David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Frank Fahey, to the House. I note that the Minister of State at the Depart-ment of Transport, Deputy Callely, was forced to leave this House temporarily to address another transport matter in Dáil Éireann but has indicated that he will return and address as many of the points as he can, even those raised during his absence.

I welcome this imaginative initiative. I understand the competition that exists between the different political parties with regard to initiatives but I think this initiative is slightly different. I like the fact that it includes the small person, anecdotal evidence and people's actual driving experience. When I look at the management of traffic in Dublin, I wonder sometimes if any of the people responsible for it actually drive around the city. The Minister of State has invited anecdotal evidence so I will talk about my experience of driving into Dublin from County Wicklow because it was illustrative of certain problems we all confront.

It would be useful if the Minister of State came in at this point because the initiative has not taken a final shape. He is giving us an idea of what is happening, the participants and the kind of programme he envisages but we still have the opportunity to affect it through debate in this House, which is a very useful and productive political exercise, and I look forward to the Minister of State's return to the House. This initiative has been widely welcomed. I received an e-mail from Dr. Margaret O'Mahony, who is head of the department of civil and structural engineering at Trinity College, Dublin, and who was involved in the initiative. She wrote that she welcomed the initiative quite strongly because she regards it as the start of a process to examine and implement strategies of relatively low cost. She wrote that the focus of the initiative is at transport user level, both for road and public transport users. She explains in further detail why she thinks the initiative is particularly useful.

In his speech, the Minister of State spoke about his visit to Munich in Germany, which I would be interested in learning more about. I understand the Minister of State was told by Dr. Manfred Rothkopf of the Munich and Upper Bavaria Chamber of Commerce and Industry that ten years ago, the traffic congestion in Munich was at the same level it is currently in Dublin yet the city managed to overcome it. The principle axis of this recovery, although it is not stated, was public transport and an underground metro system. The one thing that the Minister of State did not mention was a solid commitment to a metro system, which is the only measure that will resolve Dublin's traffic problems. It is inexcusable that we have not supported the Minister of State because I know he is a favour of a metro; it is obvious when one reads the newspapers. This Government should behave imaginatively and endorse the metro. It is not possible to say today as people did ten, 15 or 20 years that there is no money for a metro when Ireland is dripping with money. The money that was wasted on computer systems could have been used on a metro. Over €1 billion in unanticipated tax revenues is a nice windfall that could be used on a metro and would be very cost-beneficial. We would get a good return from our investment.

The Minister of State seemed to invite anecdotal evidence so I will share the experience I had today. I travelled from County Wicklow and I do not know how, but I managed to get on the M50. I had a remarkably smooth journey, and it was absolutely terrific. It was the type of experience one would imagine on an autobahn in Germany until I reached the canal where there were roadworks. One then shared the road with the Luas and traffic was reduced to one lane. I turned across in Goldenbridge and was in a queue for 15 minutes because the traffic was inappropriately managed. Almost every driver except me wanted to turn right but there was no feeder light to allow them to do so. Every time the traffic light changed, only one car, if any, managed to escape. That was unnecessary congestion.

My temper was not improved when I diverted and arrived at the top of Eccles Street to find the Mater Hospital disgorging what I assume were rural visitors, and it was impossible to move. I was completely stuck. There was no attempt to manage the situation of all of these people who naturally want to visit their relatives in hospital. This gummed up the traffic and there was no movement whatsoever. An imaginative solution is required for this, perhaps a lollypop person, I do not know. In Parnell Street an unusual measure has been taken, whereby a commercial company has been facilitated with its own traffic light. The Ilac Centre has a traffic light all to itself. We must examine all of these matters.

The issue of cycle lanes was not referred to in the Minister of State's speech and is one we should examine. Earlier we discussed the tragic situation in Donegal where a number of young people were killed. I did not agree with the analysis of my colleague who mentioned heavy goods vehicles. That is not relevant. All of these weekend accidents are similar and involve quite a large number of young people in one vehicle, in the early hours of Sunday morning, travelling home from a social event. Those are the common factors. No heavy goods vehicle was involved.

A tremendous increase in fatalities has occurred. Up to 11 a.m. today, 275 collisions and 303 deaths had occurred this year. I will not analyse these figures in detail because it is not directly relevant to this evening's debate. However, only 260 collisions and 295 deaths occurred during all of 2004. We still have a few months left in 2005 and we have already surpassed that. I introduce this point because of the notion of safety. I used to cycle quite a lot but I would be terrified to do so now. It is impossible because of SUVs, which is another issue to be examined. As a result of research done by Trinity College, we know they are more dangerous than other vehicles. A pedestrian hit by an SUV is twice as likely to be killed. There is also the roll-over syndrome that has been unearthed through research in the United States. These vehicles are not merely gas guzzlers, they are dangerous monsters on the road.

For this reason, I would have liked to have involved the lobby group representing cyclists in Dublin, the Dublin Cycling Campaign, in the consultations. Perhaps it is not too late to involve it. I know it attempted to contact the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen. Its representatives wrote to the Minister on 1 February 2005, 7 March 2005 and 30 March 2005 to request a meeting but did not even get a reply. On 20 April the group had a letter published in The Irish Times. I also have experience of the fact that sometimes if one wants to get a reply from a politician, one writes to The Irish Times and one receives a quick reply if the letter is published, but one does not always get a reply from the office. This correspondence continued for some time and eventually an e-mail was sent. There seems to be a reluctance to involve the Dublin Cycling Campaign but it should be involved. If we can get more people onto bicycles and out of cars that will certainly help, but only marginally. The main issue is the metro.

Another thought has struck me on my experience today. The M50, which is an orbital road, is great. When I got closer to the city I hit the South Circular Road, a previous attempt at a ring road. I am astonished to hear in the Minister of State's speech that the greater Dublin area now includes Kildare, Wicklow and Meath.