Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee allocated two hours for the debate. I shall not put a time limit on the first round of Members who wish to speak. However, given the large number of Members who have an interest, I shall review the situation after the first round.

I thank the Minister for presenting the Assembly with a major transportation strategy that is properly ambitious, imaginative and rooted in a realisable financial context.

The strategy is challenging, but I agree with the Minister that it is always tempting to set low and easily attainable targets that do nothing for long-term radical development.

No one could suggest that the Minister for Regional Development and his Department have taken the easy route and developed a strategy that fails to challenge our hopes and expectations. The regional transportation strategy clearly sets out the steps that must be taken if the objective is a reliable and well-maintained transportation infrastructure supported by efficient and high-quality public transport.

There is no denying that some of the targets are ambitious, but that is positive and legitimate. If the Assembly wishes to make a positive impact on society, it must not shirk from the challenges that must be acted on to improve social and economic well-being. The regional transportation strategy is one such challenge. With commitment, belief and determination, the strategy can be delivered within the proposed timescale.

On behalf of the Committee for Regional Development, I would like to thank Dr Malcolm McKibbin and Ms Aileen Gault for their numerous and, for them, exhausting presentations and briefings. The Department has been co-operative throughout the lengthy consultation process, and although there were many contentious issues, those have been resolved to the Committee's satisfaction.

The Committee welcomes and supports the broad thrust of the regional transportation strategy. It believes that if the necessary funding is made available, the strategy will ensure that Northern Ireland has a modern and viable transportation network that will serve to develop a modern and efficient economy.

There has been massive underinvestment in infrastructure over the past three decades. However, the Government have several other pressing priorities, especially the Health Service and the education system. Nevertheless, one cannot underestimate the potential benefits that the strategy can deliver to the economy.

The economy will benefit from less traffic congestion, which will make the transportation of goods and services quicker and cheaper, which will in turn make the local economy more competitive than it is now, both on this island and internationally. That is significant, given that 99% of freight is transported by road. An improved, efficient and attractive public transportation system will have a positive impact on the tourist industry. It will also make a significant contribution to improving social inclusion, which is a key priority for the Government. That is important because many people in rural and urban areas do not have access to private transportation, and 30% of families do not have access to a private car. The strategy will also bring net health benefits.

I have taken some time to outline the long-term benefits of the strategy, and I do not apologise for that. It is important that we remain focused on the long-term objectives. It will take time to deliver the results of many of the strategy's proposals.

Rome was not built in a day, and the strategy for our transportation infrastructure cannot be expected to produce results overnight. We must remain focused and patient, but, most of all, we need to commit resources to the problems. The benefits of such expenditure will not be immediately recognised, as it takes time to undo the effects of some 30 years of underinvestment in our infrastructure.

I accept that it is not possible for expenditure of this magnitude, stretched over a 10-year period, to be approved by the Assembly today. Resources will have to be determined through the normal budgetary process. The estimated additional funding of £1·4 billion is a sizeable amount, but it is attainable.

Sadly, although this is a comparatively high level of investment in our transportation infrastructure, it is still lower than that in Britain and the Republic. I accept that the allocation of resources must be subject to the normal budgetary process. Nevertheless, that process is sometimes subject to short-termism. There is a tendency to respond to emergent pressures and to seek immediate solutions, often at the expense of long-term goals such as the transportation infrastructure. We can all be guilty of that.

If the regional transportation strategy is to avoid that fate, it is critical that transport infrastructure is one of the top priorities in the Programme for Government and that it will remain so for an indefinite period. The Executive have already acknowledged that, with investment in infrastructure listed as one of the top four Government priorities.

The reinvestment and reform initiative, with its focus on the infrastructure-funding deficit, is another major step to addressing our transport needs. I pay tribute to the former Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Mark Durkan, and his successor, Mr Séan Farren, for successfully negotiating that important initiative. The Executive's position report states that

The reinvestment and reform initiative has provided a timely promise of future financial capacity to see realistically the implementation of the strategy. However, it was disappointing to note that in yesterday's allocations from the reinvestment and reform initiative, transport and roads received only 16% of the total. Some comfort can be taken from the fact that the allocation of resources is over and above the £40 million earmarked for the trans-European network between Belfast, Larne and the border, south of Newry.

