Deputy Tom Kitt was in possession when this matter was adjourned.
Roads Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following
"Dáil Éireann believing—
(1) that the transport needs of the country require a co-ordinated national transport policy which would place greater emphasis on the development and promotion of public transport,
(2) that the priority should therefore be the establishment of a National Transport Authority rather than a simple Roads Authority,
(3) that the proposed National Roads Authority would severely diminish the capacity of elected local councillors and local communities to influence decisions regarding the development of roads, including decisions regarding tolling,
(4) that the proposed National Roads Authority will facilitate the privatisation of road maintenance with consequent job losses in local authorities declines to give the Bill a Second Reading."
—(Deputy Gilmore.)
(Interruptions.)
If the Deputy does not offer I shall be calling on an Opposition Deputy to address the House, and since the last four speakers were from the Fine Gael Party, I am anxious to call a speaker from the Labour Party or The Workers' Party. Deputy Quinn is offering.
On a point of order, do I take it that the Minister wishes to conclude?
I have said that the last four speakers on this measure were from the Fine Gael Party. I am now calling a Member from the Labour Party.
I had intended speaking later today, so my remarks now will be curtailed. I am genuinely pleased to see Deputy Michael Smith in the Custom House, a magnificently refurbished building. No doubt, Deputy Smith will adorn the inside of the building with the same grace that the external architecture manifests itself to the rest of the city. I have known Deputy Smith for a number of years and I have every confidence that his unique knowledge of local government and other Departments will be a considerable asset when he brings his political intelligence to bear on the very vexed question of our roads.
Of all of our infrastructure, whether telecommunications, health, education or housing, the most dramatic failure by all Governments has been in regard to roads and road transport. In the late fifties and early sixties the society of this Republic decided to open itself to the conditions of free trade and international competition. Various investigations were undertaken in respect of factors considered as impediments to growth and which would consequently require intervention by the State, on its own or in conjunction with the private sector, to remove them. Let me list some of them. In the early sixties, with the help of the OECD, we identified the non-technological dimension to our education system. A famous document, Investment in Education, in which Dr. Martin O'Donoghue, who was subsequently to be a Minister, played an important role, led to an analysis of the deficiencies in our then educational infrastructure. This subsequently produced the network of regional colleges throughout the country and laid the basis for the University of Limerick and Dublin City University. The Minister, Deputy Smith, will be familiar with the impact of the regional colleges on third level education and on industry.
In the late sixties and early seventies we had a telephone system which was antediluvian. It was considered that the lack of a modern infrastructural facility which would enable us to compete on terms comparable with those of our competitors was a major impediment to generating economic growth. We had to modernise from scratch. We were lucky that we had steam engine technology in relation to telephones in that we were able to jump an intermediate stage and go for the state of the art technology pioneered by the French, namely a digital telephone system. The first person to analyse the position and implement a capital programme to eliminate the infrastructural deficiency was Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Such was the political consensus that surrounded the analysis of the deficiency and the need to counteract it by an investment over perhaps ten or 12 years that there was no real dislodgment of the overall investment programme by successive Ministers. The present Taoiseach gave impetus to that investment programme when he held that portfolio. The result is that today we have a telephone system which is perhaps one of the most efficient and effective in Europe. It is expensive because we are paying back an enormous capital investment cost over many years, but the contrast between what we have today and what we had when I came into this House in 1977 is so great that it does bear description. We take it totally for granted now that we have such a good system.
We have likewise made strategic investment decisions in relation to housing and health over a long period. There were considerable mistakes on many occasions. Exchanges were built for the telephone system based on the old technology and when the new hardware arrived it could be fitted into the corner of one of five or six rooms. The buildings had been designed for another technological era. Even allowing for the mistakes and the cul-de-sacs explored, in the areas of education, telecommunications, housing and health we have put in place as a State an infrastructure which largely meets the needs of our society and is comparable in OECD terms with that of most of our competitors.
When we contrast that achievement, which extends over 25 or 30 years, with the disaster in the area of the national roads system, certain fundamental questions have to be asked. Clearly we are as a people capable of making strategic decisions and implementing them, and capable of coming up with an analysis which, whatever its faults, will maintain the forward movement in infrastructural development. There is no deficiency on the technological side in respect of the design of an education system, a telecommunication system, a housing infrastructure or a health infrastructure. There are no domestic constraints in relation to the supply of skilled labour, yet in relation to roads, notwithstanding the fact that we have a very long and honoured tradition of engineering, we have a disaster.
I managed in another life to qualify as an architect. I transferred from Bolton Street College of Technology to UCD, having been late in originally applying to UCD. A person who had started architecture in UCD decided after six weeks that he did not like the subject and went to Merrion Street to become an engineer. In the nature of our society, I met the individual two or three years later and thanked him for making room for me at UCD where I had a very interesting time learning architecture, with a bit of politics on the side. I asked why he gave up architecture to take up engineering. He replied that he found architecture too difficult because there were not correct answers and that in engineering there was a correct answer — sums that actually produced a correct answer. He liked the intellectual certainty which enabled one to say that something was 100 per cent right or 100 per cent wrong. He had found that in architecture there could be a half dozen answers, all partially right and all partially wrong. He found that unsettling. There is a philosophical argument attached to all that. In the implementation of a roads policy the culture among some engineering staff is that there is an answer which is 100 per cent right or 100 per cent wrong.
Last Friday at a briefing held by the technical and administrative staff of Dublin City Council, of which I am again a member, the elected councillors for the inner city area discussed the route and alignment of the street which is to run from the Coombe Hospital along the bottom of Cork Street to Patrick Street. The technical presentation suggested that we have managed to bend the alignment of the street so that it comes to the bottom of Francis Street/Dean Street. Unfortunately this will require the knocking down of two houses on the corner of Francis Street, one of which is in very good condition and is about 200 years old. The obvious question was why this has to be knocked down. We asked whether we could reduce the swerve of the road or the width of the street at this point by a metre or a metre and a half. We were told by the engineers that it would fall below the technical standard specified by the Department of the Environment and that as a consequence we would not get national road funding. This work is funded by the Department of the Environment, with help from the EC. I would respectfully suggest to my engineering colleagues — who ensure that most houses and structures remain standing for which I am deeply indebted to them — that this is an example of a solution being either 100 per cent right or 100 per cent wrong.
We live in an imperfect world. We have made mistakes in relation to other aspects of our infrastructure, so we are aware that one cannot get things 100 per cent right all the time. There has been an inflexibility not merely in relation to the design of roads, about which I have given an anecdotal example fresh in my mind and unfortunately I believe that the house in question will be knocked down. I have the greatest respect for the officials of the Department of the Environment, because they have succeeded in many other areas of infrastructural investment leading to our having the most successful housing policy overall in Europe, but as regards the intellectual, professional and administrative relationship between officials of the Department of the Environment and their technical back-up staff there appears to be some kind of inherent gap, some lack of fit which, together with the political decision-making process at local and national level, has failed us as a people in the delivery of a proper road system.
While acknowledging that the new Minister has had little opportunity to go into the provisions of the Bill before us in any detail I predict they will compound that deficient relationship in a very critical way. One of the Minister's predecessors, Deputy Flynn, the then Minister for the Environment, approached me in 1987, when the Roads Authority interim board was established and I was spokesperson on the environment for the Labour Party, to inquire what would be my attitude to such an Authority. I said that, in principle, I welcomed it provided that the decision with regard to the alignment of the route, wherever that might be, ultimately would be vested with the local authority; in other words, whatever about the shape, size, cost and time of delivery of the road system, whatever about the need for Government to co-ordinate such at national level, I contended that the location of that route, and its impact, in front of somebody's house or in a particular part of the city, should ultimately be a decision to be taken by the local people. I said that if local authorities were to retain the power, in principle, to determine the alignment of that route, I would have no great reservations in principle to the establishment of a Na onal Roads Authority, in respect of the national primary route system, which is what primarily any such Roads Authority would be concerned with. In such circumstances, I said I would have no concern about their taking power from local authorities. The Minister took note of the point I made at the time. He did not give any indication of his intentions one way or the other, but merely took on board the observation I had made in the course of an informal discussion with him.
As I understand it, the Bill, as published — and the Minister present might clarify this point for me — purports to take away that right from local authorities. I might refer now to a proposal of great controversy in the greater Dublin area, that of the eastern bypass. If the provisions of this Bill in their present form would give to the Authority, the Department of the Environment, or some combination of political decision-makers at national level, power to impose an eastern bypass or any other route which had been rejected by the elected representatives of that local authority on account of its alignment or location, then, irrespective of any of its merits which would lead to an improvement of the present system in dire need of such improvement, I would have to say to the Minister, if he is not in a position to indicate at the conclusion of Second Stage that he proposes to alter that provision, the Labour Party will be opposing the Bill on Second Stage. I shall elaborate on why we have taken that decision in the course of my remarks. Nonetheless I want to convey the force of our reservations to the new Minister.
Reverting to the matter of there being either a 100 per cent right or a 100 per cent wrong solution, may I express some regret that I was involved in decision-making on something about which I had great reservations at the time, but which ultimately turned out to be a spectacular success? When I served as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment for one year a problem arose in relation to what is now known as the Chapelizod bypass, that route that begins effectively at the old Mackintosh factory at the corner of Kilmainham, known to anybody who travels the road to the west, and continues from where that dual carriageway ended, at the Islandbridge Remembrance Gardens, to where the road now rises to its highest level, south west of what is now Chapelizod. There was then a line drawn on a map, the proposal being to build that route along the line of the existing main road. The then Minister for Communications was Deputy Jim Mitchell, from the Dublin West constituency.
There was a small settlement, of no more than 500 or 600 people located in an area known as "The Ranch" to the north-east of that route who, had that route been constructed as proposed, would have been totally isolated. The River Liffey had a fall of approximately 100 metres to the north-east of them, with a proposal for a major dual carriageway between them and the rest of their community to the south-west of them. I clearly remember my private consultation with Deputy Jim Mitchell at the time. He led a deputation into the Custom House. There was then a CPO being disputed. I had a private meeting with Deputy Jim Mitchell at which I asked him to advance an alternative proposal because we needed to get on with the building of the western bypass of which this proposal formed an integral part. Deputy Jim Mitchell suggested that the route run north-east of the area known as "The Ranch", between "The Ranch" proper and the banks of the River Liffey, wind its way around that area, and then proceed on its original route. I put that to our departmental officials who said it could not be done, it would be too expensive, that there were other options, that they would bury this road, cut, fill and do all sorts of different things but that they had to maintain that alignment which could not be changed in any circumstances. Deputy Mitchell and I agreed to change it, when the engineering personnel in the Department, at national and local level, went along with our proposal.
I would have to say now I did not think that road would be effective or pleasant; in fact I thought it would be a bad road. But now I would have to say that it is perhaps one of the most beautiful entrance routes to Dublin city, travelling from Blanchardstown into the city, particularly the way the road rises and falls giving one glimpses of the River Liffey looking out towards Dublin Bay. The point I am endeavouring to make is that, for reasons that had nothing to do with engineering in the mind of the design engineers, we have an approach road to Dublin city from the west that reveals the city that would not otherwise have been the case had they pursued the narrow tunnel vision — and I mean no pun here — of sinking that road between "The Ranch" and Ballyfermot. Because the road now sweeps to the north east of "The Ranch", close to the banks of the River Liffey, one gets glimpses and views of Dublin city unintended by the designers and, I would have to say, myself, a credit to all concerned but particularly the road designers. It has meant that it forms a particularly elegant portion of the infrastructural entrance to the city.
I make that point to highlight or perhaps celebrate the technical and designing skills of the engineers in the Department of the Environment and to pay tribute to them, as I have done on many occasions at meetings of Dublin City Council convened in the City Hall. That is all the more reason I cannot understand the failure of the Department of the Environment to implement an infrastructural policy in relation to roads that has been proved to be effective. When replying I should like the Minister to specify the manner in which this Roads Authority will be different in their operations from the manner in which the Department of the Environment operated in the past. We are all agreed that our national primary road system is deficient. We are all aware that somewhere between 94 per cent and 96 per cent of our exports leave by road to their ports of exit. We are also aware that ours is the economy most critically dependent, within the EC, on exports. Consequently, we all realise the importance of our national primary route system to exports and to our economy generally. That analysis is documented, has been widely published and those familiar with the territory will not dispute its conclusions. To that extent we are agreed.
I enjoyed my experience of 12 months in the Department and I have great respect for the people with whom I worked. I have not seen an analysis, certainly not from the IPA or from the circles from which such analyses can emerge without personal hurt or political misrepresentation, as to why our performance has been so lamentable in relation to roads. Why is our national primary road system still a mess? Why has the massive investment resulted in a series of unconnected pieces, where there has been no synergy — to use that much abused phrase? Why have we not got the benefit of the sum being greater than the individual parts? If one quantifies what has been spent over the last few years one will see that it was substantial — it was on a par with that spent on telecommunications but the synergy is not there. There have been partial improvements and partial developments but they do not appear to have been put in place in a co-ordinated manner. I will give a specific example from my experience.
We have had the published roads programme. In the period of office of a former Minister for the Environment, Sylvester Barrett, the motorways legislation was introduced in this House. I made a substantial contribution on that Bill. There is no legislative impediment in that area. In fact, that motorways legislation is, by and large, good legislation. We had the roads programme for the 1977-81 administration. Deputy Liam Kavanagh, a Cabinet colleague of mine during the 1982-87 Government, produced a similar roads programme. In the mid-eighties the commitment to public expenditure was higher then than now. Massive sums of money were made available for road improvement. Yet, critical road improvements were not made in the greater Dublin hub area.
If one looks at the ports from which our exports are leaving the country and their destinations one will see that the bulk of them are on the east coast. I am thinking of Greenore, Drogheda, to a lesser extent Dundalk, Dublin Port and Rosslare. A substantial amount of our primary materials which are subject to reprocessing come in through those ports. That is in no way to denigrate the importance of the strategic location of Cork or the roll-on roll-off facility in Waterford. Yet, nobody in the Department of the Environment seems to have said that over ten years they will invest significantly in the N1, N3, N4 or the N7 right across to the N11, the hub of that wheel. That would provide a link for heavy articulated trucks from north Leinster heading for the fresh food markets of Paris or Rome. Those trucks could travel to Rosslare without the necessity to go through the centre of Dublin.
