asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the specification, cost and timetable envisaged by the Government in the revised light rail transport project for Dublin; if she will justify the loss of EU funds for the Luas project; and if she will clarify the effect of the Government's decision on the public inquiry that was previously adjourned in this regard.
Private Notice Questions. - Light Rail Project.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise to indicate whether or not there is a Government decision to finance the new proposed light rail system from the Exchequer; if she can indicate what private sources of finance might be available for the project; the source of the £400 million plus quoted as the cost of the project; whether a decision has been made on the utilisation of the £114 million of EU funding which has been lost to the light rail project as a result of yesterday's Government decision; why the Government chose to ignore the recommendations of the Atkins report; when she will be in a position to announce a timetable for the project; whether she intends to cancel the existing public inquiry; and whether she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise to make a detailed statement on the Cabinet decision on the light rail project for Dublin; to inform the House when it is expected that the project will commence, the anticipated completion date and the overall cost; and whether she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise, in the light of ongoing uncertainty and the loss of European Structural Funds to the Luas project, to explain the Government's current policy in relation to the provision of a light rail system for Dublin; and to outline the cost of such proposals and the timescale involved for each element of the plan.
I propose answering the four Private Notice Questions together. Neither I nor the Government ignored the W.S. Atkins report. It favoured the surface option in the short-term, but if a long-term visionary view of a light rail system for Dublin is taken, then part of that system should go underground.
As Deputies are aware, the first phase of the proposed network comprises a surface line from Tallaght to Connolly Station, which is based on the CIE preferred alignment from Tallaght to O'Connell Street and is consistent with the surface option recommended by W.S. Atkins, a line from Sandyford to Ballymun and Dublin Airport using the old Harcourt Street and Broadstone railway alignments and with an underground section in the city centre linking these alignments.
The underground section in the city centre is about 2.5 kilometres and will address two important issues raised in the W.S. Atkins report, namely, the scale of disruption during construction on key city centre streets — Lower O'Connell Street, Westmorland Street, College Green, Nassau Street and Dawson Street — and potential longer term capacity constraints in the central area as the network is extended.
On the issue of funding, the Government agreed to the development of the light rail network for Dublin which I have already outlined. The Government also noted that the cost of the network had been estimated to be in excess of £400 million. The House can be assured that appropriate funding arrangements will be put in place to deliver on this commitment. As is the normal practice, the precise funding commitments for the project will be addressed as part of the normal budgetary process when the Government is preparing its annual public capital programme.
The general question of private financing for infrastructure projects is being addressed by the Department of Finance with a view to early consideration of the matter by Government. It would be prudent to await the outcome of that work before taking any decision on the scope for private financing of the light rail project.
I have always made it clear that EU funding would not be the determining factor in making a decision on Luas. My primary concern has always been to ensure that Ireland does not lose the EU funding involved and that objective will be achieved through the timely transfer of this money to other suitable projects.
I will be working to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the £114 million decommitted will be used to address public transport requirements. The Atkins report has highlighted a number of areas where investment is needed in transport infrastructure in Dublin. My Department has also been working with CIE to identify projects on suburban rail, including the DART and Maynooth line, where work could be undertaken by 2001. The Department will now be entering into urgent consultations with the Commission on this issue.
The light rail project as decided upon by Government yesterday will be submitted for EU assistance under the next round of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds, particularly in view of its integrated nature and the provision of a link in the first phase to Ballymun and Dublin Airport.
Regarding a timetable for the commencement and completion of the project, I will not tie myself or the Government to a timescale at this stage.
That is a big joke.
There is a judicial legal process under a High Court judge——
We understand.
I know some Deputies have no regard for High Court judges, but there is a judicial process——
We have high regard for them.
It is early in the debate for the Minister to be getting ratty.
It is the Deputy who is getting ratty. He and Deputy Olivia Mitchell were a funny sight last night.
I will not tie myself or the Government to a timescale at this stage when the project is still subject to the relevant statutory approval procedures and to necessary detailed technical evaluation work.
