Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996

Vol. 467 No. 1

Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill, 1996: Motion.

I move:

That notwithstanding the provision in Standing Order 52 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business that no Member shall reopen a discussion on a question already discussed during the preceding six months, the motion for the Second Reading of the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill, 1996, may be moved on Tuesday, 18 June 1996.

There is an urgency about this business which makes it imperative that it be discussed again at this early stage. On the last occasion the behaviour of the Opposition was extraordinary. They complimented each other and rubbed their hands in glee by virtue of the fact that they had come together to defeat the Dublin light rail proposal. It is evident that in the course of the debate today the Opposition has again attempted to obstruct and deliberately deflect the Government from its plans to implement the light rail proposals for Dublin.

The Minister should look over his shoulder to see from where the trouble is coming.

The procedure for today was made clear to Deputies Molloy and Brennan on the Order of Business. They have deliberately wasted time. They are not interested in light rail, only in obstructing the Government in the implementation of its plan.

Deputy Molloy regurgitated a submission made to him by an outside keen amateur by reading it into the record. This is the type of deliberation in which the Deputy has involved himself in respect of light rail. The Progressive Democrats Party is currently against light rail.

The Minister must not have read what I said.

I ask Deputy Molloy to look at his party's document issued during the European elections last year when it was in favour of light rail.

We are in favour of light rail. The Minister should read what I said.

The Deputy has the audacity and the cheek to attempt to vote against it.

The Minister does not have to be a liar as well.

Let us have no further interruptions. Perhaps it would be less provocative if the Member in possession addressed his remarks to the Chair.

One of the Minister's colleagues has come over to this side already.

Many critical decisions which will have a major impact on the city of Dublin over the coming decades must be made within the next few months if a unique opportunity is not to be lost. It must be remembered that this legislation, which was promoted by Fianna Fáil in Government, arises from recommendations in the final report of the Dublin Transportation Initiative, which was published on 1 August 1995. It represented the product of almost four years of detailed work costing in the region of £2.5 million and contained proposals for an integrated strategy involving a programme for investment in roads, public transport and traffic management. The DTI report provides the necessary framework for the provision of an effective and efficient urban transportation system in the greater Dublin area.

Members have received an incorrect script of what the Minister is supposed to be saying.

The Deputy should listen to the Minister.

Listen to what he is saying.

Read his lips.

The Deputy must be delighted.

I will endeavour to have that matter addressed.

A primary aim of the Dublin Transportation Initiative is to maintain and reinforce the vitality of the city centre of Dublin and to promote a transfer of commuters from private cars to public transport. The DTI also places a particular emphasis on improved traffic management and enforcement, arguing that we can only justify increased investment in making improvements to the system when we have made better use of our existing transport infrastructure and facilities. Central to that is the provision of a light rail system and this can only be done if the necessary enabling legislation is enacted. Unfortunately, the opportunity to provide this infrastructural investment is not open ended.

Progress is already being made on other aspects of the strategy but they are in large part dependent on the light rail proposal. The DTI represents an ongoing planning process with permanent institutional structures. This ensures the continuity of the process designed to continue into the future and provide a momentum for real change. To support this process, the Government established the Dublin transportation office to oversee the implementation of the DTI transport strategy as a whole and ensure an ongoing transportation planning process in the greater Dublin area. My aim as Minister is to develop public transport as part of the strategy to reduce traffic congestion in Dublin and I want to do so while ensuring the continued development of Dublin city as a vibrant social, economic and cultural capital. Against this background, light rail has much to offer.

Owing to the presence of only one lone soldier from the north side on the Labour Party benches I request a quorum.

Disruptive tactics.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I welcome Deputy Molloy back to the Chamber after orchestrating obstructive tactics.

Do the Progressive Democrats want time or to waste time?

It is important to put on the record that during the Order of Business today the Taoiseach offered further time both tonight and tomorrow for a Second Stage debate on this matter, but the Opposition refused to take it.

Shame on it.

That is not accurate.

The Opposition refused time to debate the matter tomorrow.

That is not accurate.

These antics and shameful behaviour exemplify the attitude of Deputies Brennan and Molloy to light rail for Dublin. It is a disgrace.