The Department of the Environment have failed to understand that the benefit of the Western Park Motorway does not come into play until there is a link from the N1 to the N11. The capital investment in the Belgard stretch which links the Naas Road — the road with which the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, is familiar — to the airport on one side and to the southern cross route and on to Rosslare on the other, was enormous. I am not aware that there is within the Department of the Environment an official with strategic responsibility for saying how can we make all these things happen and how soon. There is no official who will say what needs to be done for local authorities or ask where are the gaps and the deficiencies. We are improving the external parts of the spokes of the wheel at considerable cost while the hub of the wheel remains unstable and incomplete. As a consequence the efficiency of the system is buckling, is seriously reduced and is reaching its optimum capacity.
Will the Minister give me an update on what has happened since? There has been a procession of Ministers and Ministers of State through the Department from the time I was there to the present Minister. In June 1983 I had a meeting with the then city and county manager, Mr. Feeley, the senior roads engineer, Mr. Murphy, the senior roads engineer for the county and other officials after I got agreement in principle from the Cabinet that capital resources would not be an impediment to completing the link from the N1 to N11. I asked Mr. Feeley, as the senior local authority official with responsibility for implementing this project in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, what was stopping Dublin County Council, Dublin Corporation and the Department at technical level, from proceeding with the work. We were told the route alignment had not been agreed in certain areas and that studies were proceeding in relation to the southern cross route, a matter I will return to in a few minutes. We were told there was a resource gap in relation to completion of the design for certain areas.
When I said we could not allow such gaps to delay the completion of this hub, because it was so critical, I was told they did not have the necessary technical staff. I responded by saying that on previous occasions, in other areas of infrastructure, we had gone outside the confines of the public service to consultants to design training centres for AnCO and regional technical colleges. At that time the architects section of the Department of Education were incapable of doing that work. Where there have been gaps we have frequently gone to consultants for other infrastructural design. There appeared to be a great reluctance at that time to put the design of some of these facilities out to consultants to expedite the implementation of this programme. Regrettably I was out of that Department by December of the same year and the matter was not pursued with the kind of alacrity I would have wished. I was disappointed there was no strategic linkage between those major routes with the hub. There was no sense of urgency about the project.
The purpose of establishing a Roads Authority is to reduce or eliminate the internal impediments that have prevented us dealing with this major gap in our infrastructure. The southern cross route is the leg that takes the Dublin western ring road from approximately the N7, through Tallaght, south of the Dublin Mountains and to the N11 close to Leopardstown golf course. I outline its geographical location for my provincial colleagues, such as Deputy O'Sullivan, who may be at a loss in locating exactly where I am talking about. It had the misfortune of having to wind its way between the cricket playing pitch of St. Columbus College, an institution of not inconsiderable influence in this State, and the beautiful, mature public fields of Marley Park. It had to wind its way from there through Dundrum, across Ballinteer, and down into the Tallaght area — I am not familiar with the precise location.
I am referring to 1974. The route is only now being finalised but at that time the residents were unhappy with the proposed route from Marley Park to Dundrum and on to the western link. Being a mixed group of middle class and upwardly mobile people with a wide range of skills, they felt that there was a better route to the one the engineers working for Dublin County Council and the Department of the Environment had come up with. They had among their residential membership a wide array of talent, people with mixed professional skills, who worked in both the public and private sectors, and at no cost to the State they set about finding an alternative route which would take, in engineering terms, the projected traffic flow on what in effect would be a motorway without causing the environmental damage which would have resulted if the original official route had been agreed to.
They won that battle but they lost the war. Because they had proved that the original route was unacceptable the project ground to a halt. I will not take up the time of the House by going into its history in great length but because people had refused to accept that they had made a mistake or that perhaps there was more than one right answer — that there was a number of right answers— it was a case of "If we cannot have it this way, you will not have it at all and you can live with the traffic chaos. If the people of Dundrum want to suffer and put up with a heavy volume of traffic, including articulated trucks, in trying to get to Sandyford Industrial Estate, so be it; we will soften their resistance by a process of attrition known as traffic jams". I have to say that in the minds, if not the hearts, of some administrative thinkers that is a tactic that has been and is still being used to this very day. They decided that they would soften resistance at local level by letting traffic jams build up.
The southern cross route is the essential link in enabling refrigerated container trucks laden with meat destined for continental Europe to get to Rosslare without the necessity to pass through Dublin city centre, which is what they currently have to do if coming from north of the River Liffey and anywhere along the east coast. Even though we have been analysing this problem since the early seventies the decision-making process in the Department of the Environment has failed to expedite the completion of the ring road between north and south.
I have written about this matter extensively, in newspapers and elsewhere, and argued about it. Unless the Minister's Department and those Government Departments who have brought forward this proposed legislation, the Roads Bill, discover the reason the decision-making process has so dramatically failed us in respect of infrastructure in that area, in marked contrast to telecommunications and education services, this Bill will not be effective and the Roads Authority that it will establish will not be able to do their job. As I was not in the House when the current incumbent's predecessor in the Department of the Environment introduced this legislation, I have not seen the departmental analysis of this legislation.
It is no secret that the Department of the Environment are the most reluctant parent of this particular legislative child. Other legislation was pulled out of drawers and rushed forward to clog up the office of the legal adviser to that Department and to pre-occupy the Minister for the Environment. A raft of legislation was brought forward by the Department of the Environment. We had legislation coming out of our ears during the past three to four years, some of which was of the highest stupidity. While I know I have some hairy monuments of my own in relation to mistakes that I have made during my political career none of those comes near to the multi-storey dwellings legislation. Yet, the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, took the time to introduce that legislation in this House, even though it had been indicated to him at the time that it was unworkable. It was unworkable effectively for two years and prevented people from selling their dwellings. This Department who found the time and necessary resources to move that legislation through the various stages with the skill and ability that they have, were incapable of bringing forward the National Roads Authority legislation.
The National Roads Authority interim body were established in early 1987 or perhaps in the summer of 1988 — I suspect it was in 1987 — to honour the commitment contained in the Fianna Fáil Party's Programme for Government. The CII vigorously canvassed that such a body be set up. A detailed analysis was carried out of what effect improving the road system would have. In relation to cost, the CII argued a few years ago — I have no reason to believe it is now different — that goods exported to continental Europe via our road system and ports carried a surcharge of 8 per cent. A political agreement was reached by the minority Fianna Fáil Government of 1987; the Minister, Deputy Smith, was a member of that Government for a short period of time and he may recall some of these things. Yet, that legislation never surfaced. Each time the Department of the Environment were asked to bring forward legislation they produced all sorts of other things. Having given an example of one of the silliest pieces that they brought forward let me balance my contribution by complimenting them for bringing forward the derelict sites legislation which was marvellous legislation.
We are talking here about thousands of millions of pounds in investment which has not been well spent and about people up and down the country who are critically dependent on an efficient national primary road system; yet, we have failed to implement a strategy. Presumably, having restored to local people the right to decide on the route — the southern cross route is one example and the eastern bypass another, to which I will turn in a few moments — the Roads Bill will have to deal with that matter if it is to be acceptable to the Labour Party.
It will also have to present sections of routes which will be built over a period of time — the minimum period being about five years. I recently asked — and this was perhaps one of the last questions Deputy O'Hanlon answered in his official capacity as Minister for the Environment — the Minister to outline the timetable for the completion of the route that would link the N1 to the N11. Speaking from memory, it will be 1997 or 1998 before we get the full benefit of this synergy.
My question to this House and to the Minister is why do we have to wait that long? In relation to the southern cross route, even the sacred cricket pitches of St. Columbus College have been relocated and the route is pretty well known. Consultants have been brought in to augment the resources of the design teams available to the local authority and the National Roads Authority. Given that the timetable for construction is limited, what is the reason for the delay and the reason we cannot give it the urgent priority which this and previous administrations have given to other aspects of public and political life?
If we agreed that there is a sense of urgency, will the establishment of a National Roads Authority "fast forward" in any new, significant way the decision and implementation process currently in existence? If not, what is its benefit? Will it be simply another quango employing public servants, sidelined on secondment from the Department of the Environment to a new body, which will be subservient in everything that really counts, to their parent, the reluctant Department of the Environment? What unique differences, other than being able to ride roughshod over the wishes of local authorities in respect of alignment of the particular route, will the Roads Authority bring to the process of decision-making, implementation and speedy construction of our national primary route system? As I am making that point let me nail an old shibboleth which is frequently put forward by the right wing element in economic terms in our society who argue that direct labour and contract work is the bane of local authorities and at the root of many of our problems in relation to the roads programme.
In respect of the national primary route system, I think I am right in saying that at least 90 per cent of the construction work is done by contract. I will not mention them by name but a major south of Ireland company, whose trade board is well known, have done excellent work. A Northern contractor also did excellent work on the Naas dual carriageway. We should pay due recognition to the Department of Health and Social Welfare in Northern Ireland for subsidising the men's wages because most of them left the site mysteriously towards the end of the week to clock into exchanges in Newry and other places where they have another life. I suppose it was one way of getting colonial revenge.
I make these allegations in the full knowledge that I am doing so in this House. These are statements which were very strongly voiced by contractors outside the House but which, in the nature of things, could not be verified. However, I am happy to say that allegations of such abuse in the construction trade generally across the Border, in relation to social welfare matters, were investigated and the possibilities for abuse have clearly been reduced. The point I make in respect of the construction of the national primary road system is that it has been done, by and large, by private contractors and that, therefore, the argument by way of analysis as to why we have a deficient infrastructure in road terms, in contrast to telecommunications or anything else, is because it is done by direct labour and because local authorities are inefficient and incapable of delivering the goods in time. That is simply not the case.
I am sure the Minister is familiar with part of the history of the eastern bypass. It started off as the eastern bypass and it is now known as the Dublin Port Relief Road. Sellafield started life as Windscale which, metaphorically, politically and literally got up the noses of an awful lot of people. The British authorities thought that they would defuse the unacceptability of a nuclear reprocessing and power plant on the Cumbrian coast and they decided to change the name. Windscale disappeared and the plant became Sellafield. The eastern bypass was voted down in Dublin City Council, I think around 1979; I resigned from the council in 1977 and my successor, Councillor Mary Frehill, with the rest of the Labour group, voted against it; it was deleted from the development plan of that time but it has now re-emerged, à la Windscale, with a new name, the port relief road. The drawings are primarily the same, the analysis is undoubtedly the same and, most important, the obdurate obsession with the engineering mentality, shared not just by qualified engineers but by some decision-makers and administrators is the same, that you have an answer which is either 100 per cent right or 100 per cent wrong. They have persisted in pursuing this route at an enormous cost in terms of opportunity and time. This House, about three and a half years ago, dealing with a question which I raised in an Adjournment debate, was informed by the then Minister for the Environment that the sum of about £0.5 million was given to Dublin Corporation to pay consultants to do an environmental impact study and analysis of the route in question. We were told that that taxpayers money was not really taxpayers money because it came from the European Structural Funds, it was German taxpayers money, not real taxpayers money. However, that is a subject for another day's analysis and philosophy.
In Strasbourg yesterday, in response to President Delors's proposals to increase the Structural Funds by one-third over the next five years, in a television interview the British junior minister with responsibility for European Affairs, Francis Maude, said that Britain would be opposing increases in the Structural Funds to which Britain is a net contributor of significant sums because of the waste of many existing funds. I argue that whoever in the Department of the Environment sanctioned that study and said that we would underwrite the cost to the tune of approximately £0.5 million was, unwittingly — I do not for one second attribute any malevolent motive — allowing wastage because there is no way that the route will be built because of its environmental impact and the implicit costs required to minimise such an impact.
The big fear — without being parochial about it — is that a decision will be made that the road on the northern part, from the port to the north side, is critical to the survival of Dublin port. There is a lot of objective evidence to sustain that conclusion. The decision will maintain that it is desirable on the south side but not necessarily critical and that to get the full benefit both roads should be built. It will also be said that to obviate the environmental impact which will undoubtedly be significant the road should be buried, sunk or modified, all of which will attract an additional capital cost of 30 per cent or 40 per cent above the original cost and that on that basis it can be recommended.
Dublin City Council will make the decision in regard to this process and on the council there is a five party alliance who have 29 seats out of 52, made up of Labour, Fine Gael, The Workers' Party, the Green Party and community candidates. In respect of this matter the Progressive Democrats would have a similar view to ours and I will turn to their stated reservation about this Bill later on. The Fine Gael Party, in the formation of the civic charter, which was the broad postelection policy document — A Programme of Action for the next five years — stated that in respect of the eastern bypass they would not share the same view as the rest of the civic alliance or principled opposition to it but that they would hold their position and would not make a decision on the matter until the environmental impact study was completed, not an unreasonable point of view having regard to their previous position. This was an honestly held view by the Fine Gael Party and all six members on the council are very honourable people with whom to work. What may very well happen is that a majority on Dublin City Council could say that on balance they need to approve the plan for Dublin port because it is the very heart of this city which is being choked to death at present and not working, for all sorts of reasons, of which transport access is but one. They will say that we need to improve port access and will recommend that this goes ahead provided we ensure environmental protection which will mean a significant added cost of 30 per cent or 40 per cent, for argument's sake, as we are talking about burying, tunnelling or otherwise submerging the environmental impact of this inner urban motorway.
If this Bill is passed to what extent will the Roads Authority be able to say to a local authority: "Thank you very much for allowing us to proceed with this proposal and agreeing in principle to carry out the necessary reference work relating to the compulsory purchase acquisition, which is necessary under the motorway legislation, but because we are an independent authority and having assessed the total cost of this proposal we have decided not to go ahead with the environmentally desirable amelioration measures which would reduce the environmental impact of this road?" This would mean that we would end up getting the worst of both worlds. We would get the inner urban motorway without the benefits of amelioration which the study financed by European taxpayers in the first instance had suggested was an essential requirement. This possibility is at the root of many of the concerns of citizens in Dublin city, residents' groups and others who are looking at the way the Roads Authority will function in that area. This will affect 11 constituencies, almost 25 per cent of the constituencies in the country.