I now turn to some of the key elements of the strategy. The consultation document outlines the funding to be made available in the four areas over the next 10 years. There is a pressing need for major investment in our regional strategic transport network. This is critical to ensure that our key towns and cities are easily accessible, while allowing the efficient and timely transportation of people and freight. That is a major challenge given the extent of our road network. Northern Ireland has two and a half times more roads per head of population than England, although funding does not reflect our level of need.

Efforts are being made to improve the regional strategic transport network. A major step forward was the announcement on 24 September 2001 by the then acting First Minister, Sir Reg Empey, of an additional £40 million, which I have already mentioned, for the trans-European network route from Larne to Belfast and Newry to Dundalk.

However, it is important that the transport needs of other key parts of the region, such as the north-west, are not ignored. Derry is a key economic hub, with a catchment area that extends to Strabane, Limavady and Donegal. The area is also the main economic corridor between Derry and Dublin and Derry and Belfast.

The strategy recognises the importance of improving the regional strategic transport network, not just in the west of the region but across Northern Ireland. That is demonstrated in figure 5·5 on page 78 of the document, which illustrates the improvements that are being made and what could be achieved in the next 10 years if sufficient funding were made available and planning approval granted.

The breakdown of anticipated expenditure over the next 10 years shows a major increase in expenditure on public transportation, and we can take comfort from that. It will amount to an estimated 35% of the total expenditure. We have reached a consensus that public transport has a vital role to play in delivering a strategy. That is now conventional wisdom - although that was not the case 10 or more years ago. That is to be welcomed, as is the strategy's emphasis on public transport. Many will carp that there is not enough emphasis on public transport in the strategy. They are wrong: the strategy strikes the right balance. Public transport has a key role to play.

I am interested that the Member thinks that public transport funding is sufficient. Investment in public transport per capita is £73 in the Republic of Ireland, £47 in the rest of the United Kingdom, and £16 in Northern Ireland. Surely the Member cannot say that we are spending enough on public transport?

The finances available to us for delivering services are much more limited than in those places. Therefore critical choices must be made between a purely roads-based transportation strategy and one based on public transport. We must make judgements according to our scarce resources. If we had more resources the disparity would be smaller, but in the circumstances the strategy is a significant contribution to reviving public transport in Northern Ireland. I welcome that, and the Committee supports the general direction of the strategy.

Investment in public transport will reduce congestion in urban centres, make the transportation of freight and goods quicker and cheaper and help to make Northern Ireland a more inclusive society. Thirty per cent of families do not have access to private cars. That is a particular problem for families in rural areas.

As a result, mobility is greatly restricted. This will help to create greater mobility and social inclusion. Increased public transport will make less well-off people more independent and mobile, enabling them to avail of local employment opportunities and public services. I note and welcome the inclusion of £31·5 million in the strategy for demand-responsive transport for more remote areas. I hope that this will provide a new beginning for the provision of quality transport in rural areas.

The Committee welcomes the commitment in the strategy to providing quality bus corridors on all the main Belfast commuter routes. There has already been some success on the corridors currently in operation, with a notable increase in patronage and shorter journey times into the city centre. The prospect of a rapid transit system in the Belfast metropolitan area is also exciting and I look forward to Belfast Area Rapid Transit "BART" becoming a reality.

During its visit to Europe to examine best practice in public transport, the Committee for Regional Development saw at first hand the benefits of an efficient, reliable, integrated and quality public transport network. Cities such as Karlsruhe in Germany epitomise what can be achieved, and Belfast can achieve similar results and standards. To do so we must remain committed and dedicated and allocate the resources necessary to make the vision of the regional transportation strategy a reality.

The Committee firmly believes that preserving and enhancing the railway network is an important element of providing an integrated, modern public transport system. There is no denying that our rail network is under pressure. Indeed, had the Assembly not allocated £103 million after the railway task force report, the network would have collapsed. When the Committee visited Derry and the north-west, it saw the poor state of our trains at first hand. We cannot expect to increase train patronage if the service is low quality and unreliable.