There is only one Member on the benches opposite. This is a charade.

It should be noted that on an issue of such importance there is only one Member on the Fianna Fáil benches and one on the Progressive Democrats benches, where we are fortunate to have a Member present at all.

The Minister is scraping the barrel for issues now.

The Government is serious about implementing the recommendations of the Dublin Transportation Initiative but it is apparent this evening that the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats parties do not want a light rail system. They are anti light rail, anti the people of Dublin and——

If the Minister's party had had enough Members present last week he would not be in this position now.

——anti a major programme funded in large part by the taxpayers of Europe and the EU Commission.

We do not want the Minister's version of it.

The Minister should ask the Labour Party about it.

That is evident from the antics adopted here today.

I will set out the changes I have proposed in the Transport (Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill to respond to concerns which have been expressed. Other questions cannot be adequately dealt with in legislation and for this we must rely on the consultation process.

On a point of order——

The Deputy should stop play-acting.

——today's Order of Business states that speeches shall be confined to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and to the main spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party and shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case. As this debate started at 6.15 p.m. how is it proposed to adhere to the terms of that order, part (ii) of which states the Minister shall be called on to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes?

That is not a point of order.

It is a point of order.

It is an order of the House.

The order of the Dáil today provides for the disposal of Nos. 10 and 11 and Second Stage of No. 6. This order sets aside Standing Orders and is prefaced by the term "notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders". Therefore, it takes precedence over the usual procedures. That is the position.

We do not have a quorum.

This is a scandal.

More spoiling tactics.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Once again, I welcome Deputy Molloy back to the Chamber.

To an audience at last.

He has given himself three yellow cards. The red card will come from the people of Dublin. His tactics and shenanigans are a disgrace to his party. They are anti democratic, anti light rail and anti the people of Dublin.

They are anti the establishment.

The question of underground systems was raised by Deputy Molloy and others in the Progressive Democrats Party. DTI rejected the underground option for a number of reasons, not just on cost grounds. On the basis of its examination DTI concluded that on-street light rail would provide a better overall response to the wider DTI objectives of shifting commuters from cars to public transport and increasing priority on the road network for public transport. Underground stations are very expensive and less accessible to mobility impaired people. The flexibility to vary the location of stops in line with demand inherent in a surface system would be impossible once an underground system had been configured and built. The underground option is a higher cost solution compared to the on-street rail system option favoured by DTI.

In the development of the DTI strategy a number of options were evaluated. Costings of a DART option with an underground connections to the city centre amounted to a staggering £595 million in 1992 prices. This gives a clear indication of the massive cost implications of going underground with the project. Furthermore, such a network was deemed not be be viable in economic terms and to have a very large negative rate of return. An underground system is not being considered.

If on-street light rail is not acceptable it will involve a fundamental reappraisal of the entire DTI strategy. The question of bringing light rail underground for short sections is a separate matter which can be considered, but that would not be without its problems.

That is a change of attitude.

It would reintroduce some of the disadvantages associated with the underground DART option. In spite of these problems, however, the option to put short sections underground will be evaluated as part of the consultation process——

We are getting through to the Minister at last.

——and in preparation for the environmental impact statement and the public inquiry.

That is a big change.

CIE and its consultants have been studying the issues involved and a report on this work will be published when it is completed. That raises the question of the consultative process and the way it is operating. I have always stated that there is need to address the very real concerns expressed about the development of the light rail project. The legitimate views highlighted by those contributing to the debate will be taken into account.

In launching the light rail public consultation programme last December, I invited the people of Dublin to become involved in a process designed to explain what light rail is about and the benefits it would bring. I remain determined that the consultation programme on this project will be a robust two-way process. I have insisted that the CIE project team listen carefully to concerns and opinions from all interested parties about the light rail proposals and respond to those concerns where possible.

