Deputy Ryan was in possession. I gather he wishes to share his time with Deputy Taylor. Between them the Deputies have 11 minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Light Rail Transit System for Dublin: Motion.
The following motion was moved by Deputy Yates on 26 May 1992:
"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to commission a light rail transit system for the greater Dublin area on a phased basis in order to resolve the current congestion problems, particularly in the inner cordon area of the city; further calls on the Government to seek EC funding for such a project so that it is constructed within a seven year period on an established timetable for implementation; and further calls on the Government to re-establish the Dublin Transport Authority to oversee these improvements in public passenger services in the capital."
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes the commitment of the Government in its programme to addressing the traffic congestion and public transport problems of the Dublin area through the establishment of the Dublin Transportation Initiative; commends the comprehensive approach which has been adopted in the context of that initiative; and supports the declared intention of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to seek, from the next tranche of EC Structural Funds, significant EC financial support for the development of all the options for public transport, including light rail in the Dublin area."
—(Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications).
In the few minutes remaining to me, I should like to place on record once again the Labour Party commitment to a light rail transit system for the greater Dublin area. The Labour Party made a submission to Brussels on this proposal in which we suggested we would look after major growth areas around Dublin, stretching from the city centre through Phibsboro', to the centre of Blanchardstown, also from the city centre to Ronanstown, to Tallaght and to utilise the old Harcourt Street line to Dundrum.
I might refer also to the necessity — this was incorporated in our proposal also — to provide a connection to Dublin Airport. Indeed, it would be remiss of me as a public representative for that area not to place on record the advantages of such a proposal. I think CIE and Iarnród Éireann have certain proposals in that regard also and will be favourably disposed to funding them. If we could achieve that goal or overall package hopefully it would not cost that much extra to connect the system to Swords, providing a link to that area.
I hope the Minister's commitment to this project can be realised, that she will be able to convince her Government colleagues of the necessity for the people of Dublin of this proposal. I assure her that she and the Government will have the full support of the Labour Party in so doing.
I should like to thank Deputy Ryan for agreeing to share his time with me. I want to deal particularly with the transport needs of the people of the western suburbs. The new town of Tallaght, consisting of some 100,000 people, is at present served by a totally inadequate, unacceptable level of public transport for such a large town, built, provided and planned in the western suburbs of Dublin. When the plans for the town of Tallaght were being drawn up Dublin County Council were particularly careful to preserve a route from the centre of Tallaght, at The Square, into the centre of Dublin for the provision of a public transport system, preferably like the DART. That land reservation was very thoughfully and with great foresight preserved and stands ready and available for an extension of the DART system or, alternatively, a light rail system of some description to serve the people of Tallaght into the centre of Dublin. I wish the Government, and their predecessors, had the same foresight as the planners of Dublin County Council in advancing this project. I hope it will be advanced now before its costing gets totally out of hand. The longer such a project is left, the more the costs escalate and the more impossible it becomes.
I welcome the Fine Gael Party's motion to highlight this issue, but in all fairness, they have exhibited somewhat of a conversion in this regard. When Deputy Jim Mitchell was Minister in the relevant Department I was a member of a deputation to him from people in Tallaght to discuss this issue. I am sorry to have to say that, as a matter of principle, he turned it down flat, saying it was entirely inappropriate to have a public transport system of this nature to Tallaght. This is to be deeply regretted; I have to say that although the Labour Party formed part of that Coalition Government. Deputy Jim Mitchell was not sympathetic to that deputation.
The Labour Party support this project and advocate it in the strongest possible terms. The land for the central railway station in Tallaght Square has been reserved. Such a facility is essential. The people of Tallaght require and demand the provision of that public transport. If I may say so, they need it more than the periphery on the north/south access served by DART. Those people for the most part are well served with motorcars and vehicles of all kinds while most people in Tallaght do not have private motorised transport. The provision of an extension of DART or a light rail system to serve them would transform their lives and it is no exaggeration to say that.
How foolish can we be when we have at our disposal the expertise, the engineers and the builders who have the ability to construct a railway line and did such a magnificent job on the construction of the DART line along the north/south access? Those experts — builders, engineers, electrical and metal workers and so on — are still available. Their task was finished when the DART line construction was completed. Would it not make a great deal of economic sense to re-employ those people, and set them the task of extending the DART line or constructing a light rail system to serve the 100,000 people of Tallaght? What do we do instead? We leave the skills of those constructors unused; we leave the reserved land idle and we run motorised vehicles, using petrol and causing fumes along our roads wrecking havoc on our environment. Where is the sense of it? Why do we put this off year after year, thereby escalating its cost with every year that passes?
As my colleague, Deputy Ryan, said, the Labour Party have prepared a detailed submission on this issue. They travelled to Brussels and presented it to the Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan. We are asking the Minister and the Government to give this project top priority so far as Structural Funds are concerned. If the Minister and Government do that the project will succeed. I hope that they will not bend to the roads lobby, which is as powerful here as in other countries. There seems to be an endless supply of money available from one source or another to build motorways and roads, thereby contributing even more to road traffic conjestion, to the destruction of our environment and so on. We have the opportunity to serve 100,000 people and their families at Tallaght by providing them with this rail link.
Every major city of Europe has rail connections into and out of the city centre except Dublin. Why are we to be denied that facility when the plans for it exists, when the land has been reserved, and when major centres of population namely Tallaght and the Clondalkin complex are ready and anxious to use it? Would people not be delighted to use a public transport system if it was reliable, fast and cheap? What a contribution we could make to the economy of this city and country if we sat up now and recognised where our priorities should be. We could serve the interests of job creation, do wonders for the entire city of Dublin which would be reflected to the advantage of the economy of the country at large. It is a Government decision, and they can do it if they make up their minds to give it the priority that we in Dublin know it needs. It will create jobs, encourage investment, purify the atmosphere, stimulate interest and will be warmly welcomed by the people of Dublin. I trust, a Cheann Comhairle, that what I have said and what has been said in the House in the course of this debate will be heeded and that we will achieve the result which is so strongly needed on this issue.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish to share my time with Deputies Stafford, Lawlor and Quill.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am delighted there is a consensus now among all political parties in support of the development of a light rail system for Dublin as part of an overall programme for tackling the very serious and growing congestion problems in the city. Dublin is suffering from a very acute traffic problem. There are parking problems and a huge volume of traffic in streets that are too narrow to carry this volume of traffic. The street network in the city is definitely inadequate; there are problems for people travelling across the city and for people travelling from one suburb to another; there are problems for people commuting from the northside to the southside and there are also problems for people travelling from rural areas into various parts of the city.