A recurring theme in the European cities that we visited is the high priority that is given to providing an aesthetically attractive and clean public transport system. We will not attract people back to public transport unless it is seen as a viable, efficient and reasonably priced alternative to the car. One has only to look at the success of the Belfast to Dublin Enterprise to see what is possible. The regional transportation strategy will bring a new beginning for our rail network, and the Minister is to be commended for his clear commitment to maintaining the existing network and seeking to increase patronage by over 60% over the next 10 years.

The Committee was grateful to the Minister for attending our meeting on 19 June to explain his intention to review the delivery and governance of public transport. We do not want to pre-empt the findings of any consultation, but we are broadly in favour of such a review. However, the Committee is concerned that services could be adversely affected, particularly if delivery is opened up to private-sector competition. One has only to look at the problems that arose with deregulation and the fragmentation of public transport in England and Wales. Even locally, concern has been expressed at private bus operators targeting the more profitable routes, which, in turn, has reduced Translink's profits and is hindering its ability to subsidise the unprofitable routes, most of which are in rural areas. I am not ruling out private-sector involvement, but it is critical that whatever model is arrived at, safeguards are built in to ensure that the public service commitment is maintained.

The Committee for Regional Development is fully aware of numerous pressures facing the public purse and that infrastructure is but one of those many competing pressures. In recognition of that, it believes that every possible source of funding must be explored. Fundraising from any source is undoubtedly a thorny political issue, but it is one that we must accept.

The Committee's experience in Europe highlighted some novel ways to raise finance. In France, employers with more than 10 employees pay a levy that is ringfenced for public transport. There is a scheme in Germany whereby employers can contribute to meeting the cost of employees' public transport fares. In the Republic of Ireland, increasing use is being made of tolls to pay for new major road schemes. In Britain, there is a growing debate on congestion charging as a means of stemming the growth in car traffic. Traffic in Britain has grown by 80% over the last 20 years. The gridlock on the M25 around London, only 16 years after opening, is testimony to the fact that building more roads is not the answer to traffic congestion. I am not necessarily advocating such methods, but I am simply highlighting the range of initiatives that should be explored fully.

We all face many challenges. Nevertheless, our vision must be clear and sustained. Much of what is envisaged in the regional transportation strategy will require time and commitment. Many of the benefits will not be immediately tangible, so we will have to remain focused on the long-term goals. We are seeking to create a major cultural shift in attitudes to car usage and public transport. That, in itself, will require time. It places a burden on the Government and elected representatives at all levels in Northern Ireland to support and promote our vision. Understandably, people's approaches will not change unless there is a visible commitment from Government, the Executive and the Assembly.

On behalf of the Committee for Regional Development, I welcome the public launch of the regional transportation strategy.

I indicated earlier that the Business Committee has allocated two hours for the debate. It is now becoming obvious that not all those who have indicated a desire to speak will be called.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to make your task more difficult, but it seems ironic that some Members had unlimited time to speak, yet others who have a considerable interest in the subject are now told that they cannot say anything.

That is a matter for the Business Committee, but it is useful that the Member raises it now. I do not want to take up any more time now, because time is pressing.

I congratulate the Minister on the production of this document, which is generally welcome. Regardless of what might be said about our bus and rail timetables, it is perhaps good that the Assembly is ahead of time in comparison with the indicative timings.

Another interesting point about the strategy is that it is a 10-year plan, and it refers to 2012. The Minister, who also happens to be the deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, has clearly accepted that the Assembly will still be in place in 2012. Perhaps the strategy is something of a backhanded compliment to devolution, and I hope that similar political realism and courage will be shown in all quarters when it comes to bearing the burden of the cost of this expensive strategy at more than £3 billion.

I broadly support the strategy, but I have four main reservations. The first is residents' car parking. There seems to be some provision for improved off-street car parking in the plan, and £48 million has been allocated to that and related areas. I welcome the recently announced decriminalisation of parking offences. We have yet to see any move towards residents' car parking schemes, and as far as I can determine the strategy is silent on that. In many parts of inner Belfast residents have been crying out for such provision for years.

