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

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

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

Ní obair in aisce a bhí ar siúl ag an Iompras, mar leis an mBille atá rómhainn béimid ag aistriú an chuid is mó de cumhachtaí agus feidhmeanna an Iomprais go údaráisí poiblí eile mar an Gárda Síochána agus na h-údaráisí áitiúla. Beidh siad in ann obair an Iomprais a leanúint. Leathnaíonn an Bille roinnt de na cumhachtaí atá ag an Iompras ní h-amháin do Bhardas Bhaile Átha Cliath agus Comhairle Chontae Átha Cliath ach do na h-údairáisí áitiúla timpeall na tíre. I bhfochair sin tá Meitheal Iompair Bhaile Átha Cliath le h-athbhunú.

The main purposes of the Bill are: to provide for the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority; to re-assign most of the Authority's functions to other bodies; to repeal the Dublin Transport Authority Act, 1986, which is the legislative basis for the Authority; and to extend the scope of some of the provisions, which had been confined to the Dublin Transport Authority functional area, to the country as a whole. The measure is necessary as a consequence of the Government decision that no funds would be available for the Authority from next year.

The decision to dissolve the Authority was not taken lightly. As Members of the House are aware, after the Government took office it was apparent that taxation levels and Exchequer borrowings were excessive — the House had an opportunity to hear that from the Minister for Finance a few moments ago — and that a reduction in State expenditure was urgently required, if the overall situation were not to disimprove further. That is an understatement. Examination of expenditure was undertaken in all Departments. Every single area of spending was scrutinised. It is fair to say that we would be facing a long term serious crisis in the public finances — to quote the Minister for Finance we would not be in charge of our finances if the matter had continued as it was — if we had not tackled these problems right across the board. In this process, we had to recognise that many services, which had been taken for granted by the public, were no longer affordable. It is regretted that the Dublin Transport Authority had to be chosen for dissolution, but this was unavoidable.

In implementing the Government decision, through the Bill before the House, we have succeeded in preserving most of the Dublin Transport Authority functions through transferring them to other authorities. In addition, the Government decided that some of the functions could be extended with advantage beyond Dublin to the whole country and this we are providing for in the Bill. The House, no doubt, will agree that that is desirable. Traffic management functions of the Authority, which are so vital for traffic flows in the Dublin area, are being transferred to a reconstituted Dublin Transportation Task Force. With these changes it is possible to continue to pursue most of the important tasks set for the Dublin Transport Authority.

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

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

Again, some have said that it is a pity to sacrifice the Authority for the sake of £500,000 a year. I acknowledge that the amount involved is not huge but the decision reflects the depth and extent of the financial problems. It is all the savings, including the small ones, which collectively will make the Exchequer savings worthwhile. The Scottish proverb expresses that in sharper language: many a mickle makes a muckle. If we were to follow the advice of our critics in all of the areas where cuts are being implemented, we would be failing to meet our overall responsibilities to the people of Ireland. I wish to emphasise that, while the Authority are being dissolved, most of their functions will be carried out by other agencies. There will not be a vacuum.

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

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

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

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

Some of the provisions in the 1986 Act, for example, those in relation to the control of roadworks, the immobilisation of vehicles parked illegally through wheel-clamps and the like, the control of vehicles by bollards and ramps and the control of access to and egress from construction sites, were new and the opportunity is being taken in the Bill, in section 9 to be precise, to provide for the application of the provisions to the country as a whole.

In relation to the co-ordination of roadworks, for instance, the Bill in fact is more comprehensive than the existing legislation. A definition for emergency roadworks is now included in addition to an enabling provision for a local authority to issue directions even in such emergency cases, in order to ensure speedy completion of works. There have been problems with gas, in the city of Dublin particularly. These provisions will form part of the road traffic legislative code and the Minister for the Environment will be generally responsible for their administration and for the making of relevant regulations. These provisions represent additional functions for the local authorities and should be valuable in improving traffic flows in many areas.

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

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

In relation to the continuation of the Authority's staff pensions schemes, — I use the plural deliberately because the wife and family are involved — the pension schemes for the chief executive of the Dublin Transport Authority have been approved by both the Minister for Tourism and Transport and the Minister for Finance, and they were laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on Wednesday 16 December 1987. The Attorney General's office confirmed that the pension schemes are in force immediately from the date of the Ministerial approval. The chief executives pension rights both in respect of his previous local authority service and his recent Dublin Transport Authority service are, therefore, already fully protected and will be further protected by section 4(3) of the present Bill. This provides specifically for the continuance in force of the pension arrangements following the repeal of the 1986 Act and the substitution of the Minister for the Authority in relation to the administration of the schemes after the Authority is dissolved. It is important for me to put that on the record of the House as there has been considerable misunderstanding about that among Members of the Oireachtas in both Houses.

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

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

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

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

I would like to explain that there are no busways at present in any part of the State. They have been envisaged for the old Harcourt Street railway line and also from Tallaght. Section 11 provides for the designation of roads or parts of them to be busways. Use of busways would be confined to specified vehicles such as passenger road service and street service vehicles as well as ambulances, fire brigade vehicles and the like and such other vehicles as the Minister for the Environment after consultation with the Minister for Tourism and Transport may designate. The intention is to provide priority treatment for the services involved so as to enable them to carry out their functions quickly and effectively in the common interest. To allow ordinary private cars or bicycles on the busways would completely negate their value, where buses, ambulances and the like would be back to competing with all other vehicles, as on our roads at present, for the limited space available. Busways are radically different from the buslanes with which we are familiar and which cyclists are allowed to use. The section does not make any alteration to the limits on the people or vehicles who are entitled to use buslanes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dissolution of the Authority is a disappointment to many but the situation would be considerably worse if the activities undertaken by the Authority were also to be terminated. That is not happening and careful attention has been given to preserving, in so far as is possible within existing resources, the continuation of the work in hand.

