Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Dec 1987

Vol. 376 No. 11

Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Bill, 1987: Second Stage.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille don Dara Uair".

Cúis mór ghearáin is díospóireachta isea an méid cáin a íocann gach éinne san tír seo. Tá an bhail chéanna le feiscint ins na slite ina cáintear na meastacháin bhliantúla agus na liúntaisí airgid a bhronann an Rialtas ar roinnt de na seirbhísí Stáit. Ach mar is eol dúinn go léir, sé curam an Rialtais an Státchiste a úsáid ar leas muintir na hÉireann uile agus ní féidir leis an Rialtas gach aon duine do shásamh i gcónaí. Easpa airgid atá ina mbunchúis leis an tóraíocht atá idir lámhaibh ag an Rialtas chun na costaisí Stáit do laghdú. Sé sin an chúis le díscaoileadh Iomprais Bhaile Átha Cliath.

Ní obair in aisce a bhí ar siúl ag an Iompras, mar leis an mBille atá rómhainn béimíd ag aistriú an chuid is mó de cumhachtaí agus feidhmeanna an Iomprais go údaráistí poiblí eile mar an Garda Síochána agus na h-údaráisí áitiúla. Beidh orthu siúd obair an Iomprais a leanúint. Leathnaíonn an Bille roinnt de na cumh-achtaí atá ag an Iompras ní h-amháin do Bhardas Bhaile Átha Cliath agus Comhairle Chontae Átha Cliath ach do na h-údairáisí áitiúla timpeall an tíre. In aon acht leis sin tá Meitheal Iompair Bhaile Átha Cliath le h-athbhunú.

At the outset, I would like to express my appreciation to Deputies Deasy and Quinn for the approaches they made and clarification they sought in advance of our discussion here today. I appreciate the interest they have taken in the Bill and in other personal matters.

The main purposes of the Bill are:

To provide for the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority; to re-assign most of the Authority's functions to other bodies; to repeal the Dublin Transport Authority Act, 1986, which is the legislative basis for the Authority; and to extend the scope of some of the provisions, which had been confined to the DTA functional area, to the country as a whole.

The measure is necessary as a consequence of the Government decision that no funds would be available for the Authority from next year. The decision to dissolve the Authority was not taken lightly. As Members of the House are aware, after the Government took office it was appparent that taxation levels and Exchequer borrowings were excessive and that a reduction in State expenditure was urgently required, if the overall situation were not to disimprove further. Examination of expenditure was undertaken in all Departments. Every single area of spending was scrutinised. It is fair to say that we would be facing a long term serious crisis in the public finances, if we had not tackled these problems right across the board. In this process, we had to recognise that many services, which has been taken for granted by the public, were no longer affordable. It is regretted that the DTA had to be chosen for dissolution, but this was unavoidable.

In implementing the Government decision, through the Bill before the House, we have succeeded in preserving most of the DTA functions through transferring them to other authorities. In addition, the Government decided that some of the functions could be extended with advantage beyond Dublin to the whole country and this we are providing for in the Bill. Traffic management functions of the Authority, which are so vital for traffic flows in the Dublin area, are being transferred to a re-constituted Dublin Transportation Task Force. With these changes it is possible to continue to pursue most of the important tasks set for the Dublin Transport Authority.

Some have argued that the amount of money involved in keeping the DTA in place was so small that the decision to dissolve it could have been avoided. For 1987 the Authority's funding comprised two State grants-in-aid, one for current expenditure totalling £300,000 and £365,000 for capital works for traffic management measures.

Savings from the abolition of the Authority cannot be judged on the basis of the 1987 allocations but on the likely expenditure of a fully staffed Authority. It was envisaged that in time the staff would need to increase to at least 20 people. On this basis the savings on the Authority's operating costs would be of the order of £500,000 per annum and could be expected to increase with the passage of years.

Again, some have said that it is a pity to sacrifice the Authority for the sake of half a million pounds a year. I acknowledge that the amount involved is not huge but the decision reflects the depth and extent of the financial problems. It is all the savings, including the small ones, which collectively will make the Exchequer savings worthwhile. If we were to follow the advice of our critics in all of the areas where cuts are being implemented, we would be failing to meet our overall responsibilities to the people of Ireland. I wish to emphasise that, while the Authority are being dissolved, most of the functions of the Authority will be carried out by other agencies. There will not be a vacuum.

The dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority in no sense calls into question the quality and value of the work undertaken by the Chairman and members of the Authority and their chief executive and staff. The volume of work handled and carried out by the Authority demonstrates the dedication and commitment to the very onerous tasks which made up their mandate. In the traffic management area they actively tackled such matters as disruptive roadworks by intervention at administrative level, parking and other traffic measures, including the funding of capital projects and the preparation of by-laws in relation to tow-away services. The Authority's by-laws in relation to parking controls came into force on 11 December last and they bring the "business hours" for Dún Laoghaire into line with the rest of the Dublin area. The Authority made submissions to the planning authorities on the Dublin City Development Plan, the Custom House Docks Development Authority plans and other major planning applications. The Authority also submitted to me their recommendations on the Bus Átha Cliath and Iarnród Éireann applications for increases in fares.

This is not an exhaustive list but gives a general view of the work carried out by the Authority during their short life. I wish to record my appreciation of the Authority's efforts in the past year and the efficient and effective way in which they began to come to grips with the tasks they faced.

The Dublin Transport Authority Act, 1986 provided an extensive mandate for the DTA. The Act provided for the activation of the various functions by Ministerial Order. It was decided that at the outset the Authority could not be expected to undertake all the functions in the legislation straight away. As a result, functions in relation to the responsibility for the traffic warden service, licensing of passenger road services, regulation of public service vehicles and licensing of public car parks were not activated.

