The dispute between the Government and the opposition parties over the light rail project for Dublin has an importance which sets it apart from the everyday political skirmish. At the heart of the dispute are very serious questions about the Government's respect for the Dail, its relations with the European Commission in Brussels and, not least, the apparent lack of any community or local involvement in transport policy.
The accident prone Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Mr Lowry, who has been accused by Fianna Fail of misleading the Dail, has yet? again got some explaining to do. His statement last night does not satisfactorily answer the many questions raised. Last December Mr Lowry launched the light rail lines project to Tallaght and Dundrum with a great fanfare: the £200 million Light Rail Transit (LRT) system was the biggest public transport project since the foundation of the State and Mr Lowry spoke - in glowing terms about its potential. He also expressed regret that the Government had decided not to proceed with a proposed third route to Ballymun until Phase Two of the project some time after the year 2000.
For reasons which he has still satisfactorily to explain the Minister did not advert in the Dail or outside it to the fact that some £114 million in EU funding was conditional on a consultancy project which would assess the wider socio economic benefits of the Tallaght, Dundrum and Ballymun projects. The Fianna Fail charge that Mr Lowry was involved in a "gross deception of both Houses of the Oireachtas" is thus not entirely without substance. And the Taoiseach's sturdy defence of his ministerial colleague in the Dail yesterday would appear to fly in face of the facts as now known. The truth is that Mr Lowry allowed the impression to build that the Government's decision to proceed with the Tallaght and Dundrum projects, at the expense of Ballymun, was a fait accompli. The Minister has only himself to blame if his political judgment is again being questioned.
The Minister's behaviour also underlines the Government's apparent inability to appreciate that the Commission has a right, and an obligation, to scrutinise the projects it is funding. After years in which the structural funds and the CAP payments flowed with few complications, the Government appears to have difficulty in understanding that the Commission is now much more pro active: it is no longer content to dole out the funds to national governments, it also wants to assess whether the various projects achieve its wider social and economic objectives.
In this context, the Government's decision to give Dundrum priority over Ballymun was always perverse. Ballymun has a higher population, a higher dependence on public transport and a much greater concentration of social problems. A proper consultation process in which local communities are able to spell out their priorities in advance of a Government decision would have underlined why Ballymun was a more deserving case and how it met the Commission's requirements. But, under the existing procedures, Ballymun appeared to lose out precisely because its people are less prosperous and enjoy less political muscle.
The hope must now be that the independent review will, leave the Government with no option but to reverse its decision and award, the second Ii ht rail project to Ballymun. As it is, this whole episode will serve as a further reminder of how this Government's much vaunted commitment to openness and accountability means very little in practice.