It is important that the position of the chief executive on the dissolution of the Authority be clarified today because there has been a number of misconceptions as to what he has been offered on the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority. As Members heard from the Minister for Finance when he was addressing the Seanad, the Government had a commitment to the need to achieve a voluntary reduction in the number of public service employees. The chief executive has been offered redeployment within the public sector. Initially the redeployment would involve a contract of employment with Bus Átha Cliath. It has been confirmed to the chief executive that acceptance of that assignment would not prejudice his redeployment at the end of the assignment to an appropriate permanent post in the public sector. It would also be open to him at the end of that assignment to avail of the public service early retirement terms should he so wish.

The chief executive has also been given an assurance that he will suffer no loss of pensionable service in respect of his period of contract with Bus Átha Cliath. I already made it clear that his pension rights with regard to the 19 or 20 years he spent working for Dublin County Council and the short time with the Dublin Transport Authority are recognisable for pension purposes. As an alternative to redeployment it is open to the chief executive to opt for voluntary redundancy at this stage in line with the public service package. I confirmed in writing to the chief executive yesterday the proposals put to him last week. The relevant extract from that letter is as follows:

That proposal offers you the prospect of immediate employment, coupled with written assurances that:

(a) acceptance of the assignment in question would not prejudice your redeployment at the end of the assignment to an appropriate permanent post in the public sector;

(b) it would be open to you at the end of the assignment to avail of the early retirement terms should you so wish; and

Nothing could be clearer than that. I am glad to have the opportunity to put it on the record of this House.

I conclude by renewing my expression of appreciation for the work of the chairman of the Dublin Transport Authority and of the members of the Authority and the staff who worked for them.

Molaim an Bille seo.

Mr. Bradford

My comments will be brief and rather general. On Wednesday we discussed the Transport Bill with the Minister's junior colleague. On that occasion we were very supportive but that is not quite the case today. In fairness, however, it must be said that the powers which had been vested in the Dublin Transport Authority will not disappear completely since the main functions will be carried out by other bodies. That is the most important point and for that reason I am not totally opposed to the Bill, although I have certain reservations.

It is, perhaps, appropriate that we are discussing this matter immediately after hearing the Minister for Finance speak about the economic state of the country. The basic reason for the dissolution of this Authority is the state of the economy and the need for cutbacks. We must recognise that the abolition of the Dublin Transport Authority is based on this principle. The decision certainly does not take into account the need to plan for the future transportation needs of the capital city. It must be seen as a short-term measure, and one which in the longer term will be seen to be retrograde because the amount of money to be saved is quite minimal. In the long run no major savings will accrue to the economy as a result of the dissolution of this body. The work will have to be carried out by some other body. If that work is not done, the economy and the capital city will suffer.

The Transportation Consultative Commission set up in the late seventies under the chairmanship of Professor McCormack reported on the passenger transport services in the Dublin area and recommended the setting up of the Dublin Transport Authority. This suggestion was welcomed by everybody, including the then Minister, Deputy Albert Reynolds. The Dublin Transport Authority were rightly seen as a body who could make a valuable contribution to solving the problem of Dublin's traffic congestion by the provision of a satisfactory urban passenger service. Their basic task was to draw together road, bus and rail investments and to take charge in a general fashion of public transport operations and management. It was hoped that this would rid the streets of Dublin of traffic chaos.

This overall approach would have resulted in better access to the city and made it more attractive to visit. It would also have helped to improve commercial life. For these reasons the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority was widely welcomed. I realise that the Dublin Transport Authority were not in control of the situation for long enough to achieve these objectives but at least a start had been made and good work was being done. Enormous benefit would have accrued to the capital city by their continued existence.

Anyone commenting on Dublin today will remark on the major developments on the outskirts of the city, the unplanned road network, the still unplanned road and rail network and the general level of chaos. Regular commuters in the city have probably become so accustomed to the traffic queues, the potholes and the road works that they do not bother to complain any longer. They have become immune to these chaotic conditions. Tourists and people like me who visit the city once a week or less frequently must be appalled by these conditions. We do not seem to have an integrated plan to enable the free flow of traffic and easier access to the city centre. Somebody must take overall charge if the necessary changes are to be brought about. The Minister has stated that the functions of the Dublin Transport Authority will be given to other groupings. I am sure they will all do their utmost but there must be a parent body and some sort of integrated plan.

On busy days like this the streets of Dublin resemble an obstacle course. Not only is this harmful to the image of Dublin but it is doing irreparable damage to the business life of the city. A speedy solution must be a priority. The Dublin Transport Authority would have helped tremendously in the long run and with their disappearance we are left with a problem. I realise, of course, that the search for solutions will not stop and that the Department of the Environment, the corporation, CIE and the Garda Síochána will all have their say in what needs to be done. I would hope they would coordinate all their views, plans and proposals. Otherwise we will be left with another network of plans and a resultant mess. What has happened to date has been the result of bad management. It is most unacceptable. We are left in that position and we must endeavour to solve it. I hope the bodies which will take over the role of the extinct Dublin Transport Authority, or those functions which will still be catered for, will bear this in mind when formulating their relevant proposals. Were the Dublin Transport Authority being abolished in, say, two or three years' time rather than today, we would be looking back on a certain amount of work done by them of which everybody would be aware. Unfortunately the Dublin Transport Authority has been in existence for a year only in which time they have not been able to take the requisite action. Nonetheless within that short space of time they have worked keenly and effectively, their results just about ready to come on stream. For instance there are their worthwhile plans for the tow-away service. Something must be done, on a regular basis to remove illegally and dangerously-parked cars. At present there appears to be a total disregard for all parking laws. Perhaps it is not as bad in Dublin city where there are traffic wardens. The Irish mentality for parking one's car when and where one wants seems to prevail and is causing many problems. What we are doing to try to stop it is not sufficient. More action has to be taken and in this respect the Dublin Transport Authority plans were worthwhile, and could have yielded much necessary finance to the Authority. This is one area where we can seriously question the economics of dissolving that body. There is a section in London city, a minor section only — approximately the size of the area between the two canals in Dublin — where there is a clamping service allowed by law which last year alone yielded a total revenue of £3 million from fines collected as a result of illegal parking. I know that is something the Dublin Transport Authority were considering. I would hope that whatever group is responsible for that area in the future will reconsider it. If there is money to be collected from the illegal parking of cars that must be collected. One needs only to walk down any street where parking meters are operative to see three out of every four meters showing that the allowable parking time has elapsed, when a warden has not appeared so that people are not paying the fines they should. I know there are times when we all welcome the fact that a warden may not have arrived on the scene and caught us. However, in the long run we all suffer as a result of this illegal parking. We all suffer financially, having to make up the deficit to the relevant authorities.