Decisions in relation to the public inquiry are a matter for the inspector, the High Court judge, Mr. Justice Seán O'Leary. I have no role and do not intend assuming one in relation to the inquiry. It is like any High Court judge——
What will he inquire into?
The previous Government appointed him.
The line and the method have been changed.
The Minister should be allowed to continue.
Decisions in relation to the public inquiry are a matter for the inspector, Mr. Justice Seán O'Leary, who was appointed by the previous Government. I have no role in relation to the inquiry.
As regards the specification for the project, my Department met the CIE light rail project team this morning to brief them fully on the Government decision.
Was that before the radio interview?
It will now be a matter for the project team to prepare and implement the technical work programme necessary to give effect to that decision.
The Minister said that this revised public transport proposal for Dublin was going to cost £400 million plus. What does she mean by "plus"? Does she have any idea of what is involved in building a tunnel under the city?
No, she does not.
Does she know about the subsidence prospects, the cost and that, notoriously, tunnelling can run as a multiple of over expenditure? What geological work, if any, did the Government appraise in taking this decision? Does the Minister accept that Mr. Justice Seán O'Leary will have no choice but to abort the public inquiry because the design of the Luas project he was working on has been completely redrawn? When will commuters in Dublin have a reasonable or realistic prospect of an improved light rail public transport system in view of the Government's decision? Will the Minister acknowledge that this was a gutless decision by the Government to avert disruption on the streets of Dublin before the next election?
Hear, hear.
"Plus" means "extra". The Deputy could have looked that up in a dictionary.
It means the Minister does not know.
It is nothing to be flippant about.
The Deputy asked when commuters in Dublin will be relieved of traffic congestion.
In the year 2005.
Atkins clearly stated that the Luas lines will have a very limited impact on commuter congestion, but that as part of an overall Government plan — previous Governments had similar ideas about traffic management — they will have an effect.
It was a different plan.
The Deputy then asked if I, the Government and everybody else were gutless. We were not, but the previous Government was, because the situation surrounding Luas when I was appointed was the most amazing acquiescence and belief in what was put in front of people and example of proceeding without thinking that I have ever seen. It was based on one thing——
A Deputy
Where is Deputy Dukes?
A Fianna Fáil colleague of the Minister introduced it.
Deputy Cowen proposed it.
The Minister may not invite interruptions if she addresses her remarks through the Chair.
Has the clamour died down?
Everybody went ahead and did not think the project through.
Including the Minister's colleagues.
We have had ten years of analysis.
It struck all members of Government that while the south and west of the city should have a proper Luas service, the north side——
——and the north side.
It was not included in phase one.
It was already included.
Phase zero. Zero Luas and zero tolerance.
Deputy Stagg will have an opportunity to ask a question.
The Deputy will get his turn in a minute. It was not included——
We will not get answers.
It was not included in phase one. The Government rightly decided that we should have an integrated system which would link two old rail alignments, namely, the one at Harcourt Street and Broadstone, linking Sandyford to the city centre and on to Ballymun and the airport in an integrated manner and as part of the first phase. We did not want a situation where after developing two lines people would say there was no money for further work resulting in the much needed development on the north side not being proceeded with.
Has it been costed?
I am amazed that in all of the comments from Members of the House, not from members of the public, there was no mention of the fact that it is the due right of the people from the north side of Dublin to have a proper light rail transport system.
The Minister should not be so patronising.
There is nothing new in that.
I ask the Minister to cease her flippancy on this important issue. Dublin city is choking with traffic as we debate this issue. Does she accept she was gazumped by the consultants she appointed because they did not come up with the report she wanted? Will she also accept she failed to get support for the consultants' report at Cabinet? Does she accept she has agreed to kill off Luas and replace it with a wish list of pious aspirations without a plan, timetable, costing or even money? She commissioned the Atkins report, which cost £200,000 in taxpayers' money, and gave a clear unequivocal promise in the House on 12 November and 16 December 1997 that regardless of what was in the consultants' report, it would be implemented. Will she explain why she failed to keep that promise?
She said the matter would be put to bed once and for all.