Professor Perry conducted one study into this problem entitled "Mass Transit as a Policy Instrument", and which was referred to repeatedly last night. Professor Perry points out that the average speed of vehicular traffic in the centre of Dublin is now significantly less than ten miles per hour during peak traffic times and that the situation is getting increasingly worse. He has posed a number of serious fundamental questions as to how this problem should be addressed. Quite a significant proportion of the flow of traffic, both private and commercial, through the city centre has nothing to do with the city centre whatsoever and we need to address this. We have to decide what should be done to alleviate the serious problems that are concentrated in the city centre itself.
A survey was conducted by Dublin Corporation as far back as 1989 — the situation has worsened since — which showed that approximately 145,000 persons crossed the canal ring in the period between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. each day. When vehicular passenger ratios were analysed it highlighted another problem as it showed the average occupancy ratio for cars over that period was 1.4 persons per vehicle whereas it was 37.6 persons per bus. Buses are 14 times more efficient than private vehicles on the basis of that study.
While I differ from Deputy Yates in a number of respects on this motion I strongly concur with his view on the absence of an overall authority in the greater Dublin area for the planning, management, implementation and enforcement of traffic and transport policy. That is a very serious problem.
Last night the problem of Dublin port and how it suffers because of the serious and increasing congestion throughout the city, particularly in the inner city area, was referred to. Detailed analyses was given by a number of Deputies in relation to this problem but nobody came up with solutions. I am happy that we have a consensus on the need for a light rail transit system. We are faced with very fundamental questions at this time because of the damage being done to the environment, the deterioration of the quality of life in the city and the very serious negative effects of traffic congestion on Dublin port. We have to ask ourselves how far we are prepared to go in challenging the perceived rights of the private motorist and in adopting a programme to wean the commuter off using the private car in favour of public transport. I am against coercion but nevertheless I believe we are faced with a very serious challenge and we have to take definite comprehensive action to deal with it.
We are told by all those who have researched light rail transit and its development over the past decade that it is increasingly seen throughout the world as the white knight in the battle against traffic congestion and its associated evils. It is certainly much more flexible and we are told it can operate at half the cost. It travels fast and easily on its own line and on city streets. I understand the trains are ultra-modern, quiet and comfortable to travel in; as they use electricity they are environmentally friendly. Among its other advantages, we are told the light rail system guarantees punctuality with guaranteed journey times, has visible presence of the traffic which inspires confidence and gives a degree of security to the pedestrians in its vicinity and moves smoothly. Certainly those characteristics are highly recommended.
Various route networks were suggested last night. The satellite towns, the railway stations and Dublin Airport would have to be linked into the light rail transit system in the city. Dublin Airport is central to this as it would be a fundamental mistake to leave it out of the development as it is an integral part of the programme for tourism, economic development and employment creation in the city. It is an integral part of any network that is to be developed.
I mentioned Dublin port and I am standing beside Deputy Stafford, the former chairman of Dublin port. Dublin port has suffered greatly because of this terrible congestion. The heavy commercial industrial traffic going through narrow streets around the city centre servicing Dublin port is causing noise pollution and other problems. We have to address this. I have to say that of all the proposals put forward last night by the Opposition, not one of them — although there was considerable sympathy for the dilemma of Dublin port — addressed the serious problem as to how we would sort out Dublin port, the major port in this country, or suggested what we should do to address that problem.
I know Deputy Yates said the light rail transit system would take a great deal of traffic off the streets but it would still permit heavy duty vehicles to trundle along the quays — where they should not be — and to trundle along all the narrow streets leading into the city centre. Where do we put them? That is the fundamental problem we are faced with when we try to entice private motorists to leave their cars at home and take a mass transit system to their destination. I agree with the Deputy that it should be a light rail system.
I will conclude by saying that the light rail transit system on its own is not the solution; considerable developments will have to take place in relation to bus services. I commend the Minister's approach, a much wider view is required so that an overall, comprehensive, strategic and integrated approach be taken to this overall problem.
While this motion is excellent in many respects, I will not be supporting it for the obvious reason that I cannot and for the good reason outlined by my colleague that it is too restrictive. One cannot say that a light rail system will solve all the traffic problems in Dublin. I say this because of the costs and problems involved in removing present services which would need to be carried out before a light rail system could be installed. This would cost a huge amount of money and entail a great deal of work.
The grants we receive from Europe will enable us to give financial support to Dublin Bus who have a major role to play in this area. At a recent meeting with Dublin City Council, Dublin Bus outlined measures which I believe should have been acted on years ago, for example, the introduction of up-to-date buses which will run every five or ten minutes on clearways on designated routes with no unnecessary stops. If it is possible to put in place a light rail system I do not understand why it is not possible to introduce an efficient bus service. I have no doubt that the people of Dublin would use any proper transport system which was clean, modern and run by well trained staff.
Deputy Yates said a light rail system could be in operation within seven years. I believe it would take seven years before such plans could be finalised. However, it would be possible to have an efficient bus service within six months. For example, commuters could buy special tickets to travel from Clontarf into town, from Clontarf to Donnycarney or on another route along the way. At present it is almost impossible to travel by bus from Clontarf to Donnycarney to Finglas. I think there is one bus every hour. We need to sort out these issues.
The DART system has been a huge success. It proves the point Deputy Yates made about a light rail system. When the Minister is looking at the DART system she should consider building a station in Clontarf, as this would cut down on the amount of traffic using the roads in that area. As my colleague Deputy Fitzgerald said, a relief route to Dublin port also needs to be built.