I circulated an Explanatory Memorandum with the Bill but, nonetheless, there is a need to give the House some explanations and additional information. A simple revocation of the Dublin Transport Authority Act, 1986 is not involved. There is a need to provide for continuity of most of the functions contained in that Act and these are being transferred to the Garda Síochána and the local authorities. Indeed, in most cases the Bill restores functions which had been transferred from them to the DTA. As the DTA mandate covered the Dublin area only, the transfer of functions is limited accordingly.

Some of the provisions in the 1986 Act, for example, those in relation to the control of roadworks, the immobilisation of vehicles parked illegally through wheelclamps and the like, the control of vehicles by bollards and ramps and the control of access to and egress from construction sites, were new and the opportunity is being taken in the Bill, in section 9 to be precise, to provide for the application of the provisions to the country as a whole. In relation to the co-ordination of roadworks, for instance, the Bill in fact is more comprehensive than in the existing legislation. A definition for emergency roadworks is now included in addition to an enabling provision for a local authority to issue directions even in such emergency cases, in order to ensure speedy completion of works. These provisions will form part of the road traffic legislative code and the Minister for the Environment will be generally responsible for their administration and for the making of relevant regulations. These provisions represent additional functions for the local authorities and should be valuable in improving traffic flows in many areas.

Decisions in relation to individual road ramps and bollards and the control of roadworks will be the responsibility of the local authorities, who will also make the by-laws in relation to control and access to and from construction sites. Regulations for giving full effect to the provisions in relation to immobilisation devices will be settled between the Ministers for the Environment and Justice. The extension of these functions to local authorities is a worthwhile development because traffic and transport problems are not peculiar to Dublin.

Sections 2 to 6 of the Bill provide for the dissolution of the Authority, the transfer of assets and liabilities from them to the Minister, the continuation of the Authority's staff pension scheme, the method of dealing with legal proceedings to which they are a party and the exemption of the Minister from stamp duy on property or rights transferred from the Authority.

Section 7 of the Bill re-enacts the provisions for dealing with persons who fail to or refuse to pay fares on public service vehicles. This provision, which represents an improvement on the existing provision in 82 (9) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, will apply, in accordance with the section, to the country as a whole. It is hoped that these provisions will improve the general environment for public passenger vehicle drivers as regards the collection of fares.

Section 8 transfers back to the commissioner of the Garda Síochána the functions of the Authority in relation to such matters as taxi stands, omnibus stopping places and stands, control of traffic and pedestrians, the parking of vehicles and control of traffic signs.

Section 10 continues in force the onthe-spot fines system and penalites in relation to false declarations in connection with applications for the granting of licences, plates and certificates of vehicles.

Section 11 re-enacts section 27 of the 1986 Act, with minor amendments in the interest of clarification, in relation to the provision and maintenance of busways. These could become very important means of improving traffic flows in congested areas.

Section 12 provides for the extension of the functions of traffic wardens and increases from £20 to £150 the maximum penalty for certain offences such as the destruction or removal of notices attached to vehicles by traffic wardens.

Now, I come to the question of the DTA functions which are not being continued. They relate principally to advisory type powers in a transport planning context. The need for such powers has been reduced by the fact that a major priority function assigned to the Authority, that is to advise on the public transport needs of the areas to the west of the city, has been overtaken by the Government decision that no further consideration should be given to the possible extension of the electrified rail system to these areas. This decision was taken because the substantial cost involved — running to many hundreds of millions of pounds — could not be contemplated having regard to the state of the public finances for the foreseeable future. As Members of the House are aware, CIE have been requested to prepare transport investment plans for the Dublin area, involving only bus-based options or diesel rail services on existing lines.

The Dublin Transportation Task Force are being reconstituted, on a non-statutory basis as before, to take up the DTA role in general transport and traffic matters. Thus the valuable work of the DTA in this area need not be lost and can indeed be built upon. The new task force will include representatives of the Department of Tourism and Transport and the Department of the Environment, the local authorities, the Garda and CIE.

The original task force, who preceded the DTA, were responsible for the introduction of bus lanes and stricter parking controls and the funding of specialised traffic signalling and bus priority schemes. They also sponsored the development of the Dublin traffic management model, a computer-based traffic simulation package used to assess the effects of new traffic management projects. This work has been developed further by the DTA. The reconstituted task force will assume the functions of the Authority in these matters.

The task force will be responsible for devising traffic management schemes, setting on an annual basis the priority traffic management activities for implementation and for allocating funds for the traffic management schemes to supplement the investments of the local authorities in this field.

The 1988 Estimates for my Department provide for an allocation of £165,000 for traffic management purposes by the task force. There will be scope for the task force to comment on development plans prepared by the Dublin local authorities in so far as the plans have a bearing on traffic management.

The dissolution of the Authority is a disappointment to many but the situation would be considerably worse if the activities undertaken by the Authority were also to be terminated. That is not happening and careful attention has been given to preserving, in so far as is possible within existing resources, the continuation of the work in hand. I wish to conclude by renewing my expression of appreciation for the work of the Chairman and members of the Authority and their staff.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Deasy

This is the most unnecessary legislation that ever came before this House. That goes without saying, and it is apparent that the Minister is not even apologetic about introducing it. For the first time ever since the foundation of this State we had a body who could co-ordinate the management of traffic and the control of roadwork plans in and around the city of Dublin. Now all that good work is to be put aside. Under the 1986 Dublin Transport Authority Act we had set up an authority who had statutory powers and who could regulate the traffic in the city. They could bring in regulations to control that traffic and do the work that was necessary to co-ordinate it. I cannot for the life of me understand why this Bill is necessary. The Minister tells us in his address that it will save £0.5 million per annum. I totally disagree with that statement. The Dublin Transport Authority could be at least self-sufficient if they were allowed to function, therefore it is not a money saving exercise.

