Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Mar 2000

Vol. 162 No. 16

Public Transport: Motion.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I move:

That Seanad Éireann congratulates the Minister for Public Enterprise on the largest ever capital provision for public transport, in the form of the £2.2 billion commitment in the national development plan, and in particular welcomes:

–the £1,600 million allocation to transform the public system in the greater Dublin area;

–the £500 million commitment to the revitalisation of the mainline railway;

and

–the £150 million being provided for the upgrading of national public transport services.

I welcome the Minister for Public Enterprise. When she took office in the summer of 1997 public transport was at a crossroads, which was a maze. There was no clearly defined direction on the role of commercial semi-State companies, particularly public transport which had contributed much during the decades to our economic prosperity. The motion, which is timely, rightly pays tribute to the Minister for the enormous work she has done in the development of a national public transport infrastructure, not just in its planning and policy making but in the commitment of money now and in the future. That is the most significant element. A total of £2.2 billion is to be invested under the national development plan. This represents an investment on a scale undreamed of previously which, when fully committed, will transform the public transport landscape through the provision of a fully integrated system.

Everyone agrees that following many years of neglect the public transport system was awash with deficiencies. A strategy had to be put in place and huge capital resources allocated to achieve revitalisation. Those who suggest that there is a quick fix solution to traffic gridlock fuelled by the booming Celtic tiger are living in the land of make believe.

Shakespeare once said, I think in Hamlet, "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark." I will not use that phrase in referring to CIE, although I am tempted to do so. From personal and inside knowledge, it is a sick, troubled company which rakes over old coals in press releases and leaks. For years management blamed successive Governments for starving it of money. It now has money upfront, yet judging from recent happenings there is a serious malaise at its core and this must be rooted out. I am fully confident that the Minister's radical approach to public transport will work and eradicate this stultifying, self-strangulating culture of dangerous irresponsible brinkmanship and malpractice from the company. I regularly travel around the country and have heard many stories which I will save for another day.

A total of £1.6 billion is to be spent under the national development plan to radically transform public transport in the greater Dublin area. Proposals already approved in respect of Luas include the Tallaght to Connolly light rail line and the Sandyford to Dublin Airport line. The statutory procedures have been completed in respect of the light rail order for the line from Tallaght to Abbey Street and the order for the line from Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green. The feasibility study of the section from St. Stephen's Green to Dublin Airport has been completed. This shows that the underground section from St. Stephen's Green to Broadstone is feasible in engineering terms. This knocks on the head Opposition assertions that it was a con job and could not be built. It has been costed at approximately £300 million. There has been preliminary public consultation on possible routes north of Broadstone.

There is £185 million available for a short-term suburban rail programme. There is to be major investment in the phased purchase of 46 additional DART cars and 58 diesel rail cars. Improvements are being made in signalling, new stations are being constructed and platforms of existing stations extended to cater for eight car trains. Work is in progress at Raheny DART station in my constituency.

There is also the question of expanding light rail, thereby increasing potential carrying capacity. This will involve an element of segregation. This is to be warmly welcomed and will only be achieved progressively. Those who have, naively, attempted to criticise the Minister for introducing modifications as the programme develops have their heads in the sand. Where modifications are meritorious one should have the courage of one's convictions and proceed with them. That is what the Minister is doing.

There have been rumours that the light rail programme is to be scrapped. These can only be described as mischievous and do not merit further comment. A total of £430 million has been set aside to implement the surface elements of the programme. For some time the cynics have been rubbishing the prospects of an underground section for which a total of £500 million has been set aside. This is a clear vote of confidence on the part of the Minister who is determined to proceed with the programme.

A total of £50 million is to be allocated to promote and improve the integration of the public transport system to be spent on such matters as integrated ticketing, additional park and ride spaces, public transport interchange and real time passenger information. These measures are designed to make it easier and more attractive to use public transport.

On Dublin Bus, the Government funded the provision of 150 new buses last year. This year the company will purchase 225 new buses, of which 100 will replace buses currently in use. It is to be agreed that, slowly, the company is making efforts to clean up its public image. Every new bus purchased from here on will afford access to the disabled. I commend the Minister on pursuing this issue with determination, often against the odds. She responded promptly and effectively to the calls of those who were of the view that a terrible injustice had been inflicted on them during the years.

The company will provide a service which respects the equal rights of access of people with a disability. That is a most important principle which the Minister has enshrined into the public transport development plan. The subject of people with a disability is a hobby horse of mine and of everybody in this House. I commend the Minister and warmly welcome her decision to set £10 million aside for the work to improve access to existing public transport, to which I referred earlier, for the mobility impaired and people with a disability. I note that she is seeking the advice of a new public transport accessibility committee on how this money should be spent and that is commendable. I welcome the fact that all new urban buses, DART and suburban rail cars will be fully accessible to people with a disability, as will new stations and the Luas light rail network. That is real progress in two years.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I will come here more often.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Dublin Bus has employed consultants on an important study to redesign the network so as to provide a mesh of services. At present the network is largely radial in that it provides services into and out of town and across town. The purpose of creating a web is to link suburbs, thereby eliminating much of the unnecessary through town traffic. That has been one of the big bugbears; therefore I welcome that study. Many more quality bus corridors are being developed, and better and extended cycling and pedestrian facilities will be provided also.

It is my understanding that the Minister has stated that her preference is the break-up of CIE into separate individual companies and that this is the best way forward for the national development of public transport. If that is her view, she has my full support based on my knowledge of what goes on.

There is a commitment of £150 million for Bus Éireann and the provincial bus services. My colleague will refer to the railways. I do not know what the amendment means. I am sure it was tabled with the best of intentions and in the best interests of those who use public transport, but I do not understand it, given the progress made and the money which is already being used.

Mr. Walsh

Aontaíom leis an rún agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire ar ais go dtí an Teach seo. Molaim í as ucht an iarracht atá á dhéanamh aici agus an airgead atá á chur ar fáil do Iarnród Éireann chun an ábhar seo a chur chun chinn. I second the motion. Undoubtedly it is timely. Transport and infrastructure are top of the Government's agenda and these are among the main challenges facing us over the next decade or two. The way we deal with it will influence economic growth to a significant degree in the future also.

There has been a dearth of investment in road infrastructure and in the rail system over many decades. I join Senator Fitzgerald in applauding the Minister for the tremendous effort she is making to try to redress the neglect of several decades and ensure that we will have both road and rail transport systems commensurate with the requirements of the modern economy.

By any standards, the national development plan, which is the most ambitious and comprehensive attempt to achieve investment in this island, is significant and augurs well for the future. It will take time for the comprehensiveness of, and enlightenment contained in, the plan to be seen and recognised. The overall investment involved is about £46 billion and the significant sum of £2.2 billion is being set aside to address the transport initiatives which need to be taken, particularly in the rail sector.

It is simple enough to address the transport problem. If we are to succeed, it will require money, energy and a well structured corporate system. The Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, has certainly played her part in setting out a blueprint as to how it should be tackled and ensuring that the necessary resources will be made available to implement the plan. Her record since coming into office two and half years ago is evidence of her absolute commitment to redressing the shortcomings in that company and, indeed, in the transport system. The sum of £185 million will be spent on suburban rail and already there are 73 new DART cars. There is to be further investment in 100 new cars. I welcome this because the DART has played a significant part. If there had been a little more enlightenment at the time the DART was constructed its tentacles might have been much more extensive. This would have assisted the traffic flows in Dublin and would have attracted people to the service. Therefore, I welcome the courageous decision of the Minister within the last year on Luas. As I have said here previously, she displayed considerable courage in backing the proposal to place underground a proportion of the Luas project. If one was designing Dublin again and looking to present needs, not to talk of the future, undoubtedly there would be a complete underground rail network.

Mr. Norris

Please God there will be, with the help of the Minister.

