I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 23, to delete "(Railway" and substitute "(Light Railway".
Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2001: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I apologise that I was not here at the beginning. I understood if one was to be in the Seanad one came to the Seanad. Unless one is here physically one is corralled for a vote in the Dáil. That is the reason I was not here. I was on my way when I was stopped.
We understand the situation. That is perfectly all right.
This amendment is in the name of Senator Ryan. Senator Costello explained to me that Senator Quinn and Senator Norris would move the amendments.
This amendment relates to the title of the Bill. It seeks to delete "(Railway" and substitute "(Light Railway". The Bill is in two sections. Parts 1 and 2 deal with Luas light rail and metro and the later sections deal with heavy rail. To delete "(Railway" and substitute "("Light Railway" would mean that the section which deals with heavy rail could not be taken because the title of the Bill would have been changed. I understand the reason for the amendment and with your indulgence I shall deal with it.
When the Bill was published it was to deal with all rail. Following discussions at the transport forum, which is under the aegis of my Department, with all the managers, trades unions and all involved in the production of railways it was decided that the Railway Procurement Agency Bill was to deal with procuring material, public private partnerships and so on for all the infrastructure for Luas and metro in that part of the Bill. That was agreed and I have amendments to reflect that.
To delete "(Railway" from the title of the Bill and substitute "Light Railway", as suggested by the amendment, would mean that the later section which deals with heavy rail could not be implemented. That would not be correct. The agency will cover only light railway metro but the railway order procedure in Part 3 allows for the development of all railway infrastructure. Therefore it would mean that CIE could never apply if, say, Senator Glennon made an eloquent contribution for a service from Skerries to Gormanstown. A railway line to Navan is in the process of being proposed. This is all heavy rail and would be provided by CIE. While the amendment is tabled for a good reason it would limit the scope of CIE for heavy rail.
Speaking on behalf of Senator Costello, the explanation the Minister has given is one that would be understood by him and would be acceptable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following new definition:
"‘establishment day' means the day appointed undersection 8 to be the establishment day for the purposes of Part 2;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendments Nos. 3 and 36 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following new definition:
"‘metro' means a railway designated as a metro in a railway order issued undersection 43;”.
Senator Norris raised this matter on Second Stage.
That is right.
"Metro" means a railway designed as a metro in a railway order issued under section 43. That leaves the Senator as wise as I am. It is a definition in technical terms which was requested during Second Stage.
I wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for inserting this definition. Following from it there are a number of amendments, including Government amendment No. 36. There is also the inclusion of light railway and metro in other sections of the Bill. My concern, which I raised with the Minister and I am glad she understood it so clearly, was the fact that there was no mention of "metro" in the Bill. Those of us who wish to advance the cause of a metro system were concerned that there was no mention of it in the Bill. My experience is that if something is not mentioned in the Bill and if there is no definition of it, it is easier to slow track the idea. I wanted to do everything possible to encourage the Minister in her valiant and determined efforts to ensure that there is a metro system here. Now we have it nailed into the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her advisers for taking on board my request for this kind of amendment.
I saw the Senator's point clearly. All of us are aware of the importance of legislation given that it may stand for several years. Frequently I hear officials, Opposition and Government Members say it is not in the Bill or the Act, therefore it does not affect it. That metro was not mentioned was an aberration and could lead people to say that there was no mention of metro in the Bill.
I express my gratitude and apologise to the Minister as I have to attend a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am glad we got to this amendment so it is no discourtesy to the Minister that I have to leave the House.
I understand.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Government amendments Nos. 4 and 18 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 9, subsection (1)(a), line 6, after “such” to insert “light railway and metro”.
If Senator Norris was here he would be pleased about this amendment also because it mentions the metro. Senators Ryan, Costello and Quinn will be aware this was the amendment agreed between the Department and the trades unions at the transport forum. This is what was requested.
I appreciate the Minister's move in this area. It was agreed in the transport forum.
That is correct.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following paragraph:
(b)to monitor and publish regular reports on the safety of such railway infrastructure;”.
