I observe that amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment No. 1. I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together, if that is satisfactory.
Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stages.
Agreed.
One decision should suffice in respect of these amendments.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, before line 1, to insert the following:
"(2) Before an authorised officer enters any dwelling house under subsection (1), he or she shall obtain the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of any owner or occupier of the dwelling house.".
I acknowledge the underlying principle of consent and the case made in support of Deputy Brennan's amendment on Committee Stage. Consequently, I undertook to examine the possibility of drafting an amendment for Report Stage which would take account of the principle of consent. It should be noted that the right to refuse consent was always implicit in this section in its original form, which provided that where an authorised officer was refused entry to any land, the Minister of Board would have to apply to a judge of a District Court for a warrant to authorise such entry, having satisfied the judge that entry was necessary. Such provisions continue to remain part of the Bill.
The central point of my amendment is to make explicit the principle of consent in response to points made by Deputies on Committee Stage regarding the special position of a person's dwelling. I pointed out that the amendment as proposed by Deputy Brennan would not be acceptable as it would deprive the board of CIE of any power to enter a dwelling if the person who normally resided at that house refused permission for such entry. An individual, who need not be the owner of the property, could simply refuse entry and the development would be unable to proceed. To allow such a situation to develop would create the potential to permanently frustrate the project as there would be no remedy for the board in such an instance.
Clearly, provision must be made for those occasions which may arise when entry to a house or houses would be necessary if the project is to make progress. This may be necessary, for example, to survey a house prior to selecting a route which runs close to that house. I cannot accept an amendment which forbids entry to any house under any circumstances when such entry could be critical to the progress of the project.
While the proposed amendment from Deputy Brennan is unsuitable for the reasons I outlined, I am satisfied that my amendment achieves the objectives of making explicit the need for consent in support of the rights of the owner or occupier while ensuring adequate rights of entry for authorised officers for the purpose of the Act. I go a long way toward taking the point made by Deputy Brennan but I must balance it by ensuring that if entry to a house or houses is essential for progress, there is a reasonable procedure in place for ensuring it is required.
I welcome the Minister's amendment and thank her for taking on board the spirit of what I was trying to do in my amendment. I ask the Minister to expand on the part of the amendment which states that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. How will that work in practice?
It is self-explanatory. If there was a really good reason to refuse entry to an officer of the board, that is a case that could subsequently come out in the District Court and the judge could consider the matter. If there was a good reason which outweighed the urgent need for progress on the light rail or access to the house to ensure progress, the judge would be in a position to take that into account. However, I suggest that it would need to be a very good reason before consent would not be granted if the case could be made that entry into that dwelling was essential to the progress of the project.
I welcome the amendment. The Minister has gone a long way to meeting the concerns expressed on Committee Stage. The point was that the authorised officer should first and foremost receive the consent of an owner or occupier of a dwelling house because the Constitution protects a person's home. It was very important to assert the rights of the individual citizen as against those of the board, as it seemed to have been in the original provisions of the legislation. The assertion that an authorised officer shall obtain consent is very positive. It is natural that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld, but the authorised officer must now obtain consent and if that is not forthcoming the courts can resolve the matter. I welcome that and thank the Minister for tabling the amendment.
I also welcome the Minister's amendment and pay tribute to Deputy Brennan for raising the issue on Committee Stage. I said on Committee Stage that it give rise to fears in communities that this Bill did not recognise the rights of the individual or the constitutional position of the home. This amendment goes a long way to redressing that deficiency and I welcome it.
I am glad the Minister is taking Deputy Brennan's points on board. However, Deputy Brennan would be the first to agree this is a small side-show in the context of the Bill. It should not be assumed from the fact that the Minister introduced an amendment in response to Deputy Brennan's strong and cogent argument on that issue the Government is showing anything approaching flexibility in relation to this legislation; the reverse is the case. This scheme is going through, no matter what. We are getting an ill thought out, ill considered and inadequate response to Dublin's traffic problems, solely because there is Euromoney sloshing around in the bucket which must be used. Nobody listening to this debate or reading the report afterwards should think other than that a bad scheme is being bulldozed through. This scheme will at the end of the day come back to haunt those responsible for the errors being made now and covered up.
I wish I had said that.
I make the general point now that I made on Committee Stage when I agreed to accept the sentiments of Deputy Brennan's amendment as far as I could. It was felt that the Bill as it was, without this amendment, implied that consent would be necessary, but to put it beyond doubt, because of the very well articulated points that were made on all sides in relation to this matter, I have brought forward this amendment which makes it explicit that consent is needed. I thank Members for their views on this.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Brennan. Amendment No. 18 is related and I suggest that we debate amendments Nos. 3 and 18 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"3.—(1) The Minister shall devise and lay before Dáil Éireann a programme for the construction of a light railway serving the city of Dublin and surrounding areas.
(2) The Minister shall include in the programme under subsection (1) proposals for the construction of the following light railway lines:
(a) from Sandyford to Dublin city centre,
(b) from Ballymun to Dublin city centre,
(c) from Tallaght to Dublin city centre,
(d) any other route within Dublin city and its surrounding area that the Minister deems appropriate.
(3) The Minister shall include in the programme under subsection (1) proposals for the construction of a railway line linking Dublin airport to the city centre.
(4) The Minister shall not exercise his or her powers under section 9 until the provisions of this section have been complied with.".
I do not wish to rehash our debate on Committee Stage, although the opportunity provides itself, but while I thanked the Minister earlier for bringing forward the amendment and I was genuinely pleased to see it, the heart of this Bill is about consultation and routes and what will happen in the city centre. The other matters are ordinary matters of civil liberties which we should deal with and watch out for in all legislation because they can be easily eroded in an attempt to get a project through.
My amendment calls on the Minister to bring in a programme for the construction of a light railway which will serve the city of Dublin and the surrounding areas. I have asked the Minister to include proposals for the construction of particular lines in that programme. I do not seek to set down the precise routes of these lines — obviously that would be an engineering and technical matter following consultation with communities — but the termini of those lines. I seek to include in the legislation proposals for the construction of the following light railway lines: from Sandyford to Dublin city centre, from Ballymun to Dublin city centre, from Tallaght to Dublin city centre and any other route within Dublin city and its surrounding areas that the Minister deems appropriate. I have also asked that the legislation include proposals for the construction of a railway line — not necessarily a light railway line — which would link Dublin Airport to the city centre. That is something that a modern city needs. That is the kernel of amendment No. 3.