The Roads Authority will have to have a very clear relationship with other transport users. The Progressive Democrats have indicated outside this House that they will be seeking changes in respect of the powers of the Roads Authority to disregard or ignore the decision of a local authority in respect of a route alignment. If the Progressive Democrats are as effective as they were in regard to such issues as who should be Tánaiste or Taoiseach I presume that changing minor legislation will not be an insurmountable task. However, one cannot presume too much in politics and, therefore, there is a possible danger that having scored two out of two they might fail on the third issue and not be successful in this minor change.
The Progressive Democrats have said they are very committed to the provision of a light rail system in Dublin. Indeed, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment has discovered the system of light rail with the enthusiasm of a convert or zealot, which I welcome. In 1986-87 august bodies — I use this title properly and respectfully — such as the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the CII put forward an analysis of our transportation problems from a purely commercial point of view. They said that due to transportation problems, particularly in the greater Dublin area, we desperately needed a port relief road and an eastern bypass, that we had to go full steam ahead building those roads and that there was virtually an exclusive roads solution to the city's transportation problems. From the time they made those claims and assertions to the present day there has been a remarkable and welcome shift in the recognition that a roads only approach to transportation problems is doomed to failure, particularly in built-up Dublin areas, that it will not solve the problem and that in some cases more road space means more congestion.
An objective history of European cities — Dublin was proud to carry the mantle of European City of Culture last year — shows that both horsedrawn vehicle traffic and personal vehicle traffic travelling from one side of London, Paris or Rome to the other moves slower today than it did some years ago. This makes our traffic problems look manageable. The same applies to Athens, the cradle of European civilisation in city state terms. In spite of the massive programmes of road construction in London, Paris and the periphery of Rome, the level of congestion within those cities is such that people move slower than people did in 1902, 90 years ago, or 1912, 80 years ago.
It is now recognised by most urban specialists that the problems of traffic and traffic congestion and the movement of goods and services by road cannot be exclusively resolved by a roads policy only. I do not think many people would dispute the point I made. I should like to know to what extent the Roads Authority will reflect that shift in thinking, as evidenced by the Confederation of Irish Industry and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce? Dare I ask to what extent do we really need a Roads Authority or, more to the point, to what extent do we need a Roads Authority who are answerable to the Department of the Environment? Should roads be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment any longer? Will the Minister for the Environment maintain the breathtaking speed commenced by the Taoiseach on Tuesday and say, "transportation is the real problem, it should be put under one roof and full responsibility for transportation, including roads, which are simply the railway tracks for cars, will be assigned to a Department of Transportation; that there should be an integrated approach to the infrastructure upon which goods and services move to ensure that the components of that infrastructure can be managed and administered under one political roof, a Department of Transportation?" I say that with some tongue in cheek because I can see people throwing themselves off the parapet of the Custom House rather than let responsibility for roads move away from that august building.
There is an extraordinary dichotomy in relation to the policy on roads between the Department of the Environment on the one hand and those responsible for transportation movement in urban areas on the other. If the Roads Authority are to focus their attention exclusively on the national primary route system between urban areas and get on with the business of streamlining travelling times between major centres of population to the betterment of society in general then I would heartily welcome their establishment.
However, if they are to preoccupy themselves, as some seem to suggest, with urban transportation issues then I have major reservations of a secondary kind in addition to the one I have outlined to the House. Unless the Minister indicates a change, the Labour Party will oppose this Bill. Our spokesperson, Deputy Howlin, has indicated that the Labour Party will be opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, subject to the conditions I have just outlined.
There are numerous other points I could make but these are more appropriate to Committee Stage, by which time the newly appointed Minister for the Environment should have had a chance to reflect upon the legislation and indicate the priorities of this Administration, having regard to the observation made by the Progressive Democrats in respect of one of the matters to which I referred.
We have succeeded in many respect in solving infrastructural problems of an enormous scale and size over a period of time with an analysis which, in its broad outline, was shared by different political parties and administrations. This included recognising mistakes made and moving to correct them. Health, education, housing and telecommunications are the major and obvious examples. A system of justice, impartiality in the Civil Service, and a whole range of infrastructures that are critical to the efficient performance of a modern state have been put in place and maintained by the people of the Republic. For that reason the failure to deal with the national primary road system is all the more stark. We have demonstrated an ability to make achievements in other areas over a period of time but have neglected the road system.
I welcome the proposal in the Roads Authority Bill to address this problem. I have heard nothing from the Department or the Minister for the Environment to suggest that a significant analysis has been made as to why we have so far failed to achieve the desired objectives as published in various road programmes. I am concerned that the Roads Authority, who undoubtedly are still the reluctant child of the Department of the Environment, will be given a fundamental right that properly rests at local level and that some of the internal systems of administrative decision-making will not be improved. I am particularly concerned about urban areas, particularly in the greater Dublin area, that the relationship between the Roads Authority and other transport institutions or bodies will be unclear and unsatisfactory and that we will end up with bureaucratic warfare, which would be of no benefit to anyone.
The Minister at one time had responsibility in the Department of Industry and Commerce and is aware, as we all are, having read the Telesis report and Culliton report, that part of the failure of industrial policy is due to the petty rivalries that have existed between various agencies, be they the Department of Industry and Commerce, what was once known as Córas Tráchtála, SFADCo, the IDA and Eolas, not to mention FÁS, and what were previously known as AnCO, the Youth Employment Agency and the National Manpower Service. In some cases the institutions that were set up to deal with problems got in the way of the solution and in many cases became an integral part of the problem. In those circumstances how will the Minister guarantee that he will ensure that that will not happen with this body? What unique skills, talents, administrative insights or initiatives will this body have that do not exist at present, that will enable them to do a job that other bodies have failed to do? That is the question I put to the Minister in relation to this Bill. I am very concerned about a number of areas with which I have had political connections over the last 20 years.
I am delighted to have the opportunity of speaking on this Bill. The condition of roads, particularly in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan is a subject that is close to my heart and is one I have raised consistently in the Dáil since I became a Member in 1987. First, I would like to congratulate Deputy Smith on his appointment as Minister for the Environment. I regret that my constituency colleague was removed from that portfolio. I had looked forward to major achievements by Deputy O'Hanlon. I have a high regard for him and I regret he did not have the opportunity to show his undoubted ability in that Ministry. This Minister has been appointed to one of the most important Ministers in Government. If the road structure, which is in a shambles, is not improved no other Ministry will matter because the country will go down the tube.
As chairman of Cavan County Council I am inviting the Minister — I have already extended this invitation to him in writing and the letter should be on his desk this morning — to County Cavan to see at first hand the deplorable condition of county, secondary and national primary roads. I am not aware of the condition of roads in Tipperary but I have not heard any cries about them. I understand that the Minister has not had time to consider his Ministry, but I would ask him to meet a deputation from Cavan County Council to discuss the matter.
I wish the Minister every success. As I have said, I was disappointed that Deputy O'Hanlon was removed from this office because he had first-hand knowledge of the deplorable state of the roads. However, I would have to lay the blame on the previous holder of that office, Deputy Flynn, whom I hope is listening to this debate because I do not wish to speak about him behind his back. From discussions we had across the floor I believe he failed as Minister for the Environment. I would suggest to this Minister, having looked at the Bill, to withdraw it. Why should roads be isolated from other transport structures? Why not set up a roads, rail and air network? Transport is all about the movement of people and freight. I made some investigations for the purpose of this debate and I have discovered that 96 per cent of passenger traffic and 90 per cent of freight travels our roads. Even though massive amounts of money are being spent, roads have not been developed to deal with such a volume of traffic.
I put down a question on this matter to the former Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, shortly after his appointment to that office. Indeed, it must be a record in the history of this House that since this Bill was introduced in November almost as many Ministers have taken the Bill as have Deputies spoken to it. The present Minister is the third holder of that office since the Bill was introduced and only four Members have spoken on it. It has taken four months to reach this stage. That does not show a very serious attitude by the Government to what is a major problem. I hope this Minister will be in office long enough to make progress on the matter and I wish him well in doing so.
On Wednesday, 27 November 1991 in the Dáil Official Report, volume 413, column 1198, I asked the former Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, if it was his intention to spend the Structural Funds being allocated to this country on expensive alternative forms of transport for Dublin city and county thereby depriving the rest of the country of an acceptable standard of road structure. In the usual Civil Service manner the question was side-stepped, but I received interesting information from the Minister. He stated:
The framework for European Community aid to investment in transport infrastructure in Ireland over the five-year period 1989 to 1993 (more than half that time has passed and the north-east region of the country has not benefited) is the Operational Programme on Peripherality which contains information on the major projects planned to commence and/or be completed during the period. Copies of the programme are available in the Dáil Library. Road investment under this programme amounts to £615 million, (a sizeable contribution) of which the EC is providing £416 million.
Deputy Quinn made the point that the money spent is not Irish taxpayers money but is money from German and French taxpayers. It is European taxpayers money, and Europeans coming to this country will be very disillusioned at how their money is spent. The Minister continued:
This is broken down into a £511 million investment in national primary roads (EC aid of £364 million) and £104 million for non-national primary roads (EC aid of £52 million). The programme involves total investment of £818 million in roads and other transport infrastructure, of which the EC is providing about £516 million.
There certainly is plenty of money available but none of it has been spent in my region. I have no wish to be parochial, but obviously I will have to be because I was sent here to represent the people of Counties Cavan and Monaghan. We are entitled to our fair share of the national cake when it comes to the division of the spoils. We are not getting our fair share and I have been saying that consistently since I came here in 1987.
We are not a party to the begging bowl syndrome. We are among the counties that strike the highest rate. The rate struck by the local authority in County Cavan is in the top-ten bracket, yet we are one of the 12 western counties. We have one of the highest service charges in the country, and again we rank in the top ten. This can be confirmed by figures in the Department of the Environment. It is one thing to strike a rate but it is another thing to collect it; we are among the top six and we have an 85 per cent collection rate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the people of Counties Cavan and Monaghan have not made their contribution, but that has not been matched by a Government contribution, as evidenced by the state of our roads.
Up to 1960 there was an excellent rail service from Clones, County Monaghan, to Mullingar, from where you could travel to the west if you wanted to. The commission set up by a Fianna Fáil Government to investigate the national transport system recommended the removal of the railway line from Clones to Mullingar, thus depriving Counties Monaghan and Cavan of one form of transport. It was bad enough to have closed down the service if the tracks were left to see how things would develop in the next decade buy they removed the tracks and sold the rail network to the Zambian Government in darkest Africa. The rail network was lifted by contractors, transported to Dublin and then sold for a pittance and it was subsequently relaid in Zambia, a Third World country, which had the foresight to see they were getting value for money. A sister of mine who grew up on the family farm in Butlersbridge went with her husband to Zambia in 1970 and she actually walked on the railway line that she had played on as a child in Butlersbridge 15 years earlier. The rail system was in operation there, while back home the people of Counties Cavan and Monaghan had to travel by road.
We had been promised by the then Fianna Fáil Government that we would get extra grants to upgrade our roads. The promise was broken and the grants never came, but more traffic had been put on the roads. The railway line reverted to the wilderness except in cases where farmers acquired the line bordering their lands and cultivated it. The line is gone and can never be replaced. The reason I bring up this point is to support the stand taken by the people from Counties Sligo, Leitrim and Longford who travelled by rail from Sligo to Dublin on budget day to protest at the downgrading of the rail line. I heard a churchman being interviewed on local radio in Longford and he said this was people power and they were not going to allow the rail network to be closed down. They are right. We believed the Government when they said that the rail system was outdated, but how wrong they were. It would be wrong to close down the rail service from Dublin to Sligo. I do not think it will happen, it should not happen. That is why I assert that the Roads Bill should not be taken in isolation and without us knowing what the policy is in relation to the rail network.
It is quite feasible that the Department of the Environment intend to develop the road network from Dublin to Sligo and that the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications will also upgrade the rail system in parallel. However, the road engineers will not look across the ditch to see what is happening with the rail system. That is what is happening at present. I do not think we have any overall transport plan.
As I said, approximately 96 per cent of passenger traffic and 90 per cent of freight traffic travel on the national primary roads, yet the national primary and national secondary roads account for only 3 per cent of our road network. However, 62 per cent of all road funding is spent on 3 per cent of the road network. People may say that could hardly be true but I can see its effects. Let me repeat that I am not "anti-Dublin" by any means and I love to see the city developing but we must be evenhanded. Are we not entitled to the same level of services in Counties Cavan and Monaghan? Are we not entitled to a good road system?
On my way to this House this morning I had reason to bypass Cavan town so that I could call on somebody. I travelled for two miles on a byroad on the outskirts of Cavan town — which is not rural Ireland, although Cavan is a rural constituency — at a maximum speed of ten miles per hour. Had I gone any faster, I would have left the road or burst a tyre, such was the condition of the road. I then travelled on what we call a national primary road to the County Meath border, one would have to come to see the outrageous state of this national primary route. It is a disgrace. When I arrived at Clonee I was able to drive at 75 miles per hour on the bypass — perhaps I was breaking the law — but cars were passing me out on the outside lane. This is a marvellous road but are we not entitled to the same standards? As I came to one of the roundabouts — near the old Phoenix Park racecourse — I had to stop. I accept, as Deputy Quinn said that these are major feats of engineering and our contractors and engineers have done an excellent job because it was difficult to construct the bypass because of the housing estates and other developments in the area. I noticed a tractor and trailer and three men working nearby and I asked them what they were doing. They were planting tulips which would bloom in the months of April and May. They were landscaping the roundabout. Yet in Counties Cavan and Monaghan we cannot get a shovel of gravel or a barrel of tar to fill the potholes. Is that fair?
The bulbs came from Cavan.
I do not think so. I like to see areas landscaped, because it makes a place look well. However Dublin has good roads which are excellent to travel on and why should the landscaping money, at least, not be sent down the country? While I commend the marvellous development in the road network to the city, I am bitter about it. Obviously Dublin County Council have the money to do the work. Service charges are not levied in this fair city, yet we have to pay service charges, but they get the better service. That imbalance has to be corrected or we will create a rural-urban divide.
