Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

There is no need to worry — I will keep going if he does not turn up.

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity of addressing the House on the new Dublin Transport Authority Bill 2008. This is a major Bill and is a large part of the debate on transport in Dublin. It represents an opportunity for us to consider issues such as traffic congestion and the transport and traffic implications of Dublin Port and Dublin Bay. It also gives us an opportunity to debate the Dublin Port tunnel and its impact on the local communities of Marino, Fairview, Drumcondra and Santry. In addition, I will take a critical and independent look at the wider transport debate. We must consider the facts and the details and come up with solutions. I welcome the Bill presented by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the debate today in the House.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority to ensure the delivery of Transport 21 investment and the provision of an integrated transport system in the greater Dublin area. It will ensure for the first time that there is a single, properly accountable body with overall responsibility for surface transport in Dublin, including the procurement of public transport infrastructure and services. The greater Dublin area is the area covered by the local authorities of Dublin city, Fingal, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, south Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. I will focus in particular on the Dublin city area. The Bill provides a statutory basis for the new authority and sets out its structures, functions and powers. It also sets out the accountability framework for the authority and its relationship with other statutory bodies and transport providers in the greater Dublin area. This is the core of the legislation. I will talk later in more detail about particular sections of the Bill.

When I hear politicians talk about restricting access to the city centre for motorists, I often wonder whether they have thought this out fully. For example, what about people with physical disabilities and their right to access our city centre? What will they do? What about the rights of disabled motorists? I totally support the demands of representative groups for the Government to ensure that people with physical disabilities can access our city centre. Putting up barriers to them is not an option. I urge people in this debate to take into account my concerns about those with physical disabilities.

I welcome sections 8 and 9 of the Bill, which provide for the making of an order by the Minister to set a date for the establishment of the authority and contain other standard provisions with regard to the establishment of the authority and its legal status. Section 10 sets out the general transport, economic, social and environmental objectives of the authority. Section 11 specifies the general functions of the authority, including strategic transport planning, the provision of public passenger transport services and infrastructure, and effective traffic management. The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make an order conferring additional transport functions on the authority. Sections 10 and 11 are important and their provisions form an important part of the debate.

I will move on to the wider debate, which includes the traffic and transport implications of Dublin Port and Dublin Bay. Dublin Bay is under ongoing debate. It is scandalous that the port company is still trying to destroy 52 acres of Dublin Bay even though most Deputies support the efforts to preserve the bay. The 52 acres are not for sale and we should be open in our challenge of those who are only interested in environmental vandalism. We need common sense and a vision for the future. I thank the Minister for Transport for his recent meeting with the Clontarf group, Dublin Bay Watch, which made strong points regarding the bay's protection and the need to address the issues of capacity, traffic and the port itself.

Dublin Port has continually asserted that the key reason for filling in 52 acres of Dublin Bay is the need for additional capacity. This singular mantra has been voiced since the mid-1960s and has resulted in substantial infilling of Dublin Bay. Since late 1997, the port company has continually claimed that it is on the verge of full capacity. Dublin Bay Watch has always been sceptical of this claim and initiated three research projects to review the evidence. In 2000, Dublin Bay Watch conducted an analysis of ship movements in and out of the port and correlated the information with that recorded in the annual reports of the company. This clearly showed that there were just more than 200 ship movements each week, yet the capacity of the port is 300. These facts relate to the issue of traffic congestion in the city.

The second piece of research was on the usage of port lands conducted with the assistance of Mapflow Limited. The analysis showed that the port lands, some 640 acres, was considerably underutilised. When this evidence was made public, Dublin Port Company began to change its tune and added the need for a deep sea port to its original capacity issue. This was scrutinised via its second EIS, in which the port company's own consultants made it clear that, while the 52-acre infill would generate additional deep sea access, it would require continual dredging for it to remain accessible.

I raise these issues because we are discussing transport issues. Another issue that must be raised is that of the Dublin Port tunnel. How many minutes have I remaining?

See this speech in context