Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I congratulate the Government on finally bringing forward this Bill. I was a Member of this House when my former, sadly deceased, colleague, Jim Mitchell, brought forward legislation in 1986 to set up a Dublin transport authority to resolve the problem of the fragmentation of transport services in Dublin. Unfortunately, that legislation was scrapped by Fianna Fáil in 1987. The Fianna Fáil-led Government is now bringing forward legislation that could have been enacted more than 20 years ago.

In the context of transport policy, this could best be described as a Bill for slow learners given the length of time it has taken to acknowledge the requirements in this area. The tragedy of the scrapping of the legislation in 1987 is that many of the problems with the transport system in Dublin might never have occurred if there had been one overarching body in charge of transport and road policy, which could have ensured a coherent and co-ordinated development of public transport systems and an integration of the services provided by those systems.

Unfortunately, as other speakers observed, we still lack an integrated ticketing system and this Bill does nothing to rectify that. Millions of euro of taxpayers' money have been wasted in recent years in paying consultants to look into what is apparently the mystical possibility of providing integrated ticketing for our public transport services. We seem incapable of achieving something that is in operation in other EU member states and elsewhere. We may ultimately need a consultant to investigate the consultants to ascertain the reason for this wastage of millions of euro in public funding.

This Bill is generally positive in its intent. However, as other Members argued, none of us wants to see another quango with devolved ministerial powers that is unaccountable to this House. Following the enactment of this legislation and the establishment of the Dublin transport authority on a statutory footing, it will no longer be possible to receive replies to questions asked in this House about our transport system, including rail and Luas. There is no real accountability in this Bill. The authority will perhaps be called before an Oireachtas committee once or twice per year but we cannot be certain about transparency.

Having been out of the Dáil from 2002 to 2007, I find it extraordinary that the health service is no longer accountable to this House in a meaningful way. Parliamentary questions are transferred to the HSE, which sends a letter three or four months later containing a response written in the Civil Service jargon formerly used in the initial ministerial replies that were expanded upon after supplementary inquiries. Given that billions of euro will be spent on transport, it is not acceptable in a democracy that a body such as this is established without a direct mechanism for accountability to this House. There is no reason we cannot establish a communications network with this authority that functions better than the one which exists between the HSE and the Department of Health and Children. That would facilitate a Minister retaining political responsibility, thereby making the authority answerable to this House. This fundamental flaw in the legislation must be addressed because it will otherwise add to the democratic deficit that exists.

I acknowledge that Ministers want to escape accountability when things go wrong, but it is a sign of a tired Government that it seeks to undermine Parliament's responsibilities and its own accountability with the constant creation of bodies with powers diverted from Departments to the point where they cease to have meaningful accountability to either House. This practice is bringing democracy into disrepute and undermining the Constitution. Government is being transferred to agencies which do not have an electoral mandate and Ministers are sealing themselves off from liability. When things go wrong, they can join in the complaints made in this House and escape accountability.

I want to speak about some of the problems that have arisen in the transport system. We have not brought the way we operate up to date by any stretch of the imagination. I am intimately familiar with the M50 as it serves my constituency. If a crash occurs on that road, traffic gridlock ensues for miles. Blissfully unaware of the gridlock, people continue to enter the motorway only to find themselves on a stationary parkway for several hours. When I drive from Dundrum to Dublin Airport in the middle of the day, I no longer rely on the M50 even though it is the best route in theory. If an accident occurred, I would find myself stuck in the middle of the road and unable to leave it. Even if I came along 30 minutes after the accident, I would receive no forewarning. All our motorways and principal roads should have computerised electronic signage at main entrance points to warn people about problems and blockages and suggest alternative routes. A computerised central office for Dublin's roads should provide this service. We are no longer in the 1940s and it is not rocket science to provide such a service. Countries which are less wealthy than Ireland can provide electronic information. Does a thought process exist which could develop such a service and who will take responsibility for it? Will we have to await the establishment of this authority before anyone even considers the possibility and will the authority have to co-ordinate all Dublin's local authorities to run the service? I do not understand why signage is not yet in place given that it would save time and money, as well as reduce frustration and gridlock on our roads.

In regard to rail, Luas and metro, I was amused to read reports in The Irish Times and the Irish Independent about the Green Party's transport policy launch, as if that party is semi-detached from Government. Deputy Cuffe waxed lyrical at the launch. The Irish Independent reported: "In a submission to the Dublin Transportation Office's 20-year transport strategy for the capital, the party also says that public transport projects, including Luas extensions, metro north and metro west should be pushed forward and delivered ahead of schedule." According to the Green Party, we should all be on our bicycles. The elderly and the disabled should be cycling into the city centre, irrespective of the weather or, in the context of city centre gridlock and the absence of cycling lanes, the number of people who would die under buses and cars if the cycling population increased. We should get real. The Green Party is in government and my constituency of Dublin South has a Green Party Deputy.

In the run-up to last year's election, Fianna Fáil promised the people of Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and Ballyboden that they would get a Luas line. That was not set out in Transport 21 but in the pre-election excitement a feasibility study was commissioned on a line to the area. A stroke was pulled and it was pretended to the people of Knocklyon and Rathfarnham that the Luas was on its way, even though no funding was allocated in the transport plan to turn a single sod on the project before 2015. The Green Party ran around Knocklyon with leaflets promising a Luas line and, even more nauseating, it held a press conference this week in which it called for one to be provided.