I do not accept the Minister's argument that this is enabling legislation permitting the Minister to build lines up and down the sides of the Wicklow mountains or anywhere he wishes. That is not what the legislation should be about. It should not enable any Minister at any stage to build lines wherever he or she wishes. We are talking about well known lines which were announced in Dublin Castle on 12 December with the aid of videos and all types of public relations personnel. We are arguing about the city centre and the Kilmainham-Mount Brown area. If this is enabling legislation, a Minister who may come from a different part of the country such as Limerick city, Letterkenny or Galway city might decide since he has a light rail Bill he might as well issue an order. While I appreciate that Dublin is included in the title of the Bill, it does not state the Minister shall only issue a light railway order for Dublin, he may issue a light railway order for anywhere he or she wishes. Given that the whole country has been told of the approximate location of the lines, and given that the Minister did not inform the House of an EU study which is taking place to see which of the three lines is the most suitable, it is disingenuous of the Government to come to the House and to the committee, as it did in the past few days, and pretend no lines have been decided, that it is all still being considered and that this is purely enabling legislation. To say that is to pretend that the announcement of 12 December in Dublin Castle did not take place and that all the Luas public relations officers were not opened.
It suggests the video was not working.
To say that is to suggest all the announcements from the Government and the dozens of parliamentary questions to which I have got replies informing me of the suggested routes, did not happen. The Minister cannot come here and say no routes have been decided, nothing has been happening and the lines can be built anywhere as this is purely enabling legislation. I am arguing that at least the three routes announced by the Government should be in the legislation.
My amendment No. 18 specifically asks the Government to bring forward a detailed plan to integrate the proposed light railway with the DART, Arrow and the mainline railway systems. There is no proposal to integrate the three systems. My amendment also suggests that no light railway order shall come into operation until the Minister has laid before the Dáil a plan showing how the three systems can be integrated. That is eminently reasonable and most citizens of Dublin would wish that to happen.
The second part of amendment No. 18 — subsection (5) — which deals with costings was dealt with on Committee Stage. It is eminently sensible that before the Minister signs the light railway order he shall publish and lay before the Dáil costings for alternative methods of construction and operation of the city centre section of the proposed light railway within the functional area of Dublin Corporation. I asked the Minister on Committee Stage — and I ask now — that the costings for the city centre underground proposal be available before we can be happy about the decision to take it overground.
I have noticed a change in the Government's position — an underground line was out of the question until Committee Stage. The Minister is on record at Committee Stage as saying that short sections could go underground — I accept it is only being considered. This was not possible a month ago for all sorts of technical reasons, costs, etc. If it is to go underground that would amount to much of the cost and if the line returns overground in a V-shape that seems like a waste of money. If it is meant to go underground it should go some of the way.
My three amendments, which are critical, seek to put the termini into the Bill, to extend the line to Sandyford taking in Dundrum and to do something for Dublin Airport; to integrate the three systems and to publish the costings of the city centre underground suggestions before light railway orders are signed for the rest of the city.
It is important that these amendments are discussed. On the publication of these proposals I was astonished to discover, after it was stated there would be a line from Dundrum to the city centre, that the purpose of the Bill, which is to reduce the level of motor vehicle traffic into the city centre and to speed up people's access to the city centre, would not be fully achieved if the terminus for that line was to be either in Dundrum village or, as now proposed, in Balally opposite the Crazy Prices shopping centre. I generally support the concept of light rail. I am pleased this Bill and this issue is before the House. The reopening of the Harcourt Street line has been discussed for many years. It is an old chestnut that has been floating around in south Dublin for 20 years or more. At successive elections my colleague, Deputy Brennan, kept on reopening the Harcourt Street line.
I will get there yet.
He has to be congratulated on a number of ghost openings. It was reopened in so many election pamphlets that I expected one night on returning from a meeting in my constituency at midnight to see a ghostlike train travelling through the line and hopping across roads that no longer have bridges. The proposal we are dealing with is an important one. If this system is put in place it is completely inappropriate, if not total insanity, to put a terminus in the middle of a suburban built-up area which is already congested, at a location that cannot provide the parking facilities needed for people using the system, even with the new road plans promised for this area which I presume will be implemented in tandem with the light rail system being put in place. The terminus for the particular part of the line should be in the Sandyford industrial estate. Everybody who lives in the south Dublin area and who works in the Dundrum-Sandyford area would be of the view that the Sandyford industrial estate is the correct location for the terminus.
I am informed it will cost an extra £15 million to bring the line from Balally to Sandyford. I do not know if that costing is accurate but if that money is not spent at the time the line is being constructed and is left until some later date we will be told that the costs for such an extension have doubled or trebled. If it is not done, suburban housing estates adjacent to the line will become basically day time long-term car parks for motor vehicles from the adjacent areas of Stepaside, Kilgobbin, Ballinteer and Mount Merrion. There will be huge problems in suburban housing estates adjacent to the proposed terminus, apart from the traffic gridlock which will inevitably develop in the Dundrum-Balally area caused by people using the system. It could well be that the impossibility of providing the so-called park-and-ride facility at the common terminus location will, to some extent, defeat the purpose of the proposal. Some people will decide it is not worth a candle to drive that far and try to park their cars and will simply continue to drive to the city centre. As I have been telling the Minister and CIÉ for some time, it is insanity to proceed with this proposal without extending it to the Sandyford Industrial Estate.
Last December it was announced that the Government had made certain decisions in principle, namely, that the two lines, which could most easily be constructed based on current infrastructure, would proceed and that the third line from Ballymun, which is equally desirable, would form part of a larger plan. Promises were made to my constituents that this line would be reopened. I poked fun at my colleague, Deputy Brennan, in regard to the Harcourt Street line. I do not want to have to tell my constituents that the promise I made in good faith about the proposal being implemented in December will not be fulfilled. It is regrettable that some Opposition parties tried to sabotage that by calling a vote in the House. It is also regrettable that when these announcements were made we were not told the European Commission had requested an overall review of the proposal. That unnecessary oversight should not have happened. I hope this will not mean the line from Sandyford to the city centre will not proceed because I do not take kindly to being put in the position of conveying information to my constituents without being told the full story by the Minister, particularly on a matter with which I have been involved for many years. I hope the European Commission review will not result in an about-face and that we are not told in six or eight months' time that the line from Sandyford to the city centre will not be given priority. I want a reassurance from the Government on this issue because it concerns thousands of people in south Dublin who experience motorised gridlock on a daily basis trying to get in and out of the city centre. Traffic congestion has a catastrophic impact on Dundrum village. Retailers find it difficult to operate businesses and thousands of people who live in the Sandyford, Dundrum and Balally areas are affected.
We have completed Second Stage. We are dealing with Report Stage to which a strict time limit applies.
I appreciate that but I am dealing specifically with amendment No. 3 which seeks to ensure, by way of statutory provision, that the line will run from Sandyford to the city centre. I want reassurances on this matter because I am not happy with the manner in which it has been dealt with to date. However, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill.
