David Norris (Independent)

In fact, I may not use all of the time allotted.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am rather sorry she indicated she will not continue in public life after the next election. Her absence will be a great loss to Irish public life. I have happy memories of serving with her, going back to my first term on the Oireachtas joint committee dealing with women's rights. I am sure she will find many other ways of contributing to Irish public life but she certainly will be a loss to political life in the general sense.

I welcomed the Transport 21 initiative. I almost fully welcomed it and I still welcome it in outline but I was disappointed with the Minister's speech because it was so generalised. It contained no particular detail. Reference was made to the €34.4 billion cost. It contains evasions and excuses. Some of them are credible enough, such as not wanting to give away commercially sensitive information. It also contains generalised comments on the need to update urban transport.

One aspect I find extremely sinister is the lack of any mention of the metro from beginning to end. I campaigned on this for 20 years. I amended a bill concerning Dublin transport seven or eight years ago when, through an accident of politics, this side of the House was in the majority. The Independents held the balance of power. It was discussed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport. I will return to that point because it seems the recommendations of that committee are being subverted in some way by what one could describe as the permanent Government which has always been against the metro.

I must pay tribute to the Leader of this House, Senator O'Rourke, because she had the backbone and gumption to run with the metro proposal where her two male predecessors were frightened off by the gurus. I am not a partisan person. I am genuinely independent. I praise the Government when I believe it is right and I look to the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport because it is non-partisan and we all unite. I am concerned that some of our recommendations are being ignored. People on the Government side pointed out the lack of a timetable. Let us not be sold a pup. I did not join in the chorus of condemnation from this side of the House. I welcomed it but we need specifics. Budget figures have been revealed and now is the time to come clean and make it clear and targeted.

This morning I received an e-mail from the Meath on Track campaign as I am sure did many other people. Its members seek support in calling for funding to be made available for the complete outline design scheme for the 26 miles to Navan next year. That seems to be an ideal project. Navan is one of our growing dormitory towns with a large and increasing number of people who need to get in and out of the greater Dublin area using public transport. The e-mail states that once the design scheme is completed it will be possible to ascertain the costs involved in reinstating the Navan line and the issues of levies, funding and delivery timescales can be addressed based on factual information. Without this information, the proposal for Navan contained in Transport 21 will leave the people of Meath no closer to the reintroduction of rail services than prior to the announcement. There is no provision for a detailed examination of the situation, which must be done prior to the commencement of the project, and this concerns me.

Senator Dooley referred to Professor Melis but unfortunately I was unable to visit Madrid. I have met Professor Melis and I was responsible for bringing him here through the agency of Cormac Rabbitt and Rudi Monaghan, transport engineers who have been very helpful to the Joint Committee on Transport. Rumours were spread around the committee that Professor Melis had been unhelpful in some way and had not maintained contact. That is not true and the reverse is the case. Professor Melis offered to train Irish personnel in Madrid and he has yet to receive an acknowledgement of the offer. I ask if we are serious and suggest we examine this situation.

We were told building costs in Ireland were 2.4 times the costs in Madrid but this is not correct. I have been provided with factual information that suggests costs are directly comparable to the point of being almost in line. We can scotch that excuse. Disadvantageous comparisons were made between tunnelling schemes such as the Dublin Port tunnel and the Madrid technology. The machines used in Madrid were of a substantially different design. The boring machines used in the port tunnel had to be stopped for 20 minutes at 45 minute intervals to replace side panels. Machines used by Professor Melis in Madrid go straight through, non-stop, and this represents a saving.

The Minister was somewhat coy about costs in his speech and perhaps there is a reason for this. The figure of €34.4 billion over ten years announced in Transport 21 must be considered in light of recently published pre-budget Estimates. These figures add another piece to the puzzle. The Department of Transport has €2.28 billion, of which €1.6 billion appears to be for capital expenditure. On this basis even someone as innumerate as myself, who failed arithmetic in the leaving certificate, can calculate that it will take 21.5 years to complete the project, finishing in 2027. In these Estimates, the total spending for the whole country, €48.5 billion, of which €34.4 billion is capital expenditure, means that Government spending on transport over the next ten years must be 10% of total Government spending, a considerable sum of money.

External agencies have commented on this and I refer to one A&L Goodbody report which suggests there is a missing figure of €1.5 billion for the aviation sector. Where is this in the Government's calculations? Examining the situation further, the 39 selected projects include six Luas, comprising five Luas extensions and one new Luas line to Lucan and two metro lines, one running north to Swords via the airport and one running west to Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan, Blanchardstown and Ballymun. There was a lovely map at Dublin Castle showing the routing of the Luas and one aspect is curious and troubling to me. The deficiency that is the absence of a link between the two metro lines will be supplied twice. A Luas line will run on the surface, which will be problematical in terms of street arrangements and building structures, as well as a metro line.

This is the most expensive section for either rail system and raises the question of why the Government is duplicating it. One is driven to the conclusion that the Government will build the Luas and hump the metro. This concerns me and if this is the position of the Government let us be open about it. Let us not pretend we are going to build a metro if it is not going to happen. Those of us in all parties and members of the transport committee who believe a metro is essential can then make the argument. At present we are firing into cotton wool. We need a clear commitment from the Government.

There is also a curious reversal of priorities, with the completion of certain projects now deemed essential before work commences on the metro. These include the three extensions to the Luas and the metro between Tallaght, Clondalkin and Lucan. The Joint Committee on Transport unanimously adopted a report prepared by O'Reilly Consultants that contains nothing partisan. That report indicated the metro was advantageous to the citizens of Dublin and Ireland but also that there would be a substantial cost, albeit partially concealed, in not building the metro. This does not seem to have been taken on board.

What is the standing of the Joint Committee on Transport in the eyes of the Minister and his advisors? Do they take the extensive work done on the metro seriously or is the committee a decoration while decisions are made behind the scenes by people not accountable to citizens? I do not mean any disrespect to our Civil Service, for which I have high respect. It is not the fault of civil servants if they get their way, we need politicians who will stand up to them and continue to tell the truth.

Yesterday, an important meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport coincided with the Order of Business in this House. That shows complete contempt for Seanad Éireann as meetings never coincide with the Order of Business in the Dáil. I have drawn this to the attention of the Chairman, the staff and leaders of different parties. I have asked them not to allow Senators attend such meetings just once, so that there will be an insufficient number for a quorum. If we do this once we will put manners on those arranging the meetings. There is always someone who slithers in at the last minute and saves the bacon. This House should agree not to attend the next meeting that clashes with the Order of Business.

I have been advised over a number of years by two remarkable people, one of whom, Rudi Monaghan, is dead. The other, Cormac Rabbitt, is a significant traffic engineer. He made connections with Professor Melis, spoke to the committee on transport and has the necessary facts and figures. His Dargan proposal, named in memory of William Dargan who built so many railways, concerns a circle line.

Dublin, as a city with a bay, is ideally constituted for this suggestion. There would be a 12.2 km circle line, the loop line would be upgraded and extended by the construction of a 5.9 km tunnel, located mostly south of the Liffey, with interchange stations to the existing six rail and nine road spokes. It is planned to locate stations approximately 0.8 km to 1.2 km apart. The tunnel could be built on wayleave land, 80% of which is publicly owned. We will not have problems with land if we follow this plan. The wayleave allows tunnel construction and maintenance and does not imply land purchase. The circle line profitably provides a rail hub by its utilisation of existing infrastructure. Simply said, it benefits from extensive working infrastructure to maximise the number of fares. In addition, the project capitalises on currently available low interest finance. The foregoing helps to contribute to a minimum investment return in year one of 5.2%.