I wish to share my time with Deputies Woods, Martin and Ned O'Keeffe.
Private Members' Business. - Tolling of Roads: Motion.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann, mindful of:
—the £1.5 billion contribution made by motorists to the Exchequer,
—the fact that taxpayers in Ireland and Europe have already paid for the provision of a proper road network,
—the huge social and environmental consequences for local residents,
calls on the Government to clearly state its opposition to the imposition of tolls on the remainder of the Dublin C-Ring and the Lee Tunnel.
The purpose of this motion is to give all Members an opportunity to make clear to the general public where they stand on the tolling of the remainder of the Dublin C-Ring and the Lee Tunnel. While the Minister may try to tell the House he has a quasi-judicial role in approving a toll scheme and, for this reason, does not intend to show his hand, no other Member can hide behind that excuse. For the past 12 months members of the three parties in Government have done their best to convince their electorate that they are opposed to tolls on the roads mentioned. Tomorrow, when a vote is taken on this motion, the general public will be in a better position to judge who is for and against tolling.
According to the annual report, the National Roads Authority made it clear in August 1995 that it would toll sections of the Dublin C-Ring and the Lee Tunnel. It commissioned W S Atkins, in association with the ESBI and the Newcastle University Transport Research Group, to prepare a report on the tolling of motorways in the Dublin area and late last year invited tenders for the tolling of the Dublin C-Ring. Shortly afterwards it had to revise its advertisement and extend the date for the submission of tenders. Apparently, someone in the NRA had forgotten that part of the M50 is already tolled and subject to contractual arrangements. This caused a legal difficulty. When the advertisement was corrected a number of firms made detailed submissions. Each and every one of them went to great trouble and expense to present their proposals which included details of toll schemes and possible fall-out of such schemes.
The NRA sat on these submissions for six or seven months. According to the annual report, it eventually decided last July, either on its own initiative or with some prompting from a higher authority, that it needed more information, particularly from the Dublin Transportation Initiative group, before it could make a decision on the proposals before it despite all the information it received in the submissions from the firms interested in tolling the motorway. It also needed the opinion of the experts to whom it has access, the information contained in the report prepared for it by eminent and internationally recognised experts and the expert opinion of the Minister who at one stage rubbished the findings of research conducted by an independent research company on attitudes to tolling.
According to the annual report, the reason for the delay in announcing a toll scheme is that the NRA wishes to consult with the DTI on the diversion of traffic which would result from tolling. Is someone or everyone in the NRA telling us it invited tenders for a toll scheme without first consulting the DTI? Is it telling us that internationally renowned firms of consultants which prepared a report for it on the tolling of motorways in the Dublin area did not at any stage consult the DTI or consider fully possible traffic diversion rates and the fall-out of such schemes? Is it telling us that, as a body, it did not consider the social implications? I find that hard to believe.
The NRA used a traffic model developed by the DTI to make predictions and assumptions. If what it is telling us is true, it has been grossly incompetent in handling the issue. Is it telling us that it put three companies to the huge expense of preparing tender documents and making submissions for a toll scheme and then decided to study the social implications? If so, the Minister should consider its future. It is unbelievable that it should go so far down this road and then out of the blue start to consider the social implications. I find it difficult to believe that it would be so unprofessional and incompetent but someone may convince me otherwise.
I suspect that the NRA is following a political agenda, probably by direction, to postpone making a decision until after the next general election. It is difficult to believe it would have been unaware of the major objections to the tolling of the M50 and the social and environmental effects of the diversion of traffic until it had received submissions from the companies interested in tolling the motorway. These implications are nothing new. They were spelled out clearly to the NRA and to the Minister when it was first announced that tolling would take place. They were highlighted not just by Fianna Fáil Members in this House during Question Time and on another occasion but also by many reputable motoring and environmental organisations. In addition, many residents' groups in the affected areas made their fears known. We are now asked to believe that the NRA decided to consider these matters last March when the Minister allegedly expressed concern in this House about the implications of tolling. I cannot find any reference to that in the Official Report.
It is difficult to believe this level of incompetence exists in the NRA and the only logical conclusion I can come to is that the NRA, by direction or otherwise, decided it would be politically unacceptable to attempt to put in place a toll scheme before the next general election. Lest anybody has any doubt about the intentions of the NRA it made them very clear when it announced in its report that it wanted to study the social implications of proceeding with a tolling scheme. Two or three weeks later, however, its chief executive made it quite clear to the Committee of Public Accounts that he is confident the NRA will have a tolling scheme in place which will have the full backing of the Government and that the Government fully supported the implementation of tolling on the roads in question. He stated also that the NRA supported tolling on these roads. If anybody is in doubt it is in the Official Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, and I am putting it on the record of this House, that the NRA is confident it will have a tolling scheme in place.
Nobody need be under any illusion but that the decision has been made to toll the C ring and the Lee tunnel and it is only a matter of time before that occurs. The crucial time for this Government will be after the next general election but this motion gives Members the opportunity to state clearly their opposition to such a scheme. I hope Deputies on all sides of the House will avail of the opportunity to make it clear not just to the NRA but to the Government and to the Minister that they are opposed to the concept of tolling these roads.
One may ask why Fianna Fáil is opposed to a toll on these roads.
It is a good question.
The reason is that the taxpayers of Ireland, and indeed Europe, have already paid for these roads. Motorists have paid substantially over the years for the provision of proper roads and if successive Governments choose not to use the enormous amounts of money already paid by motorists in taxation to finance these roads, that is not the fault of the motorists and they should not be penalised. Motorists should not be asked to pay again and again for the same stretches of road.
Motorists currently pay £1.5 billion in various taxes and that figure is increasing. Less than one third of that amount is returned to road investment. It is extremely unfair to ask a section of the community which is paying huge amounts of money in taxation for the provision of reasonable roads to pay to use them once they are provided. It is akin to asking somebody who has paid £60,000 or £70,000 to build a house to pay for the use of it.
