Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Thursday, 20 Jun 1996

SECTION 2.

Mr. S. Brennan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) An authorised officer may not enter the dwelling house of any person under this section, without the consent of a person who normally resides in that dwelling. An authorised officer may enter the curtilage of such dwelling house without such consent for the purposes specified in subsection (1) and subject to the conditions set out in subsections (2) and (3).".

Section 2 of the Bill provides that a person authorised by the Minister or by the CIE board may enter land and carry out inspections, examinations and tests for the purposes of the construction of a light rail system. My amendment seeks to exclude a dwelling house from that provision.

Is separate legal advice available to the committee? My cursory legal advice on the section is that it is extraordinary to give the board of CIE the right to say that somebody can enter another person's house for the purposes of the Bill. In my view it is unconstitutional. I refer the Minister to page 914 of the late John Kelly's book, "The Irish Constitution", where he discusses this matter and makes it clear that a private dwelling is inviolable and should not be entered without first going through much legal procedure.

My amendment agrees that inspectors should be permitted to enter the curtilage of a dwelling but I do not know of any reason a CIE inspector would wish to enter a person's dwelling and claim that he or she must check the rooms for the purpose of putting down a railway line. The provision is unconstitutional. Will the Minister of State furnish the committee with the Attorney General's advice? I am being helpful, not political, when I say I am convinced this section will not stand up in the Supreme Court if it is tested. The Minister should accept my amendment. Is this committee entitled to separate legal advice on an amendment?

Chairman

The normal procedure is that advice on any aspect of a Bill before the House is a matter for the Minister and the Department, in accordance with the provision of law where the Government is entitled to the advice of the Attorney General. The Deputy has already made that point. There is no provision in Standing Orders nor is the finance available to me or the committee to seek advice on constitutional matters in relation to a Bill. It is only available on the procedure or the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Gregory

I support the amendment and the Deputy's belief that this matter will be unconstitutional if the amendment is not accepted. This Bill proposes to demolish houses in city centre communities such as the Kilmainham and Arran Quay areas. It will cause enormous disruption to small communities. The total failure to properly consult the people who could be affected by the light rail routes has caused great fear and anxiety.

If the amendment is accepted it would perhaps help to undo some of the damage and allay some concerns. The rights of people living in these small communities have been virtually ignored up to now. I commend Deputy Brennan on this amendment. It is in people's interests and the Bill could well be unconstitutional if it is not accepted.

Mr. Costello

I am interested to hear why it is necessary to enter a dwelling house to expedite light rail business. A person's home is entirely separate from other areas where it would be necessary for officers of Iarnród Éireann to enter. It is a serious matter if it is possible for an authorised officer to enter without consent. There is provision in other legislation for similar but more serious matters. We are dealing with a regulatory matter where there is no urgent need to enter premises in pursuit of a person, etc.

Other sections provide that a District Court can authorise entry if it is not forthcoming, or a court or the Minister will compensate for damage caused. It is not appropriate to enter a dwelling which is a person's home. Unless that is absolutely necessary, this amendment should be accepted.

Mrs. Doyle

I am sympathetic to the sentiments behind the amendment proposed by Deputy Brennan and supported by other speakers. The wording proposed is not acceptable as it deprives the board of CIE of any power to enter a dwelling if the person who normally resided at that house refused permission to enter. This has the potential to permanently frustrate the project as there would be no remedy for the board. An individual who is not the owner of the property could refuse entry and the development would be unable to proceed. The possibility of entry into some houses will arise as this project progresses. For example, it might be necessary, where the attachment of brackets to the wall is being considered, to check the basic structure of the house. I am sure the Deputy appreciates how this sort of work could arise. The section provides that compensation will be made for any damage caused in the course of such work.

While the proposed amendment is unsuitable, I understand the underlying principle of consent. During the Second Stage debate on the light rail Bill, Deputy Brennan contrasted the legislation dealing with An Bord Gáis with the wording of some of the sections in that Bill. His points were taken on board in section 14 of this Bill where a less formal procedure obtaining consent rather than giving notice has been allowed for. A similar point might be made on this section. It should be possible to draft an amendment which provides that the authorised officer would have to seek consent of the owner or occupier of a premises. In the event of such consent being refused they would have recourse to the District Court. I will examine this possibility to see if we could agree on the wording of an amendment that would suit the case being made by Deputies and would have no constitutional implications. We will seek the advice of the Attorney General advice to make sure we are on the right side of the Constitution. Perhaps we could proceed with this point on Report Stage. I accept the sentiment of the amendment but have some problem with the wording.

Chairman

The Minister has indicated she agrees with the main thrust of the amendment and she will come back on Report Stage.

Mr. S. Brennan

I appreciate the Minister's sympathetic tone and outlook but we are dealing with legislation, not just opinion. We would have to agree to postpone voting on this section until a later date.