Deputy Brennan referred to the need to integrate the system. I also find it difficult to understand why, when CIÉ is effectively being given responsibility for this project, greater thought was not given to integrating the light rail with existing rail systems operated by CIÉ. It is important that the two lines announced by the Minister on 12 December are put in place, but it is also important that they are cost effective. We must provide an integrated and coordinated system and in that regard I hope the possibility of linking the light rail with other rail systems is examined in the current consultations. CIÉ proposes to provide a bus service to link people in outlying areas with the two light rail systems that will proceed following the enactment of this Bill. That should form part of the public framework document so that the necessary advance planning can be undertaken.
I have been advised that it is not possible within the financial framework to put any portion of the route underground. Like other Members, I noted with interest the statement that this matter is being considered further. If it was cost effective and possible, it would make sense to put parts of the line underground, particularly in the city centre. However, if it would cost millions of pounds — which we do not have and the EU cannot provide — to do so, the line should proceed as envisaged because, ultimately, it will succeed. If it was financially feasible, it would be preferable to build a portion of the line in the city centre underground to further alleviate traffic congestion problems in the city. It is surprising that research on this matter is being carried out only now. I understood such research had been carried out previously and that putting sections of the line underground had been ruled out. Will the Minister clarify that?
As a number of Members are offering, I remind them that only 35 minutes remain to deal with the Bill.
I will be brief because I would like to deal with a number of later amendments which I have tabled. If we were all to do as Deputy Shatter did, we would not be able to deal with any more amendments. While the issues he raised are important, such speeches are more appropriate on Second Stage, if the Government had allowed us have a proper Second Stage debate.
We offered all the time that was necessary. We offered to sit until midnight on the night in question and to allow time the following day, but it was not accepted.
I do not have a Whip to attend meetings to be offered anything. I was not even offered the facility of being able to table an amendment on Committee Stage because of the undemocratic system that prevails in this House on such matters.
The welcome I extended to the Minister's minor concession and amendment earlier does not take from my opposition to the way the Government has steamrolled the Bill through the House. I oppose Government policy on this issue, mainly because of the lack of consultation with local people and because the scheme as envisaged is ill considered. This amendment which deals specifically with the routes involved is important but I would go further because there is a strong belief among communities along the proposed routes that, while we debate various aspects of the Bill, the real decisions are being made behind closed doors in Heuston Station by the design team, that while we are being assured, even at meetings with the Minister, that serious consideration will be given to alternative routes proposed by local residents, consultation will end as soon as this legislation is passed and the routes preferred by CIE will be rammed through. I hope that is not the case, but it is a strong concern among local people. Given their experience with the Luas people up to now, they have strong grounds for those concerns. I hope commitments given to Members from Dublin Central, who met the Minister and technical advisers in the past week, in relation to alternative routes at Arran Quay Terrace and Mount Brown will be honoured and that we were not being misled in an effort to speed through the Bill.
I support this amendment and I share the view that what is required in the city centre in the long-term is an underground system. Like other Members, I have not seen detailed and up to date costings nor do I believe they exist. I do not believe the undergound alternative was ever seriously considered or that it is being considered at present.
While I do not want to make a Second Stage speech, I would like to make a number of points about Deputy Brennan's amendments, which I and my party fully support. The reason we support these amendments is that they go to the heart of the controversy over the Luas project. I am glad my colleague, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, is in the Chamber because I was going to refer to her in her absence. She said on radio the other day that those who voted against the Bill on Second Stage were anti-Dublin. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation and the proposal from CIE is anti-Dublin.
I noted Deputy Shatter covered his behind, if I may put it that way, by saying he was dissatisfied with and unhappy about certain things. He found some things insane and others difficult to understand but nonetheless he will support this Bill. He can vote for insanity if he likes. However, I would say to Fine Gael and Labour Deputies who support this proposition that when the damage is done they alone will be responsible for it.
Deputy Brennan'a amendment will not be accepted, despite the fact that a better system is available and should be put in place, a view which I believe is privately shared by most Dublin Deputies who are closest to this issue and who would say in private that this is a most deficient scheme. However, the Government and the Minister, who hails from County Tipperary, are committed to it. The Minister will not be responsible nor will he meet constituents who in five years' time will say they were shortchanged and that this is a disaster.
I am pro a public rail system for Dublin and opening the Harcourt Street line. I am also pro a line for Tallaght and a line for Ballymun, which would connect with the airport. I am definitely pro Deputy Brennan's amendment, which would integrate this system with the rail system, so the Broadstone line, the Arrow Service, the DART, the Harcourt Street line, a line to Dublin airport, other lines and the Phoenix Park tunnel could be used on a single integrated basis to get people around the city.
The unified proposal people, a group of amateurs, have done us a service by going to people like the Mitsui Corporation in Japan to ask it to price an alternative. Those people deserve our thanks and credit for finding out that it is possible to tunnel under Dublin at a comparatively economic cost of £13 million per kilometre on a turnkey basis. Of course, the unified proposal would cost more, that is £400 million. The immediate response will be to ask who are the Progressive Democrats, who are always talking about cutting back public spending, to say that they favour a more expensive option.
I do not know how precisely the unified porposal could be best financed but if it costs more to get something which is worthwhile, we should go ahead and plan it over five years. We should not be mesmerised by an available tranche of Euro money which we will use to do a bad or a half thought out job, thus creating more problems. That is why I support what Deputy Brennan said. While I am completely committed to rail and public transport in Dublin, this proposal is misconceived and will effectively abort the chances of this city every getting what it really needs.
It has been said that there has been adequate consultation and that all these points should have been made earlier. Why did a few amateurs — in the sense that they are not being paid — in county councils outside Dublin Corporation have to go to a Japanese corporation to get costings for a decent alternative to this system? The reason is that CIE has been handed this task by the Government because of sheer intellectual laziness. CIE has come up with a stand alone scheme but there is no reason it should be the sole operator of this scheme. Even if it was retained to be the project managers of the scheme, I see no reason it should operate the system once it is established.
I accept Deputy Shatter's misgivings about the park and ride notion at the termini at Tallaght and Dundrum. However, he will not do anything about those misgivings and he will go back to his constituents and say it is not his problem. The user rates predicted for the Luas scheme are grossly exaggerated. Given that it is a partial scheme which will only go to certain places, and looking at the experience in a city like Sheffield, it is clear Luas will be of no benefit to the majority of Dubliners. The proposal based on particular traffic flow numbers is most unconvincing. So too are the finances worked out on that basis. The notion that a lot of people will travel to Dundrum from places like Rathfarnham, park their cars and travel by tram to the city centre is misconceived. That will not happen. In any event, the experience of Sheffield shows that those who plan these schemes greatly exaggerate the number of people who will use them and they forget that there are competing means of transport in the city. We will have a similar result to that in Sheffield.