The message must be: let those who break the law pay. The present system is not sufficiently strict in that respect; there cannot be a warden on every corner of every street watching the metering system. That is why I contend that the clamping system I suggested will have to be considered.

There was mention of the traffic management schemes which will come into being as a result of the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority. I note from the 1988 Estimates that this scheme is estimated to cost £165,000. I presume these schemes will cost a couple of hundred thousand pounds annually, clearly demonstrating that the economies resulting from the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority are questionable. However I would not worry about who does the work as long as it is undertaken. It is my opinion that it would have been better to have had an overall, parent body in charge of or responsible for any planning schemes. If there are three or four groups all working in different directions, all pulling against each other inevitably nothing is done.

On Committee Stage I may pose a few questions to the Minister on some of the sections of the Bill. I would welcome his assurance that additional powers will be given to local authorities. This Bill comes at a time where almost every power they had is being taken from them. I note that the whole role of local authorities has been questioned today. I know that the additional powers they will be granted as a result of the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority and the transfer of some of their powers to local authorities will not be tremendous but at least will constitute a step in the right direction.

While I know this would be more proper to the Minister for the Environment, there is the ridiculous position obtaining at present in all local authorities whereby they cannot move a "go slow" sign, a speed limit sign or change a speed limit sign without the sanction of the Minister for the Environment. That is a typical example of what is so dreadfully wrong with local government today, that the people on the ground — who know the problems — do not have power to take immediate action. Perhaps the Minister would pass on my comments to his colleague, the Minister for the Environment.

I see my colleague Senator Joe Doyle waiting to speak. I am sure he will be able to give a better view of matters from the urban or Dublin Corporation viewpoint. At the end of the day they are the people who will be concerned most with the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. All of us who travel in and out of the city infrequently cannot but be struck by the bad traffic planning which has attained over many years leaving potholes, traffic jams and many other hazards for motorists. With these powers being given to somebody else it is hoped that action will be taken, rendering our streets more navigable and the city be more attractive to visit. It is to be hoped also that the commercial life of the city will be enhanced. If that happens nobody will question the wisdom of the Minister's decision.

I might revert to the questionable economy entailed in the decision to abolish the Dublin Transport Authority. The Minister rightly remarks that it is all the savings, including the small ones, which collectively will make the Exchequer savings worthwhile. I agree with him there. Nonetheless, before deciding to supplant any body or effect even a small saving in any area one needs to give the matter serious consideration. I presume such serious consideration was given to the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority. If the full facts were presented to ten objective people together with a list of the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so probably nine of those ten people would have requested or opted for the Dublin Transport Authority remaining in being. However if that one out of the ten has to be the Minister, I hope he has taken the right decision. In principle I will not oppose his decision because of our understanding that the work promised will be undertaken by somebody else. While I am not altogether happy with the proposals contained in this Bill I will not oppose it at this stage.

Mr. Cassidy

I shall be brief. The most important part of the provisions of this Bill is that the main function of the Dublin Transport Authority will be relocated. I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by the previous Senator. I have to take issue with him on others, because duplication in business cannot be tolerated or afforded.

The Minister for Finance gave us an excellent account of the Government's stewardship for the past nine months and the serious problems that confronted them. They must be commended for the way they have handled these problems in the past nine months. Everything the Minister said in the House this morning is taken into account in this Bill and the question of being able to afford anything before bringing in legislation. It is the reality of the finances in the country today that brings this Bill before us. I am particularly pleased that the task force is being brought back. It was a previous Minister, Deputy Albert Reynolds, who implemented the bus lanes. There were doubting Thomases at the time but it was as a direct result of the task force recommendation that this was implemented. I also welcome the further suggestion that there should be extra facilities for buses to speed up transport, including cycle lanes and so on.

The previous speaker also mentioned that it is difficult to travel through Dublin because of the amount of road works being undertaken, particularly in the past 12 months because of activities by Dublin Gas. The problems with gas are very serious and we saw a very serious accident on the first day of this year which resulted in loss of life. No Government, Minister or local authority can be blamed for the situation that exists today. I mention it because I know that 90 per cent of traffic problems are created by these small roadworks resulting from problems with gas.

As a person from the country who travels in the city three or four days every week I would say that it was a good idea to reverse the traffic on either side of the Liffey making it easier to get in from the west, and the Cathaoirleach and the Minister being also from the west will also appreciate this. There were genuine efforts to change the transport system and they have been quite successful. I remember taking half an hour to get from O'Connell Street to the station, but now one can travel freely on Friday evenings or on any other evening and get there in about ten or 12 minutes. While there are many problems in the city, many positive changes are being implemented. I want to compliment all the people who are involved.

There is another problem, the problem of people indiscriminately parking their cars. The roads which were originally built to take about 30 per cent of the present volume of traffic are now being used as car parks by many people. We have an efficient warden system in our city. Quite often they are too efficient for our liking. But private and public car parks are increasing all the time and when one gets a fine of £50, as has happened to me on one or two occasions, and several fines of £10, one changes one's attitude and puts one's car in a private or public car park. It is a matter of educating people. This is improving every day. The movement of traffic through the city has improved beyond expectation from what it was two or three years ago.