As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However, the route being taken to solve our transportation problems is paved with too many reports and studies. The Minister said that a final report on phase 2 of the Dublin Transportation Initiative was due in April 1993. I was pleased to hear her say she hoped the socio-economic cost benefit analysis on a commuter rail system would be concluded shortly. The provision of a commuter rail catchment to North Kildare, Lucan, Clondalkin and Ballyfermot, the provision of a commuter platform at Heuston Station and the opening up of a link under the Phoenix Park to connect the DART service are very decisive and pragmatic measures which need no further study but just a commitment and decision to proceed. I sincerly hope Commissioner Bruce Millan and his staff will respond speedily to the proposals which has been submitted to the European Commission.
I cannot see any merit in building an access route to Dublin port without looking at the possibility of having a rail connection to the port which would be linked to the motorway network. I agree there is a need for a proper access route to the port. I cannot see any justification for allowing heavy 40 foot commercial tankers, trucks and container traffic to trundle through Dublin city. Because there is no proper access route to Dublin port, exporters in the midlands and the west use ports such as Greenore and Larne and ports in Counties Wicklow and Wexford. CIE are examining the possibility of building a rail connection to Dublin port. This would be very desirable from an environmental point of view and would minimise the costs involved in port access. I trust this option will be included in the study.
The national primary road network through County Dublin to the south, south east, midlands, north west or north needs to be completed. I do not think there is a difference of opinion about a proper rail system and a proper road network. It is a matter of striking the right balance in terms of limited resources. We have a piecemeal road network. As I said time and again to the previous Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, we need to build a proper motorway network throughout the country if we want to decentralise services and ensure a more equitable balance among the population. This is a national requirement.
Deputy Yates's motion is very timely. Nobody could disagree with the provision of a light rail facility. However, I do not want to see the debate centre on one solution to our transportation problems.
One assumes that the light rail system would operate in major residential areas that are inadequately covered by a road network, by the diesel commuter rail service or by the DART system, areas that are not served by a national primary road. Access to the city by road from the west side of Dublin has been improved. To strike the balance, as Deputy Stafford said, we must improve the bus service. Study is taking place into environmental improvement and reducing the number of cars on the roads. This can be achieved on the basis of an improved commuter rail service, or a very reliable bus service. I note in the Minister's speech that Blanchardstown, which is in my constituency, is to get a new bus lane. That is absolutely essential because the 45,000 to 50,000 people living in Blanchardstown, 10,000 or 15,000 of whom commute to the centre of the city every morning, will not use the public transport system as they get caught in traffic jams. If they use cars they can travel through back streets thereby arriving at their destination sooner. There is usually only one or two people per car but people will not use the bus service as it is inadequate. Dublin needs this study urgently but it also needs decisive decisions.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say last evening that it is suggested that development of the commuter rail service on the south-west rail corridor, including Clondalkin, will take place within the lifetime of the current operational programme on peripherality. I sincerely hope that happens. I am led to believe that the Commission consider that these projects should be interconnected with the international airport or the international port, so that there is access to member states. Not only would we be providing an internal transport system with our own jurisdiction but we would be improving access to other countries. That is very desirable and I sincerely hope it can be accommodated in the study.
In conclusion, I hope that while the studies and programmes are being considered, financial targets will be met. There should be a study as to how we will fund the recommendations of the group. Ingenuity and experience is not necessary to anticipate the likely outcome and the cost involved. The Minister stated last night that extensive visits have been made to European capitals in considering the light rail option. There is a potential to have speedy decisions made. The greater Dublin area and part of Kildare, Wicklow, Meath, Ashbourne. Leixlip and Bray, are on a commuter belt. There are population projections for the next 20 years and all that is needed is a study to determine the areas most in need of a transport network and the cost of providing such a network.
I represent two of the new satellite towns on the perimeter of County Dublin — Clondalkin-Lucan, where there are 60,000 people, and Blanchardstown where there are just over 50,000. A limited rail service is provided to Blanchardstown but the connection to the city centre is inadequate. An improved bus service is also being considered. I hope that speedy decisions will be made on these matters and that the Minister will give them priority. High cost, lengthy studies should not delay decision making.
I thank Deputies Fitzgerald, Stafford and Lawlor for sharing their time time with me and for enabling me to make a very brief comment on behalf of the Progressive Democrats on this Private Members' motion. The Progressive Democrats are fully committed to the building of a comprehensive light rail network to help overcome the traffic congestion problems in Dublin city.
My colleague, the Minister with responsiblility for environmental protection, Deputy Mary Harney, produced a comprehensive transport policy for the Dublin area exactly a year ago and highlighted the vital importance of developing a light rail network for the capital. She and the Progressive Democrats based the case for such a system on the fact that to enable public transport to compete with the private car in the city it is necessary that there be full access to the central business district, a high frequency level with guaranteed punctuality and a high quality travelling environment. We can all see the extent to which the DART service meets these requirements and how successful it has been on the corridor ringing Dublin Bay. That quality of public transport service needs to be provided more extensively.
Already over 300 cities throughout the world have adopted a light rail tram system which is electrically powered and runs on existing roads on a fixed rail system. The Progressive Democrats favour the introduction of a light rail system, with a series of spurs ranging from the city centre, along the old Harcourt Street line to Stillorgan, another to Kimmage and on to Tallaght town centre and another to Clondalkin, with spurs to Blanchardstown and Dublin Airport. I realise that the cost of this overall project would in the order of £400 million, but I believe that the project could receive significant EC Structural Funds aid and could also generate private investment. Moreover, the Progressive Democrats believe that moneys already tentatively earmarked for the eastern by-pass motorway could be redirected to a light rail system as the eastern by-pass motorway project is unacceptable on environmental and community grounds and at the end of the day it will not solve Dublin's traffic problems.
Following on my party's commitment, we argued the issue with our partners in Government in the joint programme and in the review of that joint programme that took place last autumn. As a result of these negotiations, the Programme for Government makes it clear that this Government are committed, as part of the Dublin Transport Initiative which is concerned with the ongoing planning of transport in the Dublin area, to carrying out a full study of the possible introduction of a light rail system. Therefore, the Progressive Democrats fully endorse the commitment in the Government's amendment here this evening by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to seek significant financial support to develop the Dublin public transport system, including a possible light rail network, the case for which we believe to be overwhelming.