To put this matter into context, we consider £6.6 billion or £7 billion from the EU over a six-year period to be a staggering figure but during that period motorists will contribute £10 billion to the national Exchequer. That is an extraordinary figure and it is higher per capita than in any other EU country. We believe motorists should not be asked to pay more. Motorists in this country, relative to the indirect tax sector, are similar to the PAYE worker in the direct tax sector. They are the first to be targeted and are the least respected but they contribute the most.
In addition to the £1.5 billion in annual taxation it has been calculated that it would cost a motorist using the new sections of the M50, if they are tolled, approximately £1,000 extra per annum. A PAYE worker would have to earn an additional £2,000 per annum to cover the extra motoring cost. Such a proposal is totally insupportable. When one considers that the State coffers this year will benefit to the tune of an additional £120 million from increased car sales, it is clear that motorists are paying enough.
If the Minister and the NRA are not persuaded by arguments about the huge tax burden carried by motorists, perhaps they will give careful consideration to the problem of diversion and the damage it will cause, environmentally and socially, in various areas. It is well known that diverted traffic which avoids paying tolls uses unsuitable alternative routes, frequently through housing estates and residential areas. Along the stretch of the M50 under consideration for tolling by the NRA residential areas such as Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan, Blanchardstown, Finglas and Ballymun and, on the southern section, Rathfarnham, Dundrum, Leopardstown, Shankill and Bray will be adversely affected by this diverted traffic. The quality of life for residents in those areas is seriously curtailed because of the inadequacy of the existing roads system. Major congestion problems arise every day. The motorway is supposed to provide a solution to these problems but if it is tolled it will only add to them.
In any toll scheme there is a diversion rate. The diversion rate in the case of the M50, according to the NRA, will be one-third. That figure is regarded as conservative by experts but, assuming it is true, it means that 15,000 vehicles will divert off this road into residential areas in Santry, Whitehall, Finglas, Blanchardstown and other areas including Lucan, Walkinstown, Clondalkin and Tallaght. Such a diversion will cause an unacceptable level of social and environmental damage in those areas. This has been recognised not just by Fianna Fáil but by the elected representatives in those areas. Already Fingal County Council and South Dublin County Council have voiced their strong opposition to the scheme and local residents and community groups have recognised that it will cause huge problems.
I urge the Minister not to under estimate the strength of local feeling. The proposed diversions will mean residential areas will become rat runs for people wishing to avoid paying tolls. They will cause terror in many residential areas and undoubtedly increase the number of fatalities and injuries on our roads.
The imposition of tolls will mean extra transport costs for businesses and manufacturers and will add to the already high cost of transport and the competitive disadvantage suffered as a result of Ireland's peripherality.
I look forward to the debate on this important subject. I also look forward to the Minister's response and to Members of this House making their opposition to these tolls clear and unequivocal.
I support the motion. We, in Dublin, are opposed to any further tolls on ring-roads. There are no tolls on the ring-roads around Paris or Rome. There are tolls elsewhere in Europe but there are none on ring-roads for a very good reason, that is, they want the traffic to use the ring-roads. They do not want the traffic diverting into housing estates and built up areas.
We want a free run around the major cities to avoid forcing heavy traffic into residential areas. The people of Dublin already pay two tolls — one on the East Link and the other on the West Link. We are prepared to pay those tolls, which were built into those developments from the outset, but we are opposed to further tolls.
Incidentally, the Minister might ask the local authority and the people who run East Link bridge to mend the potholes on Embankment Road where the new industrial estate is situated. They are highly dangerous and thousands of cars pass over them every day. I cannot understand how the road was left in that condition when the new industrial estate opened onto Embankment Road.
Two tolled crossings in Dublin is enough. Extra tolls would be counter productive. No doubt Dubliners will drive through estates instead of making use of the motorway. It has been estimated that some one-third of motorway traffic would go through estates instead of making use of the motorway.
The Fianna Fáil Party has had representations from Fingal Chamber of Commerce, which is totally opposed to a toll on the Northern Cross Route, and the Automobile Association, which is opposed to further tolls in Dublin. Indeed, the Fianna Fáil Party is opposed to further tolls in Dublin. The Northern Cross Route is to open on 6 December. We look forward to that development which will make a big difference to congestion in Dublin.
The Minister will say he must wait until the authority makes its decision. He stated in reply to an earlier parliamentary question that his only functions related to the approval or otherwise of toll schemes, by-laws and agreements made by the National Roads Authority or local authorities and that the legislation gives the NRA the power to make proposals for a tolling scheme, acceptance or rejection of which would ultimately fall to him. In this case, I call on him to state that the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and Democratic Left are against additional tolls on the Dublin ring-road and, if the authority comes forward with such a proposal, he will make it clear he will not support it. That would save much time, energy and money in preparing programmes which would not be approved ultimately by the Government. He should not wait until after the election. That has been suggested and it is a real fear at this stage.
I am impressed by the Deputy's confidence that I will make the decisions after the election.
We will make the decision anyway — the Minister should not worry about that. One way or the other, there is no point in waiting until after the election. The housing estates need the relief. Commerce and industry need the ring-roads. The Minister should let people get on with the job. He should indicate his opposition to additional toll charges on Dublin's ring-road.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I congratulate Deputy O'Keeffe on being nominated to represent Fianna Fáil in the constituency of Cork East at the next general election.
I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Noel Dempsey, for introducing this Private Members' motion because it presents an opportunity to us, the legislators, to state our position with regard to tolling. That is an important function of public representatives.
A considerable amount of taxpayers' money has been invested already in the construction of the Lee tunnel and its ring-road system, for example, and the Dublin ring-road system. I will speak specifically about the Lee tunnel. What objectives gave rise to the construction of the Lee tunnel and the entire ring-road system around Cork? It was designed primarily to divert traffic away from the city centre, suburban estates and the general internal ring of the city.