I am very proud of Dublin as our capital city. It has a lot of character. Having visited many European cities, I know Dublin is as good as any. We are fortunate to have a magnificant main street in O'Connell Street, the width of which lends it enormous potential as a tourist attraction. Any country in the world would be delighted to have its magnificent architecture. Being built on a river means there are many other pluses that could be looked into in the future. We have also the beautiful Garden of Remembrance at one end of O'Connell Street, many beautiful museums, Trinity College, City Hall and the Mansion House which are great tourist attractions. On the sporting scene we have Croke Park, Lansdowne Road, Dalymount Park and the RDS. As a city of one million people, Dublin has enormous potential and a great amount to offer. We should be looking at how best to promote Dublin and help the city. We have our disadvantages but we must look at our advantages.

We have all made submissions on this Bill in regard to various aspects but the biggest success, as far as I am concerned, is Aer Rianta with their shopping complex at Dublin Airport making a magnificent profit, and they should be highly commended. The Irish Press does not come into this House very often, but when it does it speaks very negatively about the upper House of the Oireachtas. The banner headline the day before yesterday that the duty free shops at Dublin Airport were ripping people off was a scandal. That newspaper owes Aer Rianta an apology. Not alone are they the cheapest in Ireland, but the cheapest in Europe.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should keep to the Bill.

Mr. Cassidy

While we are on transport and while the Minister is in the House I would like to say that the bus services and train services in our capital city could take a leaf out of Aer Rianta's book. They have magnificent geographical locations at each end of our city and they could give a magnificent service. Many of our stations are beautiful buildings and their location provides a great opportunity for them to grasp the nettle and give a service which is not there at the moment and make a lot of profit.

I welcome the extra powers given to the local authorities. The local authorities are all too frequently stripped of their powers. I look forward to the report of the Minister for the Environment which is due to be published next spring. I do not intend to delay the House any longer except to say that because of finance this Bill is before us today. Because of the problems with which the Minister was confronted he is taking on the job and the main functions which will be relocated among the various sectors.

Mr. Doyle

The Minister at the end of his contribution said that people would be disappointed with the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority. They will be very disappointed. I had the privilege of speaking in another House at the birth of this Bill. I have the sad duty today to speak on the obsequies of the Bill. It strikes me as extraordinary that we bring in an Act one year and dissolve it the next year, saying it is all in an effort to save the taxpayers money.

I would like to refer back to the history of the Dublin Transport Authority. It was set up, as Senator Bradford said, after a report commissioned by the then Minister for Tourism into the passenger transport services in the Dublin area. That Commission produced a very fine report in 1980. They set out the composition of a Dublin Transport Authority which was needed to deal with the traffic problems in the city. If we are talking about saving the taxpayers money we must also ask what this report cost, what it cost the Houses of the Oireachtas and the officials concerned in terms of the time spent debating the Dublin Transport Authority Bill in 1986. It is only then we can calculate the real saving. The Minister said that the savings eventually would be £500,000.

While I accept the Government's role in cutting back on public expenditure, I am amazed that they have dissolved so many small bodies such as the Dublin Transport Authority. An Foras Forbartha and the National Social Service Board. These were organisations which gave a very effective service to the community, the services which were cost effective, to use a word which was used frequently when the present Government were in Opposition.

If the Dublin Transport Authority was allowed to continue it would bring tremendous savings in the transport area to the city of Dublin. For that reason I regret that it will be dissolved. I am a member of Dublin Corporation and if I was asked to categorise the three areas from which I received most representation since I was elected, I would say, housing, traffic and planning. Housing is no longer a problem, we can meet the needs of our citizens, though we may not be able to meet the needs of the homeless yet.

An Cathaoirleach

Do not mention that again.

Mr. Doyle

Just a passing reference. I like to see you smile.

An Cathaoirleach

This is the first time I have smiled today.

Mr. Doyle

The major problem now facing public representatives in Dublin — and I am sure the Minister will be interested to hear this — is that we have extra traffic. People who have their business in the city, people who live in the city, and people who come into the city all have to deal with this problem. The Dublin Transport Authority would have helped in some way and was dealing in a positive way with this problem.

After the report became available the Minister set up a task force. The Bill was produced, debated and passed by both Houses. Today were are in the position of dissolving the Authority set up by that Act. I will refer again to the task force. Sometimes people charge the Government with U-turns. That is a fairly good U-turn in the non political sense, that we are back to where we started. It is a negative step and one in the wrong direction.

I should like to thank the Minister for the tribute he paid to the chairman, the members and the chief executive of the Dublin Transport Authority. There are many issues affecting Dublin which are unique to other areas. A Senator mentioned a problem relating to roadworks. We have a number of utility companies who have a statutory right to open the roads, for example, the Gas Company the ESB, and Bord Telecom. They carry out these works which at times cause problems. The Dublin Transport Authority were coming to a position where they would help to co-ordinate the work of these companies.

Senator Cassidy spoke about the elimination of duplication. I think what we are doing will cause further duplication. If the Dublin Transport Authority was allowed to continue it would have eliminated duplication. In a local authority like Dublin, Dublin Corporation are the roads authority, the Garda are the traffic authority, and it is very difficult to get measures through, but the Dublin Transport Authority were helping in that area.

I am glad to see that some of the positive aspects of the Dublin Transport Authority will now be spread throughout the rest of the country. One recent change in the by-law, which is of great benefit to the citizens of Dublin, is in relation to residential parking. The first residential parking scheme in Dublin — and probably in the country — will come into effect early next month at Dart-mouth Square. There is a problem for people living in residential areas on the verge of the inner city in that they are unable to park cars outside or near their own houses. When they return from taking their children to school in the morning they find that their space has been taken by some person commuting to the city. We now have a system where people living in an area, by paying a fee per year, will be able to park within a certain distance from their house and be protected in doing so.