The CIE project team has already held eight major public exhibitions around Dublin, attended by approximately 11,000 visitors. In excess of 400,000 newsletters have been distributed with information. More than 50 local community meetings have taken place to date and the number continues to increase. It is not possible to legislate in detail for such a process of consultation. To attempt to do so would mean that the consultative process would, by definition, be legalistic and bureaucratic, to use Deputy Séamus Brennan's phrase, I am conscious that the consultation process can be improved. That view is supported by representations made to me and by the many Deputies who contributed to the debate on Second Stage of the Light Rail (No. 1) Bill. I have discussed the issue further with CIE and agreed a strategy which, I expect, will overcome residual difficulties.

At a more general level, a permanent LRT office will be opened this week at the premises of Dublin Bus at 59 O'Connell Street. That office will be open each day during business hours. It is a central location where inquiries can be answered and information made available. Information on route options is a key concern to those living in areas likely to be served by light rail. Route alternatives have been developed as part of the consultation process and will continue to be developed. In some cases there is delay while the feasibility of suggestions is evaluated and maps prepared. That is unavoidable, but I have instructed CIE to publish route options as soon as possible to allow debate on the alternatives to be undertaken on an informed basis. The process has already started, with a number of options having been published in yesterday's evening newspapers. Where difficulties are encountered with particular suggestions, they will be made known.

The concerns raised during the consultation process are being taken seriously by the CIE project team. Selection of routes will not be made until the consultation process has been completed. A final decision on the routes will not be made until the formal inquiry has been held, an environmental impact evaluation completed and consideration given to submissions made to the Minister as part of the formal procedures. As part of this strategy on consultation, the report on underground options and other reports will be published and made available in the consultation process.

I wish to share a few minutes of my time with Deputy Molloy.

I am sure that is satisfactory. Agreed.

The Leader of Fianna Fáil made a reasonable request today which was not met. Normally after a Bill is published there are two weeks for consultation. The request of our leader and party Whip, Deputy Ahern, that Second Stage of this Bill not be taken until next week was a perfectly reasonable and sensible one. It is with great regret that, instead of acceding to the request, the Government decided to bulldoze through one of the most important Bills affecting this city.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

We regret that the request by the Leader of Fianna Fáil has been turned down by the Government. This Bill was published on Friday and the Government expects us to deal with it on Tuesday.

On a point of order, last week I made an offer to both Opposition parties to make available as much time as they wanted this week to deal with Second Stage. That offer was repeated by the Taoiseach today.

That is not the point.

This Bill did not exist last week.

The offer was refused. Today the Opposition indulged in its usual tactics again. It has turned the issue into a charade.

The Bill was not published until Friday.

On a point of order, I asked last Thursday that our spokesperson be briefed——

Please, Deputy, that is not a point of order.

——but he was not briefed until late on Friday. I also asked for a copy of the Bill but did not get it.

There should be no further interruptions.

On a point of order, I wish to correct Deputy Ahern, the Fianna Fáil Whip, in that a briefing was offered and accepted by both Opposition parties.

That is not a point of order.

It was offered very late in the day, as the Minister will be aware from his party Whip. We had to request it a second time.

Deputy Brennan has but a few minutes.

The Opposition was fully briefed.

It is not the length of the debate I am interested in but the time between publication of the Bill and presentation to the House. That two day interval is the problem, not the length of the debate.

(Interruptions.)

Perhaps the Minister will assist the Chair in trying to restore order.

The Government is about to pass through Dáil Éireann legislation published on Friday. It is trying to push it through the House in a draconian fashion without debate. I would like it to be noted that there is now no time for this Bill.

The Opposition wasted time on the Order of Business. We were prepared to sit until midnight tonight and all day tomorrow, but the Opposition refused that offer.

The reason this side of the House has consistently opposed the legislation is that there is no provision for consultation.

We offered to deal with the Bill all day tomorrow but the Opposition refused to take that time.

Will the Minister stop shouting at me?

The Opposition refused to take the extra time. The question of light rail is too important to be treated in this fashion.

There are but five minutes remaining in this debate and I would like it to be an orderly time.

Is the Minister finished shouting at me?

The Deputy should stick to the truth.

The Minister is trying to make a name for herself.

We oppose this Bill because it does not include——

Deputy Ahern and the Minister should not interrupt. I will ask another question in a moment.