The 1995 Department of the Environment document 'The Way Forward' hinted at that requirement so why, if you pardon the pun, has the issue been parked yet again? There would be social, environmental and health gains if the use of residents' streets as open car parks for commuters during the day could be reduced. It might also reduce car theft, as police records show that the majority of such crime in the Belfast is committed in unattended, on-street car parking areas.

In the medium term, a residents' car parking scheme might be broadly self-financing, through fines on motorists who infringe the scheme coupled with a reasonable permit charge on residents. That approach is used in some cities in England and elsewhere.

My second reservation relates to railways. Today's regional transportation strategy has a target growth of 60% in passenger numbers; but the figure was 50% in the draft strategy document. Where do the figures come from? On the one hand, the methodology outlined in this document seems incredibly complex - there is the formidable acronym "GOMMMS"; guidance on the methodology for multi-modal studies. On the other hand, the Northern Ireland target is suspiciously similar to that which has already been adopted for the next 10 years in Great Britain - 50%. Is there an independent reason for the target adopted here, or is it a read-across, albeit now slightly uplifted, to Northern Ireland?

My third reservation relates to walking and cycling. I welcome the funding of £40 million, but is that enough? It would be enough if targets in the strategy were realised: for example, cycle usage would quadruple over the next 15 years. However, even if that were achieved it would still leave us behind Dublin, some English cities and continental Europe.

There is the national cycle network, but a cycle lane along the River Lagan, while being scenic, may not be good for commuting or shopping trips. With only few exceptions, we are still not using some of our wider pavement areas on main arterial routes in the rest of the city to provide marked off-road cycle paths. All types of objections are raised to that, though it has already been done on some parts of the Knock dual carriageway. However, the practice is common in many parts of Western Europe, including the Netherlands and Germany. If it can be done there, why can it not happen here?

My fourth and final reservation concerns the financing aspect of the strategy. The document contains some financial details - for example, paragraph 6.2.2. If the Department wants the power to spend up to £3·5 billion it should fully spell out the revenue-raising methods that it will adopt. The Minister appears to be ruling out user charges in paragraph 21 of the executive summary.

One hundred million pounds is to be sought from developers; and we need to clarify the possible payback, because they will not provide capital for nothing. Will it involve more commuter villages in the countryside? The social and environmental implications must be weighed up.

Three hundred million pounds is to be sought from private finance. There will be charges associated with raising such private capital. Is the Minister willing to support the measures that the Executive would have to take to pay for such charges? He and his party, the DUP, cannot have it both ways - asking for all sorts of popular goodies and then refusing to accept the inevitable cost of paying for them.

I commend the strategy and support the motion, subject to those points of qualification.

I welcome the regional transportation strategy and congratulate the Minister and his Department on preparing it. In the strategy document's opening transportation vision, the Minister's aim is

We can all agree with that and commend the Minister's hard work and the way in which he consulted the Committee. We appreciate the input that we have been able to make. The strategy represents an important recognition of the central role of transport in Northern Ireland today and sets out a long-term vision for the Province.

Simply devising a strategy will not, in itself, achieve anything. However, if implemented, this document will make a significant difference to the lives of almost everyone in Northern Ireland. Within the constraints of what is reasonably deliverable, the regional transportation strategy sets a course that can and must be followed. The prize of success is great, but the penalty for failure is even greater.

In the limited time available, I shall touch on a couple of matters dealt with in the regional transportation strategy. I welcome the commencement of the rapid transit network for the Greater Belfast area. At a time when almost every other major city in the UK is developing rapid transit systems, it is important that we send out the message that Belfast is a modern, dynamic city. The start of a rapid transit network will send out just that message.

One of the most popular roads initiatives is the provision of traffic-calming measures, which not only make residential areas better places to live in, but, more importantly, enhance road safety. I welcome the additional £2 million that has been made available for traffic-calming measures over the period of the regional transportation strategy. I have no doubt that, if the money were available, many more requests for traffic-calming measures could be fulfilled.

