of the improvements taking place in the city's traffic management system. There is a will on the part of the Minister, Deputy Brennan, and the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, to try to deliver on the significant investment that has been put in place both by the current Government and the previous one, in order to bring about improvements in the years ahead.
In one way or another, approximately 30 different groups are involved in traffic management in Dublin city. I did not believe that figure at first, until I saw them all listed. That is a ludicrous situation and some people may say that I am arguing for an umbrella body such as the proposed national transport authority. The Minister has proposed the idea of an independent regulator who will be able to do much of what is required. We need co-ordination so that people will know what is happening. One of the main criticisms is that nobody knows what is going on, even though a great deal is happening. The general public would be more positive if it was told about the investments that are being made and the consequent improvements that will take place in the coming years.
I congratulate the Green Party for introducing the Bill. I know what it is like because I did it when I was in Opposition. A lot of work goes into it and one does not have the backup of the Civil Service. I congratulate the party for starting a debate on the issue.
I join with my colleagues in welcoming this Bill and I commend the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas for having introduced it. While I do not have the same experience of the House as the previous speaker, I know that the preparation of a Bill – particularly without the support the Government parties have – is an onerous task. While commending the Green Party on the Bill, I must question certain elements of the legislation. For example, the Bill abolishes the functions of the existing agencies, in particular the NRA and the RPA, without replacing them. Section 4 authorises several roles for the proposed authority but at the same time it removes powers from both of the authorities to which I referred, without apparently replacing them. In addition, there are no financial provisions in the Bill. We are all aware of the massive investment and progress that has been made in transport infrastructure.
On a point of order, we are prohibited from incurring a financial burden on the Exchequer when in Opposition. For the Deputy's information, therefore, that is the reason we could not go into such detail in the Bill.
I welcome the Deputy's co-operative approach. Having worked in the constituency with him for some time, I know that his input is always positive. I thank him for that further education in the ways of the Oireachtas.
While it may not be directly related to the Bill, I would make a point concerning the financial activities of the NRA. Without going into the figures, we are all aware that massive investment is being made available to the NRA for the significant work it is undertaking. However, massive cost overruns appear to be a consistent theme of every contract undertaken by the NRA. It is something that we will have to examine and keep a close eye on. I know the Minister, Deputy Brennan, and the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, are introducing measures in this regard. I would refer particularly to the port tunnel where there has been a significant cost overrun. While there are particular circumstances pertaining to that project, nevertheless the cost overrun is extravagant.
I referred to the progress being made nationally with regard to investment in transport infrastructure projects. The constituency of Dublin North, which I have the honour of representing with Deputy Sargent, is a good example and probably presents us with a microcosm of what is going on nationally. The constituency includes Dublin Airport where a massive expansion is taking place. The port tunnel entrance is approximately a mile from the constituency boundary. The M1 motorway, which hopefully will be opened in the next few months, will provide a motorway facility from Whitehall church to a few miles south of Dundalk. Significant ongoing investment is being made in the suburban railway infrastructure, development of quality bus corridors is ongoing throughout the city and into the county and taxi deregulation in recent years has had positive effects. The one element of transport infrastructure deficient in the constituency is a sea port, but there is one only a few miles from it. All these areas of infrastructure have been the subject of massive investment and progress. This progress has also created a great expectation among the public of an improvement in services.
I commend the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, on introducing this Bill. However, I have no difficulty in opposing it. With so much ongoing work in progress, I do not consider that a change in the structures in which our transport infrastructure is administered is appropriate at this time.
I am pleased to participate in this debate. I thank the Green Party for bringing this Bill before the House. However, it has many shortcomings. As a city Deputy, I recognise, as I am sure does every other Deputy, that there are severe transport problems in Dublin and in many parts of the country. Traffic jams are evident even in villages. If one were to travel from Dublin to Athlone, Limerick or Cavan, one would encounter traffic jams.
We are all aware of the shortcomings of public transport. I am a great believer in the saying, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." The NRA has done a tremendous job in regard to our roads. I compliment, Michael Tobin, the chief executive officer of the NRA, on that. He has always made himself accessible and available to Members of this House. He has come before committees of the House and explained what the NRA is doing and he keeps us very well informed of its work. The same could be said of John Lynch and Joe Meagher, the managing director of Iarnród Éireann, who meet Members of this House on a monthly basis to update them on what is happening in regard to the bus and rail services.
On a point of order, does the Deputy wish to declare an interest?
No, I have no interest whatsoever. I am a former employee of Telecom Éireann. I never worked in CIE and I have no interest to declare in it. I compliment a person when he or she does a good job. It is right and proper to acknowledge that in the appropriate place. That is all I am doing.
Investment is important and we must invest in our roads and other infrastructure. The Green Party should explain to its colleagues in the European forum in particular the importance of having in place a proper road infrastructure because there is a perception that the Green Party is anti-development. I ask its members to support measures to allow us to build roads. Groups with whom the Green Party is associated sometimes appear to make frivolous objections to road building. It is necessary to have good roads in that there is no point in having good buses or cars if we do not have good roads on which to drive. That seems to be a major problem for the Green Party. It may have valid reasons for objecting to proposals, and we all object to proposals from time to time, but it is important that the party takes account of that point.