The feasibility study published by the Railway Procurement Agency presents a Luas line which runs from Dundrum, through Churchtown, Rathfarnham, Terenure and Harold's Cross to Christchurch. The route skims the edge of Rathfarnham but goes nowhere near Ballyboden or Ballyroan. It fails to approach Knocklyon and Ballycullen, which have a population density that would ensure the financial viability of a Knocklyon-Rathfarnham Luas line, because these were not among the areas which the Government asked the RPA to consider. The outcome of the study is that while a line is just about feasible, it will create traffic problems for other users and entail the loss of a substantial number of gardens in the Rathfarnham area. At the end of the day, however, the population density along the route means that it will lose approximately €2 million per year. The report was designed to suggest that it was not feasible or economically viable to provide a Luas line for the Rathfarnham area. From start to finish, this was a matter of election politics.

We will not deal with Dublin's traffic problems by fooling around with QBCs or providing Dublin Bus with a few additional vehicles. This city must be modernised. London, Paris and Moscow have underground systems of a substantial nature by means of which very necessary and reliable public transport services are provided. Amsterdam has a fantastic tram system, which is completely reliable and which runs through some of the narrowest streets one is likely to find in any city in Europe. If a tram system is viable in Amsterdam, a Luas system for Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and the entire city of Dublin should also be viable.

Somewhere along the line, choices must be made. Part of the choice may be to substitute Luas for a bus service. This might be done for a number of reasons. The feasibility study to which I refer is based on the assumption that there should be a single line and that there is a need to retain all bus services. Instead of taking a fragmented approach to the provision of Luas-type railway links, there should be an overall plan for the entire city and county of Dublin. As part of this plan, a map showing the areas where metro and Luas-type transport systems would be provided, in substitution for bus services, where appropriate, over a specific period of years should be provided. We should also realign bus routes in order that there would be a public transport service available to people who would not have ready access to the new systems to which I refer.

I have seen no moves being made in the direction I have suggested. I am not optimistic that the DTA will implement initiatives such as those I have mentioned, particularly in light of the continuing vested interests of all the sub-bodies below it, including Dublin Bus. The latter will continue to operate in a particular way within its own dominion.

We need a comprehensive transport plan that is not based on fragmented and piecemeal development. There is no other city in the world in which two Luas lines, such as those which run from Tallaght and Sandyford to the city centre, would have been built without their being linked. This was an amazing development. Not only are the lines not linked, there is also a suggestion that the carriages used on one cannot be used on the other. It would take a comedian to come up with that, particularly when one considers that we are discussing a publicly-provided transport service.

We must get real in respect of this matter. I do not want to read about Green Party press conferences. One of that party's Ministers represents my constituency, Dublin South. Both he and the two Fianna Fáil Deputies for the area made false commitments to voters during the most recent election campaign. I want the terms of reference originally given to the RPA in respect of considering the feasibility of providing a light rail system in the Rathfarnham, Knocklyon, Ballycullen and Ballyboden areas to be revised. There is a financially viable and structurally feasible route via which services could be provided to these areas and to which links that would grant people access to these services could be provided.

There is no joined-up thinking with regard to the Luas line that runs through my constituency. Deputy Connaughton referred earlier to park and ride facilities. There are such facilities at some Luas stops but they are not in place at others. Since Luas stations were established, local authorities have taken to removing the on-street parking which previously existed and which enabled people living in other parts of south Dublin, who did not want to drive into the city centre, to use the Luas. This was done because so many cars were being parked adjacent to Luas stations that it caused irritation to those who lived nearby. That is understandable. However, where is the joined-up thinking?

If one wants to put in place a Luas station and reduce the number of cars coming into the city centre, it is blindingly obvious that there is one thing one must do when building said station, namely, provide underground parking. This is about long-term investment and not about providing a temporary solution to a problem. It is also about providing a public transport service for the next 100 years. I accept that it would be expensive to provide underground parking at a Luas station where over-ground parking could not be provided. It must be done, however, particularly when one considers what will be required in the long term. We should ensure that park and ride facilities are provided at any Luas stations that are developed in the future.

No one should threaten to impose charges on those who drive into the centre of Dublin city until a public transport system which is reliable and which will allow people to access parts of the city and county in a reasonable way, without being obliged to wait for buses that are stuck in traffic gridlock, is put in place. The imposition of congestion charges in London was feasible and morally right because of that city's superb underground transport system and extraordinary bus service, which is substantially more efficient than that which obtains in Dublin. There is also London's over-ground rail system, by means of which people living on its outskirts can be transported into the city in a way that is far more efficient than would be the case here. Let us not pretend that our public transport system has advanced to a point where it is so sophisticated that we can justifiably charge people for bringing their cars into the city centre.

In recent days, I saw the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, cycling out of the Leinster House complex at great haste. He was obliged to take careful action in order not to knock down another member of the Government and to avoid the occurrence of an unexpected by-election in my constituency. People should be obliged to use bicycles. However, where are the city centre bicycle parks that would prevent people's bikes being stolen? If we want people to cycle into the city from the outskirts, we should follow the example of the Netherlands. Many years ago, I lived in Amsterdam for 12 months. There are bike parking stations all over that city. Such stations are very easily installed and are quite inexpensive and they allow people to secure their bicycles in a way that will prevent them from being stolen. If we install bicycle parks, it would encourage young people to come into town. However, they would only do so if they felt safe on their bikes. The only way to make them feel save is by putting in place cycle lanes in the parts of the city centre where they do not currently exist.

We should not be obliged to endure press conferences hosted by the Green Party at which its members seek publicity and call on themselves in government to do certain things. There should be real action and genuine steps should be taken to alleviate the transport difficulties that affect all of us who live in this city we love.

See this speech in context