I have the Official Report if the Minister wants to see what she said.
Please allow the Minister to answer the question.
Far from treating the matter in a flippant or trivial manner——
I am glad to hear that.
——I desire at least to get a hearing. The Deputy asked if I was gazumped by my consultants.
She was.
Deputy Stagg, please.
She was gazumped by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, under PD policy.
She knows the answer. She was gazumped by herself according to the radio.
When the Cabinet approved and the Department gave the mandate to the consultants, I did not interview them. I only knew their name. How could I be gazumped by something to which I did not give a mandate? They got their terms of reference.
She is the Minister responsible.
They worked on their terms of reference. I did not interfere. Some weeks ago Deputy Mitchell asked if I could telephone the consultants and tell them to hurry up, but I told him that would be improper. Deputy Stagg also asked if I was gazumped at Cabinet. I was not.
She failed to get its support.
That is not true.
Was the memo the Minister submitted approved?
I ask Deputies to give the Minister a chance to answer the questions. I do not intend to allow this question to go on all evening. To give others who have submitted questions an opportunity to have them answered, I ask Deputies to give the Minister an opportunity to answer the question asked by Deputy Stagg.
Was the memorandum she submitted approved?
Please, Deputy Stagg.
Deputy Stagg then asked me about decision-making in regard to funding. I draw the Deputy's attention to a decision taken by the previous Cabinet with regard to Ballymun which stated clearly that a major infrastructural project would be carried out over a period of years, but it did not mention money.
The Minister has cancelled all that now.
That was a fine project initiated by the then Minister, Deputy Howlin.
It was the proper thing to do.
I agreed with it. It was the right thing to do and I am doing the right thing now.
I call Deputy Gilmore.
On a point of order, the Minister failed to answer the question——
That is not a point of order.
——about her commitment to the project. I would like to hear her answer.
I do not wish to tie the Minister to a timescale for the project, but I have never heard of a Government-approved project which did not include target dates. Will the Minister inform the House of the target date for the commencement of the Luas project? What is the estimated timescale for it? Will she also inform the House of the estimated cost of the revised proposal? I do not know of any Government-approved project that had the type of open-ended costing the Minister indicated to the House in respect of this project. I would like an indication of the estimated cost for the project. Furthermore, since the £114 million of EU funding has been lost to the Luas project, will she assure the House that that money will be made available for public transport in Dublin where the traffic crisis exists and not for some other project which may have nothing to do with the traffic crisis in Dublin?
What about the Mullingar-Sligo railway line?
Deputies should make up their minds.
The Deputy asked about the precise timing. We want this project completed as quickly as possible. I draw the Deputy's attention to the decision in 1993 to proceed with the Dublin Port tunnel. That was five years ago.
I want answers to the questions I asked.
We do not want a history lecture.
The Deputy should give the Minister a chance.
It would be much better for everyone if she answered the questions asked.
The Minister should answer the questions.
Deputy Owen is the chorus. As soon as we can and as quickly as possible——
That is not an answer.
It is a non-answer.
It is an insult. The Minister should answer the question asked.
I ask Deputy Gilmore to allow the Minister to continue.
She should give the indicative dates.
I am about to do that.
This is a stage show.
I will repeat that a decision was made on the Dublin Port tunnel five years ago, but nothing happened after that.
I am asking about Luas. She should answer the question about her project.
Deputy Gilmore should allow the Minister to conclude without interruption.
Do the Deputies support democracy?
There is such a thing as accountability in democracy.
People will have their say. There will be a public inquiry following consultation whereby people will have their say.
When?
On what?
On what the judge decides.
On the Minister's list of pious aspirations.
I would prefer if the Minister did not answer questions put by way of interruption.
The Deputy then asked about funding.
When will the people have their say?
Deputy De Rossa should resume his seat.
The judge will make his decision.
That is gone.
The Minister should not put the blame on the judge.
I have not finished my answer.
I ask Deputy De Rossa to resume his seat. We will have order in the House. Any Minister is entitled to an opportunity to answers questions.