I support the principle of a rail-based public transport system for Dublin. It would have been possible, with decent planning, to have had a system which would have been placed underground — I still believe it is possible. If developments like that at Jervis Street in the city centre had been integrated into an underground station and if any effect had been made to plan this project properly rather than in this slapdash, crass and superficial way, we could have had something dramatically different. If this Government expects congratulations for doing a bad job, it will not get them from me. If Fine Gael Deputies come into the House and accuse those who have pointed out the deficiencies in this scheme of being anti-Dublin, they will be missing the point. These same Deputies should go back to their constituents and say that even though they know there is a lot in the scheme, certain portions of it are difficult to understand, some provisions are insane and unacceptable, that they gave out to the Minister for breaking promises about what would or would not happen in the Sandyford Industrial Estate and that they stoop up for the people's interests, they trooped like lambs throught the lobby to give Dublin what it does not deserve, a bad, inadequate scheme that is under-funded, ill thought out and more likely to increase the problems of traffic in Dublin city centre than otherwise.
It emerged yesterday during Committee Stage that a great proportion of central road corridors in the city centre will be dedicated to the exclusive use of the DART system. Some commentators, including Frank McDonald in The Irish Times, whose views I like in many respects and whose courage on some planning issues I admire greatly, say that what is bad for the car is good for Dublin, but that is a very foolish point of view. We need a system that works for the benefit of the vast majority of Dublin people, a system which, with the Arrow system, can be used by those in Huntstown and Mulhuddard to get to Dundrum. We need an integrated system, but we are getting an inadequate system.
If it takes ten or 12 years to put together a worthwhile system it would be much better than spending three or four years devising a system which the city does not need, an expensive toy train set that will damage the city rather than improve it and will make it more ugly than it is at present, leaving the 90 per cent of those who will not live on the Luas corridors more frustrated and angry. For those reasons I support the amendments. The House should take this opportunity to turn down a scheme whereby the Government is trampling over everybody and proceeding with a CIE agenda.
People have said that Opposition Deputies are negative. I organised a seminar in the Institute of Engineers at which views on this matter were canvassed very late in the day but in a very stimulating debate. It occurred to me then that, instead of engaging in propaganda and giving huge sums of money to Bill O'Herlihy and associates to send videos to Xtra-Vision shops, if this matter had been thought out three or six months ago, if there had been decent discussion of the alternatives and of the unified proposal, if the Mitsui Corporation had been brought in by the State to tender for this project, there would have been a very different result. Instead we have a ministerial agenda. The meeting I referred to was told by a representative of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce that the Minister made it clear that the system would be above ground, it would cost £220 million and there would be two routes; there would be no change from that position. The Minister, Deputy Lowry, was quoted at that meeting in front of Luas representatives as having outlined those three certainties.
There has been no consultation process. The planning inquiry is a sham. It is a sham to try to put a gloss of democracy over what is in effect a fait accompli. I very strongly object to that. I also object to being told I am anti-Dublin for saying it is a sham.
The more I listen to the discussion on this matter the more I wish we had had a full scale debate on the Dublin Transportation Initiative. Many matters have been raised in terms of a comprehensive transport policy for Dublin which would have been more usefully debated at an earlier stage so that we could have sorted them out and Deputies could have been informed of them earlier. There was broad representation, including by local authorities, on the DTI and it is against that background we are debating this matter.
There are three elements in this amendment: the routes chosen, integration of the transport system and operation of the system in inner city areas. In terms of routes, I could never understand why two routes were chosen on the south side and one on the north side. I cannot understand why Dublin Airport, with a throughput of more than eight million tourists last year, was not considered a priority for a public transport system, light rail or underground. The Ballymun line is the subject of a 12 weeks study by Oscar Faber. I wait in anticipation the results of that study and, considering the terms of reference, I expect there will be a recommendation that the Ballymun route be included as one of the two priority routes.
It is essential that there will be an integrated system, that the three methods of rail transport, namely, the DART, the Arrow and the mainline rail system, with Dublin Bus, are co-ordinated in terms of Dublin transport policy. The board of CIE has included that in the light rail proposals there will be a provision for linking subsequently with other elements of transportation which will allow for expansion of the system. I hope, even though it is not specified, consideration is given to linking and expanding the system when funding becomes available at a later stage.
On the inner city element, alternative means of transport through the inner city should be explored. I referred to the North King Street route on the north side, which would link automatically with Broadstone. That would add to the opportunities for integration in years to come and there would be a natural linkup to Finglas, Cabra, Ballymun and the airport. Inner city lines should be planned in such a way that people's homes are not demolished and businesses ruined. That is a necessary condition. It was also a condition of European funding that employment is created. I hope that alternative routes are actively considered by the board of CIE to prevent damage to the areas involved.
These elements are part of the broad issue of a comprehensive Dublin public transportation system and I hope, even if the Minister does not accept the amendments, that they will be taken on board by CIE.
I welcome this opportunity to comment on the amendments put forward. The approach taken by some Opposition Deputies in the debates on the development of the Luas has been, in part, anti-Dublin. Deputies are unwilling to acknowledge the benefits light rail will bring to Dublin and to its suburbs. In the past the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil have said consistently they support light rail, yet in the debates on this Bill, including the debate this morning, they have exaggerated the difficulties and have not recognised the consultation that has taken place over a long period through the DTI initiative. Many members of both those parties took part in that consultation process during which local authorities and others were consulted on developing the plan for Dublin.
Light rail has an important role in managing future traffic in Dublin which does not lie in the unfettered use of cars. I accept it will not be easy for people to give up using their cars and they will not do so until a good alternative is provided in the form of fast, efficient, reliable public transport. Such systems operate effectively in cities around the world.
In my constituency the development of the Sandyford to Dublin city centre line is extremely important but that alone will not solve Dublin's traffic problems. Those of us who meet constituents and residents' associations are aware that the key issue with which they are concerned is traffic and its associated problems including parking and the gridlock that occurs every morning in Dublin. The building of the Sandyford to Dublin city centre line will encourage people to leave their cars at home. All of us must become involved in a type of educational process in terms of moving away from the overuse of cars to an efficient public transport system.
The debate on the Bill has not been balanced and it has not recognised the consultation process that has taken place and which is ongoing. I accept Deputy Gregory's point that we cannot simply have a consultation process without any follow up but that will not happen. A public inquiry is to be held and an environment impact study will be carried out, both of which will provide opportunities for ongoing consultation. Everybody involved in this process must welcome ongoing consultation, be sensitive to the concerns of residents and make people aware of any possible environmental change, even simple matters such as cutting down hedges at the back of people's houses or making various changes to buildings. It is extremely important such changes are carefully handled. The corporate culture in CIE must recognise that and must be extremely careful in consulting people in regard to any possible changes.
The experience in my area — and I accept it is different from others — is that residents' groups have been consulted. They have found an umbrella group and have had an input to the consultation process as a result of which changes they sought were made, although they are demanding further changes. I am aware that in other areas some of the difficulties are more complex.