The Bill introduced by the Green Party appears to indicate that we do not have a proper public transport service, in other words, that the service we have is completely inadequate, but that is not the case. I do not know if the party got information which I got from Iarnród Éireann lately – I have no vested interest in this but I have a vested interest for my constituents – which outlines that it is spending €400 million on the DART service from Howth Station to Dún Laoghaire. That will involve improving all the stations, extending the platforms and making them more accessible and user friendly for people with disabilities, which is a welcome development. Many improvements are taking place.
Iarnród Éireann's customer base increased by 13% or 14% in the past year. That indicates it is providing a fairly good service to the public. I compliment the company on that.
I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Brennan, on taking the right approach. He is not lying back but taking the bull by the horns and making decisions. That is what government is all about.
I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. Like my colleagues, I compliment the Green Party on bringing forward this Bill, if for nothing else than it promotes debate in this House on the important issue of transport policy. Unfortunately, during Private Members' time we have not had that sort of debate. Recognising its great interest in issues of public transport and transportation infrastructure, it surprises me that the Green Party does not have a representative on the transport committee as this is currently probably the greatest single area of public policy incorporating the biggest investment this country has ever seen.
We share the Deputy's regret.
It disappoints me that the Green Party does not have an input into that committee, although there may be reasons for it.
My main difficulty with this legislation is that it simply seeks to remove major areas of responsibility from the Department of Transport at a time when the Government has specifically identified transport as the main issue of public policy. Such was its commitment to this important issue that a great deal of reorganisation was commenced at the formation of the Government to set up a completely new Department of Transport specifically to isolate all the various areas of policy, departments and organisations which deal with this issue and bring them under the responsibility of a single Minister. In that regard, like my colleagues, I compliment the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, and the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, on many of their courageous and, if at times unpopular, initiatives in relation to transport issues.
Unfortunately, this Bill is completely mistimed. We are in the process of spending over €7 billion on transportation infrastructure. To reorganise the whole transportation infrastructure, no matter how well intentioned and laudable that might be, is impracticable in the midst of the largest ever investment in infrastructure.
For the reasons stated by my fellow colleagues, there is an unfortunate overlapping of responsibility in the proposed structures set out in the Bill in terms of the Department of Transport, which would not work in practice. I do not mean to be overly critical of the Bill, but it contains seven sections, extending to five pages. While I recognise that the Deputies opposite do not have available to them the resources of the parliamentary counsel in the Attorney General's office for the drafting of Bills, to have a seven section Bill passed by this House to administer a multiannual budget is unfortunate to say the least.
While I respect the right of the Green Party to make proposals and to differ vehemently with Government policy, I vehemently defend the Government's right to make policy in this area. The Government was elected with a definite mandate on transport issues and the Government intends to follow through on that mandate whether it is popular or not.
For those reasons, while I compliment the Green Party for introducing the Bill, it would be better served by concentrating on the real issues of public transport policy, such as public private partnerships. I advise the Green Party to initiate a debate on that at some future date.
I propose to share my time with Deputy Crawford.
I am happy to indicate the Labour Party's support for the principles in this Bill and to commend the Green Party on drafting and presenting it. The principles underpinning the Bill are sound. It is true to say that transport policy has been dogged for some years by the twin problems of under-investment and lack of co-ordination. Too often we see decisions taken in respect of transport projects which are politically motivated rather than the outcome of a long-term planning process. It is because there is no such forum to consider a wide range of transport and road needs that the Green Party is proposing such an authority. In the past we have seen, particularly with road building, that while the NRA is charged with performing a certain function, all too often critical decisions are made relating to significant expenditure on roads projects which have little to do with cost-benefit analysis of such projects or long-term, planned regional growth. More often such decisions relate to political exigencies in particular areas during elections.
I am concerned that while the NRA makes proposals to Government, at the end of the day the Government plucks out those projects it wants to pursue and there is little accountability to the public on the return to the taxpayer from such projects. A National Transport Authority could perform the important roles of assessing proposed projects, looking at the economic, social and environmental benefits and evaluating whether a project fits in with the overall plan for transport. While in theory the NRA may partly fill that role, it is not the body which finally decides which project gets the go-ahead. No similar body looks at the public transport situation, which is scattered among different State agencies, private providers, interest groups and so on. There is no-one to oversee what is happening in public transport.
This kind of scatter-gun approach to planning and decision making is nowhere more evident than in Dublin. The Government has recognised this for some time but has failed to do anything. It is a long-standing promise of this Administration and its predecessor to set up a greater Dublin land use and public transport authority but we have yet to see any action being taken. It was on the list of promised legislation for 2002 and for 2003 but has now been put back to 2004. Meanwhile things are happening and there is an urgent need to co-ordinate transport services. However, no structural changes are being made and there is no evidence of preparatory work to establish such a body. The Minister can shake his head all he likes but that body is now two years overdue. There is no sign of heads of legislation being approved or any other indication of the Government's thinking on the governance of such an authority.