I agree fully with this Government in their attempt to get rid of what is known nowadays as quangos. I agree with the Government in their policy of getting rid of a number of bodies which are superfluous, particularly in times of financial difficulty. This is not a Quango in the sense of all those other bodies which are being abolished or amalgamated. It was a totally necessary and desirable Authority and did not cost the State, the taxpayer, or anybody else a penny.

I will give the House an indication of the type of money that is involved. In 1984 a survey was carried out of 4,000 parking meter spaces in Dublin. This survey showed an average of 8,518 parking offenders per day. Only 6.2 per cent of these offenders received tickets. If that same low level of enforcement had been clamping operations, then the contribution over and above expenses would be £1,320,000. Imagine that. With a very small detection rate of 6.2 per cent, if those offenders had to pay the fines, the income would be £1.32 million, and we are here today talking about an expenditure of £500,000. That is being given as the reason for the abolition of this Authority.

That does not make sense. It is totally ridiculous to abolish this Authority. Let us make another simple calculation. If we were to talk about a 100 per cent detection rate — and this we would never have — we would be talking about an income of £20 million. If we had a 15 per cent detection rate, that would yield an income of £10 million. If we had a 20 per cent detection rate, a very reasonable figure, that would yield an income of £4 million. Yet, we are abolishing a body which could generate money of that order for the sake of £500,000. The reason being given for the abolition of this Authority is absolutely ridiculous.

During the week I put in a question which was ruled out of order asking if the Minister would reconsider the decision to dissolve this body. I was told that because of impending legislation the question would not be taken. Is it too late for the Minister to reconsider because he cannot stand up in this House and justify what he proposes to do.

Proinsias de Rossa

We could defeat it.

Mr. Deasy

I would ask that common sense prevail. One of the Minister's predecessors, Deputy Reynolds, on 14 April 1980, advocated the setting up of a statutory body to oversee the control of traffic in Dublin. He said this was vitally necessary. Our Minister for Transport, Deputy Jim Mitchell, set about doing that and ultimately set up this Authority. Now we find that this Minister is reversing the policy of both previous Ministers who agreed this was a necessary way forward so far as Dublin traffic problems were concerned. I could quote at some length from what Deputy Reynolds said at that time but I have summarised his comments. He advocated the setting up of this statutory body, he set the wheels in motion to set up this body and now this Minister advocates its abolition.

I am aware that it is the Minister's intention to replace the Authority by allocating some of their powers to various statutory bodies — the Department of the Environment and the Garda Síochána —and that he is reconstituting the Dublin transportation task force. That may seem all right but the task force is non-statutory and will never have the teeth of the Authority and will never be able to achieve the aims of the 1986 legislation.

The Authority were set up because of the report of the Transport Consultative Commission which reported to the Minister in March 1980. We had Deputy Reynolds speech in 1980 which agreed with the recommendations of the commission that we should have a statutory body to control traffic and parking in Dublin. It is a pity that the good work of that commission has gone to waste, and by one stroke of the pen today, that is unfortunately what will happen. That commission was one of a number which reported in the late sixties right through the seventies on the traffic problems in Dublin. There was general agreement that it was a very fine report and that its findings should be implemented. Hence the setting up of the Authority and what I can only call the stupidity of getting rid of that Authority as is proposed here today.

I want to make specific comments on the proposed legislation. The rights of the chief executive, the only staff member of the Authority, do not seem to be properly looked after in this Bill. He came to the Dublin Authority from a local authority on the understanding that he had a job for as long as he was doing it properly — and we have no reason to believe he was doing it in any other but a first class manner. Now, after a very short stay he is being thrown on the scrap heap. I would like a guarantee from the Minister that the chief executive will not lose out because of this unnecessary legislation. It is a frightful thing for a person, who gave up a very good job in a local authority to serve the country in this capacity, to find that the rug has been pulled from under his feet. I would like a guarantee that this man will be able to find employment elsewhere in the public sector without losing any of his rights. That is very important. As far as I know, all the other staff were seconded from various Departments in the public sector and they have returned there. Their position is unchanged.

Today the Minister referred to a figure of £165,000. I understand that this money is made available within the Department of Tourism and Transport Estimate for traffic management by Dublin Corporation. It seems a little odd that that money could not have been diverted on a temporary basis to the Dublin Transport Authority. The chief executive's salary was about £28,000 and, even if you reach a higher figure taking office expenses and ancillary matters into account, the overall cost of the chief executive operation would hardly be in excess of £40,000 or £50,000. The Minister mentioned a figure of £165,000 for traffic management. So, if there is a case for saving £500,000 the work should be done within that allocation. The dissolution of the Authority is totally unnecessary.

I should like the Minister to make a comparison between the task force as he intends to reconstitute it and the task force as it existed prior to the setting up of the Authority. Are the same Departments represented on the new task force? Are other statutory bodies included on it which were not previously part of the task force? According to the Minister's statement, the local authority, the Garda and CIE are all to be part of the Dublin transport task force. I am not quite sure of the constitution of the original task force and I would appreciate if the Minister will draw a comparison between the two.

