asked the Minister for the Environment the cost to the taxpayer of the proposed motorway for the Dublin area; if the complaints of residents along the proposed route have been taken into account; the consultative machinery, if any, which will operate in this connection to deal with these complaints; if in the course of such consultations any amendments will be made to the present plans; and if any comprehensive approach to the traffic congestion of Dublin city is under consideration.

I assume the Deputy is referring to the proposal for an eastern by-pass of Dublin city, linking Whitehall in the north to Stillorgan in the south, which was recently adopted in principle by Dublin Corporation following a fresh examination by the city and county manager of the recommendations regarding roads which were contained in the Dublin Transportation Study. While details of this proposed eastern by-pass have not been submitted to my Department, I understand that it is estimated to cost approximately £28 million. I also understand that the proposal as adopted by the corporation would provide for an all purpose road and not a motorway as suggested in the Deputy's question.

It is a matter for Dublin Corporation, as part of the planning process for the proposal, to arrange for whatever consultations they consider necessary with residents along the proposed route. In this connection, a draft review of the Dublin City Development Plan, incorporating the line for the proposed road to motorway standards, was on public display between June and November 1976.

I understand from the corporation that the representations and objections received in response to the draft review of the plan will now be considered by the corporation in the light of the council's adoption in principle of the all purpose road. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts contain provisions for dealing with any alteration to a draft review. If a material alteration of the draft is proposed, a public display of such alteration for at least one month must take place and written representations made with respect to it must be considered. In addition, the compulsory purchase order procedure, if invoked, would involve further consultation with people affected by the proposal, including the hearing of any objections at a public inquiry.

As regards traffic congestion in Dublin city, I would refer the Deputy to my reply of 15 February 1979 on this subject.

Can the Minister comment on the year on which the estimate for £28 million is based? Would the Minister agree that concentration on this all-purpose roadway or motorway, whichever title he wishes to give it, to the exclusion of other methods of transport in this city would be wrong? It would be a grave error to concentrate on this to the exclusion of a more comprehensive response to the entire traffic congestion situation in this city.

First of all, the figure of £28 million is the estimate made available to me in my Department and I have not got a breakdown of that figure.

What year is it based on? What are the ingredients in that cost?

That relates to 1978 costs.

The year of promises.

At the very least, on that basis that could not be regarded as a serious costing of this entire enterprise. Would the Minister agree that that would be very inadequate for giving the House the realistic costs relating to this enterprise?

I said in my reply an approximate cost of £28 million.

A very approximate cost. The Minister could add another £20 million to that figure.

Is it proposed to have a public inquiry held into the alignment and the property acquisition proposals for this proposed all-purpose roadway arising out of the 1974 road legislation?

It is a matter for Dublin Corporation as part of their planning process to arrange for whatever consultations they consider necessary with residents along the proposed route.

Since the Department of the Environment will have a decided function in this matter, as they would in any such instance, and since they provide the inspectors for any hearing that is held may I ask the Minister of State if he has the information in his brief, arising from my colleagues question about the consultative machinery, concerning what machinery will be involved in deciding the precise alignment of this all-purpose roadway, the access which ordinary citizens will have to it and the role which his Department will have in the matter? Will the 1974 road legislation be involved?

As I said previously, this is a matter for the corporation, as part of the planning process for the proposal, to arrange for whatever consultations they consider necessary with residents along the proposed route. The Minister's responsibility relates to specific proposals for road projects that may be submitted for approval. The Minister would be responsible for approving the projects for grant purposes. If a project involved compulsory purchase or bridge orders procedure the Minister would be involved in arranging for public inquiries and deciding on a CP order or a bridge order. It is entirely a matter for the corporation to decide procedures as regards the hearing of appeals and what way they would take the hearings.

Is it the intention of the Department of the Environment to provide money for this roadway and, if so, when will they provide it and when will the survey be completed?

That matter will be considered by my Department immediately concrete proposals are received.

This is the biggest planning proposal for Dublin city.

Can we take it that the ultimate decision on this roadway is the Minister's in view of the fact that he holds the purse strings?

The corporation have a vital role to play in relation to this roadway.

Is the ultimate decision with the Minister in view of the fact that he decides whether or not to provide the funds? Will the Minister be the ultimate arbiter as to whether this proceeds or not?

The Minister will consider any proposals put forward by the corporation.

Other Deputies have to get a turn.

The Minister will be the final arbiter as to whether or not we will have this all-purpose roadway.

That question does not arise.

It arose on Wood Quay and we want to get it clear in the House that it is the Minister's decision as to whether or not we proceed with this roadway.

The Minister's responsibility is clear in this matter. As I stated previously, the Minister's responsibility relates to specific proposals for road projects that may be submitted for approval. The Minister is responsible for approving such projects for grant purposes. The Minister will also be involved in arranging for public inquiries and deciding on a CPO or a bridge order in cases involving a compulsory purchase or bridge order procedure.