Chairman

There is a provision whereby the Deputy can re-enter the same amendment on Report Stage.

Mr. S. Brennan

I understand only the Minister can enter amendments on Report Stage. I cannot do that.

Mrs. Doyle

I am open to correction but I understand that once the Deputy has the amendment down he cannot bring in a new amendment on Report Stage. Once it has already been tabled, discussed and deferred it can be retabled on Report Stage.

Mr. Molloy

That is no concession, we can do that already.

Mrs. Doyle

I accept that. Deputy Brennan thought he could not.

Mr. S. Brennan

I need clarification.

Chairman

If the Deputy has formally moved the amendment, as he has, and then withdraws it the amendment can be re-introduced on Report Stage.

Mr. S. Brennan

I need to ensure it is not permissible for the board of CIE to appoint a person to enter a dwelling under any circumstances. There is no need to enter a dwelling to build a railway line. It can be done from the outside. No one has to force their way into anyone's home in this city. If the Minister agrees with that, I will await her amendment because she has better drafting facilities than I but if she cannot give an undertaking to bring in an amendment to ensure that the board of CIE cannot do that, I will press this amendment.

Mrs. Doyle

I cannot go that far but I take the point that consent is needed. A CIE representative cannot arrive at a house and say he is entering it.

I am prepared to consider an amendment for Report Stage which, if consent were not forthcoming, would enable the board of CIÉ or the inspector to go before the District Court and make the case as to why it was essential to have access to a house. Therefore, the case would only go before the court in the absence of consent to enter a house. Someone could not barge into a house and state that they were present on behalf of the board of CIÉ.

There are precedents for this in other legislation and we have taken that route in section 14 on foot of the Deputy's request on Second Stage. However, I take his point that no one likes dealing with this area. For example, during deliberations on the last Road Traffic Act there was much discussion on how far gardaí were allowed to pursue people fleeing the scene of an accident. The result was that the Act in question was amended reasonably. It would be reasonable to accept an amendment relating to the point of consent. In certain instances the need may arise to check the structure of a house and carry out work in the immediate vicinity. If consent is not given by the owner or occupier in such cases, it can be obtained through the District Court.

Mr. Gregory

Why is the Bill defective in this context? It gives the impression that those responsible for drafting the Bill are disinterested in people's rights and did not foresee these problems. It should not have been necessary for Deputy Brennan to table an amendment. This seems to indicate an attitude on the part of those who drafted it that the legislation would require draconian powers. The Minister disputed this fact in the Dáil. However, this is a very clear indication that no consideration was given in the Bill to the rights of individuals. It suggests that the motivation was to disempower people and local communities. I am interested in the Minister of State's response as to why the Bill has been shown to be defective in this matter.

Mr. Molloy

This is a fundamental matter. The Minister of State gave a sympathetic response which seems to indicate that she agrees that the Bill is draconian in this regard and should be amended. However, she did not indicate that she will amend it. When a Minister or Minister of State agrees with a point made on Committee Stage, they usually give an undertaking to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to achieve the objective of the Opposition amendment. Why will the Minister of State not agree to do so? Why is she resorting to the device of stating that she will consider the matter? Members are well versed in dealing with legislation and are aware that a concession to give something consideration does not mean anything. A matter can be considered and then discarded.

This is a fundamental issue and the Minister of State seemed to express a view which is in line with the objective of Deputy Brennan's amendment. Will she give an undertaking to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to achieve that objective?

Mr. Costello

It is my understanding that the Minister of State indicated that she would bring forward an amendment and consider it in the context of incorporating the principle of consent. This section of the Bill is drafted from the point of view of CIÉ. It involves the authority granted to CIÉ and the appeal mechanism to which it will have access if entry is not permitted. However, it must be stated that a dwelling house, or person's home, is sacrosanct under the Constitution. There is a need to include the principle of consent in the section. The resident in a dwelling house must be given the right to consent to entry. If entry is refused and CIÉ can show absolute reason for entry, then the matter can go before the court.

The cart has been placed before the horse in this section. It approaches the matter from the point of view of CIÉ and does not take due consideration of the principle of consent on the part of the householder. I understood that the Minister of State wished to incorporate the principle of consent and, if my interpretation is correct, I would welcome the introduction of an amendment on Report Stage to take account of that principle.

Mr. S. Brennan

Will the Minister of State make available to the committee the advice of the Attorney General on this section? A matter as fundamental as this should involve the consideration of the High Court, not the District Court. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment unless I receive a strong commitment from the Minister of State.