If we place tolls on the Lee tunnel, it will defeat the purpose for which the tunnel was built and it will have very damaging social and environmental repercussions. It is estimated, for example, as Deputy Dempsey said, that tolling can cause a diversion rate of about one third of traffic. It is estimated that even a modest toll in Cork would lead to a diversion rate of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent, and that is a conservative estimate. If there was a high toll, that diversion rate could increase to 40 per cent. Once we introduce and accept the concept, there are no limits in terms of the degree to which such charges could be increased year by year. A high diversion rate will inevitably lead to rat running through residential housing estates. Areas such as Douglas, Mahon, Beaumont and Ballinlough, on the southside of Cork city, and Glanmire, Mayfield and Dillon's Cross, on the northside, will suffer enormously as a result. The residential amenity of people living in these suburbs would be destroyed because of the rat running. The Minister is laughing but if he were to travel along the Low Road at present——
I am not laughing. The tunnel has not yet been built.
That is my point. A high diversion rate will mean that traffic will pass through residential estates in Mayfield to cross to the other side of the city. Likewise, people travelling from Douglas or west County Cork will drive through Ballinlough or Mahon if a toll road is put in place.
Should the local authority carry the full cost of maintaining ventilation and lighting, which will be in excess of £500,000 per year?
With respect, I do not know the Minister's plans for future funding of local authorities. Perhaps he should clarify that matter because I am a member of the estimates committee of Cork Corporation, which recently concluded its deliberations, and we are wondering whether service charges will be abolished. If the Minister is that concerned, he should inform us regarding his future plans for the funding of local authorities. I will then know whether Cork Corporation will be in a position to maintain the tunnel.
I will gladly do so.
The Minister for the Environment is keeping the local authorities dependent and they have no capacity for freedom because of political considerations. The local authorities are awaiting action on the Minister's part. I respectfully suggest that he makes his mind up or there may be mayhem in local authority areas prior to Christmas.
The Deputy will discover that there has been more action in the Department during my two years in office than when a Fianna Fáil Minister occupied the Custom House.
If Deputy Martin were to address his remarks through the Chair, there might not be any further interruptions.
The Minister cannot help but heckle because I am pressing my point home.
Road safety is a key aspect with regard to residential areas and has not been given the necessary degree of priority. If rat running occurs as a result of the introduction of a toll road, safety will be at risk and will be a casualty of this phenomenon.
Various environmental and amenity schemes within Cork city centre will be undermined because of a high diversion rate. The idea behind the Lee tunnel is to divert heavy traffic from the city centre and suburbs. In tandem with this, the streetscape and aesthetic quality of the city will be significantly improved in line with projects currently being implemented by Cork Corporation and plans already in the pipeline. The historic city action plan is one such project which will bring enormous benefits to the North Main Street-South Main Street access to the city and the general area thereabouts. The improvement of Patrick Street, and the plans the corporation has to make it more pedestrian friendly and more attractive to shoppers, will be undermined if we do not allow the original function of the Lee tunnel to take effect and if there is a significant diversion rate because of road tolling.
Therefore, tolling will have a negative impact on the future of the city. It will defeat the purpose and traffic function of the tunnel and undermine the residential amenity of suburban estates as a consequence of rat running. It will also have undesirable environmental repercussions. A toll on the Lee tunnel would represent another tax on the hard-pressed motorist, who has already made a major contribution to the project. I accept the points made by the AA that it is an unjustifiable extra tax and would do more harm than good. Clearly the motoring public have had enough and the Minister should take a more proactive approach on this issue.
I thank Deputy Martin for sharing time. I support this important motion and congratulate Deputy Dempsey for bringing it before the House.
I am against the toll road as a concept because we have one of the smallest car owning populations in Europe and commercial vehicle numbers are lower than the average. I am particularly concerned about the Cork city area. The original proposal involved the construction of a tunnel or overhead bridge. The tunnel was chosen as the best option to help traffic coming into the city from the Dublin Road and rural areas of County Cork. It is also designed to aid the development of Ringaskiddy as the second major national port and relieve traffic problems at Cork Airport. The introduction of the tunnel would also result in more efficient motoring and encourage motorists not to travel through densely populated areas of Cork city.
I am concerned at the comments of Democratic Left's representative in Cork North Central, Deputy Lynch, because she usually represents the taxpaying public. However, she has not made her views known on this issue. Therefore, it is obvious that she believes in increasing taxation on hard-pressed motorists.
The introduction of the tunnel is aimed at alleviating the problems of commuter traffic in the Cork area but there can be no argument in favour of tolling. The annual cost of maintaining the tunnel will be in the region of £250,000, which is very substantial. The tunnel will be only 600 metres in length which is very small in a European context. If the motoring public must pay this cost, it will defeat the purpose of the tunnel. The NRA budget for the maintenance of national primary roads is £26 million per annum. Tunnel roads are more expensive to operate and why must the motoring public pay for such a grandiose facility? Car users pay £1.5 million in tax but only 25 per cent of that figure is reinvested in our roads. Therefore, 75 per cent of motoring tax is paid to the Exchequer, which is very unfair.
A toll payment is a blunt instrument if one is a regular road user. Toll roads and bridges are popular on the continent but in France, which is a major user of toll roads, there is much lower taxation. Approximately 87 per cent of Irish people claim that cars are too heavily taxed. Therefore, two out of three members of the motoring public are not in favour of toll roads which should send a message to the Minister.
Why has there been a reduction in the development of roads and by-passes in the Cork area? After last weekend, the Minister must be aware that action is required to help the motoring public. It was reported on national television news programmes that there was a five mile tailback in County Kildare which is very frustrating to taxpaying motorists.
Roads passing through towns are becoming very dangerous because of the huge volumes of traffic being created by the development of ring roads and by-passes. Government revenue will exceed £1.7 billion in 1996, which represents 16 to 17 per cent of total revenue. The average family car has a 1.5 litre engine and costs in the region of £15,000. Families are often hard-pressed to provide the money to purchase a car and why should breadwinners be further levied with the highest motoring taxes in the world? Toll roads are popular throughout Europe and lower petrol prices are not the answer for Irish taxpayers and road users.