I would be very encouraged if a similar study could be undertaken in relation to Cork city, a city in common with most other cities in that it has suffered severely from congestion and pollution caused by the private car. The response to date has been to erect highrise car parks, which only add to the unsightly aspect of the city. They go only part of the way to solving the problem created by the excessive use of the private car. The principle behind this motion and the principle behind the Government amendment is a good one. It points the way forward for the development of public transport in this city in the decade ahead.
I would like to share my time with Deputies Alan Shatter, Deputy Mary Flaherty and Deputy Pat Rabbitte.
Dublin is choking and the daily increase in traffic congestion is bringing Dublin's commercial life to a halt. Comparing Dublin's traffic counts with traffic counts in other European capitals, we see that Ireland has approximately 200 cars per 1,000 population. The European average is approximately 350 cars per 1,000 population. We can reckon from these figures that Ireland will equal the European average within the next ten years or even sooner.
In the last 30 years Dublin has doubled in size with new and large housing estates. This ribbon belt development, which in some cases is poorly planned and has created a large population in Dublin's outskirts, has increased the demand for transport services to the city centre. The population of Dublin city centre has declined over this period, and most of the large centres of population are six or eight miles from the centre of the city and they are still growing. Most of this population rely on several different authorities, including Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation, to plan and provide for their transport needs. We in Fine Gael call for the re-establishment of a Dublin transport authority to coordinate and plan Dublin's transport needs into the next century.
Dublin port adds to the traffic problem, and port users tell us that due to traffic congestion it is cheaper to use ports in Northern Ireland to transport goods from this country. This problem contributes to a serious loss of income to the Irish economy amounting to £56 million per year.
Dublin commuters now have an over-reliance on cars for transport and we witness daily single passenger cars delayed in never-ending traffic jams, with the occupant endeavouring to get to their workplace or business. A recent Dublin Corporation survey informs us that at peak hours the average car occupancy is 1.4 persons. As well as the traffic chaos that this over reliance on cars creates, this ever-increasing problem is causing havoc to the environment and to Dublin city. Car exhaust emissions are a serious danger to a city dweller's health and does untold damage to buildings in our city. The problem has become so acute that the Government should now, as a matter of urgency, appoint a transport ministry to cater for Dublin's transport needs. Traffic management and traffic planning must be given top priority by such a new ministry.
The other major contributing factor to Dublin's traffic congestion is the ongoing problem of road openings of long duration created by An Bord Gáis, the ESB, Telecom Éireann and the local authorities. Some of these openings cause serious traffic delays and they seem to be completely unco-ordinated. What is urgently required, is a body such as the Dublin Transport Authority, who would have powers to impose penalties, set down proper deadlines for completion of such works and oversee the satisfactory completion of reinstatements. Today we are told that wear and tear on cars, increased fuel costs, pollution, stress and time lost in traffic jams is costing the economy £500 million per year. It is a lot of money and it is something that has to be addressed very quickly.
Dublin's commerce is also grinding to a halt. Deliveries of goods to retail outlets by truck and other means contribute to the problem, but it is essential that retail outlets have regular deliveries of their stocks. Dublin has 6,000 retail outlets and it is serviced by over 2,000 commercial vehicles. Research into delivery time should be undertaken and a special provision made to ensure that, where possible deliveries are carried out before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m. This would help to reduce overheads and distribution costs.
The provision of car parks beside DART stations with proper security to promote the park and ride concept, which has proven so successful in America and in other European cities, would be a major contributing factor in reducing Dublin's critical traffic bottlenecks. In my own constituency there are large car parking spaces beside such stations as Sutton, Bayside and Kilbarrack. DART should provide proper security and fencing around these car parks so that people could put their cars there in the morning, get the DART into town and be able to collect them in the evening.
We in Fine Gael feel sure that the solution to Dublin's transport problems is the construction of a light rail transit system. With proper planning, proper investment and political will, this system should be in operation within the next five to seven years. I welcome the Minister's announcement that she will be seeking funds from Europe in the autumn. However, my fear is that the Minister will be paying lip service when what is required now is action at home and in Europe to secure the necessary finance.
The DART system from Howth to Bray has been a great success and its success has ensured that approximately 7,000 cars are left at home each day. It is successful because it is run efficiently and it is not competing on congested roads along with buses and other means of transport. DART users can plan when to leave home, and when to arrive for meetings without having to allow for loss of time due to traffic hold-ups. People can plan their day in a stress-free, free way, and, according to the medical people, stress shortens our lives.
Light rail benefits from the latest technology. Vehicles on steel wheels are propelled electrically. Such vehicles are environmentally friendly and would be ideally suited to Dublin's needs. Light rail would be cheaper to instal on its dedicated tracks, and would prove most efficient and cost effective. It would not require tunnelling and would therefore be much cheaper than the heavy rail system.
Without a good, reliable public transport system no city, and certainly not Dublin, could run efficiently. A light rail system would improve public transport usage and would reduce the number of car journeys. The present DART system should have spur lines to Dublin Airport and on to Swords. Extra DART stations should be provided at Fairview and Clontarf. Deputy Stafford mentioned Clontarf, which has a very big and growing population. A DART station there would be most welcome. In my constituency, we had the magnificent Howth tram. The property is still there and I would ask the Minister to consider the feasibility of bringing back that system.
It gives me great pleasure to support the motion calling on the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to commission a light rail transit system for the greater Dublin area. I do not want to go over the points that have been dealt with by our spokesman but I welcome what seems to be an emerging consensus, that we have given insufficient attention, time and investment to the public transport element of Dublin city's transport problems. I say that as a person who is far from being anti-roads and who feels that our roads system throughout Dublin needs much greater development. I wholeheartedly support the growing recognition of the need to invest very substantial sums in our public transport system if we are to get the proper balance. Deputy Yates pointed out yesterday that along the corridor where we have the DART system in operation, public transport is extremely successful and there is far greater use of public transport along that corridor and indeed, it is generally a pleasure. We have set aside, in our development plan and in various plans we have considered over the past decade, the lines along which future similar systems should be developed. One which I know is very close to your heart and mine, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is the line out to Finglas. We would hope as a result of this motion that increased priority would be given to this. It is now being given adequate place in the context of possible European funds which traditionally were seen as only being utilised in the narrow roads area. That is a very welcome development and we hope to have major breakthroughs in that area in the context of the Clondalkin line and an extensive Dublin-based system of light rail. It is absolutely vital that we achieve this for the sake of jobs and life in our city. The Dublin city business people are very well organised. They speak for the commercial heart of Dublin.