Mrs. Doyle

It is my intention to introduce an appropriately worded amendment on Report Stage. The wording is not available at present. I have not received any specific advice from the Attorney General on this section, but it will be placed before him for consideration. I do not accept that the Bill is defective in relation to rights of individuals or groups. The right to refuse consent is implicit in this section, as is the right of CIÉ to go before the District Court if it has a strong case that it is absolutely necessary, for the progress of the project, to gain entry or access to a house. This is implicit in section 2(2) which refers to "Where an authorised is refused entry to any land, the Minister or the Board may apply to a judge of the District Court assigned to the District Court. . . .".

The central point of the amendment is to make that explicit in the section rather than implicit and I support Deputy Brennan's case in that regard. If there is a good reason why the owner or individual does not want the inspector or members of the board of CIE to gain access to their house, they should be in a position to say so.

There is a precedent for this provision. It was not dreamed up by an official or parliamentary draftsman. The legislation on An Bord Gáis contains the same type of provisions.

Mr. S. Brennan

I do not believe that Bill permitted bringing gas lines through houses.

Mrs. Doyle

To my knowledge An Bord Gáis did not have to do so, but that eventuality was catered for in the legislation. I am not requesting Deputy Brennan to withdraw the amendment and I understand his democratic right to put the issue to a vote. I understand, however, that on Committee Stage, if an amendment is voted on, it cannot be resubmitted on Report Stage. Perhaps he would consider my amendment on Report Stage. If he disagrees with it, he can resubmit this amendment.

I will not be able to implement the objectives of the Deputy's amendment in their entirety. He does not want anyone connected to this project to gain entry to a house under any circumstances, regardless of how essential this might be for progress. I cannot go that far. However, it must be made explicit that, if an owner has good reason to refuse consent to enter, CIÉ can bring the matter before the District Court. The presiding judge can decide whether to accede to CIÉ's request or respect the refusal of the owner or occupier of a house. I cannot accept an amendment which forbids entry to a house even though this may be critical to progress the project.

Chairman

For the guidance of Members and by way of explanation, I refer the Deputy to Standing Orders Nos. 105 and 106. Standing Order No. 105 states:

Amendments may be moved on the Fourth Stage but no amendments previously rejected in Committee of the whole Dáil shall be in order.

In other words, if the amendment is put and defeated, it cannot be re-entered on Report Stage. However, if the Deputy withdraws it and the Minister does not table an amendment which is acceptable to him, he can re-enter the same amendment. Standing Order No. 106 states:

On the Fourth Stage no new section or other amendment may be proposed which creates a charge on the public revenue or upon the people but the Bill may be recommitted in respect of any such section or amendment.

If the Deputy wishes to withdraw the amendment he may re-enter it on the next stage.

Mr. S. Brennan

My clear understanding of what you said is that I may re-enter the same amendment on Report Stage. My previous understanding was that this was the prerogative of Ministers rather than ordinary Members but the Standing Orders appear to differ from those which apply when Committee Stage is taken in the Dáil.

Mrs. Doyle

No.

Chairman

The Standing Orders which apply to committees emanate from the Dáil and the same procedure applies. We go into great detail to assist Members of this committee.

Mr. S. Brennan

I will re-enter this amendment on Report Stage and press it to a vote at that point unless the Minister's amendment goes a long way towards meeting my requirements. It is not necessary to enter any house for the purposes of building this railway line. It may be necessary to enter the grounds but it should not be necessary to go into the house. In the exceptional, extraordinary and unconstitutional circumstances where it must happen, the case should go to the High Court. I will withdraw the amendment on the basis of what I have said and may re-enter it on Report Stage.

Mr. Costello

My understanding is that the reason for having these exceptional powers in the legislation on An Bord Gáis was to have access to premises to read meters and obtain equipment if it were not possible to do so under any other circumstances. In this case it is difficult to see what specific reasons an authorised officer would have to enter a dwelling house and I would like to hear them. The Minister wants to incorporate the principle of consent and will bring in an amendment to that effect. In any case, Deputy Brennan has the opportunity to consult the Minister in the interim and perhaps get it right at that point.

Chairman

That might be wise.

Mr. Gregory

I am concerned that the reason for this shortcoming in the Bill is that it was foreseen it would cause conflict for people in residential areas as houses would be not only entered but demolished. I still think the Bill is defective in the context of the rights of the individual and the constitutional principle that the home should be sacrosanct. For those reasons I have no hesitation in supporting Deputy Brennan.

Chairman

The Deputy's decision is wise because it affords him a further opportunity to examine what the Minister has to say. I am sure the Minister will be available for consultation in the interim.