I am not exaggerating when I say that if the road from Dunshaughlin to the Border deteriorates further at the present rate, public transport will stop at Dunshaughlin and one will have to go on safari if one wants to travel on to Counties Cavan and Monaghan or to Northern Ireland. That is not acceptable. The people of Cavan and Monaghan are making an excellent effort to play their part. It is easy to criticise the local authority officials, the council engineers and staff but if they had the finance the work would be done. We can see a little improvement over the past 12 months as a result of my harping on these benches but we want to see more. You will get as good value, if not better, for the money spent on roads in Cavan and Monaghan as in any other part of the country. We are asking for our fair share. It was for that reason that we welcomed the appointment of Deputy O'Hanlon as Minister for the Environment but we look forward to the Minister Deputy Smith, continuing the work we had hoped the previous Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, would have done. I have no doubt that he will do so and I am sure he will be encouraged by the Tánaiste, the second in command — although I would have to say that I consider that the Tánaiste, Deputy Wilson, could do more for us at the Cabinet table. I have made my case for improving the roads in my county. They are in a very bad state and I should like the Minister to come and see them for himself; that would be an education for him.
It has been said that the numbers of lorries servicing the large collection tanks, large fattening houses, pig houses and turkey units will have to be curtailed. The agricultural industry is the backbone of this country's economy. I know that I do not have to tell the Minister, Deputy Smith, that, although some people say that it is not so important now as it was before. Agriculture was never more important to us. Indeed, I welcome the appointment of Deputy Joe Walsh as Minister for Agriculture and Food. His appointment has given to the agricultural industry hope and it is expected that he will do a lot in that Ministry as he has a firm grasp of agricultural issues. If the Minister is to be allowed to do his job and if the farmers are to be allowed to respond then our county road structure must permit the collection of milk, the transport of feedstuffs and fertiliser on to farms, the servicing of fattening units and the outward carriage of produce.
The mushroom industry is undergoing major development but at the moment growers are being penalised severely as their product is being damaged in transport from the mushroom tunnels to processing plants in Monaghan and Cavan. That is neither acceptable nor fair. The mushroom growers are doing their work well and are producing a good product but their produce is being damaged in transport due to the vibrations caused by bad roads. Mushroom processors have spent a lot of money on improving the suspension of the lorries they use, which has helped somewhat, but damage is still being caused to goods. In some instances produce has to be taken out to main roads because the lorries will no longer travel on county roads. Such a position is not acceptable and we will not stand for it much longer.
Tourism has a major role to play throughout the country. People who bring their cars over here certainly will not put up with damage being caused to their cars; they will simply go so far and then turn back. For that reason the work done on the road structure by the Department of the Environment is of vital importance to development.
My own county experiences a large volume of traffic as it is a Border county. There were 14 crossing points from Northern Ireland into Cavan-Monaghan but because of the troubles ten of those crossings have been closed off for security reasons and all of the traffic is now directed to four roadways. The volume of traffic traversing those four county roads is equal to the amount of traffic travelling on any of the primary or secondary roads in the country, but the roads are not constructed to as high a standard. The Government must recognise that fact. When trying to encourage traders from Northern Ireland to come south and do business with us, the Government must realise that the roads in the North are of a higher standard. I fully accept that money was pumped into roads in the North and that the North has a wider base for collecting funding — for years the British Government have expended large sums on the roads in Northern Ireland. The people from the North enjoy a superior road structure and they certainly will not accept roads of a lesser standard if they come south to do business with us. We in the South should not be hampered in that way. The unique position of Cavan and Monaghan offers the Minister an opportunity to make special funding available. I hope there may be a change of heart when the Minister takes my points into account.
Officials should have second thoughts about the road system and town bypasses. I mentioned a bypass that is proposed for my own town. My town does have a problem with traffic, as most developing towns have. The town road structure should have been developed to accommodate the extra traffic but that has not happened. The International Fund for Ireland has been and continues to be a major source of investment in my own region. Cavan town has developed so much that people returning there after being away for five years or so hardly recognise it. Business people have made a major contribution to development and business is growing, which is welcome. Growth in business is accompanied by traffic problems. The road system of our town needs to be updated but a bypass is not the solution. The townspeople did not develop their business so that the traffic which they hoped would stop when passing through the area would be diverted away from the town. The reason for developing businesses — restaurants, guesthouses and hotels in particular — was to provide a service for the growing volume of traffic.
The proposal for a bypass, which would mean that travellers would not see what was provided in the town, is neither forward thinking nor good planning. There would be a fair movement in turnover of property in any town in Ireland. If one went to an auctioneer's window in a town one would see that a number of business premises were for sale; people move on and generations die out. Local authorities have the opportunity to acquire, perhaps over ten years or so, buildings that might cause obstruction, without having to forcibly remove anyone. What is needed is a long term plan. In my own town of Cavan improvements could take place if there was good planning and, more important, if funding were made available for the local authority to make purchases at the right time and then construct the round abouts necessary for the direction of traffic. As I have explained, the present bottleneck is to a large degree caused by the volume of traffic moving between Northern Ireland and Dublin and Northern Ireland and the west. Those travellers must pass through our area. They are very welcome and we hope that more of them will stop in the town.
The issue of insurance, and particularly the insurance costs faced by young people, is certainly relevant to a discussion on the roads. We have a growing young population and it is to be hoped that many of the young people will stay in rural Ireland. The rural areas often do not have a bus system, let alone the excellent service provided in Dublin city. Deputy Quinn spoke about his hopes for a light rail system for Dublin. My God, the city people are being showered with all of the goodies. What about a little rail system to the north-east, for instance? The rural areas do not have public transport. Many young people are anxious to live in rural areas, build themselves a bungalow and put on their own supplies. They look for nothing from the State except a decent road structure and the ability to obtain insurance at a reasonable cost so that they can have a car to take them to work. A car is no longer a luxury. One can drive into the country and see two or three cars parked outside a house. People not fully attuned to the ways of life in rural Ireland might say that to have two or three cars at a house is a show of wealth. All of those cars have to be paid for and they all have to be maintained. Often the cars would belong to younger members of a family who are at home for the weekend or who have to have their own car to travel to work. It is quite commonplace for a family to have three cars, perhaps the parents would have one car and two children might have one each. Those vehicles provide the means for people to get to their place of work; they are not a luxury, they are an added cost. The cost of insurance is prohibitive and unacceptable.
I recently saw in a newspaper banner headlines given to a star from the music world, Andrew Long of the Commitments I think it was; he was given a Porsche car by an American company in recognition of the sale of his music. The poor fellow got the car but he was not able to insure it — and he is a pop star. The insurance company wanted £10,000 to insure that car. I accept that it was a big, high powered car——
It must be a fine car.
It must be. The insurance quotation was for £10,000 which was extreme.
I am not as familiar with that world as is the Deputy, but is he sure that the man was "Long" rather than "Strong"?
I said "Long". Indeed, you are still in the pop world.
They could not afford cars like that in Tipperary.
They will hear a lot of country and western music now.
Hundreds of young people need small cars for their businesses or to get employment, and there is not a line in the paper about the outrageous insurance charges. People are receiving quotations in excess of £2,000 now. Recently a young man was quoted an insurance premium of £2,600 for a car which he needed. That is not acceptable — over £50 a week for insurance alone.
Deputy Boylan has a proven reputation in the matter of roads. Perhaps we could leave insurance aside.
It is a vital aspect of this.
It has nothing to do with this legislation.
I am hammering home the point that the Minister for the Environment should get on to the Minister for Industry and Commerce so that the people can use the roads, such as they are, and insurance is an important aspect of it. I hope the new Minister will take on board the points I have made and make an impact here.
I would draw the Minister's attention to section 15 of the Bill which is open to abuse, although not necessarily by this Minister. It reads:
The Minister may give a direction in writing to a road authority in relation to any of the functions assigned to it by or under any enactment (including this Act) relating to the maintenance or construction of public roads and the road authority shall comply with such direction.
That means that, for instance, at election time if a parcel of votes were to be gained on a road leading to nowhere, the Minister could direct the road to be brought up to a certain standard. That would be an abuse of power and should not be possible under the Roads Bill. The Minister could direct local authorities at election times to give priority to roads which were not of a high priority to the local authority and the authority would have to comply. It should be left to the local authority to decide on priorities. A Minister should not be able to give such a direction as it is an abuse of power.
The Government are hiving off the national primary and national secondary roads to this Roads Authority and are leaving the local authorities with the county roads. Will the funding for the National Roads Authority grow while less and less is given to the local authority to deal with 97 per cent of the road network? The national primary and secondary routes account for only 3 per cent of the road network. The most lucrative end of the road system is being taken from the local authority which is being left with the problems. National primary and secondary routes can be EC-funded and where such roads are in a local authority area the staff employed on those roads could also be used to develop county roads thus avoiding a complete burden on the local authority.
In County Cavan we have about 14 miles of national primary road which is a national disgrace. It must be the worst stretch of national primary road in the country. The developments which have occurred in Dublin should be spread right down to the Border. A number of roads in my region should be upgraded to cater for traffic from Northern Ireland. I accept that I have been parochial, but we all speak for our own areas. I have referred to the need to maintain a rail system so that what happened to us in 1966 will not recur.
When Strandhill Airport in Sligo was established by local entrepreneurs it was considered to be a laugh but it is now a thriving small airport. Small planes are regularly bringing visitors to that region, visitors who would probably never have got that far before. We should develop the same sort of traffic system to the north-east of Dublin, whether in Cavan or Monaghan so that we can attract tourists into our area. Second to agriculture tourism has major potential in our area to keep young people in Ireland.
I welcome the Minister for the Environment here today and I congratulate him on his new portfolio. I served with the Minister in the Seanad for four years and I always admired him as a man of great talent, a man who always made good, balanced contributions in the Seanad. I look forward to working with him in the Dáil and I have confidence in his ability to be a good Minister for the Environment. The fact that the Minister is from rural Ireland will give him an understanding of our problems with regard to roads and other services.
With regard to the appointment of junior Ministers this morning, I realise that it is none of my business, but as a Kerryman I am disappointed that my fellow county man did not retain his position as a junior Minister. Deputy O'Donoghue was recognised on all sides as a man of great ability and tremendous energy. The fact that he has been demoted will reduce his contribution to the House and to the county. At this time County Kerry needs somebody like Deputy O'Donoghue in a strong position in Dáil Éireann. Everyone welcomed his initial appointment and there will be great disappointment about this decision. However, knowing Deputy O'Donoghue I am sure he will bounce back and that a man of his ability will not be allowed to remain on the political scrap heap for too long.
I welcome this Bill. We should have considered setting up a national roads and rail authority. Our spokesperson on transport, Deputy Yates went into this aspect in some depth when responding to the Minister's Second Stage speech. We are neglecting the rail system to the detriment of our economic development. It is time we changed our attitude to the rail system and placed equal emphasis on its development along with our road system. One of the decisions which had the greatest effect on the depopulation and degeneration of rural Ireland was the closure of numerous railway lines throughout the country. The connection between Killarney and Cahirciveen was closed by Tod Andrews. That closure did more damage to south Kerry than any single decision in the history of the State and it would be impossible to redress it, despite the EC peripheral policies. It cut off the lifeline to south Kerry. Recently south Kerry was included in the Leader programme for special funding, but that programme would not be needed if the line were still in existence. It was one of the most scenic routes in Europe and could have been a major tourist attraction. It was also the main commercial lifeline to south-west Kerry.
The cutting off of the line from Tralee to Listowel and from Listowel to Limerick is another example of those decisions which set back rural Ireland hundreds of years and did irreparable damage. The same mistakes cannot be allowed to happen in other parts of the county. The policy seems to be to neglect rail lines in preference to the roads. There should be a concurrent policy of developing both. It is unfair that the maintenance of rail lines is not grant-aided from EC Structural Funds. This places CIE at a major disadvantage in relation to their competitors. The yearly maintenance costs of railway lines is in the region of £40 million. Some lines, like that to Sligo, will become uneconomic shortly unless they are upgraded.
Road development is of paramount importance for economic development and for various road users. The only hope in the west is for easy access to east coast ports. We are losing out on industrial opportunities along the west coast, especially in a county like Kerry, because industrialists coming from America, Europe and elsewhere realise that it takes too much time to move goods from the west to the main ports. They are not prepared to spend the money required to move goods that distance. There is also the time factor.
We are probably too late in making our road system a priority. According to the figures, we are spending less on roads now than in the mid-eighties. Because of the doubling of the Structural Funds most of the revenue currently expended on roads comes from Europe, but nationally we are spending less on the primary road network than in the eighties. This is very short-sighted because ultimately better roads lead to more jobs and make us more competitive in trying to attract industry.
I do not want to be parochial but this debate gives me an opportunity to refer to roads in Kerry. The Minister visits Kerry on a regular basis and I am sure he is familiar with our road structure. We have the worst national primary road network, the worst national secondary roads and certainly the worst county road network. Despite what Deputy Boylan may say about Cavan, the people there have certainly made enough noise about their difficulties and I am sure they are reaping the benefits of their campaign. We are far more patient in Kerry and as representatives we should be making more noise about our disintegrating road network. A recent survey by the county engineer shows that about 375 miles of the county road network is up to standard and the rest is substandard. That is unacceptable and I appeal to the Minister to provide more funding next year to Kerry County Council to improve the national primary and county road networks. It is vitally important.
I was very disappointed that the operational programme on peripherality published in December 1990 did not include a single project in north Kerry. That programme runs from 1989 to 1993. I want to ensure that the programme covering the years 1993 to 1998 will provide funding for major projects on national primary roads in north Kerry. To be fair, £5 million was provided for Lissivigeen and Killarney in south Kerry, but north Kerry was totally ignored. That indicates that we do not have the political clout to be included. It seems our road network development has been determined by political strength and interference. In the years 1983 to 1987 we made major advances on the road network and it is no coincidence that for some of those years Deputy Spring was Minister for the Environment. Since 1987 not one scheme has been carried out in north Kerry. I am sure it is the only county where this is the case. We have lost out in regard to industry and tourism and in other ways.
In 1987 the Government appealed to tourism interests to increase employment. We in Kerry responded and increased tourism revenue by 50 per cent. Tourism has taken over from agriculture as our greatest income earner and generates about £130 million a year. What thanks from the Department of the Environment? Nothing. The worst stretch of national primary road must be from Castleisland to Farranfore, where the enterprising people of Kerry created their own airport, funded mainly by their own contributions. There are plans for further expansion. If the Government are serious about encouraging people to invest in tourism they should respond to their efforts. The best way the Government could respond to our efforts in Kerry would be by investing money in our national primary and secondary roads.