We would like to see the heart of Dublin substantially residential. They make very valid points in relation to their needs. High on the list is the need for a light rail system. Deputies Stafford and Fitzgerald argued that it seemed to be an either/or choice. If you go for light rail you cannot go for the development of CIE and for improvement of access by road into the port. We see this as a priority but as part of a total package for solving the Dublin transport problem.
I very enthusiastically welcome Dublin Bus's new initiatives, their new "Imp" buses which are very successful on the routes which they run. There are commitments to attempt special designated corridors. I look forward to that. If everything Fine Gael are proposing here tonight was implemented within five years there would be many other corridors not yet served. All these other initiatives would be welcome.
In a week or two at Rio the world leaders will be looking at the problems of global warming and the threat to the environment. High on their list would be concerns to reduce the level of global warming and the damage to the ozone layer. In an Irish context the transport sector contributes hugely to our own consumption of fossil fuels and damage to the environment as a result. The transport sector in Ireland uses about 1.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent per year, which is about 20 per cent of Ireland's total energy requirment. As well as emitting carbon dioxide, automobiles, trucks and lorries also emit nitrous oxide and hydrocarbons, which are also greenhouse gases. We need a massive programme to deal with that problem which has been inadequately addressed.
In the context of this debate a great contribution could be made by providing fast, reliable and extensive public transport as an alternative to private cars. In that context, I welcome this increasing emphasis on public transport because it is going to be one of the great challenges, not just for this country but right throughout Europe, if we are to face up to the limited amount of fossil fuel available. That issue is the one which I most wish to add to this debate. I do not think it has been adequately addresed to date. I hand over to my colleague, Deputy Shatter, to join in supporting this motion. Despite the need for the Government side to take an opposing view, there is clearly behind all the shenanigans a clear consensus in relation to the importance of this element and the need to give substantial public funds to it in the future.
First, I would like to thank my colleagues for allowing me some of their time. I welcome this motion. When I was environment spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party some four years ago we were advocating a light rail transit system for Dublin. We were not taken seriously. It has now reached the stage where it is very much part and parcel of Fine Gael policy and has been for some time. My colleague, Deputy Yates, has done an enormous amount of work in the area and I welcome the fact that we have the opportunity to take this motion this evening.
I am going to make a shameless plea on behalf of my constituents. Deputy Yates has addressed the issue very well in the context of the entirety of Dublin. I represent Dublin South constituency where we have huge traffic problems. People leaving my constituency in the mornings to try to get into the centre of the city, and coming back in the evening, experience long queues, going through Deputy Doyle's constituency, Dublin SouthEast. Sometimes one feels it is some type of a miracle if one gets home in any sort of reasonable time. In Dublin city and county we are on the verge of suffering what has been well described in some American journals as gridlock. Eventually a minor accident will happen on some street in Dublin which will bring the entire city traffic system to a halt. We have been on the verge of that a number of times. I have seen minor vehicle contretemps taking place in O'Connell Street which have resulted in traffic being fouled up for well over an hour. We have huge difficulties.
People in south Dublin have long been promised that the Harcourt Street line would be reopened. Various proposals have been suggested, one being a busway, the other a rail system, then, more recently, a light rail transit system. What is required in south Dublin in the reopening of the Harcourt Street line is a light rail transit system. What should be installed there for cost, environmental and efficiency reasons is a light rail transit system. In the context of easing the traffic problems in my part of Dublin, I have no doubt that if we installed a light rail transit system substantial numbers of people who currently use their motor vehicles to get into the centre of the city would use it.
We are told that large numbers, that is to say, 50 per cent, coming in from the north side use the DART system. I predict that in the region of 60 to 70 per cent would use the light rail system. It would enormously reduce the traffic on our roads, improve the suburban environment, reduce the level of accidents, reduce the numbers of people injured and killed on our roads. It would reduce the expenditure that we have to incur on our roads systems. Those who have to use the road in inter-suburban journeys, would find they could travel a good deal quicker in the sense of getting from point A to point B without being locked into traffic jams. We would also find that the general overall environment would be substantially improved.
We are told how costly it is to provide a light rail transit system but we rarely calculate the cost of maintaining the current system. An estimate has been done by someone well qualified to do it that in the context of the entire city and county of Dublin the cost involved by the current transport system, a mixture of pollution, stress resulting in health problems, fuel, wear and tear, time wasted and road costs can be estimated in the region of £500 million a year. When we are talking about the cost of establishing light rail transit, we need to look at the cost of not establishing it: the business inefficiencies, wear and tear on our roads, the impact on people's health, the accidents which are occurring. All of these costs are rarely calculated.
So far the performance of the Government in this area has been little short of deplorable. Deputy Brennan, the former Minister for Transport, some months ago announced that the decision had been made that we were going to have light rail transport on the Harcourt Street line. We then discover with the appointment of the new Minister, that he had been engaged in a shameless piece of constituency politicking. No blueprint had been put in place, no funds had been allocated, no final decisions had been made, no application had been made to Europe for funding. What the Minister was doing in the dying days of his sojourn in that Department was basically selling a political fairytale to our constituents in Dublin South.
I welcome the fact that this debate on the Fine Gael motion has brought us somewhat further in looking at light rail for Dublin in the context of what the Minister said. I am deeply concerned that there is a need, not just for interim reports, for a final report from the Dublin Transport Initiative. There is a need to have a plan in place to look for the funds that are necessary to provide the type of system we suggest in the tranche of Euro funding that should be available in the period 1993-98. I am concerned that the lethargy of the Government, the lack of political commitment and the tendency on the part of Fianna Fáil to engage in nod and wink politics for election purposes rather than get on with the job and implement the decisions, could result in the transport problems of Dublin not being resolved but merely discussed endlessly without final decisions being made.
It is essential that we have a light rail transit system on the Harcourt Street line. It is essential that we do not have the second best alternative which is a busway system which will not be as efficient, as environmentally sound or as speedy and will not resolve many of the problems in the context of the roads problems in south Dublin.