Roads in County Cork have deteriorated substantially in the past two years.
More money has never been spent on them.
The potholes are not being filled.
I will provide the relevant figures during my contribution.
I accept that there are greater volumes of traffic but there has been a reduction in road development in my area. Many secondary roads are in a terrible state of repair and are deteriorating rapidly. Despite that, no extra funding has been made available. Rather than concerning himself with toll roads and further burdening the motoring public and the family car owner by imposing yet another tax on top of the high taxes they already pay, I ask the Minister to address the problem of bad roads.
Before moving my amendment, let me indicate my intention to share some minutes of my time with Deputy Róisín Shortall.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann noting
—that the National Development Plan, 1994-1999, sets out guidelines on the tolling of national roads which are similar to those adopted by successive Governments since 1985;
—that these guidelines were endorsed in the Operational Programme for Transport, which was launched on 9 November 1994 by Deputy Michael Smith, then Minister for the Environment, and Deputy Brian Cowen, then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications;
—that the Operational Programme for Transport indicated that it was anticipated that up to £100 million might be raised from tolling national roads;
—that the initiative in deciding which national roads, if any, might be subject to tolls rests with the National Roads Authority;
—that the procedures which must be complied with before a toll can be imposed on any road include the making of a toll scheme, the giving of public notice and the submission of the scheme for the approval of the Minister for the Environment;
—that where there are objections to a scheme, a public inquiry must be held before a final decision can be taken on the scheme;
—that the Minister for the Environment, because of his quasi-judicial role in making the final decision under Part V of the Roads Act, 1993 on toll road proposals, is not free to comment on particular proposals in advance of such decision; and
—the concerns expressed by the Minister in his reply to Parliamentary Question No 108 of 27 March 1996 in relation to any scheme to toll the Dublin C Ring Road and the range of issues to which he will have regard in the assessment of toll proposals;
endorses the Minister's view that the submissions made in the public consultation process provided for under Part V of the Roads Act, 1993 and the effects of traffic diversion on residential and other areas should bear heavily on any decision which he may be called upon to make should toll proposals be presented to him for decision."
This motion is a classic example of the inconsistencies shown by the Fianna Fáil Party, a classic example of how policies vigorously pursued by it in Government are jettisoned as soon as it find itself in Opposition. The terms of the motion, and the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party to the tolling issue generally, are quite extraordinary, given that party's long record in promoting tolling, both in principle and in relation to specific routes.
The motion is another illustration of the Fianna Fáil Party's willingness to jump on every bandwagon, respond to every headline and, generally, try to be all things to all men. I do not think that the plain people of Dublin or of Cork, or the motorists of Ireland, will be fooled by Fianna Fáil's new-found concern to protect them from tolls. I want to put a few simple facts on the record to explain why I make this claim.
Since the late 1970s various administrations, but particularly Fianna Fáil-led Governments, have indicated a willingness to consider the use of toll-financed private sector capital for road development. That is why the moving of a motion at this time opposing tolls on the Dublin C Ring and the Lee Tunnel is, to say the least, somewhat surprising, given that party's record in promoting the use of tolls. One might go further and suggest that the sudden conversion of Fianna Fáil can only be described as blatant opportunism.
A review of the last 15 to 20 years or so will show that Fianna Fáil Ministers developed the statutory basis for tolling and adopted a policy of tolling key sections of the national road network as a mechanism to raise funding for the development of that network. Specific initiatives to extend tolling on the Dublin C Ring were developed and pursued by successive Fianna Fáil Ministers for the Environment.
Let me illustrate some of their specific initiatives on tolling. In December 1978, it was a Fianna Fáil Minister for the Environment, Sylvester Barrett, who introduced the Local Government (Toll Roads) Bill, 1978, which was subsequently enacted in December 1979. This provided a statutory basis for the charging of tolls on existing or new roads and provided mechanisms to enable road authorities to make schemes for the establishment of toll systems or to enter into agreements with third parties for the establishment of toll systems.
In May 1979 the same Fianna Fáil Minister, Sylvester Barrett, presented the Road Development Plan for the 1980s to the Houses of the Oireachtas. In relation to tolls, this clearly said, in response to approaches from the private sector, that the Fianna Fáil Government of the time was open to the idea that suitable road projects, including motorways and river crossings, might be built on a toll basis, and it said that the Fianna Fáil Government was open to the involvement of interested private enterprise in the design, construction, financing and operation of such projects.
In 1989 the Fianna Fáil Government submitted an operational programme for EU assistance and, once again, confirmed its interest in obtaining toll-financed private investment for national roads. That application for assistance included a technical annex spelling out four road projects thought suitable for tolling. These included the Dublin Ring Road and the downstream crossing of the River Lee.
In December 1990, the Operational Programme on Peripherality was launched by three Fianna Fáil Ministers, Deputy Séamus Brennan, Padraig Flynn and John Wilson. This programme stated that the Government was anxious to obtain toll-financed private investment for the development of national primary roads and had identified three major improvement projects which might be potentially suitable for tolling by private investors.
Fianna Fáil Ministers did not simply issue major policy statements on tolling. They went further. In March 1989, the then Minister, Padraig Flynn, now EU Commissioner, oversaw the issue of an invitation on an EU-wide basis to submit proposals for toll-based investment in the Dublin Ring Road. On foot of this, as construction of the Western Parkway was drawing to a close, an exclusive negotiation mandate was awarded to a consortium. Heads of agreement were negotiated and submitted to Dublin County Council, as the then tolling authority, but the council rejected the proposal in October 1990. Notwithstanding this rejection, the Fianna Fáil commitment to consider toll-based private sector investment remained and was reiterated in the Operational Programme on Peripherality launched by the Fianna Fáil Ministers in the following December.
