Shane Ross (Independent)

He leaves us with the feeling that he has done his best but is not really convinced of his arguments. In one of his first sentences, which was incredible enough to beggar belief, he said that a solution had been found. He went on to say that we discussed this very matter about this time last year. Given that we urged exactly the same solution when we last discussed it, it is nonsense to claim now that a solution has been found. A year later, we have in fact fallen two years back because the Minister, instead of taking immediate action upon coming to power, decided it was time for talks between the National Roads Authority, over which he exerts control, and National Toll Roads. The talks continued for months and, as anybody could have predicted, ended in deadlock. They were due to finish by the end of August but, because NTR is good at running rings around Ministers and the Government, they concluded ten days ago after they came to a deadlock, with NRA breaking off from them.

I do not blame NTR for dragging its feet in these talks for as long as possible while at the same time minting money. Any company with similar shareholders would probably regard it a duty to do so. However, it made a monkey of the Minister by continuing the talks for almost one year without allowing any achievements to be made. Meanwhile, the poor unfortunate commuters, who sat along the M50 during that period, continue to wait.

The Minister, in a premature fiasco of a statement, announced that the plaza on the West Link toll bridge would be opened. Apparently, we were all meant to applaud but why should we do so? It will only be opened in two years' time. The significance of the date is that it will be on the other side of an election and the Government hopes, by reassuring people at the hustings this time next year that the plaza will be gone fairly soon, it will be able once again to make monkeys of the electorate. What will happen during those two years? Everybody knows that NTR will continue to milk motorists and the M50 will get worse. The Government will merely whisper sweet nothings in the ears of big business and say, "Do not worry, it will be all over in two years".

It is not satisfactory because, as Senator Brian Hayes noted, more could have been done much earlier. This problem did not arise suddenly this year but has been building up over a long time and is the result of the original deal, a matter remarked upon today by a number of speakers. We should acknowledge Senator Dooley's points that the Roche family took a risk at the time and that nobody could have imagined the immeasurable rewards that would be reaped. However, he should not try to tell me that the original deal was good for the Government. Regardless of whether these people deserve their financial rewards — I believe they do not — the negotiators should not have agreed to give them a monopoly over that stretch of road. As a result, the suggestions that a second bridge can be built are null and void because it is legally binding.

This deal sets standards which would not be acceptable today in any toll company and, as we heard from the NRA last week, it also sets down certain legally unenforceable terms. It was flawed and careless and it granted a monopoly. Let us stop saying the Government negotiated a good deal because the principles, standards and traffic forecasts were all wrong, although it should not necessarily be blamed for the latter and I concur with the Senator on the economy. The flaws in the deal were so fundamental that they should have been foreseen and prevented.

A lot of passing the parcel has been conducted by people trying to disown the deal by blaming either the then coalition Government or Fianna Fáil. We should determine who signed the agreement because people who sign deals should take responsibility for them. It was signed by George Redmond for Dublin County Council and by Pádraig Flynn for his party.