Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)

Is that correct? The Senator has a better memory than the rest of us.

In 1987, the incoming Government faced some very difficult political and social challenges which had to be undertaken. There were hospital closures, bed closures and ward closures. Various taxes were introduced to try to meet current spending and deal with the capital requirements. I was talking to someone today and we were trying to figure out the real bad points in 1987. Some local authorities considered turning off street lights because they could not afford to pay the bills. If one tries to recognise the difficulties the Government faced at the time, it might help to shed some light on why this deal was put together, why it was acceptable and why it was considered a good deal. At the time, there was rising inflation, company closures, job losses and a return of the scourge of emigration.

There is no doubt the deal was reached against this backdrop. As Senator Burke pointed out, substantial work on this contract was done by the former Minister for the Public Service in the 1982-87 coalition Government, John Boland. In light of the poor state of the country's finances, and the grim outlook for the economy, it was a good deal at the time. It would be unfair to apportion blame to anyone. Senator Ross made a couple of snide comments about a former Minister, Mr. Flynn. I understand he was just the signatory to the deal. A substantial part of the negotiations was carried out by the previous Government, but the Senator made a snide insinuation that some sort of a cosy deal was done. He named another council official to create this broad implication. This remark needs to be rubbished and put to one side.

There has been tremendous growth in the economy as a result of the actions taken by that Government and successive Governments since 1987. The success of these policies has led to this overcrowding. We will move on from that by recognising that we are where we are. We are in a difficult situation with which people must grapple on a daily basis. I met many of these people when I was canvassing in Kildare during the by-election campaign. There is no doubt that these people are facing some very difficult times, which Senator O'Toole highlighted.

The solutions being suggested by the Opposition, a number of Independents and others are ludicrous. Opening up the barriers will ultimately lead to the payment of compensation to NTR. There is a contract in place but if the Government finds some methodology to take back the bridges into State control, which Senator O'Toole advocated, what will that say to companies the Government is trying to bring to this country to become involved in PPP projects? It would effectively say to them that we are running some sort of despot operation as an excuse for a Government. It would imply that if we do not like what happens after signing up to a contract, we are prepared to rubbish it, throw it in the bin, take back the contract and tell companies to take a hike. That would be a dreadful precedent to set. It would mitigate against any PPP projects that the Government might in the future want to undertake and is something we should not enter into.

The other suggestion was to buy back the bridge. The cost of that would be phenomenal. The money available to the Department of Transport in its Estimate could be spent much better in other parts of the country. While recognising the difficulties associated with the M50, there is life outside the M50. There is life in the BMW region, which I am sure Senator Wilson will discuss, and in the mid-west where I come from. Many infrastructural projects need investment.