The current statutory provisions for tolling are contained in the Roads Act, 1993, introduced by one Fianna Fáil Minister and enacted under another. This transferred to the National Roads Authority the tolling powers in relation to national roads which were clearly seen by Fianna Fáil as a logical extension of the Authority's overall responsibilities in respect of national roads.
In the National Development Plan, published in October 1993, the Fianna Fáil-led Government, with Deputy Michael Smith as Minister for the Environment, indicated that it wished the National Roads Authority to undertake a thorough review of the scope for tolling national roads and it suggested a target of up to £100 million which might be raised in this way.
Following this, the Community Support Framework, launched on 15 September 1994 by the then Minister for Finance, now Leader of Fianna Fáil and a signatory of this motion, explicitly and positively stated that private finance mechanisms would be actively sought to support the development of transport infrastructure. Did Deputy Ahern expect that private financiers were going to contribute, without any reward or return, but just in the public interest, to the roads programme? Was it not the case that he, like all the other Fianna Fáil Ministers, planned that private investment would be repaid by tolls?
The most recent tolling initiative involving Fianna Fáil Ministers occurred less than two years ago. On 9 November 1994, very close to the last time Fianna Fáil held office, the Ministers for the Environment and Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputies Smith and Cowen respectively, formally launched the Operational Programme for Transport 1994-1999 which pointed out that, at the request of the Government, the National Roads Authority was conducting a thorough review of the scope for tolling national roads and that it anticipated up to IR£100 million might be raised in this way. I think I have done enough at this stage to demonstrate the glaring inconsistency of the Fianna Fáil Party and its last-minute conversion to new beliefs, like St. Paul, on the road to the next general election. If Fianna Fáil, in Opposition, can do no better than to renege on what it stood for in Government since 1979, I suggest that the only road it will travel will be a cul-de-sac, or the road back to the Opposition benches, after the general election.
That is what the Minister thinks.
Another aspect of the Fianna Fáil motion refers to the contribution made annually to the Exchequer by the motoring public — and the extent of this contribution must, of course, be acknowledged. There seems to be an implication in the motion that all the revenue derived from the motoring public should automatically be ploughed back into transport infrastructure. That would suit me very well, as the Minister responsible for road development. Fianna Fáil is practical enough to know that is not a sensible proposition. To suggest that all the revenue received from taxation on motor vehicles should be restricted solely for funding of the roads sector is to ignore the consequences for a whole range of other Government services, such as health and education, which benefit the needy and less privileged in society, and which cannot be financed by the assignment of related revenue sources.
Another rather peculiar aspect of the wording of the Fianna Fáil motion is its reference to the fact that "the provision of a proper road network" has already been paid for. Are we to take it from this that Fianna Fáil is satisfied that the national road network is now fully up to standard, and that no further investment is needed? Obviously that is not the case. Is Fianna Fáil telling the House that a proper network of county roads has already been paid for — if so, I would like to know where the money went. Judging by the condition of the network when I took office, I do not believe my Fianna Fáil predecessors invested the billions to which it refers in the county road network.
This brings me to the Progressive Democrats amendment which wants the House to recognise what it describes as "the lack of progress in improving our national roads". Our national road network is not yet fully up to standard, but real progress has been made, and is continuing to be made. The Government is continuing the task of creating the transport infrastructure necessary to underwrite our social and economic progress and is allocating unprecedented levels of investment to the task.
While the Transport Operational Programme is an integrated one, covering all modes of transport — road, rail, sea and air — the development of the national primary road network remains a key priority. We need good roads if we are to create sustainable economic development. We need them for trade, tourism, development of the food industry, local development, etc., and they are essential to meet our employment targets — targets which would be shared by all sides.
The national primary roads measures under the Operational Programme for Transport focus on four key strategic corridors: North-South: Belfast-Dublin-Rosslare-Waterford-Cork; Southwest: Dublin-Limerick/Shannon and Cork; East-West: Dublin-Galway and Sligo; Western: Sligo-Galway-Limerick-Waterford-Rosslare.
The agreement with the European Commission requires that at least 70 per cent of the total expenditure on national primary roads will be on these corridors, with priority being given to investments which yield the maximum economic benefit. Special emphasis is being placed on a network approach to the implementation of the development programme, combining major and smaller improvements with road pavement improvement. Evidence of this programme is widespread and the litany of major project completions, such as bypasses of Athlone, Cahir, Longford, Mullingar, Bray-Shankill, Roscrea and major projects such as Sliabh Riach, Mulcon Valley, Cork Southern Ring, Bolton Hill, Enniscorthy-Wexford, Bandon Road, etc., if listed in full, would exceed the time allocated to me this evening.
The overall target is to complete the development of the national primary road network by 2005 and to provide an inter-urban travel speed on completion of 80 kph. At the end of 1993, 35 per cent of the network was adequate or improved, and this had increased to 42 per cent at the end of 1995 with the completion of projects such as the Lucan-Kilcock, Mullingar, Newbridge and Roscrea bypasses.
Will the Minister take a question from me?
That is in order. Will the Minister give way to the Deputy?
Due to my time constraint I would prefer to finish my speech but when the Deputy speaks I will take note of his comments. The target is to extend this standard to 53 per cent by end 1999, with the improvement of a further 11 per cent under way. We are well on the way to achieving that ambitious target.
As regards county and regional roads, my term of less than two years in office has been marked by the adoption and implementation of a major restoration programme, with an unprecedented level of funding. To get that programme under way, additional grant allocations of £20 million were made to county councils in July 1995. This money financed almost a thousand roadworks schemes, and upgraded nearly 1,600 kms of road. The special additional provision for the restoration programme was increased substantially in 1996, bringing to £73 million the total grants available this year for works under the programme, and to £146 million the total State grants for non-national roads this year, an unprecedented sum.
The restoration programme is now producing the required results, both in terms of value for money and outputs, and local communities are beginning to see the fruits of increased expenditure by the Government in this important area. Our ten year programme will transform the network, and the lives of all those who depend on these roads for economic or social purposes.