The disaster of Dublin traffic gridlock clearly shows the need for greater public transport investment and for planning to relate transport provision to land use. It shows the clear failure of private solutions, particularly the unrestricted use of the private car and the over-emphasis on road building in Dublin over many years. There has been a sea change in public attitudes on these issues over the last five to ten years. We are attached to our cars, to having the radio on and to controlling our own space. We have privacy and we do not have to wait for a bus or train. However, the public has increasingly come to realise that this is not sustainable in Dublin in the long-term. The solution must be greater investment in public transport and encouraging people to shift to public transport, but we have not been successful in doing so for a number of reasons.
There is a serious difficulty in the political leadership in the Department of Transport, particularly with the Minister's view of public transport. He is a person who tends to take quite a right wing view of most issues and he is carrying that through in the Department of Transport. He has a major ideological hang-up on the competition issue, irrespective of the experience of other European countries or the appropriateness of his market-led thinking to transport. He also has a serious difficulty with accepting the principle that if we are to have effective public transport then it must be heavily subsidised. Throughout Europe, every city with a good public transport system enjoys heavy subvention by national Government for that system. The average subvention is 50% and in some cases it is 70% to 80%. We have discussed this in recent months and the Minister has made it clear that this is not the route he intends to take. He does not propose to follow the European model in spite of the fact that he, the Joint Committee on Transport and others often look to the experiences of other countries for examples to follow. How do they get it right and make their transport systems sustainable? The underlying principle for those systems is a commitment on behalf of the Governments involved to public transport per se.The Minister provides subvention reluctantly and recently said how worrying it was that the subvention rate was creeping up to between 20% and 25%. He was concerned that the rate was worryingly high. This is not the kind of ideology – where one resents funding – which will bring about a good public transport system. The Minister does not accept that principle. He says there is a private solution to a public transport problem and that does not add up.
We are different to other European countries.
We are different?
Warsaw, Stockholm, Rome or Madrid are all different.
We would like to see it being the same.
We are worse than any other European city.
The cost is €10 million a week.
We would like Ireland and our capital city to operate like any other modern European city. This requires sustainable public transport and Government commitment to make it work, which is clearly not the case here. There is real concern that the Minister is about to embark on a course of action which would hive off more and more parts of the public transport system to the private market. He regards transport as a commodity, rather than a critical element of social infrastructure.
There are a number of principles to which we should adhere in respect of public transport policy, the first of which is sustainability. It is fair to say that a transport policy based on ever greater use of the private motor car is unsustainable in environmental terms.
Another principle which must be accepted and adopted in respect of public transport is social inclusion, about which the Taoiseach talks a great deal. Let us have some action in respect of the public transport system. Public transport must be understood as a right. Everyone has a right to move around his or her capital city. Even in boom times large numbers of people do not have access to private cars and even larger numbers do not own a car. Some groups, for example, the young and the old, will always be restricted in their car usage. Nobody should be forced to make an enormous private investment just to move around his or her city.
The other principle which must be accepted is urban citizenship. It is fair to expect that Dublin, a national capital, should be a city people can identify with and in which they can enjoy living and a city of which they can be proud, none one of which can be said of Dublin. This is due to the daily traffic chaos in the city and the huge difficulty people experience in getting from A to B, whether this entails standing on packed buses, waiting long periods on a bus in the morning, standing on one of the urban trains on which people are packed in like sardines or being refused access to the Dart because it is full and there is insufficient capacity.
Everybody has two cars.
In most people's books, such chaos does not allow for an acceptable lifestyle or for living in a city of which people can be proud. We should be trying to ensure we have a city that works.
The other point to be made in respect of the need for co-ordination in the greater Dublin area is that the failure of the long promised legislation to materialise highlights the hopeless weakness of our local government. Local government that functions properly has responsibility for transport, as is the case in most European cities. We have a crazy system here where it has virtually no powers or role in transport. Although the local authorities in the Dublin area have responsibility for certain traffic matters, they have very little responsibility in terms of enforcement and none whatsoever in terms of transport services.
Due to the weakness of local government, the Government is encountering difficulties in proposing the establishment of a greater Dublin transport authority. What role, for example, would public representatives play in such a body? Will the Minister establish another authority operating in parallel to the local authorities in the greater Dublin area or will he try to combine them? The obvious approach would be to establish a greater Dublin local authority with responsibility for transport. It is vital that local government is reformed to ensure local issues are taken care of locally.
I turn to a number of other areas in which the Minister has been extremely negligent. Last night he stated that the programme for Government already contains plans for a forum similar to the authority proposed by the Green Party. The programme for Government contains a large number of bullet points on transport. At a glance, about half of these have not been implemented or little action has been taken on them. The Minister suggests this is a grand plan. It is not a plan, but a series of issues plucked from the air in the run-up to the election.
Only 93 days have elapsed since the election. There are four and a half more years of the Government left.
What about the past five years?