I am informed that if we open the Harcourt Street line to provide a light rail system with an extra link to Cabra, it would cost in total, including stock, £95 million. It has been estimated that we can get 75 per cent of that amount from European funding, that is, £71.25 million and that, domestically, we would have to find £23.7 million which could come from State funding or private funding. There is no reason we cannot find such money to provide a more efficient, safer and better transit system. The people of south Dublin deserve that type of system. One of the worst planning decisions made by any Fianna Fáil Government was that made many years ago when I was still a schoolboy in short trousers, about 1965, when the then Chairman of CIE, Mr. Andrews, closed down the Harcourt Street line.
That was a long time ago.
I was afraid the Deputy would get down to that today.
The Deputy should keep that for tomorrow. At a time when the whole county of Dublin was expanding we shut down a transport system that would have flourished with that expansion. It was a serious error and 30 years later we are trying to correct that error. We should get on with it and reopen the Harcourt Street line.
Deputy Rabbitte has six to seven minutes.
I thank Deputy Cosgrave for sharing his time with me. This is an enormously important motion not only in terms of economic considerations but of the environmental dimension. Unfortunately, the few minutes available to me do not allow for a discussion on the economic and environmental considerations, but I want to devote my time to the disparity that has grown between the treatment of citizens on the west of Dublin and the citizens fortunate to live along the bay and enjoy the DART system. This is a very serious discrepancy in this city.
West Dublin, including Clondalkin, Tallaght and, indeed, the Kildare dormitory towns of Leixlip and Maynooth, are the most seriously discriminated against in terms of the provision of public transport. Unnecessary hardship and expense, not to mention adverse environmental considerations, are inflicted on people living in these densely populated areas by the neglect of successive Governments. This neglect culminated, as Deputy Shatter said, in the period of office of the former Minister, for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Seamus Brennan, who avoided every conceivable decision that confronted him, not just the question of the provison of transport infrastructure but the whole question of An Post rationalisation, the Shannon stopover and the recapitalisation of Aer Lingus. He managed to get out before he made decisions on any of them. The only decision he seems to have been able to make was to manage to find time to assist Larry Goodman in Baghdad. Indeed, while lecturing workers in An Post on the merits of productivity the former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Brennan, seemed to be blissfully unaware that if he was depending on getting paid by productivity he would probably starve.
Minister Brennan told me in this House on 7 March 1990 that CIE had submitted transport investment plans to him, including plans for a new commuter rail service to Clondalkin, involving the improvement of commuter rail services on the Dublin-Maynooth line. He said the estimated cost of the Clondalkin project was £27.3 million and qualified for assistance from EC Structural Funds. When I met the Regional Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan, in Brussels in September 1990 he confirmed that as far as he was concerned the Clondalkin project would qualify for up to 70 per cent funding. Although the plans did not involve a rail link to Tallaght, there seems little doubt that the demand for a spur line to Tallaght, once the Clondalkin service was up and running, would be incapable of being resisted. That was more than two years ago and when Minister Brennan left the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications he still had not made up his mind.
The transport neglect of west Dublin is part of the planning discrimination that is rapidly producing two Dublins: the first Dublin is the middle-class belt of high earners, a high number of car owners per head of population and a super de luxe DART system; the developing Dublin, based on the three new western towns with a lower income profile and fewer cars per capita are told to make do with a bus-based solution which is inefficient, ineffective and expensive. Why should the residents of Clondalkin, Tallaght and Blanchardstown continue to be so disadvantaged on the critical issue of transport?
In June 1991 the Fianna Fáil election news document entitled, "The Future of Dublin Transport" included the following:
Funding has been reserved for a commuter link between Clondalkin and the City Centre, serving 12 stations including Ballyfermot, Phoenix Park, Cabra and Drumcondra.
Nothing happened on foot of that commitment except that Minister Brennan managed to discover £10 million the day before he left the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications which enabled him, cynically, to do what he is best at, that is, to manipulate the media by announcing phoney plans to reopen the Harcourt Street line. Deputy Shatter made a reference to that issue.
I have a letter in my possession from a constitutent who closed the letter with a PS, saying that just as he was about to send this letter to me, he saw that in the Irish Independent of that day, Tuesday, 25 February, on page three, that Mr. Oliver Doyle, of Irish Rail had informed Dublin Corporation's traffic committee that despite the assurances given by the former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Brennan, CIE had received neither ministerial instruction nor cash funding to proceed with the refurbishment of the Harcourt Street line. He said we have had a plethora of committees and it was about time we had a little positive action and honesty. He asked me to bear this in mind at any opportunity which presents itself.
I suggest there is opportunism and opportunism in it and Minister Brennan has made a very successful career out of opportunism and promising action. However, like a good wing three-quarters in rugby, he has managed to get rid of the ball every time he was about to be tackled.
The disgraceful treatment of Tallaght and Clondalkin in the provision of public transport, and specifically in terms of suitable commuter rail services, must end. In circumstances where the provision of a rail infrastructure to the western towns will be funded mainly by EC Structural Funds, it is shameful that this Government have reneged on their promise. I will continue to remind this Government of their responsibility to the people in my constitutency until they enjoy the same public transport facilities as Dubliners from Howth to Killiney.
I sincerely hope that the new Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, will take this issue on board. I am not sure whether she fully appreciates the disadvantage involved for people who live in my constituency in Clondalkin and Tallaght, people who, in many cases, do not have access to cars, who may have been relocated from the north side of Dublin or the inner city to the western suburbs and who endure a feeling of alienation because there is not an adequate transport system to the city or the north side. I sincerely look forward to the Minister, in her period of office, making a decision to get that Clondalkin project up and running. I support the motion and I commend Deputy Yates for bringing it forward.
Deputy Yates and I have one thing in common — Deputy Shatter spoke shamelessly about his own constituency as did other Members tonight — in that it would be very difficult for either of us to refer to our constituencies when speaking on this motion. I strongly support the amended motion. In proposing it yesterday evening the Minister made it clear that the Government are pursuing an innovative, comprehensive and well thought out process of addressing the traffic and public transport problems of Dublin city. These problems have grown up over many years and are not capable of instant resolution. It is vital that we do not rush into short term, ad hoc attempts at solutions to the problems. What is needed is a comprehensive assessment of the problems, a thorough evaluation of all the options for addressing them and above all a process of public consultation which will afford the people of Dublin a real chance to give their perspective on the problems and their views on the possible solutions.