In view of the fact that the Minister will decide for grant purposes—the road can hardly be built without funds—does that not mean that he will be the final arbiter on whether this road is built or not?

(Cavan-Monaghan): Not at all, the Minister for Finance is.

Will the Minister confirm that this is the situation?

The Minister decides on the funds and will allocate the money when the corporation are ready.

Why did the Minister, in answer to a question which related to the proposed motorway in the Dublin area, merely refer to a small segment of the motorway, namely the eastern by-pass? Is the Minister aware that despite this down-play of the word motorway to an all-purpose road, the city manager's report to which he referred specifically says that this all-purpose road can be and may be upgraded to full motorway status presumably with six or eight lanes if any future body or group decide that this is desirable? Has the Minister sufficient confidence in the traffic management and transportation system of Dublin——

These questions do not arise.

The first two surely do.

The Minister is not going to answer every possible question.

Could I have an answer to the first two questions.

They are not relevant.

As to why the Minister——

The Deputy is asking the Minister if he thinks the manager is competent. It does not arise and I will not allow it. Deputy Kelly, please.

Why did the Minister refer only to a part of the motorway? Is the Minister aware that what is called an all-purpose road is in fact a motorway down-played for the moment because it is politically popular to do that at the moment? They are reasonable questions.

That seems to the Chair to be argumentative.

With no personal disrespect to the Minister of State, I would ask him where is the Minister, Deputy Barrett, and why he is not here to deal with this.

That does not arise.

He has an official engagement.

Is it opening a petrol station in Lisdoonvarna?

(Interruption.)

Deputy Quinn, one last question.

Since we had a debate on the definition of a public road last week, will the Minister of State define what he means by an all-purpose roadway?

The definition is not readily available to me.

Does the Minister know what he is talking about?

Yes.

Well then, tell us.

The reason for my question is that my colleague, Deputy O'Leary, specifically asked for consultative machinery. I got an inadequate answer in reply to that. If it is a motorway, 1974 legislation governs that, but if it is not a motorway it falls under another category. We have a new definition now, called an all-purpose roadway as distinct from a public road which was defined in argument in this House last week. What does the Minister of State's Department and the people who drafted his answer mean by an all-purpose roadway? Have these people told the Minister what they mean by it?

My information is that the present proposal adopted by the corporation is for an all-purpose roadway.

What does that mean?

It is a roadway into which access will be readily available.

Does that include pedestrians and cyclists?

It could.

What is the total cost of the scheme?

Could it, by the same token——

I told the House that a short time ago.

The Minister told us the cost of a piece of it.

Could an all-purpose roadway exclude pedestrians and cyclists? This affects a vast number of people in this city.

That would be a matter for the corporation.

The Minister has answered the question. Presumably his Department have some role in it. As far as the Minister's Department and the people who answered the question for him are concerned, could an all-purpose roadway exclude cyclists?

That would be a matter for the corporation to decide.

Deputy Quinn is well aware that we could be here until the end of Question Time asking questions about this.

And we will get no information.

Will the Minister have any role in deciding?

I called Question No. 8.

Could I ask for the total cost of the scheme?

I am calling Question No. 8.

Could the Minister comment on what Deputy Keating and other Members of the House are anxious to know about, namely, the actual pricing mentioned by him as being £28 million? It appears to be very much underpriced on the criterion the Minister mentioned. Secondly, in the course of his reply the Minister stated that it was his opinion that the consultation would relate in the main to compulsory purchase orders that might be necessary in the course of construction of this all-purpose motorway. Would the Minister agree that this would be a very inadequate form of consultation depending on his definition of this new thoroughfare? It would be very inadequate that the various groups whose neighbourhoods might be affected by the building of this road, would be only permitted to come in when their immediate property is threatened. Would the Minister agree that in these circumstances a new consultative machine should be available to enable groups to involve themselves in the planning of this motorway?

I do not agree. The machinery within the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts is sufficient to enable the corporation to do whatever work they consider necessary.

Question No. 8.

I wish to raise this question on the Adjournment because I am not satisfied with the answer.

I will not permit any more questions.

Will the Minister tell us the total cost of the whole scheme?

I mentioned an approximate figure of £28 million.

That is for the eastern by-pass.

Is that for the entire scheme?

That is in reply to the subject matter of the question.

That is not right, that just refers to the eastern by-pass. The question refers to the total motorway, the whole ring road concept.

The £28 million refers to the eastern by-pass of Dublin city linking Whitehall and Stillorgan.

What about the western by-pass?

That figure is not available in my Department because——

It is part of the question.

——there are more complex proposals before my Department.

I am calling Question No. 8.

£28 million would not buy much concrete today.