The Minister promised to promote integrated ticketing and smart card technologies. What is the reality now? There will be a pilot programme in 2005. We will not hold our breath on that promise. He also promised to introduce legislation to establish a greater Dublin transport authority in 2002. There is no sign of the Bill in question because it has been postponed for two years. He promised further progress on upgrading the bus fleet and the inter-changeability of commuter tickets on bus and rail. No progress has been made in that regard to date.
He said new services would be introduced to some new housing developments and poorly served communities. We know what the Minister's game is in respect of bus services. He has adopted a policy of restricting public service bus companies when they attempt to set up new services by putting them off or refusing to approve new routes because he wants to open up the market to allow in certain interests, in which he is interested.
That is not true.
The Minister stated the Government would ensure access to public transport is one of the criteria taken into consideration in the planning process. Last night my colleague, Deputy Seán Ryan, provided ample evidence that this is not happening and that long-term promises are reneged on once developments, built on the basis of such promises, are completed.
I thank Deputy Shortall for the opportunity to speak on the Bill and commend the Green Party on introducing it and giving us the opportunity to discuss the vital issue of transport. The issue of changes to bus services brings to mind the changes in County Cavan where the introduction of a private bus service resulted in the removal of the available service and had a very negative impact on bus users. I ask the Minister to address this issue about which many Members have contacted him.
The debate tonight is about traffic chaos. The Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy McDaid, will be aware of the changes in the journey time from Donegal to Dublin using the N2 or N3. Congestion now means one must add an extra few hours rather than minutes to the journey. Anything that would improve these roads would be helpful, as those of us living in counties Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal depend on the road network.
The N2 is on its way.
Thankfully, after ten years, the N2 is starting to move. I will only be satisfied when work begins on all three bypasses. We were given guarantees that the minute the consultants' plans for the bypasses were ready, all three would begin to roll. We were told money would not be a problem, yet suddenly we find it is a major problem. Before the election, the Minister for Finance stated there would be no cutbacks. We now know the reality. However, I accept and appreciate that the decision to give one of the bypasses the go-ahead is progress.
I heard a spokesman for the National Roads Authority speaking on the Northern Sound radio station the other day. It is very strange that the reporter was able to obtain more information on the current position of the roads programme in counties Cavan and Monaghan than Members can obtain in the House.
If there is one problem with the Bill, it is that it does not make the new authority answerable to the House. I propose that amendments be made on Committee Stage to ensure we can hold the Minister accountable. The Minister is only a short time in office but I presume at this stage he has opened some bypasses and roads. It is strange that a Minister for Transport, or Minister for the Environment, as he would have been called in the past, has no responsibility for the National Roads Authority when we put down questions to him, yet any time there is an opportunity to be seen—
No better man.
—at the opening of a road, the Minister is there claiming full responsibility for it.
It is showtime.
He will thank the NRA for the invitation and claim full responsibility. There is need for answerability in this House.
Will the Minister examine the possibility of park and ride facilities? It is ludicrous that people like me have to travel on the M2, arrive at the M50 and drive on a single lane from that junction into Dublin city with an empty lane beside us for the bus service. That bus lane could be used properly with the provision of a park and ride facility which would avoid much of the chaos in the city centre. If there were nine or ten park and ride systems around the perimeter of the city, many problems would be avoided. I urge the Minister to give consideration to that suggestion, not just for the sake of the people of Dublin but also for those of us in rural Ireland who have to travel into the centre of Dublin for business reasons.
I would like to share time with Deputies Ferris, Healy, Gogarty, Cuffe and Sargent.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Agreed.
I commend the Green Party for using its Private Members' time to bring forward this legislation. As my colleague, Deputy Crowe, stated during this debate, it is not without flaws but it is a progressive attempt to tackle the issue of transport in Ireland or, I should say, in the Twenty-six Counties because missing from this legislation, as from the Government's plans for transport, is any meaningful emphasis on building an all-Ireland transport network. I find it ironic that the Enterprise service from Dublin to Belfast has the most modern and efficient carriages. This is an example of the kind of transportation system we could build if the Northern Assembly focused on the issue. When I see the horror on the faces of those who take the Dublin to Cork train at certain times of the week, where they are placed together like cattle in dangerously unsafe circumstances, I am grateful for the co-operation that makes the Enterprise system possible.
As I said in this House previously, the Enterprise is not without its faults. At peak times in the morning it too can be grossly overcrowded and I have made the comment that if animals were on board, Compassion in World Farming would probably block the line demanding more humane conditions. Notwithstanding that, I commend the Minister for the 80 rail cars we hope will come on-stream this summer.
We look forward to that addition on the line but it can be expanded. There is a clear case to be made for the construction of a rail link, for example, from Dublin to Derry, as Deputy Crawford has suggested. Not only would this have obvious benefits for the Border counties of Cavan and Monaghan, as he and others have said, but it would also have benefits across the Border and in the isolated parts of the north-west. Somebody told me earlier that in terms of the public transport system, and particularly the rail system, the old map used to be a map of partition so there is much to be done in the Assembly on that front.