The management of bus lanes in Dublin city is imperative for proper traffic control in the capital. The Authority did excellent work in that regard. The slap-happy manner we adopt towards bus lanes is just not good enough. We had a debate in the House the other day on the Transport Bill and a number of questions were asked about Bus Éireann, particularly the bus system in Dublin city. If you do not have proper traffic management and bus lanes which work properly there will be traffic and financial problems for Dublin transport because nobody wants to use a system which is constantly clogged. If there is a drop in passenger use of Dublin buses, the primary reason is that people are not satisfied they are taking them from one point to another in the best possible time. We need not just good traffic management but bus lanes which are free of unnecessary traffic. I will table an amendment on Committee Stage asking that bus lanes should also be used by cyclists because the legislation before us today seems to indicate that cyclists are to be hunted out of bus lanes. If that is the case where, in God's name, will they go? Will they go up on the footpaths or into the centre of the road to be mauled, battered and eventually run down by the traffic? Cyclists always had the facility to use bus lanes and it would be extraordinary if they were now denied that freedom. It is totally unnecessary to exclude them.

Bus lanes are not properly managed at present. I ask the Minister to ensure that more gardaí are allocated to keeping bus lanes free because it must be most annoying for drivers and staff generally of CIE to find that a special system which was set up to facilitate the passage of buses and the free movement of public transport is being abused. Every day of the week we can see that there is not sufficient supervision of bus lanes to allow public transport to move freely. I would have thought it would be a self-financing exercise to keep the bus lanes free because of the fines which would accrue from prosecuting the thousands of drivers who abuse the bus lanes every day of the week. We have part of a system in place which should be working satisfactorily but is not because it is not policed properly. There are not sufficient people monitoring what is going on and that is why there is abuse of a good system.

When the Minister was considering transferring functions to other statutory authorities it might have been a good idea to mention transferring functions to the new local authority bodies which are mooted for the greater Dublin area. At present the two local authorities are the corporation and the county council but, under proposals brought forward by the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Boland, there were to be a whole series of new local authorities within the greater Dublin area. Perhaps the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for the Environment, will examine the possibility of setting up these new bodies and the handing over of the functions of the Dublin Transport Authority to the new local authority system.

This legislation is totally unnecessary and it would have been better for everybody using Dublin buses if it was withdrawn. We need co-ordination of traffic control and we do not want the chaos that exists in Grafton Street and College Green where the traffic is virtually at a standstill because of roadworks. We do not want to see somebody coming along in a month's time digging up the same roadway. One need only walk around the streets of the city to see the chaotic system whereby 20 different bodies seem to have power to come along and dig up the streets with no reference whatsoever to a central body. They are all little empires within themselves and even if the street had been dug up last week for one purpose seemingly it can be dug up the following week for another purpose. It is madness to allow that system to continue. You cannot do anything about it unless there is a statutory body to control that type of activity. Taxpayers should not be put in a position where they are being milked because of the lack of organisation of traffic in the capital city. It is disgraceful. Let commonsense prevail and withdraw this legislation.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I agree with Deputy Deasy that the proposal to abolish the Dublin Transport Authority gives rise for concern, as they were intended to be the body which would make a major impact on the appalling traffic problems that exist in Dublin and its environs.

Their functions are now to be transferred back to the agencies that previously held responsibility in this area and of course there is no guarantee at all that this change in structure will effect any real improvement in the traffic situation.

The Dublin Transport Authority which was established in November 1986, was set up after numerous reports and studies had confirmed that there was an urgent need for an independent statutory body to co-ordinate transport investment, traffic management and public transport services in the Dublin area.

The Authority is now being strangled at birth and its functions are being transferred back to the various agencies from whence they came, such as the local authorities, CIE, the Garda authorities and various Government Departments. This move seems to make a complete nonsense out of the very arguments that were put forward in this House only a short time ago by both the major parties for the establishment of a Dublin Transport Authority.

It is because of the overlapping of responsibility between these various agencies that the need for a single statutory body with responsibility and the necessary powers was self-evident and the DTA was established to co-ordinate all traffic management functions, to rid Dublin of its appalling traffic jams and to give it a reliable and cheap transport system.

The problem for the DTA during their short period of existence was that they did not have sufficient resources available to them and they could not be effective because they had limited powers; they were mainly advisory powers. After all the reports and recommendations about the necessity for a single authority, it now seems illogical to dismantle this integrated structure and hand back, on a piecemeal basis, the responsibility to those uncoordinated agencies who were unable to solve the transport problems of the capital city in the past and who, it must be said, were largely responsible for the creation of the traffic chaos in the first place because they operated independently of each other.

The Transport Consultative Commission which Deputy Deasy referred to reported to the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Albert Reynolds, in 1980. Their main recommendation was the establishment of a statutory Dublin authority who would be given powers to ensure that their decisions would be implemented. During the long delay between the commission's report and the establishment of the DTA in 1986, there was a non-statutory Dublin task force in operation who comprised of representatives of Government Departments and various other agencies such as CIE, the local authorities and the Garda authorities.

The task force achieved limited success in the encouragement of commuters to switch from private cars to public transport through a combination of improvements to the bus services and the introduction of a parking policy which discouraged all-day parking in the city centre. However, it was accepted that if there was to be a worthwhile effort made at solving Dublin's traffic problems it would be necessary to establish a statutory authority with real powers. At the time the DTA Bill was debated in this House, the then Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell, said in relation to the task force that notwithstanding the improvements they had achieved, the traffic congestion continued to persist and was a major problem. He pointed out that the continuing lack of a single authority with responsibility and the necessary powers for traffic management in the Dublin area meant that the problem could not be tackled effectively. He further pointed out that the task force who are dependent on the combined efforts of their member agencies, each of whom have their own priorities and concerns, lacked the cohesion necessary to ensure that the problem could be tackled properly. If that was the case then, surely it equally applies now? Is there any point reaching back into the past to find a solution that we know from experience has not worked before? What faith can we have in the measures that are proposed in this Bill?