The proposed demand-responsive transport service will act as a lifeline for many people living in remote rural areas, such as Islandmagee, Glenarm, Carnlough, County Tyrone, County Fermanagh, and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. [Interruption]. Where did I miss? I missed out County Londonderry, and anywhere else in Northern Ireland where there are many rural communities.

The Translink service will, however, still carry the most people on public transport in Northern Ireland. For those who live in rural areas, the age of the bus fleet is a significant problem. It is unpleasant to travel on a bus that is more than 20 years old; those buses will not attract people back to public transport. For those who have the choice of using a car, such a service is not an alternative. For those who do not have that choice, such a service is a punishment.

The importance of getting the mainstream public transport system right cannot be overstated. It is essential that the money be available to renew the bus fleet. However, it is also important that the service be run as effectively as possible. Translink must move from the era of the troubles, when it was a lifeline in difficult times, to an era in which it could compare favourably to any other service in the United Kingdom.

The Minister will also be familiar with the calls for more money to be spent on the maintenance of rural roads. It is clear that he has taken those calls on board. The regional transportation strategy proposes a huge increase in the amount to be spent on the Province's roads in order to bring them up to standard. If the regional transportation strategy is delivered over the next 10 years the people of Northern Ireland will not only be on their way to having a transport system that they desire, but to the creation of the sort of society for which they wish.

The railway system is an important network in Northern Ireland, especially for those travelling to such places as Londonderry, Larne, Carrickfergus and Whitehead. I am delighted that mention has been made of upgrading the Larne, Carrickfergus and Whitehead stations. I am also pleased that the Minister has mentioned the Antrim to Knockmore line. Many people lambasted the Minister and called him some unpleasant names when there was debate about the closure of that line, but he has clearly stated his intention to get the money, if possible, to keep that line open. I congratulate him on that.

Some £20 million has been allocated for bus corridors, £12 million for park-and-ride facilities, £10 million for the Goldline, £74 million for railways and £12 million for the disabled. Those announcements are good for Northern Ireland and bode well for the future. However, everyone realises that those allocations can be met only if the money is available.

I must be careful about what I say, but I am slightly disappointed that the A2 - that terrible bottleneck that links Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey, Whiteabbey and Belfast - was not mentioned. However, perhaps something can be done in the future. Members realise that the Sandyknowes roundabout is in desperate need of improvement, and that has been mentioned. On the Belfast to Londonderry route, the Toomebridge and Dungiven bypasses have been mentioned. I congratulate the Minister and trust that the Assembly will back the initiative. I hope that the necessary moneys will be made available and that Northern Ireland's transportation system can be brought up to the standard of the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise to the Minister for my absence during his opening statement. I was at a Committee meeting, and business has run ahead of the indicative timings. As I said in a debate on the regional development strategy, the timing of this debate is unfortunate. The regional transportation strategy is an essential instrument in the delivery of the regional development strategy. Therefore, a debate on a Monday morning would receive more attention and focus from Members and the public than it will now - the penultimate debate of the final sitting before recess. That is not intended as a criticism of the Minister or the Department for Regional Development.

The transport vision of the regional development strategy is

The regional development strategy's objective is to achieve balanced development across the region. The strategy may be measured against those two objectives.

This region has not had a transport strategy before now. Various bodies were involved in different areas of transport, attempting to meet their short-term and longterm needs without overall co-ordination or consideration of the issues in the transportation vision. There was no consideration in the strategy of the economy, the environment, society, social inclusion and quality of life.

The 'regional transportation strategy' is a detailed document that attempts to set out a strategic vision for transport. I appreciate the work of the Department and the Minister for Regional Development in bringing us this far, and I congratulate them on doing so. However, I have reservations about the document.