On a point of order——
The Deputy cannot have a point of order when the Chair is on his feet. The Deputy should sit down. We will not continue Question Time in this vein.
This is Question Time and we are not getting answers.
Deputies who tabled questions were allowed ask them without interruption. The Minister is being interrupted. She should be given an opportunity to answer the questions without interruption.
She is not answering them.
There will be an opportunity, for a limited time, for other Deputies to ask questions.
Will you, Sir, ask the Minister to answer the questions put to her?
It is not the function of the Chair to ask the Minister anything.
Will you ask her to give some answers?
Deputy De Rossa, please resume your seat.
Do you, Sir, appreciate the frustration on this side of the House——
That is not a point of order, Deputy Yates. If the Opposition gave the Minister an opportunity to answer the question, we might all learn.
We have not even got a remotely indicative answer.
We have got only a history lecture.
Please allow the Minister to continue her answer.
There was no standing ovation for her today.
I understand the Opposition's frustration because this is a good scheme we have devised.
The Minister did not devise any scheme.
Deputy Gilmore asked me about funding.
Mr. Hayes
What about the timescale?
The timescale outlined in the Atkins report, a copy of which was sent to every Member, was 2002 for on-street operation and 2005 if the underground option was considered.
What is the earliest expected date for completion?
The report did not comment on the effects of the judicial process which must now be undergone to allow people to have their say on the matter.
What is the Minister's target date?
My target date equates with that outlined in the Atkins report. However, I cannot interfere with the democratic process. People are entitled to have their say before a judicial inquiry. The expected cost of the project, which is entered into the Government decision, is £400 million plus. The Deputy said it was unusual for a Government to make decisions without being aware of the costs involved and I agree. The Ballymun decision did not have Government sanction.
Mr. Hayes
The estimated cost was £190 million.
The Minister was aware of the costs involved.
Those costs are not outlined in the figures available to me from the Government secretariat.
The project is a good one and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is fulfilling the objectives set out by the previous Minister. However, the Government did not outline a specific amount of funding in its decision.
I was asked if I could give a commitment that the £114 million EU money which was to be spent on Luas could now be spent on public transport in the Dublin region and Deputy Belton asked that the money be spent on public transport in rural areas.
I was referring specifically to the Mullingar-Sligo railway line.
It is my wish, subject to the approval of the Department of Finance, the Government and the Commission, that the money be spent on a number of projects due for mid-term review. However, I am working to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the £114 million will be used to address public transport requirements.
I, too, wish to know whether the EU funding will be spent on alleviating traffic congestion in Dublin if it is not spent on Luas. Newspaper estimates of the cost of Luas have ranged from £600 million to £800 million. Which of these does the Minister regard as being most realistic, particularly in regard to tunnelling which tends to involve escalating costs as evidenced by the port access tunnel to which she referred? Can the Minister indicate a timescale for the construction of phase one of the project? Which elements of the plan will be built first? How will phase one break down in reality given that the Tallaght line seems to be little changed from the original proposal and could well be built immediately? Will the Minister give a commitment that the elements of the project which are identical to the original proposals, or little changed from them, will be built in the near future?
As of now, the estimated cost of the project is £400 million plus.
What does "plus" mean?
"Plus" means extra.
(Interruptions.)
Does "plus" mean an additional £100 million?
The Minister, without interruption, please.
The timescale for construction is as laid out in the Atkins report, subject to the length of time the judicial review takes.
The Minister has no money to proceed.
I have money. The amount of money involved is outlined in the Government decision.
How can it be outlined if the Minister is not aware of the total costs involved?
In regard to the breakdown of the various elements of the plan, I hope that the Deputy's suggestion can be followed through. If elements of the plan have been cleared, I expect it would be feasible to proceed with construction in those instances.
As Frank Cluskey would have said "put the foot on the accelerator".
Does the Deputy recall what he said when he got near Dublin Airport?
Elements of the plan which have been given clearance should be proceeded with.
When will that happen?
Those elements of the plan will proceed subject to the completion of the judicial process.