This is the basis on which the Dublin Transportation Initiative has been put in place by the Government. The Minister has already outlined in some detail the basis for the Dublin Transportation Initiative approach. I have no doubt that the inherent strengths and attractiveness of light rail as a public transport facility will ensure that it has a prominent place in the eventual report and recommendations of the Dublin Transportation Initiative. In itself, light rail is only part of the solution. Improved bus services and a whole range of other measures concerning traffic management, parking facilities, etc., will also have their place as part of an intergated overall public transport strategy.
It must be borne in mind also that the introduction of light rail or any other mass transit system on a significant scale would have an impact on the amount of road space available for the private car. There are very few people, however, who would argue against some limitations on private car use in heavily congested city centre areas, particularly where an extensive and reliable public transport service exists as a real alternative. The actual construction of a light rail system would also lead to some disruption and inconvenience in particular areas in the short term.
In the meantime, we should not lose sight of the important measures taken as a result of the activities of the Dublin transportation task force. These low cost measures have concentrated on keeping traffic in the city moving, through a combination of practical steps such as the introduction of bus lanes, new technology to improve traffic management, upgrading of the bus fleet and improved bus fleet management systems; these measures have improved bus journey times and made the bus more attractive to the consumer.
In recent times Bus Átha Cliath have introduced a number of new initiatives as part of a market-led approach based n greater flexibility and responsiveness to consumer needs. These initiatives include new ticketing arrangements and new types of service involving more frequent service with smaller vehicles. Bus Atha Cliath are continuing to develop plans to upgrade and improve their services. These measures have helped significantly to contain some of the problems affecting traffic and public transport in Dublin in the short term.
In addition, there has been significant growth in passenger numbers on the DART and suburban rail systems which clearly shows that a modern, efficient and reliable rail-based mass transit system can be very effective in attracting people away from private car use.
The Dublin Transportation Initiative will provide both a long term strategy and a medium-term investment and implementation programme for the period 1994 to 1998. The final report of the initiative will be available in April 1993. However, an interim report will be available in the autumn of this year to assist the Government in drawing up proposals for investment under the next phase of EC Structural Funds. Given the severe financial constraints on the Exchequer, which are unlikely to improve significantly in the immediate future, it is clear that the level of investment which will be required to put in place a modern, efficient and cost effective transport infrastructure for Dublin city can only be contemplated on the basis of major financial support from the EC. There could hardly be a clearer example of the importance for Ireland of closer integration of the Community and ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. In this context, the Minister has clearly stated her intention to seek EC funding for the development of public transport in Dublin. She will have my full support and I hope the support of every Member of this House in her efforts in this regard.
The institutional arrangements which will apply in the context of developing and implementing a long term transport strategy for Dublin city are among the issues which are being addressed by the Dublin Transportation Initiative. There are many factors which must be taken into consideration in this regard. It would be unwise to take up firm positions on single issues outside the context of the total package which will emerge from the Dublin Transportation Initiative process. I commend the amended motion to the House.
I am sharing my time with Deputy Yates and Deputy Mitchell.
Does the House agree? Agreed.
When I was first elected to a local authority 13 years ago traffic was a problem but today it is a serious problem and it is on every agenda. It is on the agenda of every residents' association because of the rat-running through residential areas. Deputy Shatter spoke about this in Dublin South and it has just passed into Dublin South-East. Today, indeed, some of my constituents in Dunville Avenue, Ranelagh, blocked the road out of desperation because of the number of commuters that pass by their doors every morning and evening. I do not agree with what the residents did but I understand their desperation and what they experience there.
The light rail system for the Harcourt Street line would solve that problem. It would be very beneficial to Dublin. I would ask the Minister to give special attention to it. There is another reason why I would ask that special attention be given to the Harcourt Street line. Nobody has mentioned so far in this debate the cost of light rail service for the city and the preparation for the light rail service. One would have to remove all the services that run under the road, such as, natural gas, ESB, water, etc., because the area dedicated to light rail would have to be free of these services. The Harcourt Street line is free of these services. There would be no initial cost in putting the line in from that point of view. The Minister should act quickly and promptly in that matter.
I agree with those who say that extra roads will not solve our problem because extra roads will, in my view, generate more traffic. One of the main problems facing Dublin is that 30 per cent of the traffic going north-south or south-north has to go through the centre of the city; there is no alternative route. The ring road around Dublin should be completed. When it is completed it will give a better service to Dublin. The space left by the 30 per cent of the motorists who have to go through the city centre now will have to be used for light rail. That is a very important aspect of this. If road space is left then it must be used immediately to provide a new service. If this does not happen then the space that is left by the motorists who go onto the new motorway will be taken by extra motorists and will defeat the whole purpose. The space on the roads should be used for light rail and for an improved bus service.
Last night Deputy Yates spoke about the success of the DART system. The DART system has been a great success. However, I want to illustrate the point I have just made. Deputy Yates said that 7,000 motorists left their cars at home and used the DART system. That is true. Dublin Corporation have carried out counts on the roads parallel with the DART system. It was discovered that there are more motorists on the roads now than before DART was implemented. The space that was left by the 7,000 motorists who left their cars at home has been gobbled up by another 7,000 motorists. Once space on our roadways becomes available then it has to be dedicated to public light rail.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you will have fond memories of a light rail system in Dublin. You and I are the only ones in the House who would have memories of the old Dublin United Tramway Company. Indeed, my father was an employee of that wonderful company and I still live in a house built by them for their employees. The company served Dublin well.
We have to strike a balance between the need to provide a proper public transport system and the needs of private motorists. The only way we will be able to do this is by dedicating part of our roadway for public transport, be it light rail or bus, and allowing private motorists to use the remainder. If private motorists wish to use a scarce resource we can charge them increased parking fees or tolls. If motorists want to bring their cars into the city, they should have to pay for the facility.
While I do not remember the last tram I do remember the last tram rails. On many occasions on a wet afternoon in Inchicore while cycling to school my bicycle got stuck in the sunken rails and I ended up on the cobblestones. It was an act of vandalism to have laid tarmacadam over those rails. It would seem also since those rails are still there, that the difficulty in relation to infrastructure and the underground systems may not be quite as bad as some people seem to think.