The £73 million available for the programme in 1996 financed completion, by the end of August, of 3,500 road schemes, with 5,800 km of road benefiting. This is an unprecedented assault on the potholes which have been the butt of jokes for decades. The Government is doing something about it. It will finance completion, by the end of the year, of a total of more than 4,000 road schemes across the country, with over 6,600 km of road — or nearly 8 per cent of the entire network of regional and county roads — benefiting from the expenditure involved.
Progress has undoubtedly been made in road development in recent years, but Deputies on all sides will recognise that the needs are still great, in relation to both the national and the local networks. We should look at the case for tolling in this context, and take note of the procedures which must be followed before a toll can be imposed on any public road. We cannot afford to close off totally the possibility of raising extra funds for road development, especially as we look to the period after 1999 when our receipts from the Structural Funds may not be as great as they now are. Neither should we rush into particular schemes, without full consideration of the consequences.
The statutory power to levy tolls on national roads, to make toll by-laws, and to enter into toll agreements with private investors is vested in the National Roads Authority under Part V of the Roads Act, 1993. Road authorities have similar powers in relation to the tolling of non-national roads. The initiative in deciding which roads, if any, should be subject to tolls rests with the NRA or the county authority, as appropriate. However, before a toll can be imposed on any road, a number of procedures must be complied with. These include the making of a toll scheme, the giving of public notice and the submission of the scheme for the approval of the Minister for the Environment. Where there are objections, a public inquiry must be held before a final decision can be taken on any scheme.
The National Development Plan 1994-99, sets out guidelines on the tolling of national roads. The guidelines provided, among other things, that any funding obtained from tolls would be regarded as additional to the planned State investment and used to accelerate the development of the national road network; private investment should generally meet at least 20 per cent of the capital cost of the toll road, with the exact level being determined by negotiation in each individual case; and that the assessment of all toll proposals would have regard to the diversion of traffic likely to be caused by tolling and the probable impact on adjacent residential areas.
I have no quibble with these guidelines under which the National Development Plan envisaged the development of toll proposals to generate the revenue to which I referred. As the Minister responsible for road development, the House would expect me to be among the last to turn away from any new source of revenue which would enable us to accelerate the much desired road building programme. There are other factors relevant to tolling. For instance, with unrestricted access to the route, traffic volumes on the Dublin C Ring could quickly reach capacity levels; with this in mind, the final report of the Dublin Transportation Initiative specifically identified road user charging as one of the measures which could be considered to control the growth in traffic on the route and obviate the need for heavy additional investment in expanding its capacity.
Tolling of ring roads must be tailored to local circumstances. Any tolling proposals must be considered in the context of implementing environmentally sound traffic management and urban planning policies, as well as in the context of infrastructure financing. I reiterate that those environmental considerations will bear heavily should any decision fall to me to be made.
Arising from comments I made last March, the National Roads Authority decided in conjunction with the Dublin Transportation Office to give the matter further detailed examination and I understand that examination is under way. At this stage, no toll scheme in respect of the Dublin C ring, the Lee tunnel or any other road has been submitted to me. If such schemes are proposed, they will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Roads Act, 1993, which provides for a full and rigorous assessment of any such proposals and will give all interested parties a full opportunity to comment.
I have a quasi-judicial function in relation to tolling procedures and, because of this, it would be wrong of me to comment on the merits or otherwise of specific proposals which may be submitted to me for final decision. I do not intend to depart from this convention which has been observed by all my predecessors. However, I assure the House that any proposals submitted to me will be carefully assessed.
Before being passed.
In particular, submissions made in the formal public consultation process will be taken fully into account. The concerns about detrimental environmental impact and loss of residential amenity would bear heavily on any decision I might make if the NRA proceeds with proposals for tolling.
To ask the House to call on the Government to state its opposition to the imposition of tolls, as per the Fianna Fáil motion, is quite inconsistent with the position adopted by Fianna Fáil in Government through the years. It would also be wrong to block off for all time and in all possible circumstances the option of raising funds from tolls to allow a Government to provide for increased spending on roads.
That is not what the motion is about.
In so far as the C ring and the Lee tunnel are concerned, the assurances I have given about my own approach to any toll proposals——
May I ask the Minister a question?
Will the Minister give way?
Yes.
Deputy Molloy has 30 seconds.
The Minister referred to western routes. Is he aware that journeys to the west that took three hours 25 years ago took seven hours last Friday and Saturday? Is this an indication of the failure of his policy to improve the road structures?
I have already indicated in detail the level of expenditure. Total roads expenditure this year will exceed £450 million — an unprecedented sum. The strategic corridors to which I referred are benefiting.
None of the bypasses is going ahead. The projects have stopped and the EU funds are not being used.
I graciously gave way to the Deputy. He will not listen to the answer because he does not like it.
The Minister is very gracious.
The Deputy knows little about it. There is an unprecedented investment in roads this year, including non-national roads which will receive £146 million of State funds matched by £60 million of local government funds.
Why is the programme falling behind?
There is a problem of increased volumes of cars. That is why I want to spend more money and leave options open. Our booming economy is creating an availability of more and more cars. We need a transport policy to cater for that new reality; one that will require us to continue to spend money.
In so far as the C ring and the Lee tunnel are concerned, the assurances I have given about my own approach to any toll proposals that may come will allay the fears of Deputies. There is a clear implication in what I have said.
He said he was leaving his options open.
That is a "nod and wink" approach.
I invite the Deputies opposite, therefore, to see the sense of this and to withdraw their opportunist motion.
I represent the Dublin north-west area encompassing Ballymun, Glasnevin, Finglas, Whitehall and Santry, all of which have serious traffic problems. I am acutely aware of the problems of traffic congestion. Many areas in my constituency have problems with rat running. All the main roads are seriously congested and all the junctions overloaded. The only reason the residents are not engaged in open revolution is because the M50 is soon to be complete and will bring some relief.