Mr. Walsh

Any investment made should try to facilitate a more extensive and ambitious underground system than that which is planned at present.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. Walsh

The first step has been taken and it is essential. If the Minister had opted for an over-ground system, particularly in the city centre, obviously the prospect of ever having an underground system would have been lost forever. I compliment the Minister's initiative and all sides of the House should support it also.

Senator Fitzgerald dealt with the park and ride facilities. These will be extended and that is essential. A major part of the national development plan involves addressing these and having other satellite towns around Dublin taking some of the population. The efficient and cost effective movement of people between those centres and the capital is essential for future generations.

There is a real need for extensive investment in the national rail network, both in the rail lines and the rolling stock. Through the various reports on rail safety, the Minister identified the need for such investment. I know from contacts with Iarnród Éireann that the company is importing and laying more rail and I welcome this. The emphasis which has been laid on regional centres, like Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, is necessary but it also needs to be done within the framework of updating the culture of the company. I travel to Dublin from Waterford only very occasionally because often the schedule is not suitable. For an additional £5 one may upgrade to first class and that is useful because one may have breakfast on the train. However, there is a caveat, which is that one gets breakfast if the catering staff turn up and that is not always the case. If the company is to entice people to travel by rail, it needs to treat them better than that.

On investment in rail, some of the poorest sections of rail are in Wexford, which is developing as a major centre of population. Many Dublin people are coming to live in towns like New Ross, Enniscorthy and Gorey and want to commute to Dublin. Therefore, it will be essential that there is attractive rolling stock. People are prepared to pay if they get a quality service.

I have already mentioned rail safety and I think the Minister is playing her part in this regard. Undoubtedly, we must ensure the contents of the national development plan are fully implemented and that the time schedule is adhered to. The Minister must also create a climate in which the company must compete. Competition will be the essence of quality and of raising standards and will ensure unions and management focus on the objective of serving the customer. Ultimately, companies should not exist unless they provide a proper service for customers at competitive rates. Competition is necessary. It will be difficult in terms of the rail network, but there is no reason we should be trying to protect State monopolies in terms of the Dublin and national bus routes. I would like to think the Minister will bring with her the management and board of CIE who should see the merits of pursuing that policy.

I compliment the Minister on her efforts and think she has the good wishes of the House in securing her ambitions and plans for a much better rail infrastructure and transportation system which are badly needed.

Mr. O'Dowd

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"condemns the Minister for Public Enterprise on her failure and that of the Government to adequately deal with the problems of deteriorating traffic gridlock and specifically deplores the lack of adequate financial subsidies to public transport services annually, to reform the Road Transport Act, 1932, the lack of any transport White Paper and the conflicting statements in relation to the future of both the Luas project and the CIE Group."

The current Dáil and Seanad will shortly be in existence for almost three years. If we examine how we travel to Leinster House, can we say that things have got better or worse? Have our commuting times got longer or shorter? Are our trains safer or more over-crowded? Are our buses as regular as we need them to be? There is gridlock not just in Dublin and our major cities but in towns throughout the country. There has been an explosion in car transport which is something we are not sufficiently addressing as a society. People want to bring their cars everywhere – if they could they would drive them into the local supermarket. We must change our thinking on how we shop, go to work etc.

My commuting time to the House, regardless of the route I take, has certainly increased over the past three years. The park and ride facilities on the northside of the city were used by fewer people last Christmas than Christmas 1998. Things are not changing sufficiently on the ground. The complete and abject failure of park and ride facilities in Dublin is a disgrace and we must blame ourselves for not thinking about our journeys beforehand and using other means of transport. The Government's policy has failed in terms of existing park and ride facilities, irrespective of the new facilities which are promised. Nobody is using the park and ride facility in Whitehall, for example. Rather, we are all using our cars.

The train from Drogheda to Dublin, which I took today, was more overcrowded than a year ago. Increasingly commuters are travelling by rail, but trains are seriously overcrowded. We have no problem with the plans to increase the amount of money invested in public transport, but we want to see a more significant change or effect which will be evident more quickly.

Should we ban cars from the main streets of our towns and cities? I think it would make a lot of sense to examine this rather than building new car parks or attaching additional car parking spaces to planning permissions. In cities such as San Francisco permission is not given for developments if car parking is provided because the move is away from the individual and towards the public transport service. This is something we should examine. It will require a change in mindset but it will have to be done.

Another issue is incentives for people who wish to provide car parks on the periphery of towns at important strategic access points outside but near shopping areas. I would like to see a plan which encouraged, through Government subvention, etc., the provision of these facilities.

I also wish to raise the question of CIE. As the Minister is aware, we were to sit all day tomor row, but sadly this has been altered due to the tragic death of a Member of the other House. I do not wish to raise all the issues I wanted to raise tomorrow, other than to say that in fairness CIE gets a lot of bashing, much of which is undeserved. Certainly those who work for the company are very committed to it. We must encourage more use of better public transport rather than bashing existing companies.

The regulator for our public transport is very important, particularly in terms of safety. The report which was circulated is extremely critical of the safety culture in Iarnród Éireann. The Minister has taken much criticism over the issue of safety on public transport. A regulator for all transport by air, water and land should be separate from the Department of Public Enterprise and be vested in the Health and Safety Authority.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is being brought forward. I announced that six months ago.

Mr. O'Dowd

I was not aware that the regulator of rail safety was working for the Health and Safety Authority.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am not talking about that. I said I have proposed the legislation.

Mr. O'Dowd

I am very happy to hear that and was not aware of it.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am sorry for interrupting the Senator.

Mr. O'Dowd

I am glad the Minister said that as it is very important. It will certainly increase the confidence of people in the safety of all forms of transport.

The Government is rightly talking about relocating Departments outside the main city which I think is very good and laudable and which I support 100%.

Mr. Coghlan

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Dowd

We ought to have a parallel movement encouraging the larger commercial enterprises in the city, such as office providers and insurance companies, to relocate in the provinces to areas such as Drogheda, Dundalk, Kildare etc. Making it attractive for such companies to relocate would make a lot of sense.

The reality is that when we travel on the chaotic roads we are all moving in the one direction while practically nobody is going in the opposite direction. We must, literally, have two way traffic.

Mr. Coghlan

I second the amendment. I welcome the Minister to the House for this debate and look forward to her response to the various questions raised. I support and endorse fully the views of my colleague, Senator O'Dowd.

I was sorry to miss the comments of Senator Liam Fitzgerald – later I will read the Official Report. I agree with Senator Walsh that competition is vitally important in this sector and I accept everything the Minister has said about safety recently. "Safety" is the watch word and no short cuts can be taken in regard to this important issue. Sadly, I share many of Senator Walsh's experiences in regard to the availability of food on trains. It is great that vast numbers of people are using the rail network but overcrowding is a very serious matter and officials should be appointed to prevent people from accessing overcrowded trains. I cannot understand why an extra carriage or two cannot be made available. I look forward to the day when the people of the south-west will no longer be treated as second class citizens and proper rolling stock will run between Kerry and the capital, which is not the case currently.

Traffic gridlock is increasing and there is a question about the adequacy of the annual financial subsidies for public transport subsidies. The Road Traffic Act, 1932, should be reformed and a White Paper on transport should be published. Conflicting statements have been made recently regarding the future of both Luas and the CIE group. The public perception of the group is that it is a mess because of all that has gone on internally. I look forward to the Minister addressing these points in her contribution.

The perception is probably true that CIE has been treated as a political football and recent events have demonstrated that this is unfortunately the case.

Mr. Norris

Perhaps it needed a kick now and again.

Mr. Coghlan

There is no better man than the Senator to do so. Whatever about the constructive criticism which I hope to provide, the Minister has a fan in Senator Norris. He is not shy and will speak up.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am also a fan of his.

Mr. Coghlan

The feeling is mutual. I am learning all the time. The Minister was quoted recently as saying that CIE had been broken up into three separate companies. I understood that was the case already and the three organisations operated under one umbrella.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I never said that.