Some of the points made in the debate so far are extremely important. This is a democratic forum and we must allow for a high quality debate. I do not suggest Deputies should not make their points but some Members have not given sufficient recognition to the fact that we have had 20 years to tackle Dublin's traffic problems We now have a plan supported by the European Union and that must be recognised as an important step forward. There will be problems outstanding in relation to integration with other services and whether it is possible to build part of the system underground if sufficient moneys are available. That should be considered but many studies have been carried out in that regard.
There are financial limitations to what can be done although I would ask the Minister to comment again on that. Is more money likely to be made available to build part of this project underground? I understood there were certain parameters in that regard and this plan matches the funds currently available in the most appropriate way. There are financial limitations to what any Government can do but we must move forward at as fast a pace as possible to solve these problems. We must recognise also that this plan will not solve all Dublin's traffic problems but that there is potential for building additional lines. That has been done in other countries and we can do the same.
What timescale does the Government envisage for the development of a third line and for other developments? We must regard this as a project that will develop over a period but it should be acknowledged that this is a good start. Problems will arise and questions will need to be answered in relation to adequate consultation which must be ongoing. Consultation should also be monitored and we must have feedback from it.
We must recognise that major infrastructural changes in Dublin will not be made without some difficuties arising. There will be traffic disruption in certain areas regardless of whether the system is built over or underground. Shop-keepers and residents will be inconvenienced but that is the price we must pay if we want to tackle Dublin's traffic problems and begin to take positive action in that regard. We must prepare people for those changes by encouraging them to become involved in the consultation process, the public inquiry and the environmental impact statement.
I welcome the changes made in the Bill to date. This is a worthwhile initiative. It is the end of a long period of consultation but this is the first time a plan has been put on the table with money available to tackle the traffic problems in Dublin. Other cities are using light rail effectively although I note the Sheffield experience has been frequently referred to by Deputies. Particular circumstances applied in Sheffield and we cannot draw lessons from that example. Lessons can be learned, however, from other cities where light rail has worked more effectively.
We now have an opportunity to begin to tackle Dublin's traffic problems and that should be acknowledged. We must be absolutely certain the consultation currently taking place will continue after the Bill is passed. The Minister should do everything possible to ensure that the quality of the consultation is high, that it is monitored and that it is consistent in the coming weeks and months. This is a long-term project involving major infrastructural changes but overall it is in the interests of Dublin that light rail is supported.
I will direct my first comments to the amendments and then respond to the other points raised by Deputies. Amendments Nos. 3 and 18 propose that a programme for the integrated development of the public transport infrastructure in Dublin, including an evaluation of the different options, be brought before the Dáil. Such a plan already exists and is contained in the Dublin Transport Initiative which has been accepted by two Government as the basis on which to develop our transport infrastructure. We have spent many millions of pounds and many years exploring different options and developing a strategy. We now have the blueprint and the opportunity to implement its core recommendations. A fair point was made by Deputy Costello. He said that the Houses did not discuss the DTI. If that is the case, it should have been discussed. I am relying on the Deputy's powers of recall in this instance because I am not sure whether it was discussed.
We have a unique opportunity to benefit from experience abroad and provide Dublin with a modern and permanent state of the art transport system which will also support our economic development, job creation and urban renewal strategies. The proposed amendment refers specifically to light rail lines linking the city centre with Sandyford, Ballymun and Tallaght. This Government is committed to the construction of the full core light rail network, that is, the three lines to Ballymun, Cabinteely and Tallaght. The Minister said as much last December and much play has been made on his comments. It is as if his proposals were cast in tablets of stone. Deputies ask what is the point of consultation when decision have already been made about the route.
That is what he said.
What the Minister outlined were proposals——
They were not.
——which are subject to consultation. The Government is committed to them and they are the preferred options but they are not cast in tablets of stone. We will not know the exact routes until the light rail order is sought and CIE's project team, together with Semele, the French transport consultation group, make their final decisions and recommendations.
It is a pity the Minister does not say as much in the House.
I am stating the facts. They are the proposals and the Government is committed to them, but the final decision or the tablet of stone stage has not been reached. That will depend on the project team's deliberations which are ongoing and the recommendations of Semele.
This Bill is enabling legislation only. No route is included and no route is precluded.
An underground to Holyhead.
It does not relate to an underground to Holyhead. The Deputy said that we could end up running light rails to Kerry and over the Wicklow mountains, in addition to other colourful prospects. I refer the Deputy to the definition section of the Bill. The Dublin light rail proposal is confined to the three local authority functional areas in Dublin so there is no question of it applying, at the whim of a future Minister, to God knows where else.
I am greatly relieved. It is amazing how the truth comes out.
I refer the Deputy to the definition section lest he is concerned about the activities of future Ministers for Transport, Energy and Communications. The Minister has consistently stated that no final decisions on routes will be taken until the public consultation process has been completed, a public inquiry held on EU approval procedures finalised. A vital element of the consultation process being carried out at present is that it gives individuals and organisations the opportunity to raise the issue of preferred routes and alternative routes and have their views considered.
The amendments also make reference to the construction of a railway line linking Dublin Airport with the city centre. On Committee Stage the Deputy made it clear that it could be a heavy rail line or a light rail line. This highlights the fact that there are more issues to be considered with regard to a connection to Dublin Airport. If the option chosen is heavy rail it is not relevant to this Bill. On the other hand, it would be unfortunate to postpone the development of the necessary core light rail lines while other issues were being examined.
The programme to be implemented in the immediate future is more clearly specified in the operational programme for transport. We are committed to the introduction of two of the three core lines by the year 2000. We are committed to developing the integration of public transport and to the development of suburban rail. Deputy Fitzgerald asked when the third line would come on stream. The first two lines are due to be completed by the year 2000 and it is the Minister's intention that the third line will follow immediately. It will probably take about two years to complete.
I thought the three lines were decided.
There will be three lines but the routes are not decided. Let us not split hairs. We are committed to three lines but the exact routes of the lines are not cast in tablets of stone until the consultation process is over.
In what order?
Let us hear the Minister of State.
I am attempting to respond to Deputy Fitzgerald's question about when the third line will follow. When Deputies do not like what they hear they get agitated.
It is full of contradictions.
It is intended that the third line will follow immediately and will probably take about two years to complete. That is dependent on the approval timetable and any necessary consultation at that stage.
What about the Sandyford industrial estate? Is that the fourth line?
The Deputies who contributed to the Bill have done so in an orderly and uninterrupted fashion. The Minister is entitled to nothing less than that.