For isolated towns and villages along the Border, the provision of an integrated transport service with an integrated ticketing procedure makes much sense. Not only would I encourage the Government to move in that direction, I suggest the Green Party should widen the scope of its thinking on transport to an all-Ireland basis.
I note that the Greens will soon contest elections to the Assembly. I welcome that and hope that some of the other parties in this House have that ambition some day and, dare I say it, Nationalist parties because sometimes I wonder about them.
We are an international party.
I am talking about the others. I know where Deputy Sargent stands but—
We are Nationalists.
It was the Nationalist parties I was referring to for the benefit of our colleagues on the opposite side of the House.
The need for greater cohesion in transport matters was outlined last night. I accept the point the Minister made that the setting up of a Department of Transport is a positive step in that direction but it is not enough. In Dublin, for example, we have the Dublin Transportation Office, the National Roads Authority, Dublin City Council and the Department of Transport all involved at one level or another. Each organisation has its own analysis and interpretation on transport. Each wishes to guard its own patch. There appears to be a profusion of consultancy groups, quangos and three-letter acronyms regarding transport. In regard to the Dublin Port tunnel, Dublin City Council set the standard height for a tunnel at 4.65 metres. The NRA, to whom the tunnel will be handed over on completion, has set the clearance on its motorways at 5.3 metres. It is this type of slip-shod communication between groups that makes the need for a joint authority all the more clear. In the Government's tendency towards the construction of roads, we face a danger that public transport might be about to revert to its status as a poor relation in the public transport system.
I welcome any move, as proposed in this Bill, to establish an authority that will properly co-ordinate and develop a transport infrastructure in this State. If I were to pick any aspect of the proposal with which I find fault, it is that it does not take into account the need for an all-Ireland dimension. It is ridiculous that an island such as ours should have two transport agencies operating out of sync and it is vital that this be addressed in future to ensure optimum co-operation and the provision of public transport in rural areas, which are currently badly served by the transport authorities in both jurisdictions.
Another change I would like to see is much greater input from local communities. This could be catered for in section 4(c), which refers to the development of local area framework plans. Without doubt local authorities have a crucial role to play in transport planning but as a local elected representative, I am also aware of the direct input of communities and the valuable contribution they can make. This is particularly important where communities believe they are badly served by existing public transport and where the local population is best placed to inform the relative authorities on how best to implement improvements.
All of this is dependent on funding available under the national plans, which currently include the national development plan and the national spatial strategy. While both of these were launched with great fanfare, they have already been shown to have serious flaws and this has led to a rowing back of plans to develop, in particular, the road network in different parts of our country.
While much is being made of the designation of Killarney and Tralee as hubs to assist in the attraction of industry to Kerry and the south-west, in general such plans will be fatally undermined if the road infrastructure is inadequate and if the public transport system cannot cope with the demand. That will remain the case if the Government intends to solve the current financial difficulties by cutting back on the provision of these services. While we must have a coherent transport plan and an integrated authority as proposed in this Bill, we must also ensure that the funding is made available to provide for the necessary infrastructure.
A major flaw in the rail system in Kerry is that it only serves Killarney and Tralee. As in any other area of the country, and indeed to follow the example of the proposed transport plans for the greater Dublin area, a feasibility study should be done on the prospect of expanding the rail-based system in Kerry. The whole of north Kerry from Tralee north is cut off. I am aware that over 30 years ago the line was closed down and abandoned completely only in the past two years. That is a mistake and it is something that is probably contributing greatly towards the lack of economic investment in the north Kerry area. There is a progressive business community in Listowel which built access units out of its own pockets to attract industry to the area. The main reason industry is not coming into the area is the condition of the M69 on which representatives of all parties in this House have worked to the best of their ability to try to get the National Roads Authority to deal with that problem. There is no railway link to connect it to Tralee, Limerick or anywhere else outside the county.
I represent a rural constituency and I am aware of the importance of the public transport system to local communities. People who live in isolated areas are highly dependent on it to get to work, to get children to school, to shop and to socialise. I believe in the basic principle that any person living in any part of the State, urban or rural, is entitled to the same level of public service. Everyone pays the same tax and is, therefore, entitled to the same basic services. That should apply to transport as much as to anything else. It must be the fundamental aim of any national transport authority that this should be the case.
I welcome the Bill but I would like the points I have made to be taken into account later in the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and compliment the Green Party on the Bill. There is an acceptance that the public has a right to public transport, irrespective of where they live, even if it means that it has to be subsidised. People in Dublin, Clonmel and Ballyporeen all have the same right to public transport. Transport systems, be they road or rail, must not be concentrated in large urban areas in the east of the country.