I rise to make one particular point which has not been made so far in this debate. I represent a constituency which badly needs an adequate public transport system. A light rail system represents the solution to the problems facing many of my constituents. In particular, people living in Crumlin, Drimnagh and Walkinstown cannot get on a bus because when one arrives from Tallaght it is already full so it does not matter how long one waits for public transport at rush hour, particularly if the buses are running between Tallaght and the town centre. As a result people have to bring their cars into town.
There is a line on the map that is reserved and it is through Clanbrassil Street, Harold's Cross and Kimmage and on to the main road to Tallaght which connects with the main road to Baldonnell which in turn is surrounded by one of the best road networks in the country. It connects with the road to Dublin Airport. It is possible that the European Community will provide up to 75 per cent of the cost of a light rail system in this city; certainly a substantial amount of funds would be avaiable. The question is where we would get the balance? Let me make a suggestion here this evening; and I hope the Minister will consider it.
I have previously argued in this House that Baldonnel should be developed as a regional airport, in the same way as Galway, Waterford or Sligo airports but taking perhaps a greater volume of traffic than any of the other regional airports. I have received the support of many business people for such suggestion. Within easy driving distance of Baldonnel, there are huge industrial estates, for example, the John F. Kennedy Estate, which would use the regional airport to transport freight, as well as for business traffic, charter flights and so on. In my view if we could incorporate the airports as satellites around which a light rail system would operate, it might be possible to find funding for the light rail system.
Let me make the following suggestion to the Minister. CIE are starved of cash while Aer Rianta are cash rich. Both companies are under the aegis of the Minister. Aer Rianta have been a very innovative company and have expanded, very successfully into external markets, for example, the Soviet Union. Such expansion would have been considered impossible a decade ago. They have excelled in their trading and bartering activities. I believe that if the Minister were to consider connecting Dublin Airport with Ballymun, Dublin University and Swords with the assistance of Aer Rianta. In addition to developing Baldonnel as a regional airport, which could be used for charter business and regional flights and to transport freight, it should be possible to persuade Aer Rianta to invest, along with CIE, in the other leg of the rapid light rail system which is badly needed in the Tallaght region. This would run through Kimmage, Harold's Cross and Clanbrassil Street where, as I have said, the line is already reserved. It seems that that would be eminently feasible.
The development of a regional airport would be very attractive from the local people's point of view although I accept that some people would have reservations and argue that there would be an increase in the noise level. When I raised the matter in the House Deputy Liam Lawlor strongly supported it, and I was grateful for his support. I suggest that we look at this question and try to persuade Aer Rianta and CIE together, using Dublin and Baldonnel airports as satellites, to develop this rapid light rail system which would serve the areas which badly need it. Together with EC funding and the assistance and co-operation of Aer Rianta and CIE, it should be feasible and absolutely achievable. I ask the Minister to consider this suggestion.
I thank all those Deputies who have contributed to this debate. I understand that in total some 17 Deputies spoke. I should say that their contributions were extremely constructive, positive and heartening.
I would like to take up some of the points that were raised. First, I felt the Minister's contribution was positive and amounted to a substantial step forward on the issue of developing public transport in Dublin. She made reference to the different structures and dealt with the consultative point by referring to the DTI and the different bodies involved by referance to the task force. The existence of the task force underlines the fact that there is a structure missing.
The Dublin Transport Authority, which was not picked up on as much as the constituency factors in this debate, is an essential prerequisite to planning coherently, enforcing and overseeing all issues of transport in Dublin. All the competing constituency interests put forward in this debate and the financial factors will have to be arbitrated on an ongoing basis. I believe also that there is a need for a Dublin Transportation Authority. Whatever form of public transport and new transport facilities are put in place, issues such as overall parking policy, taxis, traffic lights and enforcement of regulations will have to be dealt with by more than Dublin Corporation. There is a remit for an authority in the greater Dublin area.
The central problem is that people want to bring into the inner city cordon more people than would fit into Croke Park, when full, that is, 75,000 people, within a finite period. That issue has to be resolved but it cannot be resolved by way of the use of private cars. It must be resolved on the basis of public transport which serves the main routes, including the Harcourt Street line and a line which would run to south-west Dublin through Tallaght and Clondalkin.
I would like to pick up on what was said about Tallaght given that I was my party's spokesperson on Health. As there is no hospital in Tallaght people have to bring by bus small children and babies in prams to St. James's hospital. This is a nightmare on a wet day. Therefore there is a special need to provide a service to Tallaght which, along with Finglas and the Harcourt Street line, would make up the three priority routes.
In this debate Deputies did not focus to a great extent on the financial issues. I am sure, however, that Professor Barrett and others, who will ruminate on the details of this debate, will be very critical. I would like to put it on the record of the House that the eastern by-pass will cost £400 million whereas the most expensive light rail system proposed for Dublin would also cost £400 million. The cost of accidents in Dublin alone is in excess of £120 million per annum while there is no doubt that Dublin Port is losing about £50 million a year to northern ports because the routes in and out of the port are choked with traffic. Given that it has been agreed that the new Cohesion Fund should have a total sum of £7.5 billion, which is to be shared out between the four poorer member states, and the 64 per cent increase in the Structural Funds, the door has been opened for a new agenda here. People from outside Dublin must bear in mind that 40 per cent of the population of the Republic live in the greater Dublin area. Therefore, a superior public transport system must be provided in our capital city if, as Deputy Fennell said, we are to give life back to the city. I believe the private sector will play a vital role in providing resources to make light rail a reality.
There must be orderly analysis but consultation, analysis, deliberation and debate are no substitute for decision. The Minister will be judged, as was her predecessor, not on her beliefs but on decisions taken and implemented by her. On a lighter note I notice in one publication that the Minister is described as "Minister Go-Go Quinn". On this issue I do not want a "Stop-go Quinn"; I want a go-ahead policy for light rail for Dublin. I want a blueprint available in the autumn of this year with a definite timetable for construction starting next year.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John(Wexford).
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairíi.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan.
Amendment declared carried.
Question: "That the motion as amended be agreed to" put and declared carried.