What about the Tallaght line?
The Tallaght line, which will extend to Connolly Station, is at an advanced stage.
There does not seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel.
Two distinct lines have been identified, one running from Tallaght to Connolly Station and the other from Sandyford to Dublin Airport. The lines will not intersect and will not have interchangeable rolling stock. The Minister referred to all of these as phase one. Is she seriously suggesting that these lines can be built simultaneously, with an underground system? The reality is that choices will have to be made. What are those choices?
I realise the Minister is anxious to offer something to everybody and does not want to deprive people in Dublin North but someone will be disappointed. The Minister said it would be possible to proceed with those elements of the plan which have been cleared. That is meaningless. Will the lines, such as the Tallaght one, be built and opened or merely built and left until the rest of the plan is completed?
The Minister outlined a measurement of 2.25 kilometres for the tunnelling portion of the plan. As I see it, the figure is closer to three kilometres. The tunnelling will occur along a straight line from Stephen's Green to Broadstone and will go under Dublin Castle and Capel Street, completely ignoring the city centre. Is that the Minister's intention? Does she realise the tunnel will have to be twice as long if it is to cover the city centre? Will there be any stations along the length of the tunnel? If so, where will they be and will they intersect with the east-west line?
The tunnel will be 2.5 kilometres long. I stated that if judicial reviews and preparatory work were completed, construction work could proceed on the relevant lines. I am sure the Luas management group will appoint building contractors who will decide whether they will build simultaneously on all the lines. I doubt that will happen.
So there is no phase one?
We have spent 35 minutes on this question. I will take a brief supplementary from each of the four Deputies who submitted questions. Time has been wasted on interruptions.
I understand the Cabinet debated this matter over two meetings — yesterday and last week. Will the Minister confirm, if we decode her repeated comments about the number of Cabinet members who interjected in this debate, that the memorandum prepared by her Department and originally submitted was not that adopted by the Cabinet? Will she have the honesty and the decency to admit that the Government has committed itself to a black hole of a tunnel under the city centre which it does not know how long it will take to build, how much it will cost and what problems may be encountered because no geological work has been done? Dr. Phillips said today this may cost £1 billion. This haphazard, bizarre fashion is no way to run Government business.
The same was said about Knock and Rineanna. History is repeating itself. The Opposition is being negative.
The Government is making it up as it goes along.
The Minister should be given a chance. If the interruptions continue I will not be in a position to call the other three Deputies who have submitted questions.
On decoding, it was the Deputy who did the decoding.
Matters are very complex in the Minister's Department.
I agree; I find them complex sometimes. On the reference to interjections by members at Cabinet meetings, Cabinet confidentiality does not allow me to say what various members of Government said.
The Minister's memorandum was butchered.
This matter was discussed not only last week and this week but on 2 January — when most people were engaged in recovering from one kind of revelry or another — the Taoiseach and I had a lengthy meeting about Luas. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and I have had several discussions about the matter in recent months. The Deputy said we are digging a black hole. I find that scaremongering of the most obnoxious kind.
The Minister cannot dispute it.
The Deputy went on to speak about the geological Professor, Dr. Phillips, who has contacted him. Two geological professors have been in touch with my office. They insisted——
A Deputy
Are they from Athlone?
No, I wish they were. They have been quite insistent that there is no difficulty in tunnelling.
How do they know?
The Minister should be given an opportunity to answer questions. Very shortly I intend to curtail this question. I would like to give an opportunity to those who submitted questions to ask a further supplementary. This will not be possible if the interruptions continue.
Will you wave a magic wand?
If there are any further interruptions, it will be the end of this question and we will move on to the Order of Business.
Deputy Barnes asked how my geologists know there will be no difficulty in tunnelling while Deputy Yates said his geologist knew. That is the Deputy's answer.
On a point of information, the geologist said nobody knew.
If there are any more interruptions we are moving on to the Order of Business at 5 p.m.