There should be an integrated authority to deal with public transport. The chief executive and the chairman of Iarnród Éireann recently appeared before the Joint Committee on Transport to discuss the company's proposals, including the closure of railway lines. Members of the committee asked the executives to explain what would happen to the commercial freight that would have to go on to road as a result. We were told in a glib way that it is nothing to do with Iarnród Éireann, it is a matter for the National Roads Authority. That is not good enough. Closing railway lines and forcing huge numbers of lorries on to a poor road network is unworkable. There was a proposal to close the railway from Limerick Junction to Rosslare, forcing 80 heavy trucks to take the road from south Wexford to Mallow. It would be impossible for 80 trucks a day to travel on that route yet the executives of Iarnród Éireann were able to say it was not their responsibility.
Transport facilities in rural areas are much poorer than those in urban areas. Many people in small towns or villages do not own cars or have access to them. They are dependent on neighbours and friends to bring them into the local doctor, post office or shops. We need a rural transport system that links these small towns and villages and the outlying areas.
Road tolls are a form of taxation. The Minister for Transport recently approved the building of a road that will be tolled and tolls will increasingly be a feature of our roads. They are simply a form of general taxation on the motoring public who are already paying more than their fair share of tax.
The state of the county road network must be addressed. Many county roads are in poor condition – they are covered potholes with heavy growth on either side and they need to be strengthened. In recent years the amount of money going to the reconstruction and the upkeep of county roads has been insufficient. People living in rural areas deserve a reasonable roads system.
I compliment the Green Party for introducing this Bill and I will support it.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work the Green Party has put into developing this legislation. There is a consensus in the House that the integration of our transport policy is a high priority. The formation of the Department of Transport at the beginning of the Government was the foremost step in bringing that together.
The Green Party is suggesting that setting up one new group on top of the 23 existing groups will pull them all together. That is exactly why the Department of Transport was set up – to pull everything together instead of setting up another national authority. The establishment of a new national transport authority does not, as is suggested by the Bill, represent a step forward in thinking in this matter. The functions allocated to the new authority under this Bill overlap with those of the new Department of Transport. They are mainly policy issues that should be the responsibility of the Minister, the Government of the day and this House rather than being allocated to another appointed board.
This issue was dealt with comprehensively by Minister for Transport last night. He intends to establish an independent regulator for public transport in the greater Dublin area initially and, in due course, throughout the rest of the State. However, the Government must continue to have overall responsibility for policy matters. The abolition of those agencies could only lead to further unnecessary delay in completion of the respective projects and, no doubt, that would lead to further criticism from the Members opposite.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to read my prepared speech in full, but copies are being circulated to Deputies. I wish to refer to some points which were raised during the debate. Taking a totally political approach, I would point out to Deputy Shortall that, between 1994 and 1996, the parties opposite did not put one penny of capital investment into CIE. Currently, we are putting €500 million into that company, of which €400 million is in the form of capital investment on an annual basis, amounting to €2.4 billion over the past six years. With reference to the Deputy's comparison between Ireland and Europe, of course our situation is totally unlike that in Europe, where there is a rail system connecting Stockholm to Rome and Warsaw to Madrid.
It was argued that the Minister for Transport is pro-privatisation. Deputy Shortall's party adopted the same position in relation to Aer Lingus, arguing that, as a State company, it should not be touched. One cannot ignore what has happened to the entire aviation industry in the meantime. The Deputy's arguments with regard to rail transport simply do not stand up, having regard to past experience with Aer Lingus.
Reference was also made to the roads network. Anybody who has listened to traffic reports from AA Roadwatch over a period cannot be unaware of the fact that bottlenecks which formerly occurred at places such as Leixlip and Knocklyon, if memory serves me correctly, are no longer featuring in those reports. Granted, they may have been replaced by other bottleneck points such as Sandyford. However, once the legal issue in relation to the motorway at Carrickmines has been resolved, Sandyford and other such locations will also be removed from AA Roadwatch reports. Yesterday, the Minister announced expenditure of €320 million for the Kilcock to Kinnegad by-pass and other projects which will relieve the most notorious set of bottlenecks in the country over a distance of 39 kilometres. All of those improvements will come to pass in due course – it takes time.
Deputy Crawford made an excellent point, on which I commend him, that bus lanes should be extended further out from the city. Deputy Morgan and others referred to the Dublin Port tunnel project. Monitoring over a six months period has shown 98% of traffic is within the limits which the tunnel can accommodate. The NITL has now undertaken a further six week monitoring programme, on which a report will be available at the end of this month. When the tunnel is completed, the journey from the M50 to the port will take a maximum of seven minutes.
Will height restrictions be introduced?
The Deputy should allow the Minister of State to conclude.
I will answer the Deputy at another time. Having regard to developments since 1996, the views of economic and regional development interests, and the importance of high quality. inter-urban road links between the main urban centres in supporting economic and social development and achieving more balanced regional development, the Government decided to provide for the upgrading of five key routes to motorway or high quality dual carriageway standard in their entirety. The Minister has also prioritised safety on our roads. In the course of a meeting with the Italian Minister yesterday, I learned that only 11% of road accidents in that country occur on the motorways. The statistics in other parts of the European Union are consistent with that.
We are under pressure for time. I ask the Minister of State to conclude.
The DART system is being upgraded and, by 2005, there will be a 100% increase in capacity. I regret that I did not have time to respond to all the points raised by Deputies, but I hope to have further opportunities over the next four and a half years.