Mr. Coghlan

It was attributed to the Minister, perhaps incorrectly, that this was the answer to the gridlock. The break up of the group may be good and I await the Minister's comments with interest. However, it is not in itself the answer to the gridlock. The public interest is all that needs to be served. Sadly, there is some truth to the perception that people were appointed to the board of CIE as a reward for services rendered to party rather than country. CIE needs people with the necessary capability and expertise.

Documentation has also been leaked on a regular basis and I invite the Minister to outline definitively her proposals for the future of the company. It is looked upon as a dinosaur but recent events have been akin to back stabbing. CIE's role should be defined and it should then be given the freedom to get on with the job without ministerial interference.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Why am I being called upon to settle the bus strike?

Mr. Coghlan

I did not call on the Minister to do so but I will address that issue later. CIE does not enjoy autonomy. How much freedom from Government involvement in industrial relations should CIE enjoy? What are the lines of demarcation between the roles of the shareholders, board and Executive? I want the Minister to outline her views on this key issue.

The substance of both the motion and amendment is vital for all of us. I am delighted that the use of public transport is increasing. I agree with the Minister in regard to safety but overcrowding is the most serious problem faced by CIE. It is in evidence on a daily basis.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

It is the result of prosperity.

Mr. Coghlan

The problem must be addressed and CIE should be allowed to administrate its business freely. I hope we will get away from all the past argy-bargy and interference. I look forward to the Minister's contribution.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I thank Senators for tabling the motion and affording me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I commend colleagues for their fine contributions, including those on the amendment, which was ably proposed and seconded. I will address the promotion of public transport in a proper manner, as Senators and I have a common interest in this regard. It would be remiss of me not to make some straightforward comments.

CIE has given long and honourable service to the State and the nature of its work is not a source of disharmony in the House. However, for many decades CIE's mantra has been to give it the money and everything will be all right. Successive Governments of all persuasions decided that they would provide a Cinderella public transport service. I have reviewed records and letters pleading with Ministers of different parties to provide various resources and read the bland refusal of successive Ministers and Government to view public transport as a necessary part of everybody's life. I sometimes wonder how they slept at night given their knowledge of the condition of the rail network. However, that is how public transport evolved.

The first rail line was built to Dún Laoghaire in 1838 and the network expanded after that throughout the land. Every Minister over the past 25 years allocated £100 million annually to CIE and trundled on. I was in office for only a few months when there was a major fatality at Knockcroghery in Roscommon. I visited the site of the accident and decided that I would not remain as Minister unless I was allocated the money to commission an independent study into rail safety. A total of £350 million has been provided and ring-fenced for rail safety over five years. A sum of £86 million was spent last year and £100 million will be spent annually over the next two years on various aspects of rail infrastructure, including signalling, rail stations and level crossings.

Some people were extremely interested in safety but I was obsessed by it. I was deeply upset when the annual report I published on spending on rail safety was dismissed as a fig leaf last week. A total of 34 unreasonable risks were identified and only three were addressed. The Senators should remember that. Very positive measures were taken by the workers but a great deal was not done and rather than pretend everything is perfect, it would be better if the company concerned said that it has done some good and it will do more.

I wrote to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service asking if a day could be set aside to peruse this book. Last year, when I was looking for the money, safety was the most important issue. Now, when I have the money, everybody wants to dismiss it. We hear talk of a fig leaf and that everything is all right – until an accident occurs. The chairman of a State company will not be required to come into Dáil Éireann if a train accident occurs, but I will have to do so. I have provided the money. I cannot transform the 34 unreasonable risks. That is a matter for the company, which got the money to do it, but the minute an accident occurs, the person who is in charge is asked to come before Dáil Éireann, and rightly so, and be democratically accountable to the Parliament.

Am I to be just a source or money, to dole out the money without ever opening my mouth? Is the company saying that if I give it more money it will be the most perfect railway company ever? I can tell Senators that I intend to take my duties seriously. I intend to intervene if necessary. I do not intend to act like a zombie and simply say, "How many millions do you want this year, boys? Do you want £500 million? You can have it all, just do not bother me."

I want to take up the points about intervention and interference. I listened with great interest to this House this morning which demanded that I intervene to settle the bus strike. Last week, despite the fact that I did not intervene, I was hounded throughout the land for daring to intervene. I thank RTE for its apology on Tuesday night for the barefaced untruth that I had intervened with the Labour Court. In all my life I never went to a court to intervene about anything. Am I to shut up and give out money, but to intervene only when others want to hear me? That is not the way I do my business. I want to know where the nation's money is being spent, if it is being spent well and if there is a decent return for it. I want to know what CIE is doing with its money. Why should I not? I commend Mr. Fergus Finlay who wrote an article in The Examiner to the effect that I am not intervening enough and who went on to list out the areas in CIE where there needs to be a nanny in every corner. I am not taking at all from CIE. Why should I? It is the public transport company. I was raised five yards from the railway station in Athlone beside the sidings, the trains, etc., but I know that in modern life the rail service has to serve the customer as well as its employees.

Questions were asked about competition. We do not intend to privatise the heavy rail system. We have a different gauge from the rest of the world. We had an Irish solution to an Irish problem when the rail tracks were being built, we were a united Ireland at that time and one could travel North-South, from Dublin to Belfast as we do today. We will not privatise that system simply because it gets a public subsidy of £100 million. It is a social as well as a practical service and it should be kept that way. That is what is needed in a country with very remote areas.

It should be noted that this is the only Government that took the decision to keep all the operating tracks in operation and provide £350 million in five years, £500 million over seven years, to repair the rail network. Other Governments shied away from doing that. They did not take the decision to close the lines but they did not provide the money to repair them. I do not know how those Ministers responsible for transport put their heads on their pillows at night because it would be enough to give one a seizure before morning if one thought about it. The money has been provided but the emphasis has gone away from safety, that is until there is an accident.

I want to come to the question of interference. I was highly amused when the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, got a telephone message from the chairman to Deputy Yates on her telephone. Was that not a delicious turn of events?

Mr. O'Dowd

That was a ventriloquist.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I thought to myself that there is no road without a turning.

Mr. O'Dowd

We have one in the Seanad as well.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I did eight television and radio programmes that day because I did not intend to lie down in the face of events. I got home and received a telephone call telling me to listen to this person, whom I regarded as a very fine chairman. I still regard him as a very fine chairman.

Mr. Coghlan

A good, commercially minded man.

Mrs. O'Rourke

He and I had struck up a great friendship and I thought he would have had the manners to fulfil an appointment he had made with me. We were all brought up a certain way. If one made an arrangement to meet somebody, one should fulfil it. That is how I was brought up. One did not leave a person waiting. Be that as it may, intervention is my middle name and I do not intend to become demure. I will not intervene in the bus strike, however, because I have been told not to, and the Leader of the House knows I am keen to be obedient at all times.

Mr. Ryan

Is it a long bath for the weekend?

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is a kind of juvenile remark, if the Senator does not mind me saying so.

Mr. Ryan

I do not mind at all. There is a lot that is juvenile going on around here.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McDonagh)

The Minister, without interruption.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I would have said the same if I had been having a cup of tea in the kitchen, but I was having a bath. If one says what one was doing, it is a cause of huge merriment to everybody.

Mr. Ryan

If the Minister tells us what she was doing, the rest of us are entitled to talk about it too.

Acting Chairman

The Minister, without interruption.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I want to say also to Senator Keogh, who I know has been very assiduous about proposing ideas on transport, which is to be welcomed, that I do not "magpie" her at all.

Ms Keogh

That is a nice phrase. I want the Minister to "magpie".

Mrs. O'Rourke

I made this proposal to Cabinet last November so I—

Mr. Norris

As long as the Minister gives it a good nest.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The more people who have good ideas, the better. They all should be taken on board. I read the Senator's document carefully and I need to go further than I am going. The Senator is right about the three companies, but is it right that one person is chairman of three companies? Do Senators think that is a good idea?