The first concerns the national development plan in the South of Ireland. We live in a region with a border that is hundreds of kilometres long; it is our only land boundary with another place, therefore, one would have expected the national development plan of that part of Ireland to be particularly significant in developing a transportation strategy here. There is a reference to the national development plan on page 21, section 2.3.7 of the document. There is another reference to the plan on page 108, section 7.5.4(v), but there is no detail of how the national development plan in the South has informed the development of the regional transportation strategy. There is a reference in the document to the arrangements for practical and ongoing co-operation on cross-border regional planning and transportation between the North and the South. In section 7.5.4(v) it states that:

What are the arrangements for co-operation on transportation? How much discussion has there been with counterparts in the South on developing the regional transportation strategy vis-à-vis the national development plan? Transportation is an area of co-operation identified in the Good Friday Agreement and in the Programme for Government.

Apart from the Belfast to Derry railway line and the Belfast to Dublin line, the map on page 79, figure 5.6, shows no evidence of a plan to extend the rail network in the next 10 years. That is not surprising, because there was no vision over the next 25 years for extending the rail network in 'Shaping our Future Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025', which is a 25-year vision document. It is obvious, but still regrettable, that there is no vision. What is balanced development across the region? Is it about developing transport plans to meet predicted demands, or is it about shaping future demands? Is it about taking the initiative to determine future demands and transport needs?

The regional transportation strategy concentrates on the Belfast metropolitan area and the eastern seaboard corridor. There is also an argument about the balance of funding between roads and public transport. There is a backlog of infrastructure maintenance, and I hope that, having used that phrase, I will not be accused of spending too much time with officials. We cannot make a simple comparison between spending on roads and public transport without considering the money that is required to maintain roads in a safe condition. People compare the amount of money being spent on roads to the amount spent on public transport, but that is an unfair comparison.

There is a backlog of maintenance, which accounts for a significant amount of the spending on roads. Having said that, I am in favour of the balance, as spending on roads can improve public transport as well. As we have a limited rail network, the majority of public transport users have been, and will continue, travelling by bus. We hope to achieve the targets in the regional transportation strategy of increasing passenger numbers and miles, and money spent on roads can assist public transport in that regard. However, more and better roads can lead to more cars, more congestion, more pollution and a lack of sustainability in the strategy - that is a danger.

Significant spending on road improvements must be accompanied by traffic management measures, which are referred to in the strategy. However, that applies more in the context of raising revenue than in controlling and shaping transport demand and need. Traffic management must be complemented by the simultaneous provision of more available and acceptable public transport services if we are to have a sustainable transport system.

There are lessons to learn from Europe. Several cities there, which the Committee visited, were held up as having good transport systems, and they have several things in common. They have transport policies and strategies characterised by measures, not to curtail car use per se, but to curtail car use in urban areas, and thus, promote and facilitate public transport. Unpopular measures such as the reduced availability of car parking, increased car-parking charges and congestion charges are complemented by the provision of an attractive, competitive and viable transport system. However, if we are to have a sustainable transport system, substantial investment in road improvement must be accompanied by traffic management measures and an improvement in public transport services.

The regional transportation strategy may be the single most important document in its potential impact on health. Page 11 refers to the health impact assessment as one of the reports that informed the development of the strategy. The health impact assessment was carried out on the basis of the proposed strategy, which was published in February this year. How much has it informed the development of the regional transportation strategy? Consideration should have been given to the potential health impact at an earlier stage in the consultation on the strategy, rather than when the strategy had already been developed.

The health impact assessment lists some of the areas likely to be affected by the regional transportation strategy. For example, it has the potential to reduce air pollution and noise in urban areas. It attributes those potential benefits to bypasses that will divert traffic around towns, so that fewer vehicles will travel through urban areas. Serious consideration should be given to a quantitative comparison of that with potential air quality improvements that result from reduced car and greater public transport use.

There are obvious benefits in the strategy with increased facilities for cycling and walking, which have an immediate impact on the health of people who cycle and walk. However, the health impact assessment did not really address access to health services. There are references to improving access to general health and education services, but no specific focus on ambulance or car journey times to accident-and-emergency services and hospitals. That is very relevant in rural areas, such as my constituency of Newry and Armagh, and Fermanagh, Tyrone, south Derry, south Down and parts of Antrim - especially in the light of recent discussion about the location of future hospitals. The assessment should have placed greater emphasis on access to health services.