It would be a tragedy to delay and effectively jeopardise the light railway project while new plans are debated and other options are re-examined. At some point we must decide to act and the time is now. We have spent long enough looking at possibilities and considering options. We must make progress towards achieving the key elements of an agreed overall strategy. The LRT is of immense importance to Dublin and we can play a constructive role in achieving the best for the people of Dublin. For those reasons I cannot accept the two amendments.
I will respond to the other points that arose during the debate. The DTI final report, which was the product of more than four years of detailed analysis and extensive consultation, recommended against an extensive underground option for the city centre. It concluded that the underground option was not viable in economic terms and would have a large negative rate of return. It also concluded that the distance between the city centre and the western new towns was too short to permit the economic operation of an underground system.
Nobody suggested such a system.
The DTI found that a comprehensive light rail netework could be put in place at far lower cost than the underground option. It concluded that a light rail network represented a sound investment in cost benefit terms and could provide a better overall response to the wider DTI objectives of shifting commuters from cars to public transport and of increasing priority on the road network for public transport.
Just take over the streets.
The on-street light rail system is, therefore, the option favoured by the DTI. It is a lower cost solution compared to the underground option and will provide a better economic return. Underground stations are very expensive and less accessible to mobility impaired people. Light rail will be more accessible on street than underground. More stops will be possible on street allowing a greater degree of flexibility of service for customers, shop owners and businesses and a greater number of stop locations along routes.
CIE and its consultants, Semele, are looking at the option of short sections of underground, costing its economic implications and its general viability. There are still major difficulties with short sections underground but, at the request of the Minister, they are looking at that opinion and the report is expected in July. That report will be published.
I have covered the points raised by Deputy Shatter. This is enabling legislation. We are not naming specific routes. The Deputy said that the sum of £15 million required to extend the line to Sandyford was small in the context of the overall amount available. Forceful and cogent arguments have been put forward in favoiur of the Sandyford option as distinct from the Dundrum one. I will ensure that the points made during the debate are brought to the attention of those who will make the final decisions. The same arguments can be put forward for extending the other routes. However, we are limited in what we can do by the funding available, £220 million, and we must get the best possible return for it in terms of overall traffic management and accessibility to Dublin city centre. The sum of £15 million required to solve the Sandyford problem might be small in the context of the overall amount available but the cumulative cost of the many small but highly desirable extensions would be very high.
The point about insanity still stands.
That is an exaggeration.
I ignored much of what Deputy Michael McDowell said. I heard his points before and I could have written his script.
I doubt it.
His mantra is laced with politics and he is trying to score political points against this excellent idea. He is not magnanimous enough to congratulate the Government on what it is doing. The Deputy argued very effectively but there were some inaccuracies in what he said.
The Minister should tell me what they were.
The Deputy exaggerated.
I want to correct these inaccuracies. CIE did not propose the scheme.
The Luas scheme is being devised by CIE.
The scheme was proposed by the DTI after years of consideration and consultation and it has been accepted by two successive Governments, one of which was a Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition. The Progressive Democrats did not get a look in on this issue but virtually all the parties accept the principles of what we are discussing.
The principles but not the practice.
This Government, and the previous Fianna Fáil-Labour Government, agreed on the policy framework.
I agree with the points made about integration and the need for every assurance possible to be given that the light rail system will be part of an integrated Dublin transport system. As I understand it, that is the brief of the DTO. In the interests of ensuring proper traffic management and access to Dublin city centre in the future, we should pursue vigorously the proposal for integration. Governments will have to ensure that sufficient funds are made available to complete the integration programme. The DTI has proposed an integrated transport system including DART, the light rail system, Arrow, etc. and the brief of the DTO is to ensure this is achieved. We do not disagree on this point, which is fundamental to the proper management of traffic in Dublin city and the greater Dublin area.
Reference was made to the Oscar Faber report. The EU asked the Government to carry out further work on the Tallaght-Dundrum and Tallaght-Ballymun options as part of the application process, and the Government has requested Oscar Faber, through CIE, to do this. It is looking at the socio-economic aspects in particular and will report in mid-August.
Why did the Government go through CIE to get the report?
I wish to correct what I said. We did not go through CIE but employed Oscar Faber directly. I cannot give the Deputies an assurance on the timetable for construction until we see the Oscar Faber recommendations on the final routes.
I cannot accept these amendments as this is enabling legislation. None of the routes proposed in the amendments are precluded by it, but we are not including any specific routes at this stage. I have indicated how these routes will be chosen and how the decisions will be made in the coming months.
It may seem strange for me to intervene in this debate.
We will not extend the route to Wicklow.
What about Greystones?
This issue is of much concern to Dublin Deputies but any change in the transport system in this city also affects people outside the county. Any improvements in the traffic arrangements in Dublin will be very much welcomed by the thousands of Wicklow people who travel to Dublin to work, to attend school or to carry on business. Every day people travelling from Wexford or Wicklow to Dublin get caught in the traffic jam at Loughlinstown. People with businesses in Wicklow and Wexford incur considerable transport costs and they would welcome any improvement in the traffic flow in Dublin.
I welcome the legislation and understand the desire of many Deputies to see the light rail system extended to various parts of their constituencies but it will not solve all the traffic problems in Dublin. The members of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council must give consideration to other forms of transport which would bring great relief to people who regularly visit Dublin.
The new edition of the Yellow Pages contains 1,350 pages of advertisements by businesses. Many of the advertisements indicate just how big commercial activity is in Dublin. These companies provide services throughout the country and the transport facilities must be improved if they are to do their business properly. Many people use their cars to travel to Dublin and when they get here they would like to be able to park them happy in the knowledge that they will not receive parking tickets or have them towed away. I know a man who accompanied his brother to the Eye and Ear Hospital and when they were ready to drive home they discovered their car had been taken. The patient, who had patches over both eyes, had to stand in the rain while his brother tried to find the car. Many people from the country do not know where to park in Dublin. They do not enjoy the same concession as Deputies who can park their cars in the grounds of Leinster House all day.
A great deal more can be done to solve the traffic problems in Dublin city and county. When I was Minister for the Environment it was proposed to build a ring road around Dublin but this seems to have got struck on the south side. People living on the south side of the city who wish to travel to the airport, Cavan or Donegal find it almost impossible to get beyond Loughlinstown or White's Cross. It is almost impossible to get from Loughlinstown, White's Cross or that general area over to the west. Many motorists use a little laneway at the side of the Grange Golf Club, which has been there for centuries. I fully understand the difficulties of people travelling from the Tallaght area to the Sandyford Industrial Estate in the mornings, coping with the enormous volumes of traffic at the Tallaght roundabout. The problems encountered by people outside the city are enormous, just as they are for those within the city boundary. Bus lanes were created many years ago to allow the travellers reach the city centre without delay but has anybody ever seen a bus lane without a car or cars parked on it? Illegal parking in bus lanes exacerbates overall traffic problems. Local authorities should be involved in preventing it. There is need for greater parking facilities on the perimeters of the city, to allow motorists benefit from the light rail transport into the city centre. Many business people hate having to drive their cars into the city centre. While the new electronic boards indicating parking spaces around the city are of enormous help, more often than not they indicate that most car parks are full. In addition, anybody unfamiliar with the layout of the city centre will not know where car parks are located. There is enormous need to accommodate motorists who have to travel into the city centre.