I should like to briefly outline our problem with regard to national primary, secondary and county roads in Kerry. I might remind the Minister that documentation has been submitted to his Department for works on our national roads in County Kerry involving expenditure of over £40 million. The road design engineering staff of Kerry County Council have identified the need for an additional £124 million to be spent on reconstruction and realignment works on our road network. That demonstrates that we have a major problem with our roads in County Kerry. If the lack of investment in County Kerry roads continues I predict it will be at least the year 2050 before we can hope to see any major improvement in our national primary road network. The expenditure required gives an indication of the state of our national road network in County Kerry, highlighting the amount of work needed to bring them up to standard, rendering them attractive for tourism, industry and agricultural purposes.
The rate of funding is grossly inadequate. The problem is considerable and warrants an accelerated funding rate for its resolution. The funding for our national roads programme in County Kerry falls abysmally short of what is required. We have departmental approval for schemes costing in excess of £25 million, with schemes commenced but not completed, requiring an additional £9 million. It is ridiculous to see road works schemes incomplete over the past six years. I am thinking in particular of the road between Killarney and the county boundary which has been in an incomplete state for the past six years. When road works commence at least they should be completed. Unless the rate of funding for our national road network in County Kerry is increased considerably in the near future it will have a disastrous effect on the growth of industry and tourism. For example, in 1989 the Department of the Environment published a roads plan for submission to the EC Commission for funding but not one scheme for my constituency of north Kerry was included, a total disgrace.
County Kerry secondary roads, consisting of approximately 2,700 miles, are suffering as a result of a lack of funding. Some 160 miles were strengthened and improved under discretionary grants in 1990, and a similar mileage in 1991 but the rate of improvement is too slow. In fact the county engineer stated recently that an investment of at least £5 million annually is essential if the local authority are to arrest the deterioration in our roads, to strengthen them to accommodate modern traffic volumes.
The county road network in Kerry, consisting of 2,400 miles, is deteriorating at an alarming rate. For example, a survey undertaken in 1989 revealed that some 875 miles were grossly deficient in pavement adequacy, some 1,125 miles were classified as being poor with 375 miles only classified as being satisfactory. There are many reasons for our county roads in Kerry being in an unsatisfactory state. One is that 75 per cent of our county roads were constructed on poor, boggy, foundations which tend to exacerbate the problem. The incidence of high annual rainfall is another factor. Increased traffic volumes on access roads contribute to the accelerated deterioration in our road network. We are fortunate in north Kerry in having located there the Kerry Co-Operative group which has brought the county great prosperity. Nonetheless, because of the bulk collection system, several of our roads have been damaged. The new type of bulk tanker being used for the collection of milk causes damage. If we are to encourage investment in the county, and activity on the part of the Kerry Co-Operative group, better roads are needed because our road network cannot accommodate the present volume of traffic.
The factor, above all others, which has led to the present unsatisfactory state of our roads has been the restriction of adequate funding for maintenance operations. That trend began in 1977 with the abolition of the domestic rating system. Indeed the rates subvention allocation from successive Governments rendered the problem much greater. For example, our rates support grant in 1978 was approximately £100,000 more than its level this year. That means we have less money to spend on our roads. In 1977 Kerry County Council received an allocation of £1.168 million for county roads' maintenance. If one takes 1977 as a base year and applies official inflation rate figures, then Kerry County Council should receive £4.5 million for ordinary maintenance in 1992 whereas the allocation is far short of that figure.
While welcoming some of the provisions of this Bill, and acknowledging that we need a National Roads Authority I contend it would be better if we established a national roads and rail authority. What is really needed is extra money. Indeed, any county engineer would say there would be no need to establish a National Roads Authority if local authorities were allocated requisite funding. They have the expertise, personnel and other resources with which to undertake this work. It should be within the competence of the Department of the Environment to provide the expertise to co-ordinate the efforts of all local authorities. Indeed I foresee some overlapping of the functions of the National Roads Authority and those of local authorities. I know an effort is being made in this Bill to define their functions more clearly. Nonetheless I perceive a conflict arising between the roles of local authorities and the National Roads Authority which I hope can be avoided.
When making allocations for roads I appeal to the Minister to closely examine that for Kerry, comparing it with that for other counties. We seek equity but we have been neglected over the past five years. The Minister spends his holidays in Kerry and I hope he will bear that in mind when making his allocations.
I should like to make some comment on the provisions of this Bill. Giving local authorities power to provide cycle ways is a positive proposal. At a seminar I attended recently Dr. Risteárd Mulcahy suggested that cycle lanes be provided on the streets of Dublin. He said they would eliminate much traffic congestion in addition to keeping people healthy, encouraging them to exercise more. That proposal is important also from a tourist point of view because, when one travels on the Continent, France in particular, one sees vast stretches of roads with bicycle lanes where it is a pleasure to cycle. Spain now proposes to develop cycle lanes. It is important that we provide for cyclists on our motorways and roads generally if at all possible.
I note that under the Bill the construction of temporary dwellings on national routes, motorways and busways will be prohibited. Traders' temporary dwellings are a blight on our environment and create a very bad impression from both a tourist and an industrial point of view. It is time they were removed from roadsides. I am in favour of providing proper halting sites, camping sites and caravan sites. The wrong place for them is on the side of all our main and county roads. We will have to rid the countryside of them. I hope this Bill and the provisions contained in it will ensure their removal. Until now unless a local authority had a site onto which to move these people, they could not move them; they could move them only from place to place. I think this Bill will get over that problem.
I welcome the provision in the Bill to deal with dangerous trees and new powers to deal with dangerous structures on public roads. There are too many dangerous trees overhanging roads. Last year a group of four or five tourists from Switzerland, who were on a shooting visit lost their lives as a result of a falling tree. That type of incident should not be allowed to happen. Our roads could be made safer by ensuring that overhanging trees are cut back and that structures on our roadsides, especially in towns and villages, are demolished if they are a potential threat to traffic.
Overall I welcome this Bill. I would have preferred if the new National Roads Authority had been named the National Roads and Rails Authority. It is time we recognised the very important role our national road network must play in the creation of jobs in industry, tourism and agriculture. It is time we concentrated greater amounts of investment in that area by demanding more revenue from Europe and also investing more here at home. I am convinced that greater investment in our road network will improve our competitiveness and will lead to more employment. I should like to point out that recent investment in roads has exaggerated the peripherality of the western seaboard because, as the Minister is aware, moneys have been concentrated totally around Dublin and the east coast and as a result we have become more peripheral. The Operational Programme on Peripherality document is contradictory. Should that programme be assessed by EC officials as regards its impact on Ireland they would see that what they are doing to reduce peripherality has, in fact, exaggerated it. As a Minister from the midlands, with a leaning towards the west, I would ask him to ensure that this will not continue because, if so, we will have more depopulation of the west and more rural degeneration. Certainly our policy appears to be contradictory and there is no balance in the manner in which the funding has been distributed. While I agree it is important that we have a proper road network around our main city and so on, nevertheless there must be a balance and we must get rid of the many bottlenecks and speed up access to and from the west.
I wish the Minister the best of luck in his new portfolio. As he is a man from a farming background in rural Ireland I am confident he will understand the problems of rural areas. I look forward to working with him and I again appeal to him to give Kerry equal treatment, nothing more and nothing less, when considering the Estimates.
First, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Environment portfolio and wish him well. I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, Deputy Wallace, who has been appointed Minister of State at the same Department. I look forward to working with Deputy Wallace in the future. I am sure we will have many things to say and I hope he will be able to deliver on some of the outstanding needs of the Cork region. I also congratulate Deputy M. Ahern, from the Cork region, on his appointment. I wish to avail of this opportunity to commiserate with my colleague from the same constituency, Deputy Lyons, who, unfortunately, has lost his portfolio as Minister of State at the Department of Tourism and Communications. I should like to put on the record that I have always known Deputy Lyons to be a very courteous and helpful Minister of State. My colleagues in the constituency will agree that he has been helpful in making appointments and coming on deputations. I am sorry to see Deputy Lyons lose out in the reshuffle of junior Ministers.
Deputy Howlin and Deputy Quinn have outlined in detail some of the fears and grave reservations we in the Labour Party have with this legislation. I do not want to pre-empt the discussion on this Bill but I should say that three Ministers have tried to get this legislation through the House. I hope the present Minister will be more successful than his predecessors, who, unfortunately fell by the wayside. It is a very elaborate Bill in the sense that it tries to tackle our major road problems. Our main reservation is that we should be setting up a transport authority as distinct from a Roads Authority. A transport policy is opportune, is needed and it is necessary.
One of my main fears, as a public representative and as a member of Cork Corporation, is that I see in this legislation an erosion of power from local authorities. This is a definite aspect of the Bill on which many of us in Cork Corporation — and I am sure in Cork County Council — would have grave reservations. Over a long number of years we have contributed fairly well, with the resources available, to the upkeep of national primary routes in our areas. We do not have great mileage in that area but, from the point of view of Cork Corporation, we have done reasonably well with the resources available to us. We would have done much better had more resources been available to us and we have made that case to various Ministers over a long period. We have suggested on many occasions that we would continue with major improvements for the South link and North link roads. Plans submitted to the Department a long time ago are now coming to fruition. However, we are still faced with major problems. I ask the Minister therefore to ensure no obstacles are put in the way of the downstream crossing, which is a major infrastructural development in Cork, and that it goes ahead on schedule.
Since I was elected to the Dáil, I have welcomed any decentralisation of Government offices. To be fair to the Taoiseach he moved fairly rapidly, when Minister for Finance, to relocate certain Government Departments in rural areas. Incidentally, we are still waiting for one to be relocated in Cork. Given the major announcements which have been made during the past two days I hope that a Government office will be decentralised very soon.
Obviously, in decentralising Government offices to rural areas benefits will accrue for business and local people alike. However the shifting of an office does not amount to the same thing as a shift of power. Indeed under this Bill, there will be a clawback of power towards the centre. One of my fears is that the Authority which the Minister proposes to establish under this legislation will overrule certain decisions made by a local authority and lay a heavy hand on the planning process in county areas.
Perhaps this is not the opportune time to make this request to the Minister but as the CSO is being decentralised to Cork, I ask him to consider locating this office on one of the major routes into the city. I would also emphasise the need, to locate such an office on the north side of the city, an area which is devoid of Government offices. I ask the Minister and indeed, also my colleague, Deputy Wallace, to consider this.
It is fair to say that major improvements have been made in the road network around our cities, admittedly at a slow rate. I would be the first to admit that major problems are being faced in Dublin where at peak times the city is jammed with traffic, and major surgery is required. However, it should also be said that cities and towns in other counties have their problems. I have no doubt that during the course of this debate other Deputies will highlight the difficulties in their areas. Unlike other Deputies, I make no apology for being parochial because I have been elected by the people to represent their interests. If we have problems in Cork, in relation to this legislation, I will highlight them and it is only proper that I do so.
For instance, there is a proposal before Cork Corporation, which I am sure will be submitted to the Department of the Environment, that a major primary route be constructed through the city centre, via Grattan Street, the residents of which have objected strenuously. On one occasion the corporation voted down the proposal but the decision was later reversed by one or two votes. This proposal is included in the draft development plan. I can envisage that the National Roads Authority will overrule the democratic wishes of the elected representatives of the people who can see a major traffic artery running right through the city centre, past their front windows. People may not realise this but this road will run past the SHARE complex, a complex which caters for the elderly.
It is proposed to construct a major primary route from the western side of the city to connect with the main Mallow road. I have made the point several times at Cork Corporation meetings that this would be disastrous for the city for the simple reason that we would channel most of the major traffic, including trucks and buses, through the city centre, resulting in the community being divided in two. That would not be proper. In planning a primary road network we should plan well into the future. It would be a retrograde step to construct a major traffic artery right through the city centre.
An alternative plan has been proposed and I hope when it is submitted to the Department of the Environment that the Minister will consider it sympathetically. It may prove to be more costly than the plan which has been put forward by the officials of Cork Corporation but I believe that that plan is workable. It plans for the future, for the next 50 to 100 years, and I hope the Minister will take it on board.
We, in Cork, have done our homework when it comes to planning infrastructural developments and we have done so to the best of our ability given the resources that have been made available to us. The LUTTS plan has been presented to us, by a group comprising Cork County Council, Cork Corporation, the Harbour Commissioners, Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann. They sat down together in 1976 to devise a plan for the economic and social development of Cork city, including infrastructural developments. At the time it was hailed as a forward-looking plan and it was revised in 1990. While some of the economic projections have not been achieved, much good work has been done by that group in conjunction with the Department of the Environment. It is a workable and very good plan devised by people who understand the needs of Cork. It would appear however — perhaps the Minister will correct me on this — on reading the legislation that this plan, which contains certain projections in relation to roads, could be overruled by the Authority for financial and other reasons. They may never do this as I am sure they will take the input of the various authorities I have named into consideration.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not drawn up a proper transport plan, covering all aspects of transport — roads, air, ferry and rail. I am aware that we have a Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications but I still feel that the proper way to proceed is to establish a transport authority as distinct from a Roads Authority. It is also one of the reasons I have great reservations about certain aspects of the legislation before us.
This Bill will allow certain roads to be tolled. While the toll roads to Dublin have been reasonably successful I think road users will have grave reservations and will strongly resist the proposal that they pay tolls on major primary routes. It is completely unacceptable that our primary routes be tolled given that it will lead to an increase in the cost of transport, which perhaps is a matter outside the remit of the legislation before us. Nevertheless, for those who transport goods, which is now 9 per cent more costly than in other EC countries, it would be unacceptable and would be strongly resisted. I have strong reservations in regard to this.
I should also like to make a point in regard to defining primary routes. I tabled a question to the previous Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, asking if he would indicate whether a special grant of £400,000 would be given to Cork Corporation to refurbish two main bridges in the city centre, Parliament Bridge and the Southgate Bridge. One has been in existence for over 200 years and both are taking severe punishment because of the traffic flows in and out of Cork. Cork's main shopping centre is in the Island and the two bridges to which I have referred take the main traffic from the southern suburbs to the city centre. They are under such severe stress that Cork Corporation employed independent consultant engineers to examine the bridges to see what was needed. The results confirmed what the city engineer had said, that the bridges were under stress and needed immediate and urgent remedial work. If the bridges were taken out of commission the business centre would probably suffer severe losses because the flow of traffic in and out of Cork would be stopped. A Bailey bridge was erected across the Lee in anticipation of the Minister sanctioning the money. However, the Minister indicated in the Dáil that it was not a primary route and that, therefore, he would not be sanctioning the money. His curt message was to get it from our own resources. Anyone involved in local authorities and county councils will understand that getting money from our own resources is an impossibility; the only way we could get finance would be through a special grant from the Department.