I will tell the House a very interesting story because this problem affects a number of areas on the outskirts of the city. In the Portobello area we have many lovely small houses. A lady came to me one day and said that a gentleman had parked his car outside her house, opened the boot and taken out a suitcase. She said that the car remained there for two weeks until the man returned with a suitcase and a lovely sun tan. Obviously, he did not want to pay the fee for parking space at Dublin Airport. Instead he decided to park his car outside her house. That is the situation we have now. It is one of the major achievements of the near defunct Dublin Transport Authority that we will have these designated areas for the Minister's support in encouraging as many designated areas as possible around the city.

The Minister in his speech dealt with the question of busways and the designation of the old Tallaght line as a busway. I have been hearing that for a long time and I hope it will soon come into effect. We have been very unfair to the people who live in west Dublin — in the Tallaght area — in the kind of accommodation and provisions that we provide for them. This busway from Tallaght is a necessity.

I regret that the Dublin Transport Authority are being dissolved. As I said earlier, they played a most important role at very little cost to the Exchequer, and in the long term there would have been savings for the Exchequer. I do not understand why the Government have decided to abolish a number of these small boards which were effective.

Mr. Norris

I regret the abolition of the Dublin Transport Authority. A good deal of what the Minister has said in his speech which I have just read indicates there is a need for a centralised transport authority in Dublin. This has been the experience of other capital cities and nobody who is a frequent visitor to the city or indeed, who like myself lives in the centre of the city, can doubt that the transport network is a very serious problem. It is very appropriate that the Minister is Minister both for Tourism and Transport because the traffic situation in Dublin has a serious implication for tourism. In particular Bus Éireann, is seriously negligent in the provision of its services. I am not speaking this time about inadequacies of timetabling but about the appalling record with regard to the servicing of the motor vehicles.

I cannot think of many other European capitals that would permit with impunity the levels of pollution for which CIE are responsible in central Dublin. I note this is the kind of area on which the Dublin Transport Authority might have had some kind of persuasive impact. I look to the Minister to provide some reassurance to the House that this very irksome environmental problem will be tackled by the task force to which it is now the Government's intention apparently to return. It is a serious problem. It is a health problem particularly in view of the kind of motor fuels that are employed which have a higher noxious content than that permitted in many other jurisdictions. It is regrettable because the amounts of money involved in continuing with the Dublin Transport Authority are comparatively small. The Government recognise in the person of the Minister that the measure is necessary. He said that as a consequence of a Government decision no funds would be available for the Authority from next year and he then itemised the amount of grants involved £300,000 and £365,000. This is obviously an identified need so that although the amount of moneys involved is small, I am left wondering how the obvious shortfall in services that were earlier perceived as necessary will be met by returning to the status quo ante which is what this Bill will clearly mean for the city of Dublin.

I am concerned because I thought the Dublin Transport Authority would lead to greater efficiency and a more rational approach to the very vexed problem of transport in our cities. The core of the city is that of an 18th century city whose thoroughfares were not designed for heavy road vehicles or even for the kind of public transport that we have so there is a clear and acknowledged problem of which, of course, the Minister would be aware and Senator Doyle will also be aware as a member of Dublin Corporation. The great difficulties the officials of the corporation already experience in traffic management, and the conflict with which they have been brought into with citizens of Dublin who wish to resist attempts to impose a particular road engineering solution of the matter of Dublin represent a very clear problem.

The Dublin Transport Authority was, as I said, part of an overall response, and I regret the Government appear to be dismantling this overall response because we have had also greatly to my regret the dissolution of the Metropolitan Streets Commission. It did seem that earlier on there was a clear, consistent and coherent attempt to address the problems of our capital city. We have the Custom House Docks development site on which I congratulate the Government. I wish them well on it, but it is only part of a jigsaw puzzle. You have the corporation's advancing attempts to pedestrianise sections of the city particularly the Grafton Street, Temple Bar, Mary Street areas. You then had set in place a scheme to help join them with the designated areas, the areas under the influence of the Metropolitan Streets Commission. That has been removed.

We now have another element of the strategy removed and that is the Dublin Transport Authority. I regret this, as I regretted the dissolution of the Metropolitan Streets Commission. I feel also some concern at the Minister's statement that what is involved here is not a simple revocation of the Dublin Transport Authority Act. He says there is a need to provide continuity for most of the functions contained in that Act and these are being transferred to the Garda Síochána and local authorities. That is a matter of concern to me, particularly in the light of recent tragic developments which, luckily, had eventually a positive outcome such as in the O'Grady kidnapping where we were repeatedly informed that the Garda were being asked to undertake functions that were not strictly those of policing and were being expected to take on additional functions of various kinds. The already overstretched police force, the Garda were pushed almost to breaking point and it worries me that envisaged in the Bill is a further transfer of responsibility to an already overburdened section of our public service. I hope this will not lead to any real problems for the Garda but I suspect that it may very well do so.

There is a clear need for some direct responsibility for road maintenance and roadworks. I speak with some feeling because I am a resident of the inner city and I know the way in which it is pockmarked so that the flow of traffic is considerably impeded by repeated and unnecessary roadworks. I may be incorrect in this but I understood that the Dublin Transport Authority would have at least some function in regard to the regularisation of these roadworks. I am particularly heated on the matter because I went down one of those unscheduled roadworks and rearranged my nose about six months ago. This is an experience that is occurring with increasing frequency for the unwary citizens of Dublin.

With regard to the question of residential parking, this is an experiment that is being tried in other cities in Europe and also in some of our provincial cities. It is something I think we would all welcome and I hope that the Minister can be persuaded not to close off this area of experimentation merely because of the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority. Again, I can speak from personal experience. I noted that my good friend and colleague, Senator Doyle, referred to areas on the fringes of the inner ciy. Well, I can speak with even greater fervour, coming from the heart of the inner city where it is virtually impossible to park within a radius of half a mile of your house if you shift your car during the day.