Mr. Norris

No.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not, and I aim to change that as well as many other matters. I have clear legislative proposals which I will present to the infrastructure committee of the Cabinet on 11 and 18 April.

I used to think that CIE would be the last frontier and that I would not reach it in my term, but I intend to reach it and in a very meaningful way. I know that a difficult road lies ahead but we all should look into our hearts. We are all tiptoeing around one big problem and I know from conversations with people from different parties that they recognise it but they are afraid to open their mouths.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Precisely.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That big problem will have to be tackled.

Senator Norris has been intrepid and courageous in his support for Luas. All of the Senator's dreams are going to come true.

Mr. Coghlan

Will he be around for them?

Mrs. O'Rourke

He will.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

He is a fine young lad.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The original Luas idea was petty and paltry. I do not know what party will be in Government but the plan we will unfold very soon is for a comprehensive, completely underground system. In that regard, people have asked me how I could put a woman underground. That was said to me by a woman Deputy. How do they do it in London, where the underground was built 150 years ago? They were having palpitations about it. I regard it as sexist to ask me if I would put a woman underground. I do not mean when she dies but on an underground tram.

I think Senator Liam Fitzgerald said one changes one's plans as one sees the need. Almost every city and large metropolitan area I have been in abroad has a very advanced public transport system. We do not because, for some mad reason, we fell in love with cars. Households first had one car and then had to have two and three cars. Senator O'Dowd referred to this. It is as if cars became gods to us and we neglected our public transport system. We now have the money and we intend to do what needs to be done.

Competition is needed for Dublin Bus. The Cabinet took a decision on that last November. I have a paper for the 11 April meeting setting out the interim steps we can take before we change the legislation. We have received all the submissions. Competition would make Dublin Bus a better company. I am quite sure that will happen. I do not have time for a White Paper, unfortunately, because I want to get to work. White Papers require long consultations with everybody solemnly putting up their hands and fighting about it. We need to get to work on this.

The money is there to be spent. My fear now is that CIE will not spend the money in time. It has spending plans and is ordering train and DART carriages and buses. The buses will all be accessible by the disabled. That issue has suddenly died away. Disabled people are trebly disabled if they cannot get to where they want to go. They are diminished as people if they do not have the freedom to get from point A to point B. I saw two of the low floor buses when I was coming to the House. They are not just for the disabled but also for parents with prams, older people who cannot manage the higher steps and so on. Every new bus – 235 will be bought this year – will be accessible by the physically disabled. Platforms are being lengthened around the country to accommodate the new train carriages. While there are still huge gaps, the necessary money is available and the work will be done. Public transport should be attractive, available and accessible – the three As.

Mr. Ryan

And affordable – there are four As.

Mrs. O'Rourke

And affordable. The chairman resigned because I would not let him increase fares by 10%. That was a funny thing to do, given my concerns about the consumer.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister should not blame me for the chairman. I am just reminding her it must be affordable.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I too think it should be affordable.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister forgot that the first time.

Mrs. O'Rourke

When the chairman asked for a 10% increase, I said there could only be a 5% increase. He went into a little puss about it and resigned. I am a meddling miss and I would not give him 10%. I still think he was a good chairman and I wish he had stayed. However, people have different ideas. My mother always told me to mind my manners. I would turn up if I made an appointment to meet someone, which is what he should have done.

I must leave at 7 p.m. I greatly regret I will not hear what I am sure will be really good contributions. I know that the four or five Members who have not spoken yet will be scintillating.

Mr. Norris

Sometimes when I speak at a public meeting or dinner people say they pity the person who speaks after me, which is intended as a compliment. The Minister gave a bravura performance, which was a joy to watch. Her eloquence and her body language show she is totally in command of her brief.

Mr. Cassidy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris

She was able to put her script aside and deal in a clear, precise, warm, human and humorous way with very large sums of money and very complex and sophisticated interrelationships in the transport system. That shows clearly she is not a Minister for the turning, unlike her three male predecessors, each of whom we convinced in turn to put the major element of the Luas underground in the city centre. They agreed with us but their civil servants turned them around as easily as a spindle.

Mrs. O'Rourke

They nearly did that to me.

Mr. Norris

Thank God they did not. This is a very important issue. Some of the issues debated in this House may appear remote from the people, even issues about which we are all passionately concerned, such as foreign policy, ethics in Government and so on. However, the question of public transport is not remote from the people. It bites into everybody's life and people feel very keenly about it. It is easy to understand why.

This afternoon I was visiting someone in St. James's Hospital. I have great regard for the nurses. However, they decided to have a protest and they stopped every car leaving the premises to ask people to sign a petition. I refused. It is a rule of life, as far as I am concerned, that one should never sign anything when there is a gun to one's head. I said I would not sign it because they had delayed me for half an hour, but that if they posted it to me I would consider it. There was rabid fury among the people because we were delayed for 30 or 45 minutes. That is what happens.

Everybody in this city has a direct interest in the conveniences afforded to us by an efficient, affordable and reliable public transport service, which is what I think these plans will give us. The Government has tabled a very clear and specific motion which is itemised and costed. It tells the House what we are getting, what is being applied for and so on and it congratulates the Minister. That is fair enough. However, I am an Independent Member and I do not belong in either main grouping. How could I support the amendment tabled by the Opposition? In the first place, there is a split infinitive in the opening sentence, which rules me out immediately, where it states "to adequately deal". What would Kevin Myers say if I were to support this? He would go on again about my grammar and so on. More importantly, while it "condemns" and "deplores", there is very little in it that is specific.

The tone of the excellent contributions of Senators O'Dowd and Coghlan was very interesting. They were prepared to accept the Minister's correction on the hoof when she supplied the information. That is what good democracy and Parliament is about. When a serious question is raised and a Minister who is in control of the subject is able to deliver the answer straightaway, a gentlemanly Opposition spokesperson says he accepts the answer. That is what democracy is about. It was noticeable that the two Senators indicated they welcomed elements of the plan. There was none of the sharpness, tetchiness and partisan feeling one gets where there is a real issue of difference.

It seems to me that the amendment was tabled just for the sake of it and because that is what Opposition parties do. Unfortunately, Deputy Dukes, who is a decent man, created a crisis in his party when he took a different line and created the Tallaght strategy. One does not get rewarded in political life for agreeing with a Government when it is doing the right thing. I think the Government is doing the right thing here.

I will not go into the technical details because, first, there is not much time and, second, in the three major debates we have had on this subject, particularly the Luas proposal, over the past five years, those of us who were pushing for this idea at least to be considered put a vast amount of technical, detailed information on the record. It would be fatuous of me to rehash all that, except to say that the principal arguments have been vindicated.

In the Minister's speech, she makes the point that the geological survey proves we were right. CIE and the DTO said we were not. They damned us black and every way but sideways and said we were amateurs and knew nothing about geology and that the geological construction under the city of Dublin made it impossible to build an underground. Where are those arguments now? I will not try further to embarrass those people because I am a Christian and I know the old parable that there is more rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner that repents than over the 99 that are already saved. I rejoice and give thanks to God – Hallelujah – that some of the people in CIE have now turned completely around on their heads and they are coming out with the arguments which they derided in this House over the years. Thank God they have accepted the main outline which is perfectly clear.

Pedestrians need to be favoured in the city centre. It is an eighteenth century city and the streets are narrow and twisted. The obvious place to put at least one element of mass transport is underground where, among other things, there is the advantage of being able to increase the frequency and the length of the trains. The passenger capacity can be massively increased and the surface of the city can be left to be fully enjoyed by the commuting public.

The Minister also introduced a number of very important elements. She is absolutely right to make the point that the five-year railway safety programme is being introduced now before there is a really serious crash. Nobody will come in whinging afterwards. Fatalities happen regularly and are reported on the European television news in Germany, Italy, France and Britain. We have luckily escaped a major catastrophe which is amazing when one considers the appalling nature of much of the rolling stock, much of which will be replaced under these schemes. The Minister is absolutely right and it shows how on the ball she is that before there is a tragedy and not in response to a disaster, she comes in and provides the money.