I wish to share time with Deputies Sargent and Cuffe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I have listened with some interest to the comments of the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid. I found a couple of references in his script quite funny, including his belief that there is not much difference between the thinking behind the Green Party proposals and current Government policy. In my opinion, the difference is about the same as that between George Bush and Gandhi. Before the last election, my colleagues, Deputies Ryan and Cuffe, advocated diverting expenditure from roads to rail. However, as I am not my party's spokesperson on the environment or transport, I will stay with my own remit, tourism. As a former Minister for Tourism, the Minister of State will have noticed that the length of stay in Ireland decreased by 20% in the July to September period last year. That is a very worrying trend, for which there is a number of reasons, including rising prices, the perceived lack of service and access to land issues.
Another significant factor is the difficulty for tourists to get around this country by public transport, as distinct from hiring a car.
There is absolutely no foundation for that statement.
People may take the train from Dublin to Killarney or Galway, but if they wish to travel along the western seaboard from Donegal to Galway to Killarney, it is virtually impossible. While there is a bus service, I would describe it as a skeleton service which is not worthy of a first world country. From that perspective, an overseeing body would change the priorities by taking an integrated view of train and bus services and road traffic issues. If it takes a holistic, strategic, long-term view, it will not put the emphasis on roads, in line with the Government's policy vis-à-vis the NRA. Separate bodies, working in isolation, greatly facilitate a Government with no vision. On the other hand, under the auspices of a body with a long-term strategic view as to the best integrated transport system for this country, I believe rail transport would be recognised as a much more cost-effective option. As my colleagues have already stated, we support the idea of a western rail link.
I now turn to matters closer to home. The Minister of State referred to AA Roadwatch reports. My constituency, Dublin Mid-West, features very prominently in those reports. However, there is a wider issue. Leixlip, to which the Minister of State referred, has a rail service. Lucan, one of the fastest growing towns according to the last census, does not have such a service and does not seem likely to have it within the next few years, despite talk of a railway station being provided in Lucan south. Iarnród Éireann has received no guarantees from the Government with regard to the required funding. Developments at Adamstown, in the Lucan area, could involve up to 10,000 additional houses. If that takes place without the necessary infrastructure, major chaos will follow.
There is a need to fast-track an outer orbital ring route and to build cost-effective by-passes at various locations around the country. That is not in question, but the huge emphasis on road development is in question. That will simply create more congestion in urban areas whereas, on the other hand, it is a total waste of money to build large scale motorway developments which will not reach capacity for 20 years. The answer lies in a combination of rail and bus services. From a tourism perspective and based on my experience of living in a congested constituency, I submit that if one is trying to develop vast areas of land in an integrated fashion, one must ensure that the transport infrastructure is provided. The DTO is taking a piecemeal approach towards local authorities, with a tendency not to cross borders. For example, Kildare County Council does not work well with South Dublin County Council.
The Deputy has used five minutes.
I have another 30 seconds left.
You had 15 minutes and it is a matter for—
I know I am sharing time, but I also set a stopwatch.
It is a matter for the Deputies to divide the time in whatever way they find appropriate.
I have been interrupted. Suffice to say there is a need for more integration. I support this Bill and urge other parties to support it. Now I will allow my colleagues to continue.
The purpose of this Bill is to integrate transportation. At present, four fifths of new transportation funding is going into roads. We suggest that 20% for public transport is not good enough and we need to reverse the allocation.
First and foremost, we need to reform the institutions. We believe that an umbrella body such as the proposed transportation authority would help unite the plethora of transportation agencies that exist. This is a problem that we discussed ten years ago when the National Roads Authority was introduced under the 1993 roads Act. At that time we said there was a real danger that roads would receive the vast bulk of funding and that public transport would be the poor relation, receiving only the crumbs of the transportation cake. That prophesy has proven to be true and today public transport is lagging dramatically behind roads investment.
Fifteen years ago when the Government commissioned a study into the Harcourt St. line, people were building extensions and garages on that line. The Government commissioned a study and those people are now receiving millions of euro in compensation for giving up the property they occupied. The Government did not take the initiative then and we are concerned that the Minister is still not taking the initiative with public transportation.
We believe that the NRA is an outdated body, that its terms of reference are wrong. We believe that its "predict and provide" approach makes ostriches look well informed by comparison. The legislation is ten years old. It fails to take into account the Kyoto Protocol. It fails to take into account recent thinking on transportation planning. It appears to take its cue from the 1950s interstate highway programme in the USA. We need to look towards modern European planning which integrates public transportation, land use planning and roads provision. We have yet to see evidence of this and we believe a new body is necessary to make this happen.
We believe a new body is necessary to take into account the national spatial strategy. If we are to give that fine plan some teeth, we must integrate transportation decisions with that, yet the NRA stated objective is simply to build roads. The NRA does not have a mandate in regard to planning. Indeed, the NRA is enthusiastically building roads from one urban area to another while refusing to take responsibility for what happens to the traffic once it arrives at the other end. In other words, it makes it possible for cars to travel from a certain point to the outskirts of Dublin in two and a half hours but it is not responsible for the traffic at the far end. That is not good enough in transportation planning or in roads planning. The institutions need reform.