The question of a statutory authority with effective powers has been discussed, debated and reported on ad finitum but it has been established beyond doubt that we do need an authority who have powers not just to make decisions but to ensure that the decisions are implemented. However, we have never established such a body. As I said before the problem with the DTA was that the 1986 Act which set them up was too weak in its provisions and the authority were little more than a statutory version of the task force who proceeded them.

The Minister said that the decision to abolish the DTA was motivated by the desire to reduce public expenditure and that a saving to the Exchequer of approximately £500,000 based on a fully staffed operational authority, would be made on the winding up of the Authority. I am all in favour of savings in public expenditure but there must be a rational approach to what services should be cut. It should be based on a cost-benefit analysis of any particular service.

Obviously the economy would benefit greatly by having an efficient traffic system in operation in the Dublin area. The £500,000 which the DTA would cost is very small if the DTA had the capacity to ensure that there would be a major reduction in the chaotic traffic jams that exist on the streets of Dublin. The problem seems to be that they do not have that capacity. In any event the £500,000 saving is hypothetical as the Authority have one employee only, the chief executive and the remaining staff as Deputy Deasy said are seconded from the Civil Service and no saving can be made in respect of their salaries through the abolition of the Authority.

What is really needed of course is an Authority who have a mandate similar to that of the DTA but who would have the required powers to ensure that their recommendations and directives would be implemented. The DTA had some very important functions assigned to them. They were to be the road traffic authority, with responsibility for all traffic management schemes; they were to have responsibility for the taxi service; for the routing, pricing and licensing of all bus services; and they were to have control over the provision of car parking in the Dublin area and over the timing and co-ordination of roadworks. These are all highly important functions. They are even more important now in the light of the Government's confirmation that there will be no underground system for Dublin and the fact that there is a growing and increasing volume of road traffic coming into the Dublin area.

The question of roadworks has become a national joke. Time after time, Members of this House and the public generally have condemned the ludicrous situation where the ESB, Telecom Éireann, the corporation utilities and so on, re-open roads one after another to instal or repair services. The lack of control in the area of roadworks is one of the major causes for the huge traffic jams that develop in and around Dublin. It is a disgrace that this is allowed to continue. The DTA would have been the ideal body to clear and sanction road-opening licences but they were not given the power to ensure that all of these companies would first get the approval of the DTA before they opened up the roads. Control of that nature is vital.

If a street is being paved or if one utility company are installing services, then all other utility companies should be notified that they have a specific time within which to instal, repair or maintain their services in that particular street. That kind of co-ordination would go a long way towards relieving traffic jams. I accept that some road openings will have to be made on an emergency basis but they account for a very small proportion of all road openings. Another disturbing feature in this area is the fact that the corporation, Dublin Gas and the other utilities are not even sure where their underground pipes or conduits are. In many instances many roads are opened just to discover where pipes are. What assurances can the Minister give us that this saga is now going to be brought to an end under the proposals he has brought before the House today?

The regulation of the taxi service is a very important matter. This service was to be under the control of the DTA. A good, well run, efficient and clean taxi service is something which is found in all other cities and this makes a major impression on visitors and for many of them it is the first impression they get of the city. The regulation of taxi services is now being transferred back to the Department of the Environment. Again, are we just transferring responsibility around with no real increased powers to ensure that the taxi service is brought up to a better standard?

It is clear we have identified what needs to be done in many of these areas and that we have established structures in the past to undertake these functions but these structures were not adequate. In any event we are now dismantling them again. What we must really ask in relation to all of this is whether we can rely on the various agencies to get their act together once and for all and sort out these very pressing problems? I have grave reservations that handing the authority back to the agencies will achieve what we all hope it will achieve.

I would like to refer to the position of the chief executive of the Dublin Transport authority, Mr. Murray. Deputy Deasy also referred to him. Mr. Murray has been an employee of the local authority for about 19 years and I understand he is a very competent and capable public servant. He was attracted to apply for the position of chief executive of the Dublin Transport Authority because he saw it as a challenging position and he had the capacity to fulfil it. He has been appointed for about a year and I understand he has now been offered a voluntary redundancy package but that he is not going to accept it. I further understand he has been offered a position with Dublin Bus on a one year basis subject to an option to renew it for a further year and that he may be redeployed in the public service after that period expires but there is no guarantee, of course, that he will be so redeployed. The conditions and the terms of the offer by Dublin Bus are considered less attractive than those in his capacity as chief executive of the Dublin Transport Authority. I would like to say to the Minister, and this is touching on the point raised by Deputy Deasy, that Mr. Murray should be given a guarantee that the position he holds as chief executive of the Dublin Transport Authority would not be in any way lessened by virtue of the fact that the authority is now being abolished.

My interpretation is that Mr. Murray's contract with the Dublin Transport Authority under the terms of the Bill appears to be null and void. The Minister can disclaim responsibility for him and does not have to honour any of the terms of his employment contract. If that is the case it seems to be very unfair and seems to be an unique situation as I am not aware that it applies to any other public servant who finds himself in a similar position to Mr. Murray where the body he works for is being abolished.

In the time allowed to us today I do not know if we will have an opportunity to have a full Committee Stage debate on this matter but I ask the Minister to accept an amendment at this stage to section 4(1) and 4(3). I would like to ask the Minister to delete the words in brackets, "(other than a member of the staff of the Authority)" in section 4(1).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Malley is a new Deputy and I would advise him in respect of amendments that a few moments ago it was indicated that other amendents will be moved. Those amendments have to be circulated before they are put to the Minister for acceptance.

Mr. P. O'Malley

The subsections that I referred to mean that Mr. Murray's contract does not have to be honoured but contracts made between the Dublin Transport Authority and any other body or person will remain in force. Does the Minister agree that if that is the position then it must be considered as very unfair. I ask him in his reply to give me assurances that Mr. Murray's position will not be totally undermined in the way I have outlined.