I feel that not sufficient notice is taken of the fact that there are also residential communities inside the inner city who also have transport needs and may well need, for professional or family reasons, to have a car. Areas like that in which I live have already done their duty towards the public by having space made available in the immediate vicinity for a considerable number of multi-storey car parks. It seems an abuse of our residential status that, in addition to having buildings demolished and replaced by huge multi-storey car parks, we also have surplus car parks and on top of that again we cannot even park outside our own front doors. I would like the Minister to attempt some solution to this admittedly very difficult problem.

Like Senator Doyle, I certainly welcome the proposed development of a Tallaght busway. It seems that the citizens of Tallaght, which is now a very large town — I understand about the size of Cork——

Mr. Doyle

70,000 population.

Mr. Norris

It is a very large conurbation and yet they still lack some of the essential services and the provision of a busway is a good first step. However, I would like the Minister to be a bit more adventurous. May I suggest to him that it would perhaps be worth looking at the possibility of developing a proper underground railway network for Dublin, even on a rudamentary basis? I am sorry to see him shaking his head, but I say this because it is noticeable that a small and comparatively insignificant city in the North of England, Newcastle, can embark upon the development——

Mr. Wilson

The Geordies would not regard it as insignificant.

Mr. Norris

I suppose I will have to withdraw that, in deference to the Geordie sensibility, but in the overall context of the neighbouring island it is not a major industrial centre. It is not even a very large city. I congratulate them on their vision in putting in place a new underground railway network. Admittedly, it is fairly rudimentary, but it would seem that it still should be possible to investigate this for the city of Dublin for a number of reasons.

If an underground network were set in place, even a rudimentary one, it would immensely relieve the traffic congestion. People would be encouraged not to bring their cars right into the centre of the city. In terms of economic planning, it would also be a very good idea because my belief is that very considerable capital grants could be extracted from the European Community in order to assist in this development. I may be incorrect, but I believe that up to 50 per cent capital funding would be available for such a project. It is a very expensive project.

I am not one of those who deprecates what is known as the begging bowl syndrome. That is a kind of reverse inferiority complex. We signed the Single European Act, we were good Europeans. Part of the whole philosophy which guided us towards signing that instrument was that we were told yet again that central funds would be allocated outwards to the less advantaged areas. I feel no shame in putting out a receptacle — I will not call it a begging bowl — and demanding our just allocation of funds for a city which is unique in the European Community in being the only capital city which is itself a deprived area.

The impact of undertaking this major infrastructural work would, first of all, relieve the traffic situation and return the city to something like its original beauty. It would certainly cleanse the atmosphere, but probably even more importantly, it would lead to a significant increase in employment and investment in ancillary industries. It seems tragic that we are once again going to be exporting our young workforce to build the new Channel tunnel, as they have already been involved in the building of various extensions to the London metropolitan underground railway system. Why, if there is any possibility at all, can we not use an imaginative transport policy for the city of Dublin to bring some of these people home, to employ some of our young people? Look at the impact on the carriage building operation that we still have in some form at Inchicore in Dublin. There would be the possibility of major contracts for this section of Irish industry. So, although it may appear to be a pipedream, I would urge the Minister, for what I consider to be sound economic reasons, not to close his mind totally to the ultimate possibility of the development of some form of underground rail link that can be brought into being in the future.

I regret to be negative on an item of Government legislation. Some aspects of this proposed legislation certainly will have my support, but I must deplore the dissolution of the Dublin Transport Authority. I saw it, not as an item merely in and of itself but as part of a coherent strategy for traffic management in the city of Dublin, along with other elements which the Government have similarly and for equally mysterious reasons dissolved — although ironically, as the Minister has so graciously done, they have thanked for their professional services the very people whose role they were abolishing. I may say that, in my experience and involvement in public life, I would prefer to be attacked and get what I want done rather than have the agency dissolved and be thanked simultaneously. So, it is with regret that I give a very mixed welcome to the Minister's legislation.

Mr. Harte

I would like to say a few words on this topic. While the Bill is not 100 per cent right, that does not necessarily mean that it is 100 per cent wrong. From the point of view of the Labour Party and their adherence to their policies with regard to the question of a comprehensive transport policy, there are things in the Bill that are objectionable and, therefore, it is necessary for us to vote against it.

One of the problems we see is that the country itself has never had anything resembling a cohesive transport policy which brought railways, docks, roads, farms, etc. under the one umbrella. Because we have never had that type of transport policy, it has never been possible to see whether a policy had any sort of reasonable credit balance in the sense of looking after many things that should, in fact, come under transport. The Dublin Transport Authority was one of the good things that came out of an effort at having some semblance of a transport policy and it was a good deal. At the time it was introduced in 1974 by Dublin Corporation, I believe the situation was that it had all-party support and over the past ten years it has proved itself very substantially, indeed.

Parts of Meath can now be described as greater Dublin, as can for example Celbridge in County Kildare and also north Wicklow. We must consider the extent of the roads, highways and byways which now make up Dublin, as distinct from when the Authority was set up. In effect, by splitting the Authority into three different areas instead of having one body working in unity on the whole question of the transport situation and the problems that are relevant to it, the work is very likely to be duplicated. On the one hand, there is the argument that you must rationalise in certain sections, such as the Garda Síochána and others, and, at the same time, you start to unload work on them. That does not add up. If something has to be rationalised it should be rationalised on the basis of the way it exists. We should not take bits and pieces from some bodies and merge them into one and should not add to inefficiencies which already exist to confuse things further. Therefore, we have to treat the economic arguments with a certain amount of scepticism.

There are many economic advisers who promote fiscal rectitude to the point where savings become more important than safety. We have seen evidence of this on many occasions in the past. The Dublin Transport Authority worked very well for ten years, yet suddenly somebody has decided that they had to go. As a result all the good work and all of the initiatives undertaken will be undone. The Minister does not deny that their work was constructive and I cannot see the reasoning behind this decision particularly considering the other point I made in regard to the merging of bodies which may not be very efficiently run.