We need to shake the NRA from top to tail and make it a modern body responding to environmental and archaeological challenges and the challenges and needs of local communities. We believe that at present transportation planning is being led by roads planning and it certainly needs reform.
We will be long gone if we decide to develop our roads that way.
Please allow the Deputy to continue without interruption.
The institution's terms of reference are Neanderthal. We propose that the body should have representatives from urban planning institutions and environmental agencies. That is the case to a certain extent at present but they are very much in the minority. If you ask a roads engineer for the solution, as the Minister will be well aware, the chances are he or she will tell you to build a road.
The remit of that body should be widened. All transportation issues should be put under an umbrella body, which unites and integrates transportation planning and gives it a strong environmental mandate. I commend this Bill to the House.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a gabháil leis na Teachtaí Eamon Ryan agus Ciarán Cuffe agus le páirtaithe agus Teachtaí sa Ghrúpa Teicniúil ar fad – mo pháirtí fhéin, Sinn Féin agus an Páirtí Soisíalach, le Páirtí an Lucht Oibre agus le Fine Gael as a gcuid tacaíochta. Bhí an Ríaltas béasach, thaispeáin sé suim ó am go chéile agus b'fhéidir go dtabharfaidh sé tacaíocht ar ball.
In the debate on our Bill last night, the Minister, Deputy Brennan, questioned the bias we claimed existed in the funding of public transport as against roads projects. To clarify the matter, the public capital programme published by the Department of Finance shows that total capital investment in roads in 2003 will be €1,249 billion as against €261 billion for public transport, not quite the 6:1 ratio quoted by my colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, but certainly far nearer to that than the 3:1 ratio claimed by the Minister. This imbalance in capital funding is the key indicator of where the future lies for our country and where Government policy priorities lie.
The key intent of the Bill is the development of a priority listing for all transport projects. We believe any co-ordinated analysis of the merits of the different transport projects will favour more money going to the public transport projects that are now being stalled because of a lack of funds. The northern suburban line, for example, needs a third rail line, as line capacity for carriages is limited. I support Deputy Crawford on the need for park and ride facilities for which no agency seems prepared to accept responsibility at present.
Why in the Dublin Transport Office's transport plan is the upgrade of the M50 the very last on the list of priorities for investment up to 2016 while at the same time the M50 upgrade is being proceeded with ahead of all the other recommended public transport projects? The Government's obsession with building new roads has turned our cities into places of mobilisation rather than civilisation. By ignoring land use issues in transport plans, the average mileage that people travel each day has increased significantly, at a huge cost to the economy, society and the environment. For instance, in the 1950s a person travelled 25 miles on average per week but now the distance travelled is a weary 130 miles and rising, yet all we hear from the Government is that it has a problem feeding the demand, which will never be met unless it is reduced.
The Bill proposes to extend the remit of the implementing agencies to take a more strategic approach. A clear example of the lack of such strategic transport planning is the Dublin Port tunnel. Much attention has been given to its height, construction difficulties and its cost, but the real controversy will arise when it opens and we realise that in traffic management terms it will bring very little benefit. It will bring a welcome relief in taking trucks from the city centre quays, but its unplanned upgrade to a dual rather than a single carriageway will encourage traffic down to the central port area where traffic management will be dictated by traffic using the tunnel rather than by local planning or transport requirements.
The Minister criticised the Bill for failing to grant sufficient powers to the new authority. However, we are glad he went on to acknowledge that this was largely due to the prohibition on an Opposition party to propose legislative changes which have significant financial implications. We would be happy to see the Government amend the Bill so that the existing functions of the NRA and the RPA are properly maintained. The intent of the Bill is to provide the integration in trans port and planning policy which is critically lacking in the current legislation.
The Minister talked in his presentation about his proposal to introduce a transport regulator, both for Dublin and for the rest of the country. If the Minister does not undertake a review of our transport investment priorities as recommended in the Bill, however, there will be little for the regulator to do as projects such as the western rail line or other new commuter rail or bus services will never get off the drawing board because of lack of funds. There seems no sense of urgency on the part of the Minister to require the NRA to take into account planning or broader transport considerations, let alone make it properly accountable to this House.
Our Bill would be a first step towards an integrated approach to the development of both road and public transport infrastructure. It would be a vital step to integrate land use planning and transport planning which would give the national spatial strategy some credibility rather than the token support it has from the Government. We ask all sides of the House to support the Bill and we look forward to the positive suggestions and amendments from all parties on Committee Stage.
Molaimid an Bille um Údarás Iompar Náisiúnta 2003 atá os comhair na Dála.
Question put.
Tá
|
Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Kenny, Enda.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic. |
McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán. |
Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin. Brennan, Seamus. |
Níl–continued
|
Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus. |
Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Boyle and Stagg.
Question declared lost.