The main purpose of the M50 is to remove traffic from residential areas and to improve access to various parts of the city and county. The opening of the M50 is, therefore, eagerly awaited by the residents affected because it will improve the quality of life for them. The proposition of tolling this road is absolutely preposterous.
Will the Deputy vote with us?
Such a proposal would clearly negate the purpose of the ring road to remove traffic from residential areas. I wish to record my opposition to any proposal to toll the M50.
Will the Deputy be judged on it?
There is only one way to do that.
I have publicly stated my opposition in the past and I will continue to do so. I will not support a proposal to toll the M50.
That said, I am not opposed to tolls per se. Tolling has a role to play in funding road programmes. However, a ring road is not suitable for tolling and I am not aware of any European city where a ring road is tolled. If residents are aware beforehand that there are plans to toll a road and it is clear that a road will be built on that basis there will be general acceptance, although that acceptance may not be enthusiastic. However, the M50 has been built with taxpayers' money and EU funds and for that reason people will not accept a tolling proposal.
I find it hard to understand why Fianna Fáil has put this motion before the House.
We are supporting the Deputy's position.
The Deputies should be aware of the role the former Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, played in agreeing the operational programme which included proposals to toll roads. Given that Deputy Michael Smith established the NRA, they should also be aware of the NRA's role in preparing toll proposals.
Where was the Labour Party at that time? Was it not in Government?
They should also be aware of the quasi-judicial role of the Minister for the Environment in any proposal to toll a road. The Minister has made his position clear.
He has not. He said he will keep his options open.
He has given clear assurances that the concerns of residents will bear heavily on his decision. Those assurances satisfy me.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Lenihan and Dan Wallace.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The motion refers specifically to the M50 and the Lee Tunnel and not to the general question of tolling roads, a diversionary tactic used by the Minister and Deputy Shortall. Government Deputies are not being asked to make flowery speeches but rather to vote tomorrow against the imposition of a toll on the M50.
The Deputy knows the procedure.
The Minister alleged that Fianna Fáil was trying to be all things to all men. Given his record as Labour Party Whip between 1989-92 his speech was extraordinary. The Minister is engaging in delaying tactics. He let it slip in reply to Deputy Molloy that he is leaving all his options open. A sham investigation is being carried out by the National Roads Authority and there will be further detailed examination of the question. What the Minister means when he says he is leaving all his options open is that as soon as the Labour Party is re-elected it will do what it always does, that is forget what it promised and impose the toll.
Did the Deputy hear my speech?
Northside Dublin TDs will have an opportunity tomorrow to vote against the imposition of a toll on the M50. My constituents are anxious to see this road opened at the earliest possible date, which I understand will be early in December. Motorists have already paid by way of car tax for this road, which is also being funded by the EU. Less than half of the £1.5 billion paid by motorists by way of various taxes is returned to them through investment in roads. Motorists who use the M50 are being asked to pay more and the clear message we want to send from the House is that they should not be required to do this. I accept that the Minister has a quasi-judicial role in this area. I do not mind if he sits on his hands but he should take the leash off northside Government Deputies and let them vote against the imposition of tolls on the M50 and the Lee Tunnel.
Motorists in my constituency are not prepared to pay more for this road. If the toll is imposed it will place an additional burden of £1,000 per year on hard pressed PAYE motorists in my constituency who use this road. I am not prepared to stand over this. The Minister referred to the problem of diverted traffic. My constituents in the village of Saint Margaret's, Baskin, Cloghran, Santry, Turnapin and other areas know all about this problem. The traffic must be diverted off already over burdened roads. An estimated ten million people use the airport, with all the welcome business that brings to my area, and if a toll is put on the M50 motorists will continue to use the already over burdened narrow roads instead of this superb new road.
I call on the Minister and the Labour Party to show it is not engaging in delaying tactics by voting in favour of the motion.
I congratulate the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on the Environment on tabling this motion. I was shocked when the Minister introduced a party political note into the debate as he is aware of the enormous opposition to the introduction of tolls on roads in suburban areas of Dublin.
Will the Deputy accept that the only toll on the West Link was imposed when Fianna Fáil was in Government?
I am delighted the Minister asked that question as I wish to address that point. The toll was imposed on that bridge on the basis that it was built with private sector funds. It was understood and accepted by people well in advance of the completion of that marvellous facility that it would be tolled. This was regarded as a necessary sacrifice to ensure the completion of this essential link between the north and south of Dublin and between the north and south of my constituency.
The part of the Dublin C Ring which will be opened on 6 December was not funded to any extent by private funds. The Minister said that private investment should generally meet at least 20 per cent of the capital cost of the toll road with the exact level being determined by negotiation in each individual case. That guideline was set out in the National Development Plan, 1994-99, which was adopted by Fianna Fáil in Government. If this guideline means anything then there will not be a toll on the Dublin C Ring. I do not understand why the Minister did not say this instead of waving a fig leaf and saying he is a quasi-judicial personage who cannot open his mouth in the House because he sits on a notional judicial bench in the Custom House. I would remind him that he also sits on a Front Bench in this House where according to the canons of political correctness, which his party has propounded in recent years, he is strictly accountable to us. I wish he would come clean on this issue. As an old Labour Party hand he should know Chairman Mao's dictum that politics is in command.
As usual, the Deputy is confusing parties.
Deputy Dempsey referred to the political hoofling in recent months between the Minister and the National Roads Authority and I am astonished that the Minister does recognise the accuracy of Chairman Mao's maxim. Politics is in command on this issue and all we are seeking is a straight answer to a straight question — will there be tolling on the remainder of the Dublin C Ring and the Lee Tunnel?
Why did the Deputy's party start the tolling? He should come clean on the issue.
Deputy Lenihan without interruption, please.
We are opposed to the imposition of tolls on the remainder of the Dublin C Ring and the Lee Tunnel. However, the Minister has not dealt with this issue.