I was quite shocked to hear that there were 34 major risk elements isolated by a report and with the money provided by the Minister only three have been dealt with. Let us have the other 31 dealt with. If she wants to chase them and ask why they have not done this, present them with her shopping list and say that they should have done it, we will support her in this House on all sides – Senator O'Dowd is nodding. Of course we will.

The Minister took the point on intervention I was going to make but she made it with such flair, saying that she is attacked for intervening and then called upon to solve the bus strike. Why should she not intervene? I listened with interest to a remark made on the Order of Business by my friend and colleague Senator Shane Ross who pointed out that she is the single shareholder. If she is to behave responsibly she has to intervene. There would be questions raised if she did not intervene and she is perfectly right.

I emphasise that the underground developments should be put out to public tender. We should maximise the private-public participation. Particularly in the light of the DTO's and CIE's lamentable performance, it is obvious that we should do this. Currently the DTO is using the excuse for upgrading it to a metro that traffic flow has increased unexpectedly, but in these sorts of transport circumstances one is required to plan for a 20-year advance period. If they did not foresee it why are they involved in this at all?

I raise the question of the Assistant Secretary of the Department. I will not name the person who is a very professional man. There is an anomalous situation with which I would be uncomfortable and which is invidious for him because he is both project director and also on the two LRT monitoring bodies, which is unfortunate. I make no criticism of the person involved but it is a rather dangerous position.

We in this House can claim credit because it was this House that amended the Dublin Transport Bill which permitted this wonderful development but do not let us forget that we were all briefed and provided with technical information by the people from the unified proposal. They were the people who were proved right above CIE and I hope they will be fully consulted and that the immense amount of time and energy and intellectual brilliance they showed will be rewarded by a role in the development of what they foresaw when the people in CIE could not do so.

Ms Keogh

Senator Norris commented on how difficult it was to follow the Minister after her absolutely outstanding performance, with which I must agree. It is really invidious when one has to follow two of them. I will follow in a much more humble fashion. I wish I had the opportunity to welcome the Minister here but I welcome Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob. He is used to listening to me on many occasions.

The Minister had the good grace to tell us – and I was glad to hear it – that she has read the transport document which I produced on behalf of the Progressive Democrats. I have, on a number of occasions on behalf of our party, introduced the blueprint of our ideas for the future of public transport in Ireland. I advise Senator Norris that I must claim some credit concerning Luas and that I completely agree with the remarks he made as well.

Mr. Norris

Yes, the Senator was terrific.

Ms Keogh

The Minister is open, prepared to listen and is not too proud, as she said in this debate, to take ideas and run with them if she thinks they will work. That is the way in which Ministers should behave.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Ms Keogh

More Ministers should behave in that open fashion. We are agreed that we need a major overhaul of our public transport system. We cannot deal with our increased prosperity and accommodate our full economic potential unless we do that. I welcome the commitment of the Government to public transport in the national development plan. Our view, the Minister's view and the view of everyone in this House, is that public policy has to centre on the needs of the consumer. We know, and it has been said, that for far too long the consumer was ignored by successive Governments. In the past there was a CIE policy, not a public transport policy. I have firm ideas about how we change that. The Minister has the courage to take on those people who have vested interests in order to implement exacting public policy.

I put forward three key initiatives which are required if we are serious about developing public transport. A public transport authority should be established that will regulate all aspects of bus and rail transport on a national basis. Obviously, competition should be introduced in the bus market both in Dublin and other parts of the country, which is coming in at last but very slowly. The Minister will promote that as well. We need the complete restructuring of the appalling monolith that is CIE. Despite the comments made by the Minister on its long and honourable service of the past, it is not a suitable vehicle for the future.

Each of the main subsidiaries, Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, should be established as a separate and autonomous trading entity. I agree with the Minister who asked what the point was in having one chairperson over three bodies. It is crazy.

The first job of an independent regulatory body for the sector is to design the national public transport network. Currently we do not have a national network. There are no bus links between some neighbouring towns, while many of our larger urban centres have no local bus services. The authority could also be responsible for managing the State subsidy for public transport and ensuring that it is allocated as efficiently as possible.

The most important role for a public transport authority is in the area of competition. We need to repeal the outdated legislation of the 1930s which governs bus transport in Dublin. Much legislation which currently governs bus transport dates from the early part of the last century. We must empower the independent regulator to act as the licence-issuing authority for the sector, to set standards for the frequency, quality and reliability of services and to ensure that these standards are met. The issue of safety is paramount and I agree with what the Minister said earlier in that regard.

Real competition in the bus market will offer great benefits to consumers. The Progressive Democrats Party believes the best way of achieving this is through re-regulation, not deregulation. We have seen from the British experience that full deregulation generated an immediate increase in competition, with several operators fighting it out on major routes. Over time, however, the strongest firms won out, leaving the consumer with a new monopoly which was worse than the old one. We do not want that to happen here.

We propose a franchise-type system instead, with the regulator awarding licences for particular routes or areas via a competitive tendering system. The licences would cover set periods of time, perhaps five to seven years, and could then be re-advertised for competition. Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus could compete for the franchises on the same commercial terms as anyone else and, therefore, the system would be geared to the needs of the consumer.

Competitive tendering would transform the bus market, bringing in new investment, new routes and new ideas for meeting the needs of consumers. God knows, our transport system needs that. It would also help to address the pressing public transport needs of major cities outside Dublin. In recent years much of the debate on public transport has focused almost exclusively on the needs of the capital. While that is understandable, Dublin is not the only city concerned. There are also serious public transport problems in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. In addition, there is a need for improved public transport services in places like Tralee, Clonmel, Sligo, Carlow and Letterkenny—

Mr. O'Dowd

Drogheda.

Ms Keogh

—all of which are growing into major urban centres in their own right. I am sure other Senators can quote similar examples elsewhere. If we had such a new regulatory regime it would create a transparent system whereby taxpayers and consumers could see precisely what services were being delivered in return for State subvention.

Nobody could disagree that CIE is badly in need of restructuring. Thirteen years ago the group was split into three main operating units but, for a variety of reasons, that structure has not worked and CIE has not shown the flexibility of response required to meet the demands of a dynamic and rapidly changing society. There is insufficient management and financial autonomy in each of the operating companies. There is over-centralisation of decision-making at the group's headquarters in Dublin and industrial relations problems in one company tend to spill over into the others.

There is also an amazing lack of integration in public transport, despite the fact that virtually all services are operated by the one group. In many parts of the country, buses do not connect with trains and vice versa. The most extraordinary sight at Blackrock DART station is to see the train pulling in just as the bus moves off. Where is the consumer service there? In some cases it seems as if CIE's road and rail companies are in competition with each other. For instance, the group's Rosslare-Wexford-Arklow-Dublin express bus service is in direct competition with the Rosslare-Wexford-Arklow-Dublin train service. Remarkably, the bus service is faster than the rail service.

The three companies, larnród Éireann, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, should be freed from the embrace of CIE. Each company should have full operational autonomy, financial independence and commercial freedom, including the freedom to compete with one another. There is a strong case for creating separate business units within Iarnród Éireann to deal with the management and development of infrastructure and the operation of train services.

larnród Éireann has a major job of work to do if it is to deliver all the rail projects set out in the Government's ambitious and worthy national development plan. Early indications, however, give cause for concern. It has taken nearly four years to get the DART service extended to Greystones. Back in the 1840s it took William Dargan little more than that to build the new railway from Dublin to Cork.

It is vitally important that the rail projects in the national development plan are delivered as quickly as possible. Public-private partnerships can be used to achieve these badly needed projects. The DART is our flagship public transport service but, unfortunately, it has deteriorated in recent times. We need a customer-focused rail service that is competitive by international standards and able to deliver the type of quality service that is the norm in other countries of similar size.