Given that the Minister has not answered the question yet, as the promoter of this project did she submit a memorandum to Government proposing the project and, if so, was it approved or thrown out? Will she kindly reply to my first question when I reminded her of her absolute unequivocal promise on 12 November 1997 in the House that she would accept the Atkins report and implement it? While I am paraphrasing it, that is what she said. Will the Minister stop treating the matter in a flippant manner? There are people sitting in gridlock outside and will not be amused by it.
The Deputy has asked me to comment on what goes on at Cabinet. I do not propose to do so.
I did not ask any such thing.
If there are any interruptions it will be the end of Question Time.
I submitted a proposal which was accepted.
I thought the Minister had no view one way or the other last week.
I submitted a proposal yesterday.
If there is one more interruption, this will be the end of Question Time. I want to give the Deputies who submitted a question an opportunity to ask a supplementary. We have already spent three-quarters of an hour to this question.
I was asked about the commitment of 12 November in this House. I said that when I received the Atkins report I would bring it to Cabinet and——
The Minister did not say that.
We are moving on to the Adjournment Debate Matters at 5 p.m.
She said she would accept it and implement it.
That is exactly what we are doing. The Deputy is treating the matter very flippantly.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister break down the cost of £400 million and indicate what part of the project is represented by the plus? Given that she cannot commit herself to a timescale because of the public inquiry, when will the public inquiry resume? Will she reappoint Judge O'Leary to conduct it? Is it the case that the public inquiry cannot resume until a revised scheme is put before it? Can she indicate when that revised scheme, complete with all the geological studies and so on, will be ready so that the public inquiry can resume?
(Interruptions.)
If the £114 million EU money is lost to Dublin, will the Minister be prepared to accept the wrath of the gridlocked community who will not forgive that happening? Will she name the two geological professors, with such good authority, who contacted her office? They would be fascinating people to speak to given that they know exactly what is in front of them.
They may be Japanese miners.
Given that elements of the plan remain unchanged from the original proposal which went through all the inquiries, investigations and so on, can the Minister give a date when at least some comfort will be provided to the people of Dublin where those elements of the plan will be constructed? When will that happen and does she envisage opening those stretches of line? When can the people of Swords and Clondalkin expect to avail of the Luas given that they have been promised this service?
I asked Judge O'Leary to again take on the task. Deputy Gilmore also asked what part of the plan would be the plus. I cannot indicate that but the Government has put in for more than £100 million.
I hope the Minister is not doing the tunnelling herself.
Deputy Sargent asked if a line could be started. I have already said it would be feasible and that would be the correct way to do it.
When?
As quickly as possible after the judicial process.
That is stalling.
I am surprised the Deputy does not want people to have their say. They are entitled to that.
When? Answer the question.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy represents the party of the eco-warriors who lie in trees and shrubs waiting for people.
(Interruptions.)
Allow the Minister to conclude.
I thank the Deputies for raising these questions.
The Minister did not answer them.
What about freedom of information?
Can the Minister give the names of the professors who contacted her office?
No, they rang me in a private capacity
In secret?
No, but they might go public.
This project will go ahead on the basis of secret advice.
On a point of order, a specific question was asked in relation——
That is not a point of order. The Deputy must resume his seat.
A specific question was asked——
Deputy Gormley must resume his seat.
——but the Minister did not answer it.
That is not a point of order.
Are people——
If the Deputy does not resume his seat, I will ask him to leave the House.
Is the Chair serious?
Yes. As Deputy Gormley has not resumed his seat, I ask him to leave the House.
Deputy Gormley withdrew from the Chamber.
That is a bit much.
It is a farce.
I welcome the debate. I have circulated copies of the three Atkins reports to every Member and I hope to debate this issue in the Seanad tomorrow. I will debate it on any station, anywhere.
Underground or overground?
The Deputy is a bore. This Government has adopted——
A pious wish list with no money.
(Interruptions.)
I cannot understand why the Deputies continue to interrupt me.
(Interruptions.)
The Fine Gael Party opposed Rineanna, Ardnacrusha and Knock Airport. It is opposed to all development.
(Interruptions.)
We built Ardnacrusha.
The Minister forgets the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
(Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.)