Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)

Most Deputies could talk for hours on transport. I listened with great interest to Deputy Brady's speech. He covered many of the areas we all wish to cover. The matter is dear to all our hearts as traffic and traffic management is a major problem.

The first issue I wish to deal with was touched on by Deputy Brady. I hope the Dublin transport authority will have a role in local authority area plans and traffic plans in other counties. In many cases local area plans involve building new roads, key link roads and cycle lanes, but as they are subject to development, developers are being asked to construct them in addition to houses. I do not have a problem with that, but when a developer decides not to rush a development the key road or other aspect of infrastructure is also delayed. Given the slowdown in housing construction we must find a way to ensure those key pieces of infrastructure such as cycle lanes, link roads or parts of bypasses around towns, for example, around Navan in my constituency or Trim where the Minister is from, will not be delayed if construction projects do not proceed. It should be possible for local authorities to develop those projects and to charge the developer at a later stage. We cannot wait three or four years for key infrastructure while a developer decides to develop a project. There is nothing wrong with the way the previous zoning system worked but we have a problem now as infrastructural projects could be delayed. I presume the Dublin transport authority can do that job but perhaps that is not the case. It is important that the issue is not ignored because it could lead to serious problems. I assume the problem is not just confined to County Meath.

I welcome the setting up of the new authority. I have been involved with the Dublin Transportation Office, which has been subsumed into the new authority, in recent months. I have attended some meetings and workshops about its strategy for future planning. The debates there have been impressive and good ideas have been discussed. Issues other than traffic have been addressed including those relating to quality of life — not being stuck in traffic — the green city and what we want to be known for in Dublin and the greater Dublin region. Areas other than transport that were discussed include the provision of jobs and parks. I welcome the broad thinking that has emerged from the DTO. Transport plans are not just about transport, they are about where transport brings one, and what one wants to do in terms of work, play, voluntary work and community involvement among other things. Transport is a key link in all of that. I welcome the talks and look forward to those issues becoming part of the new authority's plan once power has been handed over to it.

I am concerned the House will lose some accountability once the authority is in place. I approve of authorities being set up when they are needed — not like many agencies — but it is wrong that we will not have daily accountability. The authority will have to get the approval of the Minister for a six-yearly interim plan and a 12-year plan but that is not the same as daily accountability. We can all agree on the big projects and where we want to go but daily accountability is required to get things done. When Ministers have to answer parliamentary questions, they answer them. That is accountability. We know from the Ceann Comhairle's office and Ministers' offices that half of the questions submitted do not get answered for various reasons but that is a matter for another day. We will not have daily accountability if the authority is not answerable by means of parliamentary questions and through the Minister to this House. It is a shame we will lose that. We have a chance to get this right for once and it is a pity to throw the chance away.

It is suggested in the Bill that there will be a 12 to 20 year strategy plan. That is not long enough. The failure of the past ten to 15 years is due to a lack planning. The authority we are setting up today is years late, especially in terms of the land use study. It is a great idea but is years too late. We need to plan ahead not just for 12 years or 20 years but for 15 years, 25 years and 30 years. In order to properly fund projects they should be spread over a longer period of time. On the other hand, six-year integrated plans are too long. We should have two-year or three-year plans. Having a six-year plan is an acceptance that it should take six years to provide certain infrastructural projects when it should not. We have been told the extension of the railway line from Dunboyne to Navan could take six years. That is not acceptable. It should not take six years. Other countries can complete similar projects in one or two years. We cannot allow six years to become the normal term for an interim plan. We should insist that the plans are for two years or three years. We need much faster results. We want the authority to be able to take direct action and to achieve results. It must be set out in the legislation that we expect more from the authority than just to have nice ideas and to talk about issues.

The Bill states the authority will carry out transport assessment plans for all planning applications. That is not rocket science and it should have been done long before now. We discussed that in my first years as a councillor, yet it did not happen. Many of the ideas coming through in the Bill have been discussed by Deputies and councillors and the average person for many years. It is a pity it has taken so long to incorporate those ideas in the Bill and bring it to the House. I accept we are discussing the Bill and that is progress but I hope when the authority is set up that matters will move more quickly. I accept the DTO has done a lot of work, which means the authority should be able to hit the ground running. It will have to do that because there is a great deal of work to be done.

The Minister is to allocate money to the authority. I am not convinced on that point. I fear we will potentially have another Health Service Executive or National Roads Authority. In some ways those bodies are good but in other ways they are not. Perhaps the Minister should hold on to the money and allocate it for projects when the authority makes a case to him for funding. I agree with the provision of a rolling budget for administration but not for big projects. I do not like the way Ministers want to hand over responsibility for so many areas. Accountability is at the root of the issue. I can guarantee the Minister will still be seen cutting the ribbon when the projects are completed but if they do not work the Minister will not be there. We are picking and choosing what we want to do. That will suit the Opposition as we do not intend to be here all the time. We hope to get over to the other side of the House at some stage.

See this speech in context