I favour the concept of employee ownership which should be promoted within the CIE group of companies. In addition, we need to make public transport an integral part of the planning process. I welcome the fact that traffic impact was one of the principal grounds on which An Bord Pleanála rejected the application for the extension of the Liffey Valley centre this week. I hope this is a sign of a more integrated approach to planning in our major urban areas.

Mr. Quinn

It is a shame the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, missed the tour de force we had from the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke. Even the Opposition would agree it was a joy to witness her competency in handling the matter without once glancing at her notes. However, I have a problem with the motion which concentrates only on money without saying whether we are spending it in the right way. That is the real challenge. We have never had a transport strategy in this country and we have underfunded road and rail transport, whether public or private. The only reason we got round to considering such expenditure was that a few years ago the EU suddenly gave us a lump sum. It told us what we could do with it and we came up with the idea of Luas which otherwise would never have seen the light of day. The irony is that we are now spending far more money to tamper with a system that would never have come about without EU aid.

Senator Keogh was right when she said that we do not have an integrated transport strategy or system. Basically, Luas was a good idea and many European cities have such light rail or tram systems. In principle, such trams would also be a good solution for Dublin but only if they address the city's entire transport system. I am critical of the strategy because it does not integrate the whole system by linking all its elements together.

When the Dublin Transportation Initiative started its work, light rail seemed an attractive option but because it was not driven by the underlying needs of how to spend EU money, it only designed part of a system rather than an entire one. The DTI made the merest genuflection to a light rail system to meet the needs of Dublin. Since it could not even build the tiny system envisaged at that stage, before the EU money ran out, it decided to go for only two southside lines, leaving the northside lines to be built sometime in the future. I am biased in favour of the northside of Dublin. As has been pointed out many times in the House, the Luas proposal was totally inadequate for Dublin's needs. A third line, which was not even envisaged four or five years ago, was, in the first instance, not designed to go to the airport. Most people would now admit that by ignoring the airport, the Luas project represented an amazing lack of foresight. It also showed a lack of vision in covering such a small part of the city and by failing, unbelievably, to integrate properly with the existing DART service.

In a series of influential newspaper articles, the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, pointed out that Luas showed a lack of vision because it would actually have added to traffic congestion rather than alleviating it. Under this Government we have action. I am not happy with this motion, but I must admit we have had action and I welcome that compared to what we had before. We have seen today the serious commitment to spending money and I welcome that also in comparison to what we had before. However, this is all useless if the central ingredient of strategy is not looked after, and sadly, that is the case.

There is a huge transport problem in Dublin and throughout the country which has largely, although not entirely, been created by the unexpected scale of national growth in the last ten years. Our road system is inadequate and I hope we are long past the day when we thought more roads was the answer. That was a mistake many of us made – we thought that all we needed were more roads to solve the problem. However, we must also use roads, those in existence and those we need to build, with far more efficiency than we ever have before. This means diverting as much traffic as possible off roads and onto trains, whether local or national. We must use roads efficiently by encouraging the maximum possible use of public transport. This will not be achieved by squeezing motorists off the road. That will help, but it will only be achieved by providing a good attractive public transport system. As Senator Ryan said, it must be affordable.

Allied to this must be a pricing system for roads and public transport that makes the latter an offer that the public cannot refuse. We have talked about pricing on roads, which is a dangerous topic because people think we are going to charge people to drive on roads. We have spoken before about the system in Singapore whereby if drivers insist on coming into the city at the peak period of 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. they have to pay, say, £1 to pass a toll. If they are willing to adjust to coming in after 9 a.m. they pay 50 pence, while it is free to come into the city before 7 a.m. or after 10 a.m. If this is possible in other countries it should be possible here.

Our problems demand a holistic approach rather than a bitty one. Unless and until all the pieces come together this will not work. If we do a little it will not work. Unless we do it all it will not work at all. It is no good doing a little bit and hoping it succeeds, rather we must do the whole task and we are not doing so at present. That is the importance of strategy and an overall viewpoint. All the money the Government is boasting about will not solve our problems—

Mr. Cassidy

That is a Fine Gael phrase.

Mr. Quinn

—because there is no central strategy or integration behind it. A set of disjointed policies is not a strategy. A series of knee-jerk reactions is not a strategy. A mountain of invoices so high it blocks out the sun is not a strategy.

When it comes to our national transport system we are adrift, not in an ocean but in a bathtub.

Mr. Ryan

Do not mention bathtubs.

Mr. O'Dowd

A fig leaf.

Mr. Quinn

The time has come for the Government to stop being so proud of itself for merely spending money and to knuckle down to the task of spending money in a way that will solve the transport crisis. If it fails to do so, its omission may be instrumental in paralysing our hard-won economic growth.

I do not support the motion because it does not have a strategic value behind it. I accept the Government is making the money available, but let us make sure that we use it in a way that will solve problems in the future.

Mr. Kett

I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, on her continuing commitment to solving the transport problem in the city. I have said before that she is the first Minister with a visionary, strategic plan for the traffic situation that is not only being experienced in Dublin but throughout the country.

The level of financial commitment that Senator Liam Fitzgerald outlined and to which the Minister also referred – £1.585 billion – is confirmation that she is seriously committed to solving the dreadful problems we have experienced. The extent of the problem is probably best gauged if we examine the progress of the DTI strategy which began in 1990. That strategy had broad support from all political parties and the public when it began. It was an integrated, comprehensive strategy to tackle the transport challenges then facing the city. Our experience since the strategy was adopted has been extremely disappointing, primarily because it had a very pessimistic basis. The demand for transport in the city has increased dramatically in the meantime and this is in some way due to the extraordinary economic growth the city has enjoyed.

The completion of various elements in the strategy have also been slowed down by localised opposition to various major infrastructural projects, with Luas being a case in point. Luas should have been up and running years ago, but unfortunately, due to ongoing pressure from local groups, it has been put back on many occasions and continues to be a bone of contention in many areas of the city. The tortuous planning and public consultation process has also slowed progress with major infrastructural projects, while the enthusiasm of the courts to entertain judicial review proceedings has also played a part in slowing the process. If we are to allow every crank and headbanger to hold up the progress of major infrastructural change to the extent that it has a major impact on traffic, then we must examine matters. The Minister has looked at the matter and I do not doubt something is afoot in this regard.

Traffic congestion in the city has increased which has resulted in the average speed of cars being reduced dramatically. There has been an increase in journey times and morning and evening peak times have almost become afternoon and late night peak times. One can come across the tail end of peak morning traffic at 10 a.m. any morning one is coming to the House – it has often happened to me at Fairview. The same is true in the evening. This matter must be and is being addressed. The Minister confirmed tonight that £1.6 billion is going into solving the traffic problem and that is very welcome.

The environment is deteriorating as a result of all these cars and people also have their mobility restricted because of all the cars in the city – it is now impossible to walk around the city without stepping between cars. This is part of the network of problems being caused by heavy traffic. All these problems mean the competitiveness of the city's economy may suffer. People have longer work days although they are spending the same time in their offices. They must leave for work earlier and get home later. However, the Minister has made significant progress on major infrastructural projects, as she pointed out.

The slowdown in the progress of major infrastructural development means that we have had to concentrate our minds on the lesser infrastructural elements. I refer to the traffic management which has taken place in the city by Dublin Corporation. The quality bus corridors are a major feature and have proved to be a complete success. Even though certain commentators bemoaned the fact that the Stillorgan quality bus corridor was a complete mess, it has since proved to be an outstanding success, as is the bus corridor on the Malahide Road. When the 11 QBCs are operational there will be much greater control of traffic in the city.

Parking policy and enforcement has also played a part in the management of traffic. The clamping and towing services set up in October 1998, together with other measures, have eliminated much of the on-street free parking. As a consequence, traffic congestion has been eliminated in certain areas. The traffic congestion which is experienced at present is not caused by illegal parking. The major work which has taken place on roads coming into the city has also played a part in alleviating the traffic problem.