It looks as if Mr. Murray's superannuation entitlements will be under threat also. I understand that in order for the superannuation scheme to become effective an instrument would have to be laid before the House 21 days prior to the enactment of this legislation. Clearly that is not the position in his case. Does that mean that his superannuation scheme has been scrapped and, if so, is it so that he would be forced to opt for a voluntary redundancy package? I ask the Minister to address those points.

Mr. Quinn

We are engaged today in a very sordid business. I want to extend — and I genuinely mean this — a sense of personal sympathy to the Minister who has been sent in here to deliver his part of the Cabinet deal. From my own experience and knowing some of the documents that emanate from the Department of Finance, each Department was probably asked to provide a sacrificial victim in order to demonstrate to the public that this Government are about their business of quango hunting.

Deputy Deasy might recall some of the targets that had labels attached to them on an earlier occasion. For the purposes of recollection I suggest that there is a connection between the massacre of the Dublin Transport Authority from the Department of Tourism and Transport, upon which we are asked to give our consent, the abolition of the National Social Service Board from the Department of Health and the abolition of An Foras Forbartha from the Department of the Environment. I will put it to the Minister that during the summer of this year Cabinet Ministers were instructed or requested by the Department of Finance to come forward with victims that could safely demonstrate this Government's intent of some degree of fiscal rectitude. The Civil Service did not produce victims from within its own ranks but effectively nominated the in-laws, in this case bodies that has been established by them following exhaustive reports. If, in the season of Christmas, we are to make biblical references, this is the massacre of one of Herod's or perhaps Haughey's innocents.

Mr. Deasy

It is a sacrificial lamb.

Mr. Quinn

That is the origin of this entire distasteful and sordid exercise to which this House is being asked to give its consent. The Labour Party are fundamentally opposed to this Bill in principle and we will be dealing with amendments to it in due course when they are circulated. That is the real origin of this illogical, nonsensical legislation that has been hurried to this House in advance of the end of this calendar year.

I sympathise with the Minister because his speech which carries his own personal imprint is one of regret and he pleads economies and savings. I believe he thinks there are economies and savings. The secretary of another Cabinet in a jurisdiction not too far away from this island, an island of a larger size and population in which the Minister lived for many years and indeed on occasions was, I believe, a member of the British Labour Party, in a court case in Australia argued that he was being economical with the truth with respect to arguments being put forward in defence of Mrs. Thatcher's attempts to stifle the publication of the book, Spy Catcher. I respectfully suggest to the Minister and to his officials that they are being economical with the figures in respect of the savings they are suggesting will be effected in relation to what can be achieved by the massacre and dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority. I will deal with that matter later.

My argument is that, from the very basis of that minimalist argument that the Minister has put forward, one of regrettable necessity to cut costs, he has not proved or demonstrated to a satisfactory degree that he is really saving costs in the order of £500,000 which he suggests, by leaving them hang in his speech, would be the cost of the Dublin Transport Authority. The only cost that the Minister's officials have had the courage to cut with alacrity has been the working and legal entitlements of the chief executive, to the extent that in section 4, whereby this Government and this House are being asked to honour every other contract with every other body, there is inserted in brackets a provision whereby we are being asked to exclude from that the one employee of the Dublin Transport Authority. If ever the European Court of Human Rights had a case test made for it within the commission of the communities of European nations to which we belong this seems, on a prima facie basis, to be a classical case. One could ask how could it be just for the Dáil to agree to honour every contract, none of which has been specified in the Minister's speech? We do not know what contracts there might be, for example, in relation to outstanding fees to consultants who were a legacy of the Dublin transportation task force. Their contract for fees is automatically presumed to be valid. The Minister cannot justify this even with the economy of argument and reason which has been put in the Minster's speech. I do not believe that it is based on grounds of economy and that substantial savings are to be made.

The Dublin Transport Authority has had a chequered history. It has spanned different Administrations and it is probably true to say that there is all-party agreement on the need for co-ordination in this area. The first resolution I ever moved as a public representative was as a member of Dublin City Council in September 1974 to establish a Dublin transport authority and this motion was greeted with support from all quarters. In latter days, Fianna Fáil with Deputy Faulkner as Minister, in 1978, established the commission and the report came two years later recommending the establishment of a Dublin transport authority. I will quote the arguments made by the current Minister for Industry and Commerce, then Minister for Transport in favour of accepting the recommendations of that report. The press release issued on 14 April 1980 said:

My Department has prepared a summary of the Commission's report and copies are available here today. The main findings include the following:

—traffic congestion in Dublin is extremely bad and could get worse;

—in general, the major infrastructural improvements which are planned will take many years to complete, so short-term measures assume a greater significance;

—the enforcement of road traffic regulations is inadequate;

—the lack of effective action to date is to a large extent a consequence of the varying statutory functions and responsibilities of the three bodies most directly concerned (CIE, the local authorities and the Garda Síochána), who report to three different Ministers (the Ministers for Transport, the Environment and Justice), and also of the lack of co-ordinated assessment, planning and implementation of measures to improve transportation in Dublin.

The Commission has made a number of important recommendations designed to bring about an improvement in the present very unsatisfactory transport and traffic situation in the Dublin area.

I will not go on to read the rest of this to the House but it refers basically to the establishment of the authority.

Mr. Deasy

Page 5, paragraph 20 is probably more relevant.

