When I was dealing with the Bill this morning I was quoting from a document submitted to the Minister in response to his Green Paper on Transport Policy. The document was submitted by the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. This is a very responsible union. Many of its members are involved in the transportation services in the city and working within CIE.
On page 30 of the Green Paper it stated that the so-called "deregulation" of bus services has not worked well in Britain and has led to poorer services, increased fares and cessation of certain services. The Congress went on to say that they were opposed to the proposals for an inner tangent ring for Dublin because the union favoured public transport over private transport. They say that a good public transport system would encourage people to leave their cars at home. I refer to that type of internal transportation within the city. If we could address ourselves to that problem — I hope this new Authority will address that problem — we could make a major contribution to ensuring that the city service runs efficiently and to the satisfaction of people who want to get to and from work.
The union went on to point out the success of the DART. The success of the DART is proof of what people can do in the transport service. The tangent ring will and indeed, clearly has already destroyed parts of the inner city, forcing people and businesses out of many of the existing areas. It will encourage more use of cars and will further lead to traffic congestion.
The union want to point out to those with a bookkeeper mentality that the cost of the inner tangent road will probably far exceed the cost of extending the DART to Tallaght. It is recognised that much of the cost has already been incurred, particularly the social costs but it is not too late to stop the lunatic policy of destroying the inner city, people's homes, businesses and public transport.
The union go on to say that bookkeepers with their narrow vision, refer only to the financial cost of the DART.
I said this morning that there was criticism. But the efficiency of the service and the welcome it has received from its users will contradict most of the criticism. It is worth pointing out, the union says, that much of this infrastructural spending will last a long time and will have to be undertaken anyway in the future because of the huge growth in Dublin's population which is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe and that we have to do something about it. When compared with the cost of major road improvements, such as the Naas by-pass or the Templeogue-Tallaght road, its price per kilometre is not high.
Other regions have suffered, as a result of this extraordinary development in Dublin city. My own region, the south-east region, has suffered, particularly Waterford city, which is the main city in the south-east region. There are proposals from SERDO to the Government on how we, in that region, feel. It is that the other regions should not be neglected. It is our belief that Dublin should not be developed at the expense of the rest of the country. If we put everything we have into the Dublin city area, the rest of the country will be attracted to that centre. That is very bad for the infrastructure of the region. It is very bad for the economic development of the regions. I hope the Minister and the Government will bear this in mind when talking about a redistribution of some of the development that is taking place.
I look forward to increased industrial development throughout the regions as opposed to having it all centred in Dublin. Many problems are created, particularly problems in the area of transport. The Irish Transport and General Workers' Union at its annual conference called for the extension of DART to Tallaght and other parts of Dublin.
Paragraph 4.2.3 of the Green Paper indicates that the DART might not be extended. I am making a case that because of its success the Government should seriously consider extending it. I would hope that this transport authority will also look at the necessity of having such a service extended.
The union feel that the Green Paper should be a discussion document. They hoped that because of some of the comments contained in it that it would not pre-empt discussion. The union would challenge the cost of extending the DART which has been mentioned as being in the region of £750 million. The union contend that that is a grossly exaggerated figure for the development of what is a tremendous service. If the DART service was extended and there was integrated rapid transport system, the numbers of passengers using any one section would increase.
Dublin has a lower population density than many European cities apart from its astronomical growth now. This is cited against the extension of the DART system together with the cost of the first phase — the Howth to Bray line. However, even New York and Stockholm and other lower density cities than Dublin had extensive rail systems. Furthermore, of the £114 million cost of the DART £10 million was recouped in VAT, £16 million recouped from the European Community and £27 million went in rolled up interest. The Government might consider what the unions say is a cheaper, lighter rapid rail system when they are extending the DART. However, in the meantime diesels should be run on existing urban lines.
It goes on to say that there have been some improvements in the control of city centre parking in recent years, the Irish Transport Union believe that that is not enough. Now that this Dublin Transport Authority Bill comes under discussion in both Houses of the Oireachtas, it should be established as quickly as possible in the manner is which the Minister indicates and in accordance with the suggestions which this House will make to ensure that there will be a properly planned development of transport within the city. There must be vigorous control of city centre parking with total metering between the canals to guarantee business people parking for limited periods only and future surplus carparks should be curtailed combined with an extended DART and bus service. This carrot and stick approach should greatly improve the movement of people within the city.
The union welcomes the Dublin ring-road which will draw traffic away from the city centre and facilitate its flow around the city. It also urges that access to our ports will be improved. Anybody who has an interest in the infrastructural development of a major city like Dublin, would try to ensure that proper access to the ports, particularly for heavy articulated container traffic, should be made available. That is where the demands would be made on the local authorities, who would have a statutory role in the provision of such roads.
The Dublin city bus service receives one of the lowest subsidies, the union says, compared to most European cities. The union believe that fares in Dublin City are too high. It urges that fares be cut and that the subsidy be increased on Dublin city services to make up any deficit and to pay for the expanded service which will be needed.
Nobody who favoured public transport especially in urban areas could oppose increasing the subsidy to the Dublin city services which was less than 20 per cent of its revenue in 1984. That compared very poorly with the 50 per cent subsidy given to London Transport or the 60 per cent or 80 per cent subsidies which were given to other city operators.
I hope that when we are dealing with the Bill section by section we will be able to point out to the Minister some of the problems that may arise out of it. I must certainly commend the Minister not alone on this Bill but on the whole transport policy to which he addresses himself. He has done more in this area than many of his predecessors. When an attempt is being made to do something, naturally there will be people who want to make suggestions and people who will oppose what the Minister is trying to do. Overall, there will be a consensus among all of us who have an interest in developing our transport system throughout the country, not alone in Dublin City, but at least the Minister is addressing himself to the problem. It is a matter for both Houses to assist the Minister to bring to fruition legislation which will deal with various sections of the restructuring that is needed in CIE, and, indeed, this Authority that the Minister wants to put in charge of the total transport system within the city of Dublin.
This is a major piece of legislation. I hope that the Minister will take on board my suggestions on section 16 regarding the membership of this House and particularly in regard to those who are nominated to contest membership of this House, that in the process of nominaiton they would not be discriminatied against in the formulation of this legislation. By so doing, we should adopt the same attitude as we did to previous legislation which took account of this peculiar situation regarding being nominated to contest the Seanad election.
I welcome the Bill. I hope the Minister will deal with some of the points that have been raised from this side of the House and, indeed, from the Opposition side. Senator Killilea obviously has quite an interest in this legislation and had an interest in quoting from the report of the task force which was set up. I note that, when this Authority is in place, it will supersede the task force who have done a useful job while they were there but who had no statutory powers. This Authority will have statutory powers and for that reason will have some "teeth" to be able to address the problems. I hope that the financial arrangements, which are being made to fund this, will be sufficient and if not, that if they need additional financing to run the business in the way we want them to run it, he will be favourably disposed to concede that.