The Minister stated that she is making a serious commitment to transport for people with disabilities. I welcome this more than any other measure. I am pleased she made the statement that as of now all transport will be accessible to people with disabilities. This will level the playing field and I hope we can then move on from transport to education and so on in relation to people with disabilities.

Mr. Ryan

Having been reprimanded, I am pleased it is a reasonable time since the tornado swept out of the room. I had better not talk about the analogies of fig-leaves and baths which came to mind as the Minister was in full spate.

Mr. Cassidy

In fairness, the Senator met his match. We were all impressed.

Mr. Ryan

I am pleased Senator Cassidy accepts that I am a match for such a formidable Minister. I am happy to be rated in that stellar sphere.

Mr. Cassidy

The Senator is too kind.

Mr. Ryan

I am pleased the leader is so kind to me.

The Minister was correct about the record of previous Governments. The baleful influence of the Department of Finance has been obvious in the area of public transport for the past 20 years. It believed in private choice as the most efficient way to allocate resources. In its most recent strategic statement, the Department of Finance forgot to mention sustainable development as part of the national strategy. That Department has never been able to handle the idea that some things do not work well if left to the forces of the marketplace. Officials sat on their hands in that Department and advised a strategy of benign neglect for the railways and an equally benign neglect for the bus service, as the country ground to a halt. This can be seen in the struggles that have been evident and in the great delight of the Minister at the levels of funding she has achieved.

What is obvious to 166 Members of Dáil Éireann and 60 Members of Seanad Éireann is that public transport still needs huge investment. The Minister has received a significant level of investment for which she obviously had to fight hard. Somewhere within the ranks of decision-making there are those who believe this is not the way to go, and this is difficult to believe. However, if one has free parking in the centre of Dublin as a perk, one probably does not want to get away from this idea. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, stated that he is having difficulty establishing an interdepartmental working group to draw up a report on free parking for senior civil servants in particular.

The Government is awash with money. This is a result of the success of previous Governments, of which Fianna Fáil was not part, which were able to pursue prudent and sensible policies, particularly the previous Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, who laid the basis for the prosperity which Fianna Fáil is now enjoying. Fianna Fáil inherited the most glorious opportunity and it is in grave danger of blowing this in a number of areas such as housing and public transport. We still have a dreadful rail service. The service between Cork and Dublin has deteriorated and the quality of service is worse than it was ten years ago. The train has been speeded up dramatically and a car parking system organised in Cork which means it now takes longer to get out of the car park than it does to travel from Dublin to Cork. This is absolutely superb management on the part of Iarnród Éireann. Many stations are too small and cannot accommodate more passengers. We should not believe there are only two major train routes in the country, that is, Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast. The longest train leaves the station in Sligo on Sunday evening to bring people to Dublin.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

What about Tralee?

Mr. Ryan

We lack a strategy to keep people where they should be instead of everyone having to travel to Dublin and, second, the whole strategy is a catch-up operation. For example, there will be an allocation of £1.6 billion for public transport in Dublin. As every penny of this is needed, and much more besides, it is not nearly sufficient and will do little more than prevent the situation in Dublin from getting much worse. This is not good enough. It is possible in a civilised society to deal with traffic congestion and public transport in a city the size of Dublin provided the will is there, therefore much more money is needed. The problems currently in Dublin will soon exist in Cork, Limerick, Galway and all the other growing cities and towns throughout the country.

The Minister announced with a flourish that £50 million was being spent to upgrade public transport in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. These four cities between them have a population of approximately 250,000, which is either one fifth or one quarter of the population of the greater Dublin area. This compares with the allocation of £1.6 billion. We will wait until the same problems confront all these areas and then try to catch up. Have we not yet learned that public transport must be built in anticipation of need, not by way of follow up? It is cheaper and easier to do this beforehand and create a climate of acceptability of public transport which reduces the car culture. We now have to do two things, build a public transport service in Dublin in competition with the car culture. Every step, from the construction of Luas to the use of Luas, will cause another howl from the car lobby because it will interfere with what they believe are their God given rights. It would have been better to build these systems before the lobby was as large and vocal as it currently is.

Mr. Cassidy

Had you no money when you were in Government?

Mr. Ryan

I was not in Government.

Mr. Cassidy

Be realistic.

Mr. Ryan

There is no doubt the Minister has done wonders for the morale on that side.

(Interruptions).

Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)

The Senator, without interruption.

Mr. Ryan

For a long time I could not figure out the motive behind such a sycophantic motion.

(Interruptions).

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

They will be knocking on the door.

Acting Chairman

Tá an t-am caite.

Mr. Ryan

Má tá an t-am caite is iad siúd is cúis leis. The definitive statement about the disastrous inadequacy of the current transport system is the number of carriages being bought for the railway system, as announced in the national development plan. Outside the Dublin-Belfast route the carriages are at least 20 years old and 20 new carriages are being bought. This shows that under the gloss, when the safety issue is dealt with, the rail system will be, as it has been, inadequate, slow and under-resourced.

Mr. Glynn

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an tAire agus comhgháirdeas a ghabháil léi as an deá-obair atá á dhéanamh aici chun na deacrachtaí a bhaineann le Córas Iompar Éireann a shocrú. It was amusing to listen to the last speaker. The Minister dealt with the matter well when she referred to the previous Ministers in her portfolio and questioned how they did not develop permanent insomnia because of what they did not do. How in God's name can Senator Ryan, albeit he is a latecomer to the Labour Party, defend a Government which did absolutely nothing and seemed to wallow in it? That is why, when the matter was raised here, I welcomed the Minister telling the House and the country exactly what she was doing in relation to public transport and to point out the policy of abandonment of the rail services indulged in by the previous Administration.

The Minister has been proactive with regard to safety. When one is being reactive it is too late, an accident has already happened. She instanced Knockcroghery. There is a train driver in Mullingar who can give a graphic account of an accident in which he was involved. Senator O'Dowd referred to the increased numbers on the trains. The simple reason for that is the renaissance of public confidence in the transport system because at long last the Government has invested not only in the permanent way but in the rolling stock.

It would be remiss of me as a rural Senator not to refer to regional transport and the investment therein. A sum of £650 million is being made available for regional public transport. About £460 million is being made available for the southern and eastern region, £180 million for the Border, midlands and Ulster region, and £54 million for rolling stock which is not allocated by region. The £650 million is being allocated as follows – £350 million to complete the implementation of the railways safety programme from 1999-2003, £150 million for mainline rail renewal and upgrading and £150 million for regional public transport.

Under the railways safety programme 490 kilometres, over 300 miles of track, will be renewed. Signalling and track work at Heuston and Limerick will be renewed. In excess of 530 level crossings and about 100 bridges will be improved. That is music to the ears of people from rural Ireland. In excess of £40 million will be spent on improving railway safety management systems. The main lines to benefit from track renewal will be Dublin-Waterford, Mallow-Tralee, DublinSligo, Athlone-Westport-Ballina, Dublin-Rosslare, Limerick-Ennis, Limerick Junction-Waterford and Cork-Cobh.

The track I know quite well, the Dublin-Sligo line, goes through Mullingar. I recall Members from the Opposition and Westmeath County Council lambasting CIE – one person said he would get to Dublin faster on a push bike. If Percy French was alive, the west Clare railway would never have been enshrined in song. He would have talked about the Mullingar-Sligo and the Sligo-Dublin routes. Going back a couple of years, when the Opposition parties were at the helm, Michael would have been far from right.

The matter of accessibility has been referred to by my colleague, Senator Kett. The Minister has not only provided the money but has adopted a hands on approach to this matter. It does not matter what the Minister does as far as certain Members in this House and the other House are concerned. She is damned if she does and she is damned if she does not. She has done the right thing and we are all behind her. I compliment a fair-minded person, such as Senator Norris, and other fair-minded people opposite who have rightly pointed out what the Minister has done.