The amendment speaks for itself. It may well be that the Minister can tell us there was not a need for it but it seems to us that it is necessary to monitor and publish regular reports on the safety of such railway infrastructure. I assumed that was already included but the advice available to me is that unless it is stitched into the Bill it may not be included. Given the Minister's concern in regard to safety matters, it would be important that a regular report on safety be given. That is the reason for tabling the amendment. It may be that it is covered elsewhere but we could not find it.
An amendment such as this would strike one as being entirely correct. We are bringing forward an all encompassing Railway Safety Bill. This Bill is being brought forward by the independent group which is monitoring investment on the railways to ensure it is well used. This is a procurement agency whose purpose is to purchase infrastructure whether by public private partnerships, by public money or in any other way. I would have no difficulty with it but it will not be needed. I am publishing the Railway Safety Bill in the summer or autumn time. I hope to be back to introduce it here. It is a very substantial and very necessary Bill. It will contain items such as this and so this will be overtaken before this agency is operational. The agency will only be involved in procurement. The running and safety of the Luas will be the responsibility of the railway safety authority, which will be set up to monitor the running of all the railways.
I understand the Minister's point and that is not the primary purpose of this agency. However, we frequently get the promise that something is not needed because something else will surpass it. I know it is the Minister's intention to bring forward the Bill in the autumn and the new railway safety authority will come into being before this agency is set up. On that basis, it may well be acceptable. However, it seems a shame that in the meantime there is not some way to report on it. If for some reason there were a delay in the appointment of the railway safety authority then perhaps this agency could take this on in the meantime.
I thought about that too. We had hoped that this Bill would be through this House and that we would go into the Dáil with it. I aim to make the Railway Safety Bill the centrepiece of our legislative programme for the autumn. It is a hugely important Bill and will far surpass safety legislation in the UK or any other European country. We are going way beyond what others would deem necessary. It shows the faith in the future of railways evidenced by all parties in these Houses.
In the unlikely event of this agency coming into being before the Railway Safety Bill starts its passage, then we could look at giving such powers to this agency, which would subsequently pass to the railway safety authority. However if the two were contemporaneous, it would not be necessary. We have increased the number of railway inspectors from one to three and they are responsible at present.
The Minister's heart is in the same direction as my own and I am sure that would be sufficient and so this is not being pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 33 is related to amendment No. 6 and they may be discussed together, by agreement.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 9, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following new subsection:
"(7)The Agency may only act as the operator of a railway where authorised by the Minister by order.".
The agency may only act as the operator of a railway where authorised by the Minister by order. This is purely a technical matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 15, inclusive, 17, 31, 39 to 48, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 7 and they may discussed together.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 10, subsection(2), line 43, to delete "£500,000,000" and substitute "600,000,000 (£472,538,400)".
These are all about money. This simply converts amounts into euros because by the time this is set up, we will all be operating in euros.
Does this mean that we will need amendments like this every time money is mentioned? On the Order of Business today, I raised the question of the euro changeover, which is only six months and one week away.
I can see that the Senator is well prepared for it.
I am getting quite scared about the implications from my own point of view. Does this mean that we are going to have to change every time there is a sum of money mentioned? It seems very unwieldy to me.
Money mentioned in all new Bills will be in euros. For a while we will show euros with the old money in brackets. That is the practical way to do it because it will take time for people to adjust to it. Everything looks so much dearer than in the old money. I wonder how people in retail stores will cope with the change.
Between now and 1 January 2002 it should have the old money in brackets afterwards. I hope that will not happen after that because we need to make the changeover in our minds. I found great benefit in metric. It has made me much taller; I am now 166 cm and I used to be only five foot six. I am also much lighter; I am down to 78 kg. I have made the change for some years. After 1 January, we should forget all about the old money and move to the new money.
Adding further confusion, the UK will still be using old money.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 12, subsection (4), line 38, to delete "three" and substitute "3".
Amendments Nos. 19 and 34 are related to amendment No. 8 and they may be discussed together.
This is a purely technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 50, after "members," to insert "at least one of whom shall be elected by the employees of the Agency,".
I do this without any enthusiasm. I believe that the best person for the job should be appointed to the agency. I do not think it is right to have representatives unless they are best for the job.
I thank the Senator for giving his thoughts on that. This was discussed at the transport partnership forum. The amendment is now encompassed by Government amendment No. 10.
I think that the representation of the employees is a good idea because it gives a more—
The spirit of it is in the next amendment.