Or from a water charge.
That is another thorny subject. I was bitterly disappointed with the Minister's reaction as he knows Cork well and should appreciate that this is necessary work. However, I am not despondent, I ask the Minister now in charge to re-examine the position because our city, and independent, engineers have indicated that these bridges should be looked at immediately. I ask him to please consider allocating the funding which is urgently needed. As the Bailey bridge has been erected we need only to divert traffic from the two main bridges and that would not cause a problem. The city engineer said that Cork city is on a care and maintenance basis; as the Minister knows, that phrase usually refers to moth-balled ships and redundant factories.
We also looked for investment in roads. I travel from Cork to Dublin frequently and, while I admit there have been improvements, there are also very bad surfaces. During the warm summer two years ago tar melted on the road causing damage which has not been repaired, making it dangerous in icy conditions. Professional drivers and ordinary motorists can pinpoint the parts of the road which are bad. Perhaps the Minister would consider designating the road from Portlaoise to Cork a Euro route because we have hopes in Cork that the harbour will be the main springboard for any economic recovery in the city and in the greater Cork area. We are the nearest port to the European mainland and ships the size of the QE2 can berth up to the wharf, a marvellous achievement. It could be a major port for the Continent, especially in 1993. The ferry port, rail links, the road network and the airport are all part of a transport policy but they are not adequately covered in the legislation.
The rail link has become the Cinderella of the services. We have a very good rail link on major routes, Cork to Dublin and Dublin to Belfast, but I fear for other routes because there seems to be a deliberate policy of running down our rail routes right round the country. There have been demonstrations in the west at which people protested at the downgrading of services. The Cork-Cobh link is also under threat. However, the Queenstown project, which is a tourist attraction, may mean the survival of the line. I do not see anyone rushing to privatise railways because the writing is on the wall. Have we learned anything from the past? I visited Britain on several occasions and people have told me that they were sorry they had closed rail links because they could be a major tourist attraction. They also felt that the roads could no longer take the volume of traffic and that the rail links would alleviate the situation. There has now been a change of policy in Britain in regard to this and we should also re-examine the matter.
I read that a sum of £300 million was being provided by European funding to reopen the Harcourt Street rail link. I was delighted to read this as the emphasis has always been on roads. There could be a great future for rail links and the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications should take note. As I said, apart from the main railway links, the rest of the country has been ignored. An opportunity was lost by not mentioning rail links in the legislation.
I do not wish to delay the House as I know many Members wish to contribute but I wish to refer briefly to section 66 which deals with temporary dwellings on national roads, etc. This is a thorny subject for most local authorities. Since 1979, I have been a member of a Cork Corporation sub-committee which deals with the needs of travellers. I have to say that this is the most frustrating committee to which I have ever been elected. It is a suicide committee, so to speak — no matter what we do we lose. If we propose something with which the settled community agree, the travelling community disagree with it, and vice versa. Nevertheless this is a problem which has to be addressed.
On numerous occasions both by way of parliamentary question and Adjournment debate, I have asked various Ministers to update the legislation governing the indiscriminate parking of caravans, etc., on national roads. I want to give one example. Cork Corporation have a policy of providing halting sites for travellers. This policy which was drawn up by an all-party committee of Cork Corporation, has by and large, been successful. Four halting sites have been provided for travellers — three are up and running and one is nearing completion. Even though we have been criticised by various communities for doing this we knew it was a job which had to be done. The courts indicated to us at the time that unless we had some place to put the caravans we had no right to move them from corporation property, which I think is the law at present.
Having done that work, it is very depressing to see other local authorities completely ignoring the problem and not providing halting sites. They seem to wish that the problem would move some place else. Authorities who live up to their responsibilities in this respect and communities who acknowledge that travellers have to be accommodated, and who give their views on sites which have been identified, have been ignored. While I welcome the legislation before us, nevertheless over the past number of years much more could have been done by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Environment to update legislation in this area. I do not think it was necessary to include such a provision in this Bill.
The Bill provides that it will be an offence to have a temporary dwelling on a primary route. Does this mean that the caravans will be herded down secondary roads — out of sight, out of mind? Will there be any control over those roads? While I welcome this provision it certainly will not solve the problem for local authorities. The only way the problem can be solved is by updating the legislation. I am not too sure whether this should be done by the Department of Justice or the Department of the Environment. It would appear that even the Ministers are not too sure who is responsible because when I asked the previous Ministers for the Environment and Justice who was responsible each said it was the responsibility of the other Department. This is buck passing of the highest order. As a result, travellers are being left in unsuitable sites on the sides of roads and the local authorities have to try to find proper sites for them.
I hope the Minister has taken note of what I have said. Apart from a Supreme Court ruling, there is no legislation governing halting sites for travellers. This is causing major problems for local authorities. While I welcome the provision in relation to temporary dwellings, the Bill does not contain a comprehensive policy on how travellers should be looked after. The best wishes of public representatives and the community in general are needed to get to grips with this problem.
I make no apology for having been parochial in regard to my reservations about the Bill. That is what I am here to do. My colleagues, Deputy Howlin and Deputy Quinn, have outlined very clearly the Labour Party's objections to the Bill. Basically, the Bill will erode the powers of local authorities. Rather than dealing with the issue of roads only, the Bill should have dealt with the general issue of transportation. Assigning responsibility for railways, roads, and ferry transport to one authority would go a long way towards solving our transportation problems and would enable people to look forward to the future with confidence.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Comhshaoil, an Theachta Mac Gabhann. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I hope he will have many years in office so that he will have an opportunity to reshape our road infrastructure.
I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed with the Bill. The Government had an opportunity to deal comprehensively in the Bill with our transportation problems but they may have allowed it to slip away. I would have called the Bill an infrastructural Bill or surface transport Bill. As the previous speaker said, we need to bring together all strands of surface transport, rail, roads and sea transport.
The £300 million proposal for an eastern bypass, which has now been dropped by Dublin Corporation, gave rise to much debate. This development was supposed to ease access to Dublin port, the busiest port in the country when it is in operation. However, I believe there is an easier way of dealing with the problem of heavy goods vehicles which use city streets which were never designed to take 40-foot container trucks, juggernauts, etc. I wish to outline my proposal for solving this problem. I hope it will be listened to, even if it is not taken on board.
There are two major railway lines going into the port, a high level one and a low level one. Croke Park, which is in my constituency, is bounded by these railway lines. I do not understand why we cannot adopt the system used on the Continent to bypass natural bottlenecks. If this were done lorries and juggernauts could be brought by rail from the port to the motorway and put down at, say, Blanchardstown. Over the next ten years a ring motorway will be built around Dublin, from Dublin Airport to Shankill. For a small outlay, approximately £30 million, this railway line could be upgraded. This would give a better service and would be far cheaper — we must remember that we are talking about taxpayers' money — than building the eastern bypass which is estimated to cost £356 million. At a recent meeting Dublin Corporation removed the eastern bypass proposal from their road development plans. I have no doubt that when they are established the Roads Authority will pull out the plans again and consider the possibility of building the eastern bypass. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing this.
I wish to refer to what I regard as the nub of the problem, that is the possibility that the Roads Authority will be dominated by people who will think solely in terms of roads and will not consider alternative means of surface transport. I hope the Minister, when setting up the Roads Authority, will appoint to the board not only road engineers but people involved in transport, public and private, including managers and workers, and citizens who use the roads for private and business purposes. It goes without saying that there should be, if not a preponderance at least a good number of ladies on the board. They would bring much needed commonsense to the deliberations of the Authority.
This Bill deserves full recognition. We have realised for years that our road network, particularly to and from ports and airports is not up to standard to cater for the movement of people and goods. For instance, sometimes it takes an hour to an hour and a half to get from Dublin Airport to the city centre. Even though a new motorway was built in the past few years it is unable to cater for the traffic using it. I ask the Minister, and the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to consider extending the railway system to Dublin Airport. Aer Rianta have spent a small fortune on building a car park at Dublin Airport and they are considering building more car parks there. It would be preferable if some of this money was spent on a railway system, perhaps connecting with the DART system at Sutton or Howth. The DART system could be extended to Swords.
I would like to make some points in the hope that the attention of the Roads Authority will be drawn to them. These matters may seem small in comparison with the major tasks which will confront the Authority but they will make a significant contribution to the overall objective of improving the traffic flow in all parts of the country. The first point relates to design. In recent times there have been horrendous examples of poor design even on trunk roads. The classic example is the new Clondalkin roundabout where four traffic lanes are tunnelled into a two lane roundabout. To solve that problem traffic lights had to be erected on the roundabout. It must be the first time in history that traffic lights had to be erected on a roundabout.
It is a good precedent for the Navan Road.
I am glad Deputy Mitchell made that comment because it reminds me of an article I read in a magazine published by the Dublin Port Authority which stated that it is proposed to designate the North Circular Road, Cabra Road and Navan Road as a truck-way. The mind boggles at the effect a truckway would have on what is a residential area, with about eight institutions catering for people with varying degrees of handicap. I have no doubt that this proposal will get a further airing, if not here then in another forum.
There is no shortage of expertise here and in continental Europe on clover-leaf designed roundabouts and intersections. If we get our act together and unite the different systems of surface transport we might not need these great clover-leaf designers. One has only to drive on Spaghetti Junction outside Birmingham to realise the nightmare it poses for road-users.
My second point relates to signposting. On the outskirts of Limerick there is a signpost to Cashel which eventually directs one to the historic birthplace of Eamon De Valera in Bruree, east Limerick. From there to Cashel there are no signposts whatsoever. A stranger in the area would have to guess the way from there. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, a person arriving in Ringaskiddy and travelling to Dublin, Waterford, west Cork or Kerry may spend an hour circling Cork city before finding the way out. One Saturday afternoon, having travelled by ferry from Roscoff to Ringaskiddy, I witnessed the same French car passing three times through Patrick Street in Cork. The unfortunate person could not find his way out of the city. When one compares the signposting here with that at ports and airports in France, Holland, Belgium and Germany one can only concluded that our planners have not bothered to take note of standards in those countries. Signposting was removed during the so-called emergency. Although it was not of a high standard before that period, the signposts then were never fully replaced. With the advent of new truck roads and motorways the standard of signposting needs to be examined and improved. We are one of the smallest countries in Europe but it is easier to get lost here than anywhere else.
I would like to refer to the congestion created in cities in Ireland. Most public houses in Ireland were built on street corners, these being prime sites at the time. Unfortunately the brewery trucks making deliveries of stout, ale and large to these premises have no inhibitions about parking on busy street corners, usually at rush hour. There appears to be a cast iron case for restricting such deliveries to between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. I do not wish to be discriminatory in this matter but the question of restricting deliveries, certainly in the city centre, seems to be a very reasonable one. The other option would be to restrict such deliveries to weekends.
There are two items of machinery that bring out the worst in the human race: one is the motor car and the other is the telephone. If a person picks up a telephone and it does not work instantly he seems to lose all grasp of reason. The same applies to the drivers of lorries and cars. Bord Telecom engineers working on roadside phone boxes literally drive their lorries alongside the phone box with no regard for passing traffic. I hope that a priority of the new Roads Authority will be the education of drivers. I am not speaking specifically about public utility drivers, or even Bord Telecom drivers, but all of us should be educated in proper road manners. The parents of schoolchildren attending a school in my locality drive as close to the school as possible without regard for pedestrians or anybody else. If everybody was educated in road manners it might reduce the high death toll on our roads. The death toll last Christmas was the highest for many years and from preliminary figures, although I am open to correction on this, it appears that most deaths took place not during the hours of darkness or after pub closing time but during daylight hours.
The Roads Authority should be given power to inspect vehicles. One has only to walk or drive on the roads to realise the number of cars and lorries which are in a bad state of repair. Over the years we have built weighbridges on the main roads out of the city, but even though I pass by regularly day and night I have never seen one of these weighbridges open and functioning. The idea was that both lorries and heavy duty goods vehicles could be brought in to see if they were operating within the law. I do not know how many people have been prosecuted for overloading goods vehicles.
Let me ask if we have exhausted all the possibilities for toll roads. In the United States, France and in continental Europe major toll roads are in common use and are self-financing. However, if we are to build toll roads I would like to see the local authorities having a share and a say in the running of them. For example, I know that Dublin Corporation are represented on the board of the East Link company and they look after the interests of the general public in the running of the toll bridge. The same cannot, however, be said of the West Link toll bridge which is a totally private company. I fail to see why Dublin County Council or the Minister failed to put public representatives on the board of that toll bridge. Prices are higher on the West Link than on the East Link toll bridge.
Let me repeat my hope that when the National Roads Authority is being constituted it will not be made up entirely of technicians, engineers and planners, as very often professionals suffer from blinkered vision when dealing with problems, and it is vital that users, managers and the ordinary people are represented on the Authority.
While I realise the Minister has no power in this area, he has an equal say with the other 15 members around the Cabinet when this matter is being addressed. Due to poor planning over many years one-third of the population live within the greater Dublin area. It will be very difficult to reverse this trend. We need to target areas as growth centres in order to draw people away from Dublin or to prevent people coming to Dublin. Job opportunities and educational opportunities have to be provided in these areas. I am proud to say that this Government and their predecessor took this idea on board and have set in train a programme of decentralisation. This is working for the benefit of the country. However we still have to face major social, educational and other problems in Dublin.
The Minister will have an input into solving the transport problem. I call on the Minister to push at Cabinet for the development of a rapid transit system for the Dublin area. It is badly needed. I hope my words will be echoed again and again when the Minister is speaking at the Cabinet table.
Finally may I wish the National Roads Authority every success when it is established? I hope the Authority will display honesty and integrity in all their dealings, which I know they will, thus giving it an enviable reputation not alone in Ireland but throughout Europe.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire nua Comhshaoil. Nuair atáimid ag cur síos ar chúrsaí bóithre is dócha gur tráthúil dom an bheannacht san "go n-éirí an bóthar leat" a ghuí ar an Aire.