Finally, the strategy is based on enhanced funding, a significant proportion of which is likely to come from private sources: £300 million over the next 10 years. I repeat my comment from a previous debate on the strategy: acceptance of the strategy does not mean that the Assembly is writing a blank cheque for public-private partnerships (PPPs) or other private investors. Any PPP initiative on transport will have to be assessed on its merits and only when the Assembly has seen a detailed proposal of an initiative, including initial costs, short-term costs, long-terms costs and the short- and long-term impact on Government spending.

I support the motion, but with reservations. Go raibh maith agat.

I too apologise to the Minister for my absence during his introduction. Unfortunately, my car got through the city like a Translink timetable, while the Minister's timetable was like that of the new trains on the Bleach Green line.

Members are asked to approve the broad thrust of the strategy. The motion is remarkably vague, which enables us to say that it is good in parts. It is certainly a great improvement on what went before - there was no strategy, and little was done to address the transport problems of the regions, so it is not much of a tribute to the Minister to say that this is an improvement.

I want to welcome several general points, such as the promotion of walking and cycling, which have never been properly recognised here. The work that the Minister has done and continues to do to upgrade the rail system and the announcement of an advisory body to recognise the needs of transport users are steps forward.

I welcome the allocation of £12 million for the Knockmore railway line, though there was a caveat at the end of it, which the Minister knows I will appreciate from a constituency point of view. Having criticised him in February on what might be regarded as a rapid transport network, but at that stage consisted of the Comber line only, I welcome its extension.

However, I still have concerns. My principal concern is the limited provision of funding for public as opposed to private transport - 35% in total. I noticed in a recent briefing paper that Friends of the Earth, which may have a radical reputation on such matters, thought that funding for public transport should be 65% - dangerous radicals. However, the GB 10-year transport plan drawn up by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions said that funding should be 59%, which is not far behind. Belfast City Council has suggested 50%. Clearly, there is still a difference between the Department's plans for the overall balance in the region and what others with experience elsewhere are suggesting.

I acknowledge, and acknowledged even before I heard the Minister muttering, that there are issues in rural areas that make it difficult to manage public transport. There must be a different way of addressing those problems.

I will not list every rural district, though some people would probably wish me to. However, one issue is not being addressed. There are major transport problems in the Belfast commuter region, which appears to include places such as Ballymena and Downpatrick, and probably Dungannon. That is where public transport investment is desperately needed. I am concerned that, although there are significant improvements in the proposals, they do not go far enough.

The Minister will be happy to be reminded of problems in another jurisdiction. Dublin's economic development way surpassed investment in public transport, with the result that the city is gridlocked. That problem will continue because there is only one decent commuter rail line, the Dublin Area Rapid Transport (DART). If we are to welcome a "BART", it must be more than just one line through the city, and probably more than the two lines that are being proposed.

There is a problem with the balance between the provision of public and private transport. There is also a problem with the split between the public and private sectors in providing finance. Too much investment for public transport seems to depend on money being raised in the private finance market. In the February proposals, £160 million of public transport investment expenditure was to come from the private sector, as opposed to £40 million on roads. That has now been balanced to approximately £150 million for each of them.

The public transport sector will receive only one third of the total expenditure, but that still means that the proportion of finance coming from the uncertain private finance market is twice as high. If private finance is not forthcoming, major holes will be bored through important sections of the strategy.

The figure of 35% has remained fairly static since the February proposals. That includes £100 million for the rapid transit network, although there is no information about where that funding will come from. I hope that the Minister, in his wind-up speech, will refer to that. If nothing happens because the funding is not forthcoming, it will be detrimental to Belfast transport and will lower the 35% figure for public transport investment. It will be even less than the February proposals, in spite of many groups lobbying on the need to increase that figure.

I have seen amounts described as "indicative" figures, but £100 million is about as indicative as one can get. I presume that it means a figure somewhere between £50 million and £150 million. That figure is too vague for such an important strategy.

The strategy has shifted the balance towards public transport. However, there are concerns about environmental matters, some of which are outlined in the strategy and include inner-city parking and inner-city pollution. Moreover, approximately 50% of Belfast households do not have access to a private car; the highest percentage in the region. Although the strategy may address short-term needs, it may become unsustainable with regard to the local environment and international obligations.