We do not think this is a good idea. The public are entitled to ask what are the economic advisers trying to achieve. Are they trying to achieve savings at the expense of safety? Will the splitting up of this Authority and the scattering of responsibility not only create greater hazards but also result in a duplication of work? The trade union movement and other bodies are regularly lectured on the need to rationalise and on the need for them to become more efficient; yet, we are not embarking on a course of action which will lead us in that direction.

There is no point in flogging this point because it would be superfluous to repeat what has already been said by the Labour Party Members in the Dáil. I cannot accept the economic argument which has been put forward which is that savings are going to be effected or, as the Minister said in his speech, that this will be a more efficient method of dealing with transport. Therefore, I oppose the Bill.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

Is mian liom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht agus a nocht a gcuid smaointe i leith an Bhille seo.

Senator Bradford, who spoke first in the debate, accepted the basic philosophy which lies behind the introduction of this Bill to abolish the Dublin Transport Authority. He accepted that there is a need to cut back public expenditure. He indicated that although the amount involved in this case is minimal he believed the capital city would suffer unduly as a result. I know the history of the evolution of the idea to set up the Dublin Transport Authority very well and the only point I can make is the one I made at the outset which is that the Government in examining minutely all the areas of public expenditure had to make up their minds as to where expenditure could be cut. This is one area where a Government decision was taken and, while I admit that the sum involved is not huge, I will quote again the old Scottish proverb, "Many a mickle makes a muckle". If you avoid the small sums, there will not be a great saving in the end.

Professor McCormack has carried out a lot of work into this. The Transport Consultative Commission which was set up by the then Minister, Deputy Faulkner, reported to Deputy Reynolds. When I was Minister in 1982 I prepared the Dublin Transport Authority Bill which, incidentally, was a very strong Bill. That Bill was well debated in the Dáil and my main complaint was that it was not strong enough. I put together a much stronger Dublin Transport Authority Bill and expressed my disappointment that there was not enough muscle in the actual Bill. To use the cliche, circumstances alter cases and financial circumstances alter cases more deeply than any other circumstances. That is why I am before this House today.

Senator Bradford referred to the problem of dug up streets. This is a problem in all towns but particularly in our capital city. The unfortunate gas debacle has added to our worries and considerable frustration has been felt about the activities of Telecom Éireann, the Gas Company and the ESB who at different times, quite close to each other, have ripped up streets and roads. Sometimes, if they have not already been threatened by citizens, they have damaged trees that have been nurtured to beautify the city. The Bill gives local authorities throughout the country more powers than they have had in a wider range of areas, the Dublin Transport Authority Bill only deals with the city of Dublin. I appeal to all who are involved in local government, to members of local authorities in particular, to exercise the undoubted strength they have in this regard. There have been complaints in the past that local authorities have not exercised the powers they have and that they have not kept a fire lighting under the officials, engineers and all other people responsible. It is not easy if one is involved only on a part time basis in local government to keep an eye on everything but there is a very strong obligation on members of local authorities to do this. In my own area of tourism, the powers in regard to water pollution should be exercised. In an area people can find it hard to be totally objective in their judgments or to resist the pressures that may be brought to bear on them.

Mr. Doyle

They have no money to carry out these functions.

Mr. Wilson

Very often it is not a question of money but rather a matter of reporting it to the authorities who should take cognisance of it. We must not forget that within our local authorities there is a battalion of highly qualified technical staff. Some people down the country complain that there are more technical people than are needed in individual cases. I should like to make the point that as a result of the Bill local authorities will have extended powers and I appeal to the members of those bodies to exercise them and to keep an eye on what is going on.

Clamping was mentioned by some Senators. The Bill indicates where the powers of clamping of vehicles should be exercised. There was a little weakness in the original Bill which could cause traffic chaos. We have removed that. I should like to call the attention of the House to section 9, a very substantive provision. Senator Bradford made a very good point — it was by nature an apophthegm — in that he said he would not worry who would do the job provided the job was done. That is the theme of my speech. The Senator indicated, like other Members, that giving local authorities more power was an exercise in the strengthening of democracy.

Senator Cassidy spoke at some length in commendation of the idea of bus lanes. He referred to the original launch of them in dramatic fashion. I agree with him that the gas problem which has defaced the city of Dublin to a certain extent is an exceptional case. The point has been made by a number of people in another place that many local authorities, particularly those responsible for ancient cities, do not know where the conduits or the various pipes are. They do not have proper mapping. In modern times that deficiency is being made up and local authorities will gradually, by exploration, have to find out all about what is under their cities. Senator Cassidy also referred to the improvement in traffic movement, east/west, along the quays. I agree with him that we have a beautiful capital city, that it has wonderful amenities and that we should look after them.

Senator Doyle said he was a Member of the Dáil at the birth of the Dublin Transport Authority and it saddened him to be present at the obsequies of that authority. At least I am leaving him some offspring which he can make use of on his local authority to try to remedy some of the deficiencies.

Mr. Ferris

Will the life expectancy be any greater?

Mr. Wilson

There has been very slight infant mortality in any legislation I have been involved in. Senator Doyle maintained that the Authority would have been cost effective if it had been left alone. The figures in the Book of Estimates, and in my Second Stage speech, indicate that the amount of money was small but there is no way that the Dublin Transport Authority could carry out their duties within that budget not merely when it was fully staffed with 20 but as time went on because they would have to buy in the services of consultants. All Members will be aware that those services do not come cheap any more. The Senator went on to say that as a member of a local authority he received representations in regard to three matters but that now traffic was a paramount one. I am glad to say that as a conscientious member of the corporation he now has some extra powers coming from this Bill — adventitiously, in a way — and I am sure he will utilise them.