Mr. Quinn

As far back as 1980, these were the arguments to justify the establishment of this authority. There is clearly an intellectual argument which has support on all sides for the retention of the integration of these functions. This Bill is proposing to undo the work of at least 10 years. Where is the economy and the savings in undoing the business of ten years in an area where there is broad all-party support? There is no economy there. The Minister knows that. The attempt by the Bill to scatter the responsibility over three separate Departments is tragic. The core criticism of the report in 1980, to which the Minister gave consent, in terms of the arguments he put forward, of the dispersal of ultimate responsibility over three Government Departments is now being formally proposed again in this Bill albeit in a slightly improved way. We are undoing the construction work which has engaged time, energy and taxpayers' money over a period of ten years. This measure being advocated in the interests of economy is simply crazy.

There is an extraordinary need in relation to the problems of random conduit exploration that statutory bodies embark on at different times, to find out if there is a pipe under a certain street. A statutory body usually waits until another statutory authority has provided an especially laid coat of asphalt or as we saw in the case of Grafton Street, an especially laid set of cobble-rock bricks, to make it slightly more difficult and perhaps more adventurous to find out if there is a conduit under the street.

This city desperately needs an integrated transport authority which would provide an integrated transport plan. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle as a member of one of the three planning authorities for Dublin city will know that we never got our act together in terms of planning to provide a proper integrated planning service so that the corporation tenants who were housed from the inner city to suburban corporation estates in Tallaght, Blanchardstown or Clondalkin would have the guarantee of an adequate transport service in and out of town so that they could visit their parents and in-laws. The Dublin Transport Authority was beginning to make slow progress in that area. Because they were a statutory body the manager of Dublin city and of Dún Laoghaire and Dublin County had to listen to their recommendations. They will no longer have to listen to the recommendations of the reconstituted Dublin Transportation Task Force. This is nonsense. We are talking about a city and suburbs which extend as far as Celbridge, to parts of Meath and into the northern parts of County Wicklow. This decision flies in the face of reason. The arguments for the need for a co-ordinated transport plan for Dublin city are self-evident.

Last night the Lord Mayor of Dublin complimented the Taoiseach and the Government on supporting and co-operating with the Millenium Board in their plans and proposals for the Millenium which will be inaugurated on Christmas Eve. In a few years time, or in 200 years time, when people wish to see the legacy of the Department of Transport to Dublin city they will see although it took eight to ten years to get our act together in terms of a Dublin Transport Authority, that within hours of the announcement of the Millenium, on 1 January, the Department of Transport and the Minister of the day will have succeeded in cutting the legs from under it and scattering responsibility to three different Departments. This is some present; and this is being done in the interests of costsaving.

Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Deasy made a point in relation to staff. Do the Department and the Minister believe that a contract made with an individual in respect of his personal income and pension rights is as valid and as important as a contract made with consultants to provide a report, or a contract made with a manufacturer for building materials and labour? If they do, why have they put in that exempting clause? Were the Department of Labour consulted about this legislation in the normal way? Did the Department of Labour, with their responsibility for the protection in legislative terms of the rights of anybody working for a living, raise a question mark in relation to this clause in section 4? If so, was it accepted or rejected? Did it slip through while nobody was noticing or did the Department of Labour spotlight this point as they should have done? Did the Department of Finance say that notwithstanding the objections of the Department of Labour they were going ahead?

The Minister has broad educational and transportational experience and has been a member of a number of Administration. Does he believe that any of the officials in his Department or in the Departments in which he has served would themselves accept reduction in salary, the removal of some of the fringe benefits which they enjoy as part of their remuneration and a reduction in the duration of employment from the normal retirement age to a guarantee of at least one year? Would any official who had anything to do with this document accept those terms? If not for them, why for Mr. Murray?

My fourth question relates to whether the Minister has consulted with CIE management who told union representatives last Tuesday that over 800 people will have to go? Did they also say at that meeting that they were getting somebody for a year from the Dublin Transport Authority? Was that fact put on the table in the course of the discussions?

I would ask the Minister to think again. I must accept, although I do not like it, that there is a reduction in money. This whole Bill could be put into cold storage. The functions currently carried out by the Dublin Transport Authority could be assigned to different groups without undoing the legislation. There are many administrative ways in which some of the activities and functions could be carried out by the Minister's Department and others. The Minister recognises this point because he has made approximately £165,000 available for traffic management schemes. That is a recognition in part of the need for some continuity. The Minister's heart is not in this Bill. He knows this is a bad day's work. We are not trying to undermine the Minister's position or that of the Government. The Minister has been obliged to come into this House with this legislation and the Labour Party are opposed to it.

Mr. Andrews

It is something of a disappointment to see the demise of the Dublin Transport Authority, sacrificed on the altar of economic cutbacks.

Mr. Deasy

Quango-hunting.

Mr. Andrews

The Minister shares that disappointment, although he is very well able to speak for himself and I will not presume to speak on his behalf. He expressed the view during his speech on Second Stage that many people find the dissolution of the authority unfortunate. The Minister nevertheless intends to reconstitute the Dublin Transportation Task Force. I suspect we are not altogether abandoning the Dublin Transport Authority's role in general transport and traffic matters. We should be grateful for small mercies. It is fundamental to the future traffic management of this city and county that we have some group or organisation presiding over the chaos which is traffic in Dublin today.

I wish to localise my contribution to Blackrock, Monkstown, Dún Laoghaire, the Merrion Road to Merrion Gates and the traffic flows from Donnybrook, stillorgan, Foxrock, Leopardstown and Shankill. I refer particularly to the imward traffic flow every morning from Monday to Friday inclusive between the hours of 8.15 a.m. and 9.45 a.m. and the outward flow in the evening from 5 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. During these hours the traffic is bumper to bumper. It never ceases to amaze me that some organisation does not examine the principle of contra-flow traffic. In the morning there are empty lanes leading out from the city in the direction of Blackrock and Stillorgan. One of these lanes should be utilised by incoming traffic in the interests of speedy traffic management. In the evening there is traffic chaos from the Merrion Gates to Blackrock and Monkstown. It is truly disgraceful in terms of lost time and energy and the stress which afflicts modern man and woman. We subject ourselves to such stress daily merely to get from Monkstown to the city centre. I am thinking here of the outskirts, places such as Baggot Street, Leeson Street and so on. We spend an hour each morning in our cars on the inward journey to the city centre.