The Dublin C Ring runs from the airport through Ballymun, Blanchardstown, Lucan, Palmerstown, Clondalkin and Tallaght. One third of a million people live in close proximity to this road and there will be hundreds of thousands more living near it when the Southern Cross Route is completed. It is absurd to suggest that there will be further tolling on this road.
A key aspect of the problem is further tolling. Substantial moneys were allocated by the European Union towards this road and it would be a breach of EU law for the Minister to sanction any further tolling on this road. If he is going to act as a quasi-judicial personage I hope he takes this point into account in making his decision. The reality is that these moneys were given by the European Union on a particular basis and it is highly discriminatory to have two tolls on such a short stretch of motorway. If the Minister imposes a toll on the C Ring I will make a complaint to the European Commission in Brussels and request it to consider whether this State is in breach of its international obligations.
For all those reasons I am amazed the Minister did not clear the air on this issue. The section of the C Ring to the airport will be opened on 6 December. No booths will be constructed between now and 6 December and I hope the Minister will confirm on that day that there will be no tolls. I am surprised the Minister did not avail of the opportunity this evening to clarify the position.
Since the question of private investment was raised, are there proposals before the Minister on the extension of the transportation scheme or will we be told again that he is a quasi-judicial personage and does not know anything about planned investment?
That is a matter for the National Roads Authority.
I congratulate our spokesperson for tabling this motion and I am pleased to note the new thinking in our party approach to the environment and the protection of suburban residents from rat running.
There are a number of clear-cut reasons the Government should dismiss without reservation a proposal to impose tolls on the Dublin ring road or the Lee tunnel. These extremely important components of the overall national roads network have been added to improve traffic flows in and near Cork and Dublin, our two major centres of population. The imposition of a toll collection system, irrespective of how efficient, could have only a detrimental effect on overall traffic flows on each facility. Such an eventuality would be at variance with the overall objective of both schemes. On the grounds of efficiency alone, it would be counterproductive to impose tolls on these two facilities. There is a nuisance aspect to the imposition and collection of road tolls.
Government revenue statistics illustrate the extremely high tax contribution of motorists. When one combines the cost of vehicle purchase and related taxes, road tax and fuel duties, approximately £1 in every £6 collected by the Government each year comes from motorists. In this context, can anyone seriously suggest that a further burden should be placed on their backs?
In modern society the use of a car is almost essential in everyday life. It is required to travel to work, to bring children to and from school, for shopping, commercial purposes and recreational use. The car has become a core part of life for the majority of family units. It is argued from time to time that people should make greater use of our public bus and train transport facilities and such a view may be valid to some extent. I support the concept that public transport is often an ideal way to travel and that it should be encouraged where possible. However, even with a far greater level of development, the public transport system can only realistically aim to cater for a minority of the travelling requirements of our population. The use of cars and other vehicles on our roads system plays a central role in everyday life.
As legislators our focus must be firmly on taking all possible steps to ensure that the roads system operates efficiently, continues to develop to the highest international standards and, above all, provides the highest possible level of safety for travellers. It is important to recognise that much has been achieved in each of those areas. Our overall roads infrastructure continues to improve, with a number of notable achievements in recent years.
Hear, hear.
A greater emphasis on the need for responsible driving has made a positive contribution to at least controlling the rate of road accidents. Similarly, the gradual improvement in the overall quality of our road stock can lead only to improved safety standards. Taking the overall position into account, there is no justification for the imposition of tolls on these vital new additions to our road facilities in Cork and Dublin. The average motorist has made more than a fair contribution to the State's coffers, whether through purchase duties, road or fuel tax. It would be an unjustified imposition for the Government to foolishly decide to twist the motorists' arms that bit further. Whatever gains might be achieved in revenue would be more than offset by the inefficiency and nuisance value associated with road tolls.
I fervently hope the Government takes this opportunity to line up behind the Fianna Fáil proposal on this matter. It is superior to any form of toll imposition which might be suggested. If the Government fails to support this motion it will make two major mistakes. It will send out a message of total indifference to the needs of all motorists and needlessly throw away some of the benefits of traffic flow efficiency that will automatically come from opening these two exciting additions to our national transport infrastructure.
While Deputy Shortall was vigorous in her protest at tolling in an area which affects her, she was critical of Fianna Fáil for doing likewise. In our motion we refer specifically to two areas. The Minister stated that the people of Cork would not be misled by Fianna Fáil on this matter. He must not have his ear to the ground. He should talk to his colleagues in Cork — although he does not have many — because the people of Cork are totally opposed to the imposition of a toll on the Lee tunnel. We have waited for this facility for years and are conscious of the contribution it will make to the roads structure in Cork. I acknowledge that vast sums of money have been provided for the Cork area by the Minister and his predecessors, but the area around the Blackpool bypass has been neglected for many years. I was pleased the Minister acknowledged on his visit to Cork that money was available when I had responsibility in this area but, unfortunately, local efforts stifled development because of a demand for a public inquiry. If tolls are introduced on the Lee tunnel, the area to which I just referred will suffer most. The Minister talked about what Deputy Smith and his Fianna Fáil predecessors did while in Government. I am pleased to note that one of the Minister's colleagues opposes the introduction of a toll on the Dublin ring road. A toll on the Lee tunnel would also be unfair and unnecessary.
Motorists are contributing £1 in every £6 to the Exchequer and we now want to place a further imposition on them. If tolls are introduced motorists will not use the new facilities, they will simply travel through estates and the other parts of our cities from which we are trying to divert them. It is pointless for the Minister to shake his head.
I have not made a decision.
Time will tell whether he is right. It would be wrong to place a toll on the downstream crossing in Cork. The Minister may accuse us of making political points on this matter, but we have been consistent. We are not against the concept of tolling, but it is not in the best interests of Cork or Dublin on this occasion to introduce tolls. The people of Cork are not on the Minister's side in this matter. I am here tonight to tell him not to proceed with the introduction of tolls. He should withdraw his opposition to the motion.
Debate adjourned.