This Bill does not refer to consultation. It is being bulldozed through the House at one day's notice. A debate is not being allowed on it. Apart from making cosmetic changes, the Minister did not take on board any of our considerations. There is not any provision in it for the integration of three different systems, an extension to Sandyford or a line to Ballymun.

This is what the Deputy proposed in Government.

There is not any provision in the Bill to study the costings, as requested by Deputy Molloy. In short, this is a shabby Bill——

On a point of order——

The Minister got his 15 minutes.

——which does not have any consultation mechanisms. The reason we have consistently opposed this Bill is that it will not provide a light rail system for Dublin.

On a point of order, the proposals being debated in respect of light rail were promoted by Fianna Fáil in Government.

—and by the Progressive Democrats in its election manifesto.

The Government is responsible to the Dáil but this Minister is not answerable to anybody.

Deputy Brennan, without interruption.

The Minister from Tipperary is fond of telling me this Bill is not anti-Dublin.

(Interruptions.)

I know something about the people of Dublin. They are up in arms——

On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, how many minutes are left?

There are four minutes remaining.

——over the Government's bulldozing of this legislation through the House and the lack of consultation. They know this method will not build a light rail system of which we are all in favour.

Who refused a debate?

I am in favour of a light rail system——

The Deputy is not in favour. He voted against it on three or four occasions.

That is not Tipperary County Council. This is the Dáil.

——but I am not in favour of a non-consultative, draconian system whereby legislation is rammed through Dáil Éireann without any debate. It is an absolute disgrace.

The Government's attempt this afternoon to railroad this Bill through the House represents the final abandonment of the principles of openness, transparency and accountability.

(Interruptions.)

This is quite disgraceful. I am not prepared to preside over disorder of this level. Deputy Molloy has three minutes remaining to him. I ask Deputies to allow him make his contribution, otherwise I will discontinue the proceedings.

Deputy Molloy did not think of that when he was calling the votes.

This audacious move flies in the face of the normal democratic procedures and suggests this rainbow Coalition Government has little regard for the rules and regulations which have governed the business of this House since the foundation of the State. The Bill, defeated on Second Stage last week through a combination of Government arrogance and incompetence, should not be reintroduced for six months at least if Standing Orders are to be adhered to. There is no end to this Government's disregard for normal practice. Rather than reflect on the reasons the Bill was defeated, and the underlying causes of concern about the nature of the light rail proposal, the Government decided to disregard the views of those who do not agree with it, flex its muscles and railroad it through the House.

That is not true.

Such an approach is unprecedented. How many times have the parties in Opposition sought the discussion of issues of major importance in this House only to be told that such an avenue is closed off under Standing Orders? How many times has this Government invoked rules and regulations to prevent the Opposition pursuing specific lines of inquiry? This Government has set new records when it comes to being economic with information in this House. It has bent the rules of the House to suit itself and has failed to practice what it preaches in those lofty sentiments contained in the programme, A Government of Renewal. That would not be so bad were it not for the fact that the Taoiseach has consistently promoted himself as the champion of Dáil reform.

This is a joke.

In Opposition, he reared against any attempt to make the Dáil less accountable. He was, in a former existence, the advocate of sweeping changes to make the business of the Dáil more relevant and central to the issues of the day. It seems the Taoiseach has changed his views since he arrived in Government Buildings.

The Government is bulldozing a Bill through the House.

I asked a pertinent question during the course of my contribution last week. The Minister quoted the cost of tunnelling underground——

It is time to put the question.

——at £32 million per kilometre. I have since been informed by CIE that it did not carry out any engineering study on which those figures are based. The Minister did not have any authority, therefore, to tell this House that a realistic figure of £32 million per kilometre had been given to him by CIE——

——as a cost of tunnelling underground for this light rail system. He could not tell us the name of any engineering company that had carried out the study. A study was not done. He gave the House a preliminary estimate of CIE, the company the Minister had selected to implement the light rail system.

I must put the question.

The Minister gave the House inaccurate information. This system, as proposed, will cause absolute chaos on the streets of Dublin. It is not the correct proposal. It should not be proceeded with and the House should again vote against it. I challenge the Labour Party Members, who have said at public meetings throughout this city that they are against this proposal, to vote in accordance with their views.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 67.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share