Perhaps the Deputy would make his comments somewhat more relevant to these amendments.
I, and a few other Members from beyond the city, intervened in this debate to highlight the problems our constituents encounter on arriving in the city.
It is my fervent hope that this light rail transport system will relieve some of the city's traffic congestion but it will not resolve its daily traffic chaos on which a broader debate is warranted so that Members could investigate all alternatives. One concrete proposal would be to extend the DART to Greystones, so that many more cars would be taken off the roads and people transported to light rail stations or terminals.
I knew that was coming.
I make that point because it would appear that we in Wicklow have been forgotten. I was merely highlighting the volume of business and commence by no means exclusive to the citizens of Dublin city or county. To that extent I am glad a light rail system is to be constructed in Dublin, representing a small contribution only to the overall traffic congestion of the city which affects everybody moving through it.
I will press these amendments but am anxious to deal with others as quickly as possible.
I do not accept the assertion that we on this side of the House are anti-Dublin. Over the years I fought for many changes in this city, as did other Members. We are not against the principle of light rail but against this disastrous Bill, which contains no provision for consultation or integration and does not specify routes. The Minister told the country he has routes. He applied to Brussels for funding for specific routes and then informed this House that routes have not yet been decided. Neither has the Bill any provision for a proper public inquiry system, with the exception of a purely bureaucratic, legalisatic one, or any provision for costings. It does not inform us as to what is proposed for the city centre.
I firmly reject the assertion that anybody who does not go along with this Bill somehow does not have Dublin's interests at heart. It is precisely because we have Dublin's interests at heart we will not go along with this disastrous Bill.
During my term in office it did not cost me a thought to tell consultants or task forces to get lost, which I did on many occasions. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The preceding and present Governments said the suggestions of the Dublin Transport Initiative group were fine in principle but that we must get down to the detail, before going to Europe. It is when one gets down to that detail a Minister has to step in and call a half to the DTI proposal. To expect us all to follow that through in detail is quite foolish——
Is Deputy Brennan against the principle of light rail?
I am for the principle of light rail. A light rail system could be constructed on the old Harcourt Street line, another line to Ballymun and yet another to Tallaght. One can produce the costings for its installation in the city centre, show how the various systems can be integrated, established consultative councils to determine its routes but none of that is being done. Merely because Members generally are in favour of the principle of light rail, the suggestion that they must be in favour of its every little detail is not acceptable.
Must we all sign a blank cheque which is what we are being asked to do?
Yes. I want to tackle the Oscar Faber report. Deputy Molloy asked the Minister at a committee meeting the other day if it would mean dropping the Dundrum line. The Minister of State responded:
If we are talking about the same money there will have to be changes. If they recommend Ballymun and not somewhere else, it must be borne in mind that we have only a certain amount of money to spend and, if the Ballymun option is included...
The suggestion is quite clear. The Minister of State told us this morning that the socio-economic term of reference has now been inserted into the EU study. The EU will in a couple of months reject the proposals for Dundrum and Sandyford and based on socio-economic studies will support construction of a line to Ballymun.
The Minister or Minister of State cannot have it both ways. The Minister says he wants to follow the DTI proposal but proposes only to cherry-pick parts of it and to go underground for short sections.
A decision has not been taken to go underground for short sections; let us be factual, no such proposal has been made.
I understand the Government is considering going underground for short sections. The DTI did not recommend that. The point I want to bring home here is that, when it suits, the Government picks parts of the DTI proposal but not others. This means the DTI report is not the liferaft to which it should cling when putting this Bill through the House. The Government has quite clearly shown that parts of it are of interest but others are not.
My three amendments call on the Government to name the routes, to stipulate the costings for the underground portion and draw up an integrated system before signing any light rail orders.
As the Minister said, the DTI gave us a blueprint unless, of course, it cannot be a blueprint because the EU says we must carry out a study of the proposal. Are we following the recommendations of the EU on which line should be constructed? A document that was supposed to be sacrosanct, described as a blueprint, is suddenly no longer such because the Oscar Faber report must be considered. No longer is the report of the DTI such a great document. We will be told the EU study supersedes it since it will pay the money and we must do what it dictates. What in God's name was the Minister doing in Dublin Castle on 12 December last? I clearly remember seeing reports on television and radio and reading them in newspapers when he specifically said the Government would proceed with two lines first, followed by one to Ballymun. He told us nothing then about the EU study. That information was not given until Members here dragged it from him, yet the whole project is back in the melting pot.
This Bill is a disaster for Dublin. We must construct a sensible light rail system, any underground protion being costed to enable us ascertain whether it can be afforded. It must be an integrated system following proper consultation with local communities such as those in Kilmainham. This Bill is a disaster. I make no apologies for voting against every one of its provisions.
Acting Chairman
Is Deputy Brennan pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Morley, P. J.
- O'Dea, Whillie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Midhael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Penrose, William.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, to delete lines 27 to 30 and substitute the following;
"(e) a detailed analysis and costing of the main alternatives studied and the detailed reasons for choosing the proposed alternative, taking into account the environmental effects, and".
Section 5 (1) (e) of the Bill provides for an outline of the main alternatives, if any, studied and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative, taking into account the environmental effects. My amendment takes that a step further, provides for a detailed analysis and costing of the main alternatives studied and detailed reasons for choosing the proposed alternatives, taking into account the environmental effects. This could be done by way of appendix to the environmental impact statement or as part of it when the studies exist. It is simply an attempt to ensure openness and real consultation.
The background to this proposal is frustration on the part of community groups who have met Luas representatives to suggest alternative routes. I want to ensure that those alternatives are being seriously looked at because of the perception that up to now community groups and their proposals have not been taken seriously. One way of ensuring they are taken seriously is to publish the studies of the alternative routes. Such routes, which would constitute minor alterations in the whole scheme, have been suggested by two communities. I wish to make the point as strongly as possible that I fail to understand why Luas cannot give those communities a definite response until the middle of July when the legislation has been passed. There is a great deal of concern in those communities that even where there are meetings between public representatives and the Minister, and between Luas and the local communities, their proposals are not being taken seriously and the consultations are nothing more than a charade, an attempt to see this legislation through the House, and then to proceed with the original route. The environmental impact statement will contain only an outline of the main alternatives and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative. That is unacceptable.
If a route is to be chosen we, the community and their representatives, are entitled to know the reason. Any participation the community has had in the process has come from them and was not invited by Luas, the Government or anybody who is trying to push through the scheme.
