Before the adjournment for Question Time I had just begun my contribution. I had pointed out that I regard the abolition of the Dublin Transport Authority as both a shortsighted and retrograde step which we will oppose at the end of the Second Stage and also again if it goes to Committee Stage. We have already tabled a number of amendments. The Bill makes no sense on either financial or traffic control grounds. The only saving is likely to be a minor one, that with the exception of the chief executive, all other staff would be transferred back to the Government Department from which they were seconded originally.
I would like to refer to the Minister's speech today in which he sought to justify this on the basis that there will be a future cost of something like £500,000. He backed that up by claiming that the expenditure for 1987 comprises of two State grants-in-aid — one for current expenditure and one for capital works. Regardless of whether the Dublin Transport Authority exist next year, that kind of expenditure would still be required. There is no clear indication from the Minister of precisely how much is going to be saved as a result of the abolition of this body. The argument still stands that it has not been done on the basis of cost savings, that it has been done for some other reasons. Deputy Quinn suggested that it has been done by way of a sacrificial lamb in the Minister's Department which was demanded by the Department of Finance, I do not know if that is true but I am sure Deputy Quinn has more insight and knowledge of how these things operate at that level. It seems to me that unless it fits in with the overall thrust and policy of Government it would not be agreed to, even as a sacrificial lamb.
The decision to abolish the Authority cannot be understood adequately in isolation from other decisions made by the Government in the transport area in recent times. There has been a decision to increase CIE bus and rail fares and the decision by Dublin Bus to shed 800 jobs. In addition there has been a decision not to extend the DART services in the Dublin area. Of course, there are the ongoing pressures and demands to build massive roadways through Dublin city. The Fianna Fáil group on Dublin Corporation went to great lengths to try to force through the inner tangent route development in the Dublin area. The Clanbrassil Street end of the route is the part that is most in the news these days. If the reconstruction of that roadway goes ahead, whether it be a 70 foot or a 78 foot roadway, there will be a continuation of that kind of development right through the centre of Dublin.
The decisions that are being taken will mean that fewer people will be able to afford public transport, and the quality and level of public transport available will disimprove. One of the objectives of the Dublin Transport Authority, which was included as a result of an amendment which I put down on behalf of The Workers' Party, was to promote the greater use of public transport within the Dublin area, and now there will be no body or organisation with this overall responsibility. Dublin Bus will, of course, do their best to promote their services as will Iarnród Éireann, but there will be no overall development of transport, public and private, in the greater Dublin area.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from these decisions is that the Fianna Fáil Government have made a deliberate decision to run down public transport in the city. This will have the effect of forcing more and more people to use cars or to take their places in longer queues at bus stops. There will be a consequent worsening of the city's already drastic traffic problems. The long term thinking may also be that if the level of public transport is allowed to deteriorate sufficiently it will result in a clamour for the introduction of privately run bus routes and thus open up the way for a greater privatisation of bus services in the area.
The whole purpose of the Dublin Transport Authority was to co-ordinate the input from various Departments, bodies and local authorities so that there would not be a fragmented approach to the development of a transport strategy for the capital city. The traffic problems in Dublin are now so critical that the need for this transport authority is more important than ever. The Minister, Deputy Wilson, criticised the Dublin Transport Authority Bill when it was going through the Dáil last year as being weak and wan. In many respects the authority was inadequate but if it is abolished we will be back to the original situation with various Government Departments, Tourism and Transport and Environment, the corporation, the county council, the Garda, Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath, all involved in the traffic system without any real co-ordination of effort and with no overall responsibility in the area.
The success of the DART shows just what can be acheived when imagination and money is spent on public transport. The experience with DART shows that people are prepared to use public transport if there is a decent system available. Recent statistics show that 64 per cent of commuters travel to work by car compared to 32 per cent by bus and 4 per cent by train. If the quality of life in the city is not to deteriorate further the aim must be to shift the balance dramatically away from private cars and in favour of public transport. We do not need the sort of senseless, community-destroying road plans that Fianna Fáil have been trying to foist on us through Dublin Corporation over many years. What we do need is proper, co-ordinated traffic planning and the widest possible promotion of public transport. The opening of the DART system in 1984 was one of the most significant traffic developments in the city for many years. Unfortunately, the scope of the existing DART system is limited by its location along the coast, which was of course determined by the original coastal railway, as this means that it is serving only half of what would be its normal catchment area if it ran inland.
Communities in areas like Bally-fermot, Clondalkin, Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Finglas and Ballymun should not be denied the benefits of a DART system which are now available only to the generally more prosperous coastal areas. The decision of the Government not to go ahead with the proposals from CIE to extend the DART system to Tallaght and other areas on the grounds of cost is a short-sighted one. It ignores the fact that much of the land needed for the project has already been purchased by CIE; it ignores the general stimulating effect that the project would have on the areas through jobs created, and it ignores the money that could be saved in road construction and in generally speeding up traffic in the areas concerned.
The Dublin Transport Authority, in their short life, did not have much of a chance to prove themselves but there were indications that the small and dedicated staff were beginning to come to terms with the traffic problems of the city. They worked quietly and without fuss or self-promotion, and perhaps this was one of their mistakes. If they had gone for a high profile and publicity stunts the Minister might have found it more difficult to get away with this Bill in the Dáil. Since it was set up the Authority has taken a number of initiatives including the provision of new bus lanes, the introduction of selective bus detection systems to give buses priority at key junctions, the adoption of by-laws to control roadworks and so on. It was, I understand, preparing to introduce regulations for the wheel clamping of illegally parked vehicles and it was estimated that the revenue from this alone would have more than met the annual budget requirement of the Authority.
Fianna Fáil have done a U-turn on this issue and we are more and more beginning to expect that approach from the Fianna Fáil Government. What is surprising is the position of the Fine Gael Party. Despite a strong speech from their spokesman this morning there is still no clear indication from that party whether they are going to vote for this Bill, abstain on it or vote against it. I understand the Progressive Democrats intend to abstain on it and that is unfortunate because this House has the power to stop the Bill. Those of us who have already said we regard it as important to maintain this Authority and that we do not accept the Minister's argument in relation to costs will have the power to stop this Bill from being passed if an honourable and principled position is taken on it at the end of Second Stage today.
I wish to raise a point which relates to the position of the chief executive of the Dublin Transport Authority, Mr. Phil Murray. A number of other Deputies have already referred to the position he will find himself in as a result of the proposed passing of this Bill. I understand that all other staff of the Authority were on secondment from various Government Departments and will be able to transfer back to their original positions. However, Mr. Murray, who had worked for 19 years in Dublin County Council, had to give up his position in the county council to take on the Dublin Transport Authority job. What is to become of Mr. Murray now? Section 4 of the Bill compels the Minister to honour any contract entered into by the Authority with any person, other than a member of the staff of the Authority. That is an extraordinary situation and I have not seen it apply in any other Bill in this House. Section 4 states:
——Every bond, guarantee or other security of a continuing nature made or given by or on behalf of the Authority to any person or given by any person to and accepted by or on behalf of the Authority and every contract or agreement in writing made between the Authority and any other person (other than a member of the staff of the Authority) and in force but not fully executed and completed immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue in force on and after such commencement and shall be construed and have effect as if the name of the Minister were substituted therein for that of the Authority and shall be enforceable by or against the Minister.
That is a guarantee for all agreements entered into by the Authority except the agreement and the arrangement made with the chief executive of the company who effectively is the only person employed by the Authority because, as I have said, all the other people have the right to return to their original jobs in the public service. Why is there this exclusion? There is, at the very least, a moral obligation on the Minister to honour commitments given to Mr. Murray.
