David Norris (Independent)

I would not touch the post with a barge pole. I would be completely the wrong person. I do not have the administrative talents that are required. I would like to advise those who are considering placing a bet, at odds of eight to one, not to waste their few dollars.

I agree with the point raised in the very fine speech by Senator Donohoe regarding the refusal to allow elected Members to serve on the boards of bodies such as the proposed Dublin transport authority. That is something we should examine again. I know the reasoning behind it, namely, a concern to avoid political jobbery and partisanship. However, I had the pleasure of serving on the Oireachtas Committee on Transport during the previous Seanad under Senator Ellis, then Deputy Ellis. That committee and all the other committees on which I have served met and made decisions in a non-partisan way in the interests of the country. I believe if we relaxed the rules and allowed elected Members to serve on such boards, precisely those democratic forces which we want to see might come into play. I would rely on my colleagues not to act in a partisan fashion and believe they would not do so. The Members of these Houses are professional people.

I am a little disappointed in the Bill. Its title is something of a misnomer. It is not really the Dublin Transport Authority Bill but rather the Dublin bus authority Bill because it does not address the issue of rail. While it deals with the Luas and surface rail services, the most critical element of Dublin transport as far as I am concerned is the development of metro. We pioneered that idea in this House and pushed it when it was very unpopular. We promoted the idea against very strong bureaucratic resistance. We also pushed the idea within the Oireachtas Committee on Transport. To omit the metro is a significant diminution of the significance, power and responsibility of the proposed authority.

At the beginning of his speech today, the Minister referred to surface transport. It is perfectly clear that some of the lessons that have been learnt were learned as a result of the work done in debates in the Houses and in inquiries of the Oireachtas Committee on Transport on the subject of metro. The committee, for example, invited Professor Manuel Maynar Melis from Madrid. He also spoke to the Cabinet sub-committee on transport. He examined and addressed very clearly and cogently the delays incurred by the absence of legislation in this area, especially with regard to planning and land acquisition. He made a number of suggestions, some of which clearly are incorporated into the Bill.

It is surprising that lessons that were learned on the issue of metro are being implemented, but only in the context of surface transport. The metro is the single most important element of our transport strategy because it is the one solution that will reduce the pressure on surface transport.

I have just seen off a guest from the Middle East. He adored Dublin but the one criticism he had was about the unholy traffic here. He found it impossible to believe the traffic jams. Of course, we walked almost everywhere and the taxi lanes were of some help.

One could read the Minister's speech and not realise that the underground is excluded. One would think it was included, particularly given that the Minister said that: "The DTA will have responsibility for the allocation of Exchequer funds for public transport infrastructure projects". One of the biggest spending infrastructure projects is the metro. The impression given by the Minister's speech is that it is the whole bag but it is not. It is a partial deal. Lessons have been learned from the London experience, which is good. I have in the past complained that we tend to look to British legislation and copy it slavishly. That has not been done in this instance and we have learned a good lesson.

With regard to the Railway Procurement Agency the Minister stated:

In the intervening period the Railway Procurement Agency had made major progress on the important projects assigned to it under Transport 21, particularly Metro North. I became concerned that absorption of the RPA by the Authority could jeopardise the ongoing PPP procurement process in respect of Metro North, which is at a critical and sensitive juncture.

How and why? Perhaps there are good reasons but the Minister, significantly, did not spell them out. He became concerned because there might be problems but what were they? It is not obvious that the PPP process would be damaged at this "sensitive juncture". He also stated, "I am also satisfied that the benefit of providing organisational continuity in respect of the Metro North procurement process far outweigh any other benefits could have accrued from pursuing other options...". What were those benefits and costs?

The Minister stated in an aside that it would be a regrettable feature if the service provider was also part of the regulatory authority. I would like further information because I find this confusing. I may have misunderstood him but I do not believe the RPA is necessarily correctly seen as a service provider. It may implement Government policy by acquiring land and putting out the construction of a railway or tunnel to public tender but the providers will be commercial companies. The tunnelling will be done by public competition and tender. Perhaps this is too insignificant to have troubled the consciousness of other Members but Cormac Rabbitte, a brilliant engineer, has been very much engaged with this issue on a selfless basis for many years. He produced a number of people who were prepared to tender. One was a Japanese company, Mitsui, which was prepared to undertake the entire project virtually for nothing on the basis that it would be awarded a 35-year contract to run the system. I do not necessarily see the RPA as a service provider in the sense it is accessible to an ordinary person like myself.

The other difficulty I have with the authority relates to the way in which its members will be appointed. The Minister stated:

The Establishment Team's report recommended the use of an independent nomination panel to recommend to the Minister persons for appointment to the Authority. However, the previous Government took the firm view that there should be strong accountability by the Authority to the Minister of the day and to Government given the large amount of taxpayers' money...

Do I sense unease on the part of the Minister because he is landing this back in the lap of the previous Government? If he feels unease, I share it because if an establishment team recommends an independent nomination panel, it is not appropriate to slap down the suggestion without an explanation of why it is better because that leads to suspicions of political jobbery. If the Minister accepts what previous speakers said, Oireachtas Members should be involved. In that case, the process should be independent. It will exonerate the Minister, who is an honourable man, from any suggestion that he or his successor will nominate to the authority persons from their own political party for reasons of political patronage. A number of persons will be statutorily involved such as the city manager and, therefore, only a small number of places will be available.

It is regrettable that the question of taxi regulation has been introduced at the last minute because that means an incomplete Bill has been presented to the House. At least the Minister has noticed a gap and has moved to address it. Given that he is introducing an amendment, I cannot see why he could not have done something similar with regard to permitting the authority to examine the underground problem.

I welcome the Bill because it has elements of the Wide Streets Commission. I would like to make a strong plea regarding bus regulation, which the Minister will examine. I like public transport and I like the utilities to be State-owned. I like such corporatism and I am not convinced the market is the absolute god. If these services are provided, they need to be monitored very carefully. Why, for example, are there no public bus parks for private buses? Why are they parked dangerously on Parnell Street and Mountjoy Square? Will the Minister examine the way buses are serviced because a number of them belch out black fumes? On the corner of Merrion Square under a sign that says, "Engines must be switched off", buses are neatly parked every day with their engines running, sometimes with no drivers in them. That is not acceptable.