I congratulate Deputy Smith on his appointment as Minister for the Environment. Since I was appointed shadow Minister for the Environment one year ago I have now dealt with three Ministers. I know how frustrating it is when there are frequent changes of Ministers and how difficult it is to make progress on issues in the pipeline. I hope the present Minister will get the chance to see to fruition the plans that are ready or nearly ready as well as a great many of his own. May I take this opportunity also to congratulate Deputy Hyland, who is here present, on his appointment as Minister of State?
As I said, the present Minister is the third person to be appointed to the Department of the Environment in the past year. The key question to be dealt with in the transport area is the institutional question. In the terms of reference of the second phase of the Dublin Transportation Initiative the institutional arrangements in Dublin are included, but I will come back to this point later.
At the outset I wish to raise the question of institutional arrangements at the centre of Government in relation to transport matters. The main point has already been made, but I would like to repeat it, and that is that this Bill should not be introduced by the Minister for the Environment but by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications. The national road network should be the responsibility of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications. Otherwise we will have a very lopsided transport policy as the roads policy will be formulated in isolation from a rail and public transport policy.
When I was Minister for Transport I argued for and sent a memorandum to Government on the transfer of the national roads function from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Transport. It is also utterly ridiculous that responsibility for ports, which is also a key transport question, has been moved from the Department of Transport to the Department of the Marine, indeed the Department of the Marine are also responsible for an element of shipping. We do not have one cohesive Department with responsibility for transport. It is self-evident that the one thing an island country needs is a good transport and communication network.
Second, I believe that certain provisions of this Bill are undemocratic. In addition, they are not conducive to good and orderly planning. It is proposed that the National Roads Authority will be able to overrule and ignore the provisions of the county or county borough development plan in making arrangements for roads. There is a provision, however, in the Bill which states that the local authorities can overrule this with the consent of the Minister — that is only a fig leaf — and I will certainly be pressing for an amendment that requires the National Roads Authority to observe the development plans of each county or county borough. We should bear in mind that the development plans have not only been passed by the local authorities but have been approved by the Minister. They should be observed when the National Roads Authority are making any road proposals unless agreement has been reached already with the elected council to vary the development plan to allow for the particular road proposal. Otherwise there could be a planning and environmental nightmare.
I propose that national roads within the boundaries of county boroughs be exempt and excluded from the Bill. The needs in urban areas in relation to national roads are quite different from the need for a very good network of intercity roads, and I do agree that that is necessary. Much greater priority has to be given to the provision of a network of excellent roads throughout the country if the possibility of developing the economy is to be maximised.
I criticise the roads programme as being much too tardy. A much more adventurous national roads programme is needed, bearing in mind the outlook for regional population as a result of the developments in the Common Agricultural Policy and in the GATT. There is urgent need for a regional population policy, a policy that will enable people to stay in the regions, and also for a White Paper on that subject. Of course, transportation and the road system are key elements in that issue. If we are to attain maximum economic development in the regions then we need good roads and good communications. That is a separate question to the one relating to roads within county boroughs. It would be a grave mistake if the National Roads Authority were to go ahead with road proposals in breach of the democratic view of the people of the county borough, through their elected councillors, as can be done under the provisions of this Bill. That would be a recipe for the perpetuation of a disastrous urban blight. The Bill is defective in that respect and I ask the Minister to consider excluding from the remit of the Bill national roads within county boroughs.
That is not to say that there ought to be no development of national roads within county boroughs — it is clear that there will be times when that is necessary — but that should be done under the auspices of the county borough council and through the normal democratic process. What is more, there should be planning within county boroughs in order to avoid the perpetuation of urban blight, which has been a marked feature of Dublin since independence.
Some of the road proposals, such as the proposals for Cork Street, have been planned since the twenties. Areas such as Clanbrassil Street, King Street and Queen Street are an environmental nightmare because planning permissions have not been granted for 20, 30 or even as far back as 70 years. Planning permissions have not been granted for Cork Street since the twenties, 70 years ago, and meanwhile the dereliction — the urban blight — along that road continues. I am surprised that we have allowed Dublin city to deteriorate wretchedly because of prolonged long term plans, some of which will never come to fruition, some of which may come to fruition.
In certain cases we have refused to contemplate the prospect of tunnelling. Much of the urban blight could be avoided in certain instances by tunnelling. I know that a tunnelling programme is more expensive initially and would certainly be more expensive if it were considered simply in terms of the roads budget. However, in certain cases it would be a much better option than normal roads in that it would alleviate the devastation of the urban landscape and environment. In any event, tunnelling can be a better solution to traffic congestion than normal roads with traffic lights, which are inevitable in cities. Consideration must be given to key junctions in Dublin city and in other cities where an overbridge or an underpass would fit in better with the traffic problem and with the urban environment.
As I have already said, the national roads programme is not ambitious enough. It needs to be stepped up. The road connecting Dublin to Belfast, for instance, is grossly inadequate and the timescale for bringing that road up to standard is much too tardy. A motorway from Dublin to the Border should have been provided many years ago. In many respects, what is proposed is not up to motorway standard. People who have to bypass the airport and Swords are almost dizzy by the time they have passed Swords because they have gone through so many roundabouts. The point Deputy Fitzpatrick made about road design is very good. Our road designing is very questionable. To bypass Swords, for example, one has to go through five roundabouts in one mile of road — it is like playing ring-a-rosy. Another example is the new Chapelizod bypass. The junction at Islandbridge and St. John's Road is most convoluted; it could have been designed to cause accidents and confuse motorists. It is not even as if people suddenly recognised problems once the road was built. I predicted problems many years ago, when as a councillor I saw the design. At the time I said that the design was absurd and certainly would not be of maximum benefit to traffic congestion. The reason for the poor design, of course, was that an extra few million pounds could not be found to provide an overbridge at the point. What is provided there now is half a roundabout. I should like the Minister to visit that junction. People not familiar with the road would find the semi-circular route most confusing. One can go straight through along the diameter of the semicircle or else one has to go round the semi-circle to turn right. Those are just two examples of poor design or "spoil the ship for a hapworth of tar". Both the Swords bypass and the Chapelizod bypass at Islandbridge, another few million pounds would have provided for posterity a road that would be adequate for many decades, perhaps centuries. However, we now have junctions that are already out of date.
The point made by Deputy Fitzpatrick about road design is valid. That may not be the fault of the road designers, it may be that they have to make the best of restrictive budgets. Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned the two-tier roundabout on the Naas Road where the road intersects the M50. Within weeks of the opening of that road thought had to be given to the installation of traffic lights and traffic lights are now installed. There was an extraordinary lapse in traffic planning. It was an extraordinary failure on the part of the designers that they did not anticipate what would happen at that junction, despite all the professional research they had available to them. Most councillors, who did not have professional qualifications, predicted that the roundabout in question was not suitable. Two-tier roundabouts seem to be the in-thing in road planning. When the volume of traffic involved is not too high they are sometimes successful but they are not successful when a high volume of traffic is concerned.
I have already talked about the Belfast road and I should like to speak about the Naas road also. In my view, there is an urgent need for plans to upgrade the Naas Road. In this context I am talking about the upgrading of the stretch from the county boundary out rather than the road from the county boundary in. Again, consideration needs to be given to transformation of the junctions by the provision of underpasses or overbridges in order to bring the road up to near motorway standard. The traffic on the Naas dual carriageway is slowed down immensely by the number of traffic lights. It was almost certainly a lack of funds initially, which caused these junctions to be put in, although it was evident they were inadequate and that the cost of correcting those mistakes later would be much greater than tackling the problem in the first instance. There is a case to be made for bringing forward plans urgently to improve the Belfast road, the Cork road and the Naas road.
Traffic problems are acute in Dublin city. Unlike some of my colleagues on the city council I am not ideologically opposed to road building. However, we need a co-ordinated policy among Dublin local authorities and from central Government to shift the emphasis from the motor car towards public transport, bicycles and so on. The second phase of the Dublin Transportation Initiative is considering some of these questions as are the traffic sub-committee of Dublin Corporation, of which I am chairman. All transport matters are connected with the environment, with planning and development. The provision of the DART service has had major implications for land use. While only one-third of the N50 is in place, it has already had implications for land use. There are many new leisure centres, industrial complexes and shopping centres along this road. If we allow this development to occur in isolation we will have a doughnut city, with development along these circular roads and nothing in the inner city. This will increase the need for roads, it will increase pollution, it will increase attacks on the urban environment and lead to increased costs. That is why it is vital that our roads policy is linked with local development plans of counties and county boroughs and why the powers of the National Roads Authority should not extend within the boundaries of county boroughs.
Dublin Corporation adopted as one of their primary objectives, the doubling of the inner city population in the next ten years. It was halved in the last ten years. Within the inner canal cordon the population has more than halved and there are empty schools, churches, post offices, Garda stations and under-utilised water services, telephone services and electricity services. In the county there is pressure to build schools, churches, post offices and Garda stations and to provide more water, telecommunications and electricity services along with recreational facilities and so on, and to provide more housing. It is a planning fiasco. This has arisen partly because there is not one overall authority for Dublin city and county. There is an urgent need for a greater Dublin metropolitan authority. The way the Minister's predecessors went about local government reform in Dublin was not only bad but manifestly wrong. The idea of breaking Dublin County Council into three councils will worsen an already bad situation. To splinter Dublin in that way is nonsensical. Instead of having two local authorities we will now have four and this will greatly exacerbate the difficulties of co-ordinating development and the road plans of those authorities. The present situation is already unco-ordinated enough. The Minister should urgently review what is happening in Dublin city and county as it does not make sense and nobody believes it makes sense.
The Dublin region should have a local authority system in which we would have as many as ten or 12 boroughs of between 60,000 and 100,000 people who would elect three to five members to a greater Dublin council which would have a number of co-ordinating roles for instance with regard to roads, transport, fire, libraries and public lighting and which would have a role in relation to overall planning. There should be an overall development plan for Dublin, not just one for Dublin city, one for Fingal, one for south Dublin and one for Dún Laoghaire all based on different concepts and competing for separate development. If the three proposed county councils have development plans which are at variance with the objectives of the development plan for Dublin Corporation, all of them will fail. We should consider Dublin as one unit. I hope the new Minister will quickly come to that simple conclusion and will put in place a Dublin authority who would have among their roles the role of the transportation authority. I say that as a former Minister for Transport who had enacted in this House the Dublin Transportation Authority Act. I was not 100 per cent happy with the transportation authority as set up because it lacked an essential democratic element just as this National Roads Authority does. It detaches transport from development planning and land use questions. It cannot do that because these questions are connected. We need a body which has transport expertise and that is why there should be a transport authority, but it should be part and parcel of a greater Dublin council. There should be scope to include elected councillors, officials from the greater Dublin council and representation from CIE and private transport on the transport authority. That would be the best way to address the institutional arrangements in Dublin. The case is very urgent.
We should have simple objectives in relation to urban travel. We should set an objective for instance to reduce the number of motor vehicles coming into the inner cordon in Dublin by 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent in a period of, for instance, five years. Then we should adopt policies which will help give that objective effect, for instance by allowing the corporation to go ahead with their cycleway proposals and by allowing them to spend some of the £4 million in funds lying unused at the moment. We should have a much more dynamic transport policy and we should proceed urgently with some busways. I will comment later on the announcement last week by the outgoing Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications about the Harcourt Street line.
If we are to reduce the number of motor vehicles coming into Dublin every day, we must facilitate the motorist in making the change. I have every confidence that a very high percentage of motorists would gladly make the change if it were made relatively easy for them. There is no point in penalising motorists by pushing up parking fees and so on. We need to think in terms of more "park and ride" facilities. Such facilities are provided at some points along the DART line. In building the radial routes around Dublin have we considered secure car parks on the outskirts from which people could get speedy, efficient and reasonably cheap bus services into town? I do not believe we have. We should be thinking in those terms in order to minimise the reasons for bringing cars into town. Bus services must be frequent and reliable and serve the right places and the fares should be pitched at a level which the commuter can afford. If it costs a person £2 to get work and a similar price to return, the journey taking one and a half hours, as against 50p to drive there in half the time, he will opt for the motor car. Public transport charges and fares must be connected with overall transport objectives. This is not the case because the Minister for Transport does not have responsibility for roads and there is no overall policy.
There is in Dublin an accumulated fund of £4 million for traffic management schemes involving such things as pedestrian crossings, double yellow lines, road humps and the provision of cycleways. Several proposals made by the corporation for the use of this money have been refused by the Minister. The money is lying there unused while many approved measures are waiting to be carried out. These measures have been approved not only by the various committees of the corporation but by the Garda Commissioner as the traffic authority. We are told there is not money even to paint double yellow lines, yet the fund is lying in the bank. We have tens of thousands unemployed and traffic jams are a cost to the economy, to the environment and to human health. This is another part of the bureaucratic maze of transport matters. Why not give this fund over to the corporation and allow them to use it as they see fit without seeking ministerial approval? The corporation have recently agreed to increase parking fees in order to generate funds for more cycleways, but there is no guarantee that the Minister will allow them either to raise the fees or to spend the money as proposed. If the Minister delegated responsibility to the corporation much could be done to improve traffic matters in Dublin. All the money collected from parking meters should go to the local authority and traffic fines should be remitted to the local authority rather than the Exchequer in order to fund traffic management measures. These two sources of funding would greatly help and would give an incentive to ensure that fines are collected and that laws are enforced.
The Bill proposes to give authority for tolling to the National Roads Authority and that the proceeds should go to that Authority. I am very worried about this proposal, although I am not opposed in principle to tolling. On the Western Parkway the local councils rightly and adamantly refused to allow tolling of that section of the motorway between the Galway road and the Cork road on the basis that it would be an enormous disincentive to drivers to use that road as a route from the city to Cork and would force the traffic back into the villages of Chapelizod, Ballyfermot, Inchicore, and Kilmainham, areas with which I am very familiar. The main purpose of the Chapelizod bypass and the Western Parkway was to take traffic out of those villages. The problem is still acute there, but it has eased somewhat. Because of more aggressive enforcement, under pressure from myself and other public representatives, the problem has eased again in the past couple of months and we are beginning to get traffic out of those villages, which were dying due to high volumes of traffic. If tolls were put on sections such as the one I have referred to it would have the inevitable effect of discouraging traffic from going that way. It is a longer route, but quicker.