I appeal to the Minister, in the interests of national sanity, of proper traffic control, of all those individuals, including myself, who have to withstand this stress commuting to and from their workplace every day of their lives, that a contra-flow traffic lane be opened urgently on these routes, on these dual carriageways, which indeed are a disgrace to their name, but particularly the route from Monkstown to Merrion Gates. Once one reaches Merrion Gates the backlog seems to disperse and one begins to move but, to get from Dún Laoghaire, Monkstown, Blackrock to Merrion Gates is an expedition. There is a sense of relief, of attainment when one finally reaches the end of this appalling traffic jungle every morning and evening.

I cannot express sufficiently strongly the insanity of the situation. Why, in the name of goodness, cannot the flow of this commuter traffic be loosened up by proper traffic management controls? It is not a bad little country basically; there are so many positive things going for it. I can never understand why we do not avail of the opportunities available to us, and that remedy would constitute one of them. Not only should the principle of contra-flow traffic be applied on those routes but also in other parts of Dublin city and county and other cities and towns nationwide. I am not competent to speak about other areas but I am very capable of representing those motorists who commute daily from south county Dublin who are subjected to those traffic conditions. It is utterly disgraceful. Why could we not, by way of tribute to the millennium, ensure a sane traffic flow by way of proper traffic management in these and other areas? I represent the Dún Laoghaire area and I make that appeal on behalf of my constituents who suffer the indignity of sitting for hours in their cars each morning and evening in those appalling traffic conditions.

Of course, there is an alternative, a first class DART service, but that tends to be over-crowded. I do not want to decry that service in any way, it constitutes a competent alternative to people commuting along the line.

I would appeal to the Minister to examine the principle of contra-flow traffic for the areas I have mentioned and, if necessary, others. There has been a first-class by-pass built and completed in Blackrock. There are teething difficulties being encountered there at present. There is a necklace of traffic lights, for want of a better description, within the space of a couple of hundred yards. It is totally unacceptable that this series of traffic lights is not properly co-ordinated. This is another matter this reconstituted authority might examine, again for the sake of sane traffic management, for the sake of those people who have to stop at every traffic light along the way, sometimes caught in the maw of the series of six. In principle the by-pass is a very good one and has done much, not alone for the entire Blackrock region but for the township itself. Although there are teething problems I believe the traffic there will sort itself out in time.

There is also the difficulty of finding parking spaces in the town of Blackrock itself which is a matter of concern to local traders. Now that there is a first-class shopping centre in Blackrock, the traders who have been loyal to Blackrock over the years should be given a fair deal. I do not want to take up the entire time of the traffic task force with the constituency of Dún Laoghaire but there are a number of matters there warranting examination which would be to everybody's benefit.

The other matter of concern to me is roads signposting. It is very easy to get lost in the city and county of Dublin, particularly when tourists and our country cousins travel on these roads, because the signposting is deplorable; either it is non-existent or, where it exists, is totally inadequate. I would ask the Minister to initiate a comprehensive, easily understood, signposting programme so that natives and tourists alike could negotiate our highways and byways efficiently and speedily.

The other matter I would request the Minister to bring to the attention of local authorities, particularly in growth areas such as surburban south county Dublin, is the control of traffic within housing estates where such traffic can be a real danger to young children. There should be a slowing-down of traffic in these estates. I would suggest that the Minister recommend to builders of such housing estates the introduction of a system of rumble strips. These are small, raised barriers on the roadways which cause car drivers to slow down or cause damage to their vehicles. That would be in the interests of children and young people generally.

I might refer to the cost of road traffic accidents. In this respect there are interesting statistics contained in a 1984 Report of An Foras Forbartha, entitled "Road Accident Facts". The report is based on road traffic accident information recorded by the Garda Síochána. Under the heading of "Cost of Road Accidents" on page 2 of this publication there appears the following:

The yearly cost to the community of road traffic accidents continues to remain at a very high level. Using the method based on lost output to estimate costs, a method which is in some ways inadequate for that purpose, a fatal accident is currently estimated at £230,000 when medical care and police costs are taken into account, as well as a notional sum to compensate for grief and loss.

—which at present, under the amended Civil Liability Act, is in the region of £7,500. The report then continued:

The cost of injury accidents can vary widely, but on average a serious injury accident is estimated to cost £12,000 and a minor injury accident some £1,800. The total cost to the community is of the order of £220 million a year.

Those are unbelievable statistics, at which I gasped when I read them. When historians come to write the history of our nation and look at the carnage on our country's roads since the foundation of the State, or the inception of the motorpropelled vehicle, and the number of people killed annually, no doubt they will see it as one of the great social evils of modern living, particularly in modern Ireland.

I shall conclude, leaving the way clear for others who may wish to speak on this subject after Question Time.

Proinsias De Rossa

I would like to take up the whole question of the DTA itself. While obviously the points made by Deputy Andrews were on very important issues, the decision to abolish the DTA is, I believe, very shortsighted and a retrograde step and, according to the records of the House, goes contrary to the views expressed by the present Minister when he was in Opposition here only last year. For that reason The Workers' Party will be opposing this Bill on the conclusion of Second Stage and, indeed, on the conclusion of the Bill today at 5 o'clock.

Debate adjourned.