It gives a better feeling of involvement, if employees are involved.
I know what Senator Quinn was getting at when he talked about the best person for the job.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 13, subsection (4), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) trade union representation,”.
Amendment No. 10 expresses the spirit of amendment No. 9. In putting forward this amendment, I wish to give credit, where credit is due, to Senators Ryan, Costello, O'Meara, Quinn and Henry.
I thank the Minister for inserting this new amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 14, lines 33 to 35, to delete subsection (16) and substitute the following:
"(16)The Minister shall comply with the requirement that at least 3 members shall be women and at least 3 shall be men."
I feel quite sure that the Minister's heart is also with this amendment, which relates to gender representation on these boards. It has been an accepted policy for quite some years to try to ensure that there is such representation. It is generally with a view to the representation of women that some special provision is required in relation to any board. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Senator Henry and I have been friends for many years but I do not agree with this amendment. I agree with the appointment of the best people for the job. However, I have never agreed, and never will agree, with a quota system. To specify that three members of the board shall be women and three shall be men, is a type of quota system. The best person for the job should be appointed. I recall discussions on this matter at my own parliamentary party meeting when the then Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach, was introducing such a system for the boards of regional colleges or, perhaps, vocational education committees. I always felt that that approach was wrong.
Senator Henry is, of course, quite right in saying that there are not enough women at board level. There are not enough women in this House, in the Dáil, in business or other agencies but that will not be changed by simply specifying gender quotas. I believe that those who have responsibility for making appointments seek the best people, whether they are women or men. I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment proposed by Senator Henry.
I know the Minister will not accept excuses that those making appointments "cannot find good women anywhere".
They can find them if they look for them. I fully accept that.
I must concur with the Minister. I refer to the experience in recent years in relation to educational boards. As the Minister has adverted to, a previous Minister for Education did set down such quotas and the positions on boards were not filled because those making the appointments could not find enough female candidates who met the criteria for membership of those boards. As a result, the boards were let drift and much valuable time was lost, in terms of the working of the boards.
I fully agree that there are many very capable women out there and I have no doubt that they will be found if people are sufficiently interested in doing so, but a quota system will not address that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 21 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 19, subsection (5), line 31, to delete "£10,000" and substitute "13,000 (£10,238.33)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 19, subsection (5), line 36, to delete "£500" and substitute "650 (£511.92)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 20, subsection (5), line 4, to delete "£15,000" and substitute "20,000 (£15,751.28)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 22, subsection (3), line 17, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "2,000 (£1,575.13)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 22, between lines 21 and 22 to insert the following new subsection:
"(5)The First Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, is hereby amended by the insertion therein of a reference to the Agency.".
I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. In dealing with various Bills in this House, we are constantly having to include a provision that a certain Act, agency or board is now subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Would it not be better to put it in right at the beginning that that Act will apply? No doubt, the agency will be very well run and that there will be no reason for not having the Freedom of Information Act applying to it. By bringing in this provision now, we could save a lot of time and bother later on.
I believe Senator Henry also raised this issue on the Aviation (Regulation) Bill. My own instinct also tends towards including such a provision at the beginning, thereby avoiding subsequent argument. However, the Department of Finance has the lead role in matters concerning freedom of information and, by and large, it is being dealt with very carefully, with the proper schedule of events, laws, institutions and agencies coming under that Department's remit. The Department of Finance will take this issue on board and it will be dealt with when they lay out their next trawl of who will come under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act.
As the remit rests with the Department of Finance, I do not have the power to deal with it. The process has been very effective. From time to time, it can be rather startling for a Government Minister to read newspaper reports of documents and letters which have been accessed under the Freedom of Information Act. The law requires that the Minister of the day should not intervene in anything to do with that process and that is as it should be. Accordingly, until I open my Sunday newspaper, I have no idea what information it may contain from my Department. There is a very good appeals system in operation.
The Department of Finance has been very open with its own business, in the first instance, and has also moved swiftly to implement the arrangements in relation to other agencies. I have been told that they will take note of this matter also.
I can feel an Adjournment debate coming on. We need to ask the Department of Finance why Ministers in other Departments are not encouraged to include this provision in relevant Bills in the first instance.