Despite the fact that the county council voted down these tolling proposals several times, the manager, under pressure from the Minister for the Environment, went ahead and built a toll plaza. He had to be ordered to take it down. Over £100,000 was wasted because the Minister and the manager ignored the democratic decision of the council. In this case the democratic will of the council made very good sense, although I acknowledge that this is not always the case. I smell a rat in the proposals before us to allow the National Roads Authority to impose tolls. I would be happy with that only if there were provision that it could be done only with the consent of the local council. There must be some democratic input.
It is crucially important that some of the old national routes within the city boundaries be redesignated. For instance, the N7 still comes down the Naas Road, right through Inchicore and Kilmainham to the quays. The purpose of the new roads is to divert traffic out of these villages. The N7 should cease at the end of the motorway, similarly the N6 and the N4. New routes should be shown as the routes into town. The route into town for all motorists coming into the city from the west and south should be via the Chapelizod bypass bypassing places like Inchicore, Crumlin and so on. That warrants an urgent decision so that maps to be drawn up in the future will show those routes in and out of town rather than the old routes still designated as the N4, N5, N6, N7 and so on.
I said earlier I would revert to the matter of busways. Last week the former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Seámus Brennan announced that it was proposed to reopen the Harcourt Street line, a proposal I welcome. Nonetheless it is the type of ministerial announcement that gives road planning, and planning in general, a bad name. Indeed some Members alluded to the danger that whenever there is a change of Ministers road priorities change, so that henceforth the road to County Tipperary will receive priority whereas it was that to County Cavan last week. Therefore, we had the former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications announcing the proposal to reopen the Harcourt Street line, which of course goes right through his constituency. I welcome the busway proposal along the former Harcourt Street railway line but its implementation will involve considerable time and expenditure, bridges having to be built and much property acquired. Anybody who knows anything about compulsory purchase procedures will know they take a great deal of time.
Meanwhile on the opposite side of the city, which happens to be in my constituency — and I do not make the point for that reason only — there is the Broadstone line serving from the top of Upper Dominick Street, leading down to Moore Street, the centre of the city, right out to Phibsborough, Cabra, Glasnevin, leading on to Finglas, free of impediment, needing no bridges built, no property to be acquired, but happens to be located in the wrong Minister's constituency. If we are really serious about busways, about facilitating public transport, about converting people from the use of cars to bicycles and public transport, we should be examining all options including the easy one of the Broadstone line.
I know that you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will be very familiar with the area to which I am referring. The line from Liffey Junction into Broadstone is free. A couple of hundred yards across the Phibsborough Road, across the Western Way, one comes into Upper Dominick Street, very free of traffic, taking one right into the heart of the city. That would be an ideal, very fast busway taking an awful lot of buses and traffic off the Phibsborough Road, from Doyle's Corner, one of the city's busiest traffic intersections. Yet it did not even feature in the Minister's announcement last week, whereas it certainly should have.
There is need also for some intersecting arrangements between Broadstone, Harcourt Street, Connolly and Heuston Stations. As chairman of the traffic committee of Dublin Corporation I can inform Members that we are holding a series of special meetings examining overall traffic management policy. I have asked our roads engineers to identify the easiest, most effective routes for such connections, incurring the minimum cost to taxpayers, leading to an improvement in traffic circulation and thereby immediately alleviating the considerable congestion obtaining. To that end I have said to them: it may well be that at some key intersections we may have to contemplate an underpass or fly-over bridge, an underpass preferably for environmental reasons. I have told them they should identify these routes so that we can advance those views to the committee on the Dublin Transport Initiative. I would ask the Minister to consider those points urgently.
It would be remiss of me not to refer to port access, mentioned already by several contributors to this debate. I contend that the position in relation to the eastern bypass has been misrepresented, with some people contending that the proposal has been dropped by the City Council. It has not been dropped by the City Council. Pending the environmental impact assessment, it has been dropped from the development plan. When that assessment comes to hand the City Council will reconsider the pros and cons of the eastern bypass proposal. I am not convinced of the need for the eastern bypass. I am convinced of the need for a port access route which could very well be served by an extension of the motorway from the airport into Dublin port, linking it into the outer ring motorway, there being a need for a link north and south of that motorway to the port. I contend one link would be adequate. I would be utterly opposed to the suggestion of the Dublin Port and Docks Board that the route from Seville Place, via the North Circular Road, New Cabra Road and Navan Road would be a designated truckway, an outrageous suggestion on an already very busy road, destroying the residential nature of much of that route. I know that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle himself has a very nice home right on that route and, presumably, would agree with me in this respect. Leaving aside altogether who may live there, it would be a travesty to have that designated a truck-way because it suffers already acute traffic problems. Certainly it would not constitute the answer to access to Dublin port, important though that is.
I would ask the incoming Minister to consider the suggestion I have made of excluding national roads within city boundaries from the remit of the National Roads Authority and the very serious, adverse planning development and land use implications of that proposal.
First, I welcome the new Minister for the Environment to the House on this his first Bill in his new portfolio, and I wish him well. As a famous rugby commentator says: I am sure there will be cheering down Tipperary way tonight. Therefore, I will not unduly delay the Minister.
Nonetheless I want to bring to the Minister's attention something that happened on my doorstep in Clondalkin which is of relevance to the section of this Bill dealing with tolling. When the Western Parkway was to be opened in 1989 the assembled dignatories present at its opening discovered that plinths were being erected to impose a toll on that motorway. As members of Dublin County Council, the first we heard of that decision was when we attended on that Sunday for the opening of the road. The issue had not been dealt with or approved by Dublin County Council. On examination we discovered that the Department of the Environment, without yea or nay to the elected representatives of Dublin County Council, proceeded to enter into an arrangement with the French/American company for the franchise for the tolling of that ring road. I am sure you will agree, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that it is unconscionable that the elected representatives of the area should discover that a new road, the purpose of which was to divert traffic from estates in west County Dublin, was to have a toll arbitrarily imposed, contrary to law. The position obtaining is that power to levy such a toll is a matter for the local authority. Yet, without consultation, the Department of the Environment went ahead, took that decision in respect of the western ring road and the local representatives only found out about it on the day the road was opened.
As has been referred to already by Deputy Jim Mitchell, reversal of that decision cost the taxpayer between £50,000 and £80,000. When the local authority met to consider the position there were not only The Workers' Party councillors, those representing the Opposition parties, but those of the Minister's party who, on very sound arguments, opposed levying a toll on the Western Parkway. The decision was reversed and the cost to the taxpayer of removing plinths that had been built in that fashion, contrary to law, was between £50,000 and £80,000, depending on which assessment one accepts. I am sure the Minister would agree that is a most serious erosion of local democracy and that it was wrong that his Department should have been the engine of movement to achieve that end.
I am sure the Minister is aware there is no capital city in Europe — that I know of — where a relief ring road is tolled. Of course there are tolls on main highways on the Continent and so on, but I know of no example, where a relief road is tolled in this fashion. There was a proposal from the Thatcher government to levy a toll on the M25 but even that did not proceed. It is most disheartening and dispiriting for the people of Clondalkin, and west County Dublin generally, to find that when their local elected representatives gave effect to their views on this matter the Minister has now found a way, by means of this Bill, to circumvent, those wishes and bring in by the back door, so to speak, a toll on the Western Parkway. That is regrettable and I take this opportunity to ask the new Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, to reconsider that decision.
We have spent most of this debate in agreeing that this city is choking to death as a result of traffic. The purpose of the relief road was to bring some relief to the choking city and to divert traffic from the city centre and also to prevent motorists using populous estates as rat-runs in terms of making short cuts, saving time and so on, oblivious to safety and other implications.
If we go ahead and enact the section of this Bill that gives this new Authority power to levy such a toll the average motorist will avoid using the new relief road for the purpose for which it was built and instead will go through estates, thus posing a hazard for children and residents generally. It is especially regrettable that the draftspersons of this Bill should have taken a message from the Dublin County Council decision — the opposite of which was intended — to authorise the new Authority to levy a toll when it is manifestly opposed to the view of the elected representatives of all parties at local level. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that decision.
In regard to that part of County Dublin which I represent, and my home area of Clondalkin, it is true there is some improvement to the roads leading to the direction from whence the Minister for the Environment comes. I share with the new Minister for the Environment a road as far as Newlands Cross. Between here and Newlands Cross is the Red Cow roundabout. The Minister must go through the Red Cow roundabout — otherwise affectionately known in the area as the White Elephant at the Red Cow.
This is an extraordinary testament to the Department of the Environment, the planners and road designers. Here we have the unprecedented situation where a three-lane highway narrows into two lanes, resulting in the impossible traffic situation we see at that roundabout. It is the heaviest throughput of traffic in any part of the country. It was so bad that people from Clondalkin could not get out onto the Naas Road to get to work in the morning. Meanwhile, the aim of easing traffic north-south on the Naas road was impeded and as a result remedial measures have been introduced. It goes against the very notion of a roundabout to erect traffic lights. Nevertheless, a number of traffic lights have been erected at roundabouts. As I am sure the Minister will testify that is a dangerous situation. As the Minister is indicating, what was necessary was a fly-over. Deputy Mitchell referred to this matter. Although he is not a member of the local authority responsible, he seemed to imply that the planners, designers and road engineers are responsible. If that is the case I would be anxious to hear it because they have been telling us that in the original plans which were put to the Department of the Environment provision was made for a fly-over and because of scarce resources and so on it did not proceed. It is an absolute tragedy in economic, human and safety terms that it did not proceed because it will cost a great deal more now to construct such a fly-over and ultimately it will prove the inescapable solution. There is no other solution to the problem in that area.
Dublin County Council engineers, in answer to motions and questions which I and my colleagues have put down, claim the Department of the Environment obstructed their freedom to implement such a design and to have a fly-over in that area. It is counter-productive to have traffic piling up on the Naas Road and to have to erect traffic lights when the whole purpose of the exercise was to have an easier flow. Perhaps the new Minister would address this matter.
I promised Deputy Creed that I would not take up very much time and I intend to keep to that. I accept there are more serious economic implications for our country deriving from the standards of the road network. Therefore, I accept in economic terms that there must be an improvement in the standard of our primary roads. However, economic factors impacting on the quality of our transport system run much wider than the road network. That point has been made by a number of speakers who — if I could paraphrase them — are saying basically that this is a missed opportunity for the Government to bring in legislation for an integrated transport policy and to have established a national transport authority rather than a Roads Authority. It was a tremendous opportunity to look at transport in an integrated way rather than run the risk of establishing an authority that will become an agency for the private road builders' lobby.
Private road builders have become frustrated in their endeavours by the implications for local democracy. They would like to be in a position to disregard the views of local communities when it suits them. I appreciate that obstacles can be put in the way of economic progress which are sometimes irritants, but a balance must be found as between the economic imperatives on the one hand and the genuine views and fears of local communities on the other. I am afraid that the National Roads Authority, as I understand it from this Bill, will where necessary ride roughshod over the views of local communities and will feed the private road builders' lobby in their determination to gain access to the funds now available through the European Community for this purpose.
I am also fearful that the position will be made worse in relation to the two-tier road network structure that we have already. For example, there is nothing in the Bill — unless I have missed it — that offers any improvement on the question of road maintenance. It is not long since Deputies discussed the prospects of a general election in the corridors of this House when it was suggested that if there was to be an election a number of pothole Deputies would be elected to this House. That is the most striking validation of just how serious the question of road maintenance is. As several Deputies have dealt with this matter, I do not intend to go back over it.
Let me say to the new Minister for the Environment that one of the biggest issues without any question during the local elections in my part of County Dublin was the issue of road safety. I represent a constituency which is relatively new. It was the planners' wish to develop three new towns on the western side of Dublin — Tallaght, a place which does not exist called Lucan-Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. In tracts of land surrounding these towns we have newly located communities. In many cases the planners seem to be making it up as they go along. In my own constituency of Dublin South-West there has been a number of tragic road accidents, I am ashamed to say that young children have been killed regularly during the past few years as the community tries to settle down and adapt to a new road network and the absence of normal safety provisions.
I regret to say there is no provision in this Bill to tackle the question of road safety. The provisions to update the law are minimal and insufficient emphasis has been placed on this question of road safety. The process at the moment is too tedious. In my constituency it seems that we only manage to have traffic lights erected following a fatality; otherwise, the process is interminable. It is unacceptable that it takes so much time to effect minimum safety measures. The question of road safety is entirely under-represented in the Bill and I ask the Minister to take a look at it.
The Minister had a great opportunity to tackle one of the most pressing issues confronting the country, both in economic and social terms, that is, the question of transport policy. Because the Authority and the decision-making bodies are so diffuse at present, there is no inter-relationship and no integration and we are losing out heavily in social and economic terms. In relation to the three new towns I have spoken about, Tallaght, with a population of approximately 90,000 is the only one of the three which is reaching the population figure predicted 20 years ago. It was predicted then that each of the three western towns would have a population of 100,000 and an infrastructure to go with it. Tallaght, for example, was predicated on the basis of a public transport system. It was presumed that this new city would have a surface rail system to the city and to the north-side from where many of the residents came originally. Although there is a super efficient service to the wealthier suburbs on the south-side of Dublin, there is no such rail facility to the populous areas in the belt of west Dublin, including Leixlip and Maynooth. That is one of the most regrettable and lamentable comments that one could make on the outgoing Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications.
Ever since we were at school together the outgoing Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications promised more than he has achieved; but his last promise to reopen the Harcourt Street line, which in itself is a worthy project, probably has a great deal more to do with the fact that he was leaving office and, that it was heading——
I wish to remind the Deputy that we are now dealing with the Minister for the Environment and his Department.
I accept that, but I was just about to say that the Harcourt Street line happens to be heading towards Dublin South, the constituency of the outgoing Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications. I am afraid that the plans the Government announced three years ago in relation to opening a surface line to Clondalkin, thereby creating the inevitable demand for a spur line to Tallaght, will be a casualty. This is exceptionally regrettable and it highlights a fundamental weakness in our transport policy, that is, that a disproportionate amount of resources are used in roads and road building as compared with the provision of public transport. I am not sure how the Minister for the Environment can do this, having regard to his responsibility and that of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, but there has to be a shift. We cannot tackle the transport problems which beset this city if we do not take people off the roads and put them on a surface rail system of some kind throughout the city and to the western suburbs. That is my plea to the Minister on entering office in what is effectively a new Government.
Debate adjourned.