This is one of a number of amendments I have tabled in response to specific requests from the local community. This amendment relates specifically to the submission from the Arran Quay Terrace community and I know it has the support of the communities in Kilmainham and Mount Brown. They are very concerned that their proposals, which do not involve the demolition of houses and the disruption of business, are not being taken seriously. There is no evidence other than verbal commitments, which up to now have proved to be useless, that they are being taken seriously.
I support Deputy Gregory's amendments Nos. 5 and 6. His is a very sensible suggestion and I encourage the Minister of State to take it on board. Assuming alternative costings, studies and routes, all of which information should be available to CIE, Deputy Gregory is asking that they be taken into account and published. If we are to construct a major transport system for Dublin, what could be more logical and sensible than to publish the studies that have taken place? I strongly support what Deputy Gregory wants to do.
I have been putting a straight question to the Minister during the past two days to which I have not got an answer. I am disappointed the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, could not be present to take Report Stage of what is perhaps the single most important transport Bill. I may not be correct but since the Minister came to office I believe this is the only legislation that has come from his Department. Given that, it would not be too much to expect him to be present to reply today.
Especially since he was here to vote a few moments ago.
That is an aside and I am not taking from the Minister of State's competence or right to be here. I have no quibble with that. My quibble is with the absence of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. The reason I am annoyed by the Minister's absence is that during his Second Stage speech on the second Bill he told the Dáil it would cost £65 million per two kilometres to go underground in Dublin city centre. Where did he get that figure? That works out at £60 million per mile.
I do not wish to repeat anything I said earlier. I agree with Deputy Seamus Brennan that what Deputy Gregory is asking for is reasonableness itself and no reasonable person could refuse it. It is about time we had some token genuflection in the direction of substantial consultation on this matter, giving people who are interested real access to the facts. I agree fully with Deputy Brennan's remark that it is a pity the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications is not present to bear the burden of getting the legislation through the House, especially since he could find the time to come and vote. As things stand Deputy Bhamjee and he have had about an equivalent input to the Bill.
I can appreciate the Deputy's concern and his desire that the maximum level of information be made available to the public. I thank Deputy Gregory and the other Deputies who have remained in the House for their ongoing interest and commitment to the issue. I fear, however, there is a danger that we are confusing many different elements of the approval procedure with these amendments. It is being proposed that all options be evaluated under all criteria at each step.
What we are talking about is the environmental impact assessment. A two step procedure has been introduced to planning requirements by EU regulations. The developer is obliged to prepare an environmental impact statement and active public involvement in the assessment of EIS is actively encouraged. That has been fully provided for in this case and the section as drafted already includes a requirement that where appropriate an outline of the main alternatives — if there are any, and there will be — should be included along with an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative, taking into account environmental effects. The final clause reminds us that we are dealing with the environment and the requirements of the section seek to ensure that an adequate statement of impact on the environment is prepared. It is essential that the environmental impacts of the proposed alignment be fully and clearly stated so that a decision can ultimately be taken which takes into account the effects that the development would have on the environment. In doing so it is reasonable to outline from an environmental perspective what other options were considered and why they were not chosen. It is not reasonable to expect the EIS to set out a detailed analysis and costings of the main alternative study. The form of words being used here is identical to that used for other major developments where an EIS is required. It is very similar to other major capital construction projects such as motorways and so on.
The flora and fauna.
It is more than the flora and fauna. Let us not be facetious.
Where are the proposed two lines on the flora and fauna?
The question is being put in a little over five minutes and I wonder if I could make a few concluding remarks.
Is that a press release?
It is not. It is what I would have said if we had another two hours but it will take two minutes if I abridge it.
The price of bringing in a guillotine motion is that you end up begging to be given some time.
We do not all make the rules, some are applied to us.
What is the basis for the £65 million?
The £65 million figure was based on figures supplied by CIE based on a preliminary estimate. Further work is being done to get more accurate figures.
Did they carry out costings for the underground?
I understand that the DTI looked at the overall but no detailed costings were done by them. Economic benefit analysis and general costs would have been included.
But they did not do costings?
They did no specific costings.
And decided against it.
They had overall costings and they had equivalents.
They did not have costings for the underground.
They did detailed costings for the DART going underground because the same debate arose at that stage. The tunnelling aspect would be similar even though the rail cars may be different. On the basis of those costings it concluded that an underground DART network would not be economical. The total cost of such a system in the city centre alone was estimated at £600 million.
It did not cost an underground light rail system.
No but the equivalent ballpark costings would be similar. The advice is that an underground light rail system would cost more.
Not a chance.
That is from where the figure of £65 million for two kilometres came. Some very good points were made on Committee Stage yesterday. The issue of trespass was discussed. I will not develop the point but draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 14a which I hope will meet the concerns of Deputies on all sides. It is an important amendment. Concern was expressed about the ability of the inspector to ensure that all necessary material will be available to him at the public inquiry. I indicated my belief that he would be in a position to ensure that adequate material would be available to him but accepted Deputies' strong views that in particular instances there might be difficulties and his legal powers should be strengthened.
That is the purpose of this extensive amendment. It will increase somewhat the bureaucratic nature of the Bill against which we have all spoken but the balance of advantage lies in ensuring that the inspector will be able to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses at the public inquiry. The amendment provides for the payment of expenses where witnesses are compelled to attend.
The Minister of State promised to deal on Report Stage with the difference between the European EIS and the Irish EIS.
I would be delighted to do so but I have not done most of the talking even though the contributions have been very interesting. I will clarify that matter in the Seanad.
On amendment No. 15 there was a very interesting discussion yesterday about the public inquiry and equity of access. I promised to examine the provisions in the Department of the Environment dealing with public inquiries, including motorway inquiries. The amendment is limited and I do not pretend it will meet the requirements identified whereby all groups and individuals not in a position to fund themselves will be funded in taking on the technical strength of the State at the public inquiry. Under its minimal provisions the Minister will be able to direct the board to refund after the inquiry any costs incurred by groups which encounter particular difficulties.
Those are three points on which I said I would come back to the House. I hope I have strengthened the Bill with these amendments.
I regret the Minister of State has not answered the reasonable question posed by my amendment which states that any studies undertaken should be published and made available either as an appendix to or as part of the EIS. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that serious consideration will be given to the various alternatives put forward by residents groups. This will not happen.
We are concerned that residents groups will have legal and technical representation at the public inquiry on a par with that of the Luas representatives. As a concession, the Minister of State said that if they are granted representation they can look for the money after the event. That will not work. It would be impossible to avail of the expertise of professional and technical people on the basis they might get paid after the inquiry has taken place.
As it is now 1.15 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed".
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Penrose, William.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- 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.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Morley, P.J.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.