Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I came initially to this debate simply to sit in and take the ministerial place but it is a critical debate. I will take up the last point made by Deputy Mitchell because she made a very interesting and rich contribution. I do not say this in a patronising sense because I listened to her contribution with great interest.

As the Deputy noted, we are always divided in two directions in this House, with one direction the creation of agencies that can work and the other ensuring that we do not have agencies created outside the remit of democratic accountability. I agree with the general thesis that there have been far too many people on all sides of the House — none of us is blame-free — who have called over the years for the establishment of quangos to do this and that. I would personally be quite willing to support a fairly radical hunt. That does not come from today or yesterday as I have had the view for many years. Agencies, when established, should have a specific life span subject to review and culling as appropriate.

The Deputy would accept that the concept of a transport authority where we could have parliamentary questions on when the Luas broke down or the 84 bus did not run, etc., would go that little bit too far. Democratic accountability is very important, which I accept absolutely, particularly in terms of the overriding necessity to keep control on public expenditure and general performance. If the Deputy and her party were to give further consideration to the final point she made in a very fine contribution, she would see there is a certain impracticality there.

It is interesting to consider the debate over the years and at the very early stages of the State, particularly the first Cumann na nGaedheal Government, when there were some very fine debates on establishing public authorities which have business acumen, drive and efficiency and which are not fettered by excessive degrees of parochialism, which inevitably becomes part and parcel of politics. On the other hand, the authorities are kept in general control. The commercial State-sponsored bodies were the result of a long debate aimed at achieving such a result.

The Deputy may agree that one of the problems has been that boards have not exercised sufficient control over the years. I was particularly attracted to her absolutely correct comments on turf wars and the failure of people in some public service agencies to see their objective as just that — public service. We must re-examine this issue. I do not agree with the Deputy that the Minister is taking a wrong step but there is a core of an important point here, which is how we establish public service agencies and ensure public service obligation and delivery is to the fore in those agencies, rather than careers or personal ambitions of staff.

The requirement for a Dublin transport authority has been discussed in this House for many years. It is clear the time has long since come for us to have an operational agency. A very small team under Professor O'Mahony in Trinity College produced a very good report in March 2006 and the Government approved the drafting of legislation shortly afterwards. Other events intervened.

In accordance with the commitment in Towards 2016, the report of the team was published in November 2006 and there was then a period of public consultation during which submissions could be made. The proposals put before the House by the Minister are informed not just by a very rigorous academic study as to what is the appropriate way forward.

The study conclusions generally would be in accordance with Deputy Mitchell's own conclusions in this particular area, as well as those of many of us on all sides. It was also improved by the process of public consultation and the vigour that the Minister has brought to this issue. As we know, the Minister lives in one of the constituencies around the commuter belt, which extends from Cavan to the Wexford border. It is a substantial area.

The mandate, remit and functional area of the new authority will cover not just Dublin city and council, but Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal, south Dublin and the surrounding counties of Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. It is very important we approach the issue of transportation and physical planning in that substantial metropolis.

I also take the view that giving the DTA overall responsibility for all surface transport in the area is a good move. As the Minister put it when he introduced the Bill, the objective is to ensure the people living and working in the greater Dublin area will in future have a high-quality integrated transport system that meets their needs in a sustainable way. That is an issue in which we have a unity of purpose in this House.

A significant amount of every commuter's day is now spent in increasing frustration. The issue is not just about infrastructure. I can never quite grasp the reason there is a pathological incapacity to drive in Irish people. Unfortunately, I have no choice about driving because of ministerial duties but on the journey most days, the standard of driving I witness on the roads is absolutely unbelievable. It is not just a question of physical capacity on the roads, but a physical inability to make decisions which makes a contribution.

It is not always learner drivers at fault — very frequently it is not them. A point was made by a previous speaker that some better public information on how to drive on a road would not go astray.

To return to the main purpose of the Bill, I very much welcome the idea that we will, for the first time, bring this area into better focus. It is an astonishing reality that over 7,000 sq. km are contained in the area covered by the Bill. Almost 40% of the State's population, or 1.7 million people, are living in that area, with an extraordinary and phenomenal figure for vehicle registrations there. There are close to 850,000 vehicles which, along with their hapless drivers, must travel tens of millions of miles every week. The total direct and indirect cost to the community, environment and industry is very significant.

This Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation, in terms of quality of life, to come before this Dáil. As as we become economically more progressive — we have become wealthier in many ways and we have seen an explosion of car ownership — if people do not have efficient, effective, clean and properly operational public transport services, they will inevitably use the conveniences of their own vehicle.

The Bill gives the new DTA a very wide remit, focusing on delivery and integration of services. The launch of Transport 21 in November 2005 was an important first step, but it was not the ultimate step. Transport 21 provided a substantial transport infrastructure budget — €34 billion — for the first time. It was critically important that such moneys were earmarked for the development of public transport. The lack of available resources in the past meant that all transport investment was made on a stop-go basis. One cannot develop rail transport and flexible bus systems in such a manner. Commitment like that provided under Transport 21 is necessary if light rail systems, such as tramways, are to be developed. I do not blame any earlier Government when I say that money was not available in the past. We simply did not have the resources that were needed. The allocation of a major multi-annual ring-fenced transport investment budget was a critical step, but it is not the only step that needs to be taken. It ended years of stop-go investment that made it impossible to develop the kind of infrastructure we needed.

The next important step is being taken in this legislation. One might argue that the Bill is timely or overdue, depending on one's viewpoint. The Bill gives us considerable reason to be optimistic about the future. The Minister for Transport has outlined the policy priorities that inform the legislation. We can all agree with the priorities in question. The first objective of the Bill is to ensure that Transport 21 is implemented in a timely and cost-effective manner. We need to ensure that €34 billion of taxpayers' money is spent in a way that delivers value for money for each euro. I am glad the Bill will produce measurable and time-related targets. That is critical. Any authority that is put in place will need to have a strict remit. We will have to make clear what is expected of it. Its targets will have to be set out in objective time-related terms. Measures will have to be taken if targets are not reached. Members on all sides of the House recognise such realities.

I would like to make a point that is relevant to this House and to politics in general. It relates to the point I made to Deputy Mitchell at the outset. I was not trying to score points. If we are to have the type of public transport arrangements we need, we will need to stand back a little from more parochial issues. We will have to set specific timeframes and targets for the authority. We need to be prepared to judge its work in the totality rather than on a day-to-day basis. I take issue with Deputy Mitchell in this respect. If the Minister were directly answerable, some of the business focus that is needed might be lost. It is possible to have the business focus that is needed while providing for answerability. Public service agencies should be more willing to provide personnel to attend Oireachtas committee meetings from time to time. As the Minister said, the idea of optimising the benefits which arise from the almost twofold increase in transport investment is to the fore.

The Bill aims to bring physical and transport planning together. We all accept that some appalling physical planning decisions were made in the past. We need a breakthrough in this area and the Bill provides us with that. It is vital that public authorities play as a team. Deputy Mitchell was right to say that public authorities do not play as a team. We have encountered sub-optimisation as a result of ridiculous turf wars. There has been a lack of co-operation between public service agencies. Deputies on the other side of the House will be aware of the turf wars between councils when it comes to providing services to areas which are contiguous to each other. Louth, Meath and Fingal county councils, for example, have encountered problems when trying to provide water and sanitary services across borders. Some public authorities act as if they own certain services. They do not own them — they operate them on behalf of the citizens we represent in this House.

The Bill represents an important move forward in this regard. It will help to overcome some of the sub-optimisation problems I have mentioned. The question of whether the problems associated with sub-optimisation and turf wars can be solved will depend on the officials who are put in place. That point was well made by Deputy Mitchell. If those who are put in charge of these matters have entrenched attitudes, it will be hard for them to make the changes which are needed. It is not just a question of rebadging — it will also be a question of refocusing.

The Dublin transport authority will have overall responsibility for strategic transport planning. It will have to undertake such work in close co-operation with the local authorities. The Minister has made the point that such co-operation will be complemented by the enhancement of the power of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to intervene. When I held that position, I was less than happy with the level of co-operation between public authorities. I was not pleased by the manner in which planning was handled within local authorities from time to time. I had to tell one council, which will remain nameless, that I intended to——

See this speech in context