In regard to road works I should like to say that by comparison with the position which existed prior to the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority the statutory powers available for reducing traffic congestion in the Dublin area will now be greater. This arises from the fact that not only are functions previously exercised by the Garda Commissioner, exempli gratia functions relating to control of traffic, pedestrians, parking, traffic signals and so on, being transferred back to him from the Dublin Transport Authority but that some additional enabling functions vested in the Authority are being transferred to the local authorities. Those additional functions relate to the regulation of access to and egress from construction sites — this will become increasingly important, I hope, as we have a great upsurge in development in Dublin city taking the Custom House Dock scene and other areas into account — construction of bollards and ramps, use of wheel clamps and control of road works.

The power to issue directions to control and co-ordinate road works is being transferred to local authorities. Some powers in the Bill can be applied to any part of the country. Hitherto the Dublin Transport Authority only covered the Dublin area. This can be done by regulations and are not limited to the Dublin area as were the provisions of the 1986 Act. The power to issue directions has been strengthened by specifying a number of important additional matters which can be covered by a direction, including standards for the reinstatement of roads. Some times I wonder seeing that we have such highly technical qualified engineers and so on in our local authorities, why some of the reinstatement jobs are so badly done. The best way to find out is to cycle around some of the streets of Dublin. If one is driving around in a car with good suspension one would not feel it half as effectively as one would if using an ordinary push bicycle. That is the best way to test the skills of our civil engineers.

There can be requirements as to the provision of securage, to ensuring that roads are properly reinstated and also in relation to traffic control. Flexibility is also being given to issue general directions or directions relating to specific walks. The exemptions relating to emergency road works are being tightened. In fact, the excuse of road works being emergency works will no longer be valid for prolonging the work. The powers to make regulations are being widened. Specific statutory obligations are being placed on local authorities in relation to carrying out their own works. That will give the House some idea of the additional powers available to local authorities in the Bill.

The Senator also mentioned the residential parking system. This was mentioned by Senator Norris. I agree with both Members that it is sad that people can be excluded from getting near their own homes. The position is even more serious if a professional person, such as a doctor, needs to get to his or her car quickly.

Senator Norris said there was a need for central authority and he did not agree with the abolition of the Dublin Transport Authority. He instanced tourism as an area that would suffer as a result of its abolition. The Senator was critical of the servicing of vehicles by CIE. The company have a system of servicing their vehicles and there is an obligation on them to do so. The Senator also dealt with the question of pollution. He said we allowed a higher noxious content in our vehicle fuel than other countries. I should like to tell the House that the European Council of Ministers for Transport, which takes in more countries than the EC, are working hard on the issue of lead content in petrol. The Minister for Transport of the Federal Republic of Germany is conducting a missionary campaign in that regard. We have lower lead petrol for sale at a few outlets in Ireland and the objective is to extend that number. I have no doubt that they will come when an EC directive will force us to have lead free petrol available exclusively on our market.

Senator Norris stressed that Dublin City — he boasted proudly that he lives in Dublin's inner city — was an 18th century city and that this caused problems in that as an 18th century city it has to deal with 20th century traffic problems. He would have greater problems were it not that the planners of the 18th century — I refer in particular to the account of the architectural development of Dublin in Maurice Craig's history of the architecture of Dublin — planned those quays as methods of ingress and egress to and from the city. Senator Cassidy referred to them and how the reorganisation of traffic on them has made movement east-west and west-east so much easier. He regretted the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission's demise as well, but that does not come under my brief.

He thought we were conferring back powers to the Garda and that they were over-stretched already. The Dublin Transport Authority are only a very short time in existence, and sections of the Garda involved in this area had developed training and expertise in it over the years and, no doubt, we will be able to call on those again.

The Senator made an appeal, which has been made on ideological and other grounds several times already, for the provision of an underground system in Dublin. I was going to say: "Come the millennium and this we might be able to do," but that is "millennium" in a different sense. The estimates at the moment for the type of system advocated is £460 million. Can you imagine me walking up to Deputy MacSharry, Minister for Finance, and saying: "Ray, do you think you would be able to give me £460 million until I get this underground system and the other rail links to Tallaght, Clondalkin and so on going?" We simply cannot do it. Financially we cannot do it. For that reason I made a decision that CIE were to concentrate their traffic development plans on the busways and diesel operated rail links.

The Senator said, I thought rather innocently, that there might be substantial funds from Europe. At the end of the 8 December meeting when we agreed the air package at the Council of Ministers in Brussels we started in to deal with, among other things, international road haulage and an infrastructure fund for the making of roads. It is an ad hoc fund because a real fund has never been established. We spent several hours that evening debating it. On 16 December another meeting of the Council of Ministers meant £2 million to us, not £190 million, not 50 per cent; it meant £2 million to us. We came away with nothing. No decision was taken. It was blocked by other states including our neighbours to the east. The Senator made a plea for an ultimate possibility of having an underground system. There is always an ultimate possibility. It is a philosophic term, but that is very far down the line.

Senator Harte referred to the serious problem of conurbation. He said that parts of County Meath can now be regarded as part of greater Dublin. I could not agree more. Blanchardstown causes me a great deal of trouble when I am trying to get away to — I was going to say to more civilised areas — my constituency at weekends. There is a dreadful bottleneck there. I accept there are serious problems there and in other surburban areas. Senator Harte would not accept the economic argument and I would claim no more validity for it than a Scotsman does for the proverb quoted twice already, "Many a mickle makes a muckle". If you add them all together we are saving in the public interest and cutting down on public expenditure in the light of what the Minister for Finance has been talking about. He has to tackle between £25 billion and £26 billion of a national debt. At 10 per cent interest that is £2.5 billion or £2.6 billion per annum we have to pay. That is the area we are attacking mainly I thank the Senators for their contributions to the debate.

Is mian liom aon rud eile a chlos go bhfuil le rá ag na Seanadóirí sa chuid eile den diospóireacht. Go raibh maith agat.

Question put.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 18 Dec 1987