The Minister has done a fantastic job for the disabled. Last week in Mullingar a meeting took place of people with disabilities. It was refreshing to hear what they had to say about public transport and what was and was not being done. I wish those people could have been here today to hear what the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, has done about accessibility. The committee on accessibility will be chaired by the Department of Public Enterprise and will include representatives of the CIE operating companies and the National Disability Authority, an organisation representing mobility impaired and disabled persons. That is what I call commitment and delivery.

The Minister is responsible for safety. Given what she said, and it has been echoed by others here, it is a nonsense that three companies have one chairman. While some people speak of double jobbing, this is treble jobbing. It is not the fault of the chairman but that of the system. Senator Quinn said the policies could be compared with a drift in a bath-tub. Going back three or four years it was comparable to being up the creek without the proverbial paddle. As one might say in another forum, I rest my case. The facts speak for themselves. The Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, will go down in history and in the annals of the Oireachtas as one of the best and most caring Ministers in the context of public safety.

Dr. Henry

As one who uses public transport a great deal it is immaterial to me whose fault it is that we have this terrible mess. The stress of driving has pushed more of us on to public transport. While I am pleased at the huge amount of money that is to be spent I would like if there was more evidence of a plan.

Some Members may have noticed that I walk to and from the House. That is because I live within a couple of miles of the House. We have a policy in this city regarding public transport which I do not think is in any way connected with the reality of how we have to live here. Even if we could get a few simple things right, such as the ticketing service, it would be a great help. I wonder if there are others in the House going around with tickets such as I collect all the time. I agree with the idea of tendering the exact fare. It may be fine for me to be left 40p short every time if I have only a £1 coin but that is a lot of money to some other people who have to save up the tickets until they can go to the central office in O'Connell Street to claim the refunds. People ask whether it is cost effective to go in to collect the refunds. Fortunately I work in the Rotunda Hospital. Sometimes when I walk up O'Connell Street I go into the office and claim whatever is owed. For many people this is very difficult. It would be very helpful for the ordinary paying public, for whom the price of tickets is considerable, if other outlets were available where the price of unused tickets could be reclaimed. It would also be helpful if a ticket could be provided which could be used on another route by passengers who change buses.

As Senator Kett said, bus lanes have made it easier to get into the city centre rapidly. However, the extension of bus lanes has been remarkably slow. The provision of more bus shelters would also be very helpful in Dublin. I realise that the erection of bus shelters would be impossible in some places but they could very easily be provided in Dawson Street and Kildare Street. If the bus stop in Kildare Street were moved to the entrance to Agriculture House we might shelter there from the rain while waiting for the No. 10 bus, which comes with much greater regularity now than it used to. As things are, we must stand in the rain while waiting for the bus. Why are simple things like these not done which would be helpful to people?

I have travelled on the railway lines from Dublin to Cork, Galway and Limerick within the past two months and on each occasion people were standing in the carriages. I was not travelling on a busy 5 o'clock train. I try to avoid early evening trains because they are always full but at 2.30 in the afternoon people were standing on the train to Limerick. What good will 20 carriages be in these circumstances? Senator Glynn said that people are now using public transport because it is so reliable and efficient. I cannot agree. I do not know when I heard of a Galway train being on time in the recent past. People are using public transport because the situation on the roads is so appalling. If one takes a train one at least has some idea of when one will arrive.

We are not considering the serious economic effects of our ineffective transport policy. I have been contacted by a mushroom producer who finds it almost impossible to deliver lorry loads of mushrooms in time for boats to Britain. Mushrooms cannot be kept waiting when they are on their way to Tesco in England. Nor are we considering the number of people who have secured high powered jobs in Ireland but do not stay here because of the price of housing and the traffic chaos in Dublin. One man said to me that although he could afford a house in Leixlip he could not bear to spend three hours travelling from Leixlip to the centre of Dublin. He decided to stay in Canada where he could buy three houses for the price of one in Dublin and travel to and from work in 20 minutes on public transport.

We are spending money but we are not taking account of these important issues. I hope Luas comes at least as far as the canal because from there people can walk. It should be our aim to get people in as far as the banks of the canal on "Go minic – Go tapaidh" buses and let every man and women fend for himself or herself in the city centre. Although the Government is spending a great deal of money, there is a great shortage of planning. I share Senator Quinn's concern that a great deal of money may be spent with very little to show for it.

Mr. Cassidy

This is a dreadful time to be in Opposition and a wonderful time to be in Government. The Government will spend £2.2 billion over the next seven years. This is the largest investment ever in public transport since the railways were built in the 19th century. A total of £1.6 billion of this will be spent in Dublin and the surrounding counties of Kildare, Wicklow and Meath. Of this, £185 million will be spent on short-term improvements to the suburban railway system and more than 100 extra DART and diesel rail cars will be ordered. This is in addition to the 73 already delivered or due to be delivered by the end of this year. New stations will be opened—

Mr. J. Doyle

Will they fit the tracks? The new cars do not fit the tracks.

Mr. Cassidy

I am very pleased to see Senator Doyle, a distinguished former Lord Mayor, on the Fine Gael benches to hear this. It will warm his heart.

A sum of £220 million will be spent on the development of the bus network. A total of 275 additional buses will be ordered and this is in addition to the 150 delivered already this year. Over 500 old buses will be replaced. Dublin Bus has already ordered 225 more new buses, with delivery expected before the end of this year.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

They will be accessible to people with disability.

Mr. Cassidy

A sum of £430 million has been set aside to implement the surface elements of the revitalised light rail project which was announced in May 1998. This relates to the line from Tallaght to Connolly Station and from Sandyford to Dublin Airport. A contingency sum of £500 million has been set aside for the underground element of the light rail project. A sum of £50 million will be spent to improve the integration of the public transport system. This will include the provision of almost 4,000 additional park and ride spaces and £200 million will be spent on traffic management.

Many calls have been made in this House for more quality bus corridors. We all remember when Deputy Albert Reynolds opened the first quality bus corridor at 7 o'clock one morning and some people told us it would not work. Seanad Members insisted that it would work and its success is now to be seen. The quality bus corridors are being extended to Lucan, Malahide and Stillorgan.

Mr. J. Doyle

Those quality bus corridors are in operation. Senator Cassidy's script is out of date.

Mr. Cassidy

A total of £500 million is to be spent on revitalising the railways. This sends a clear and unambiguous message that the mainline rail network has a safe and assured future. Of this, £350 million will be spent on the completion of a five year programme. The railway safety programme which the Government approved more than a year ago will include 490 kilometres of track renewal right across the network. All the main lines will benefit, including Waterford to Dublin, Sligo to Dublin, Westport and Ballina to Dublin, Rosslare to Dublin, Mallow to Tralee, Limerick to Ennis and Limerick Junction to Rosslare.

In my 18 years in this House, I have never heard of such expenditure and it is an incredible achievement for any Government.

Mr. J. Doyle

I hope it all happens in Senator Cassidy's lifetime. He will have to live a long life.

Mr. Cassidy

I am sure when Senator Doyle was serving Mass in Donnybrook he never thought he would live to see this day.

I have worked with the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, in our constituency. Her late father was a distinguished Member of the Dáil and her late brother was also a marvellous parliamentarian who worked on behalf of the people. The Minister is a credit to the Government and a shining light in carrying out the responsibilities of her ministry. She holds a portfolio which was once carried by three Ministers. She is an incredible person and it is with great pleasure that we welcome her tonight. It is a great pleasure to say that this progress is being made in millennium year and in our lifetime as Members of Seanad Éireann, and I wholeheartedly welcome it.

Amendment put.

Tá

Burke, Paddy.Coghlan, Paul.Coogan, Fintan.Doyle, Joe.Henry, Mary.

McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.O'Dowd, Fergus.Ridge, Thérèse.Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

Bonner, Enda.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnFarrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Keogh, Helen.

Kett, Tony.Kiely, Rory.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.Norris, David.O'Brien, Francis.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Ross, Shane.Walsh, Jim.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Burke and Ridge; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Keogh.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Cassidy

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.