I expect the issue also arises on Bills from other Departments. Has the Senator put forward similar amendments in relation to other Bills?
Yes. I will have to ask the Minister for Finance why he does not encourage other Ministers to put in this provision when Bills are being introduced. The Freedom of Information Act has been very useful. Nothing is worse than rumour. It is much better that people should have the facts.
A Chathaoirligh, I will be giving notice of another Adjournment debate.
The approach which is being taken by the Department of Finance is for good administrative reasons, to have an orderly roll-out, rather than ad hoc arrangements or a rushed situation. That Department encourages a very open approach to freedom of information and has been very active in implementing the provisions of the Act, in terms of successive trawls of agencies being included. We will see what comes from Senator Henry's request for an Adjournment debate.
I will certainly try. It seems sensible to provide for this when a new agency is being set up. I find that the Department of Finance likes to be very powerful in other Departments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 22, subsection (3), line 41, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "2,000 (£1,575.13)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 23, subsection (4), line 27, after "property", to insert "connected with light railway or metro".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 34 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 37.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 25, subsection (2), line 22, to delete "the" where it firstly occurs and substitute "a".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."
I would like the Minister to explain why the following developments are exempted from the general regulations.
As the House knows, the 1996 Act for the light railway, when the Luas was planned, exempted certain works to be carried out by the light railway, now going ahead as Luas. They were exempted from the planning Acts and it established instead an appeals system under an eminent person, Judge O'Leary, who was appointed by the previous Government. He was with me in the Seanad for a session. He is an excellent person and I asked him to continue, which he did until he asked to be released, after the planning for Luas was finished.
Judge O'Leary set up an appeals mechanism whereby residents, community organisations and those with an interest in the light railway's construction made their case orally to him. He judged it by viewing every location and issued findings which are binding on me, subsequent Ministers and the Department. That is why section 38 is included.
I thank the Minister for her explanation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 25, subsection (1), line 40, after "shall" to insert "comply with the European Union directives regarding environmental impact assessment and in particular".
It is important that we ensure that everything to do with the agency is in line with European Union directives on environmental impact assessments. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments.
Section 39 sets out the information which must be contained in an environmental impact statement submitted by an applicant for a railway order. The section provides that an environmental impact statement should contain the information which it lists, such as the data and the measures. There is a summary in non-technical language of the information. An environmental impact statement shall in addition to and by way of explanation and simplification, or amplification, of the specified information referred to in section 1 contain further information on the following matters which it goes into in detail. The point made by Senators Ryan, Costello and O'Meara is in section 39.
Their desire is that it should comply with European Union directives. Can we be sure from what is in the Bill—
I understand the point the Senator is making.
—that this will be so? I would withdraw the amendments to allow the Minister to look at this again before Report Stage. The section provides for environmental impact statements but not that they must comply with European Union directives. At the end of the Bill, amendment No. 21, is—
The fact that the wording "European Union" is not in—
Subsection (4) removes anything to do with the European Communities environmental impact statements regulations. It says that they shall not—
I take the Senator's point. By law, we must comply with the European Union directives. All environmental impact studies, whether concerned with roads, railways or other matters, comply with the directives. I do not object to including the words proposed.
I thank the Minister.
I hope the Minister will explain an apparent contradiction between sections 38 and 39. We exempt development in section 38—
Senator Caffrey, we must dispose of the amendments before we discuss the section. When we come to the section, I will allow the Senator to make his point.
Subject to correction, I believe the wording proposed is in order and I accept it.
I thank the Minister.
It copperfastens the provision, which is what the amendment seeks.
That is right. It means we must delete subsection (4) because it says that they shall not apply.
Is subsection (4) about the same matter?
Subsection (4) states that the European Communities environmental impact assessment and any regulation made thereunder in relation to environmental impact assessment "shall not apply" to anything done under an order made under this Act.
The worry there is the local government planning provisions. Railways are exempt. We accept the European Communities' impact assessment but not the local government planning provisions.
I thank the Minister.
That was Senator Caffrey's point, was it not?
Yes.
Yes, it was. As the Senator was finishing, I commented that that is what it was about. I am aware of, and share, the view that these European directives are correct and copperfasten regulations, but railways are exempt from local government planning provisions.
I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.