Many individual road schemes will be welcomed, and many are deemed necessary by local people. However, do those projects represent value for money? Yesterday, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister announced an investment of £5 million for widening the M1. I am not sure how many metres £5 million will buy, but I suspect that it is not very many, especially in a road-widening scheme. I wonder whether it will simply amount to spending a large sum of money to move the traffic jam from Stockman's Lane to Broadway every morning. Would it not be more beneficial to invest an equivalent sum for the provision of public transport?

The rapid transit network in Belfast, the developments along the principal routes on railways, and the development of local bus services in several regional towns - which was not mentioned - will have much more significant cost benefits than will some of the potential proposals for roads that are included.

I shall become a little parochial, since everyone else has done so. The Minister referred, quite properly, to the potential investment in the Knockmore railway line. It is somewhat worrying that a document that purports to contain a strategy for the next 10 years fails to explore the issue of the Knockmore railway line in the context of the airport, and services there, or in the context of his Department's own strategy, which sees significant population developments in Antrim, Lisburn and the commuter villages to the north and west of Belfast. I do not see how that can be addressed without regarding the Knockmore line as an integral part of the "circle line", as Translink has termed it.

Similarly, the proposals for work around Sandyknowes are necessary to some extent. However, we cannot solve the commuter problems from the north simply by tinkering with Sandyknowes and the M2 as it comes down the hill. An interchange at Ballymartin, for example, would get commuters out of their cars and onto a rapid transit system, travelling rather more quickly and comfortably into Belfast and with much less environmental damage. That is surely something to be considered, especially given the difficulties of establishing a station in Templepatrick village.

This strategy has begun to make considerable inroads into the non-strategy of direct rule, in which nearly 100% of funding went to roads, except for the minimal grants given to Translink to maintain services. However, I have my doubts as to whether it is enough. We have yet to ensure that there are appropriate levels of funding, and appropriate methods of raising funding, for all aspects of transport, especially public transport. We have yet to tackle the real issues - such as congestion charging, which must be faced soon - as we follow improvements in public transport with the measures necessary to ensure that Belfast gridlock does not loom ahead of us every two or three years.

I look forward to the publication of the Minister's next strategy, which should, perhaps, be for 2007-17. We can then address some of those difficult issues and complete the start that has been made today.

I read the new document following the consultation with great interest. I like the description of it as a "daughter document" of the regional development strategy. I had not heard that description before, and I like it. Unfortunately, that is where my compliments end.

When the last document was published, the most important point that I made was that the mission statement aimed

I ask that that be changed to make safety the priority. Change it to

Mr P Robinson: I can hardly change it; it is a quotation from the regional development strategy, which was passed unanimously by this House.

I thank the Minister for explaining that. However, it does not mean that he, as the Minister, cannot make safety a higher priority than previously. That is what I ask.

The reason for changing the mission statement would be to put safety first. It is not just about changing a title; it is about what we were told in the Public Accounts Committee, when officials from the Department for Regional Development complained about accidents on our roads, road deaths and the costs. The Department told us that road safety would be the first priority. For that reason I ask that safety be put first in the mission statement. I am sorry that that was not done.

However, I am not simply talking about a title. I am talking about the content of this document. I do not see road safety anywhere in the priority list. Let me turn to pages 28 and 29, which are no different to the equivalent pages in the February document. Fair enough: the pages describe the problems, and describe them very well. We have twice as many accident deaths on our roads as there are in England or Wales. The number of deaths per 100,000 of population is 10·1 in Northern Ireland; in Scotland, it is 6·4. The problems remain and they are well highlighted, but I cannot see anything in the document that states what we are planning to do about them.

The strategy contains a slight change from the proposal. We are told that the road safety strategy, which takes account of the responses to the consultation document, will

I know that it is raining a lot, but I believe we are in the summer of 2002 - and I ain't seen no road safety strategy emerge in this Assembly. That may be the result of buck passing; perhaps the strategy is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, but -

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>