Mr. Molloy

The position under the Bord Gáis Act is not comparable because there are gas pipeline extensions and meters in houses, as mentioned by Deputy Costello. Gas is an explosive material and an explosion in one house could cause an explosion in a whole neighbourhood. By virtue of the service given gas must go into a house. Dealing which such material is a totally different scenario from the construction of a light rail system. To give CIE the right to enter any house it wishes is far too excessive a power. It is unwarranted and interferes with people's fundamental rights in their homes. The Minister has indicated she will bring forward an amendment which, from what she says, may not fully meet the point. However, section 2 as it stands is objectionable and I will oppose it because we have no guarantee that the Minister's amendment will be satisfactory and I do not want my party to be seen to support the proposals in it.

Mr. É. Walsh

I understand the fears about entering houses for reasons which are unknown and may be unclear to the person whose house is being entered. I do not wish to justify it but the Bill is drafted in such a way that there may be circumstances where it would be necessary for officials to enter a house, in order to achieve the objective of the light rail project. I assume those who drafted the Bill did so on the basis that a person might refuse entry in a case where the project depended on it. It would not be unreasonable in those circumstances, that is, if a person refused entry without a genuine reason when the project is for the common good. I do not wish to make the case now but I understand why access to a property may be needed. I assume it would be under certain specific circumstances with full authorisation and that the purpose of the entry, the activity of the person entering and the function of the exercise would be clear to the person whose house was being entered. The impression is being given here that CIE officials will force entry into houses around Dublin without permission. That notion should be scotched. If it is necessary to enter a premises, it will be for a good reason.

Chairman

I assume guidelines and regulations could be issued under this section. The Minister wishes to reply to a number of points, after which we will adjourn as we have a tight schedule.

Mrs. Doyle

Deputy Gregory suggested there might be a Machiavellian reason for this section or that it was far more draconian than a first reading might indicate and its real purpose was to allow CIE to ride roughshod over people and demolish houses. There is no question of that.

Section 13 deals with compulsory acquisition of any land or property which might be needed and this section has nothing to do with that. This section provides for the exception rather than the rule. There is no question of entering houses on various roads willy nilly as officials so wish. Section 2 clearly lays down the circumstances under which an inspector might want to gain entry to a house.

Members have said comparisons with the legislation on An Bord Gáis are not valid but they could well be. They are valid in that if there is precedent in law for entry into a private home under certain circumstances, it brings us back to the question of constitutionality. There is provision for that in legislation which has been tested and found to be constitutional. Without pretending to be overly knowledgeable on the Constitution, I presume that where the common good overrides the right of the private individual it is accepted as constitutional.

In this case, if construction work on the light rail project was being carried on outside a person's premises there may be a question of surveying the house in case the construction work would cause damage to the house. If it were thought there might be a genuine case for compensation there may be a need for a survey before the work went too near a house. There are cases in which it is in the interests of the common good. The whole project could be held up if entry into an individual house were refused. However, I stress it is seen to be an exception rather than a rule.

The consent should be made explicit. It is already implicit in the section — it is referred to under subsection (2) — but I agree it should be made explicit. We can return to the matter on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That section 2 stand part of the Bill" put and declared carried.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

NEW SECTION.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 are related and will be discussed together.

Mr. S. Brennan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"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.".

This new section seeks to specifically designate some light rail routes. I am aware that the Bill as drafted gives that prerogative to the Minister by putting in a structure and allowing the Minister to designate the routes. This is an historic event. The initial routes at least should form part of a programme.

The amendment provides that the Minister devise and lay before the Dáil a programme for the construction of a light railway serving the city of Dublin and the surrounding areas. In other words, an overall programme of routes would be devised and laid before the Dáil. We would not then be talking about light rail in an abstract sense, rather it would have a statutory base.

Subsection (2) of my amendment refers specifically to the routes we have in mind. The first is from Sandyford to Dublin city centre. The proposal to construct the line as far as Dundrum, as announced by the Minister, is short-sighted. Dundrum is a major population centre and if the rail link stops at that point people will take their cars to Dundrum village and get on the train. The area is already heavily populated and traffic will be brought to a halt in the village of Dundrum and surrounding areas. It is imperative to bring the line to Sandyford.

I do not believe it would be very expensive as some of the money could be recouped. Sandyford is only another mile or so and it would link one to Sandyford Industrial Estate, arguably the largest industrial estate in this country with nearly 9,000 people working in it. Why stop less than a mile short of Ireland's largest industrial estate when one might recoup some funding from the businesses and people who would use it to go into that estate? The extra traffic will pay for the extension to Sandyford. The Bill should be amended to extend the line to Sandyford.

Ballymun is not included. I have suggested and proposed formally in the amendment that a line from Ballymun to Dublin city centre would be at the heart of the programme. It does not make sense to leave the north side and Ballymun out of the programme; they should be firmly included in it. The third line I propose in the amendment is from Tallaght to Dublin city centre. Tallaght is a huge metropolis and it urgently needs a rail link to the city centre. That should be progressed with all speed. In subsection (d) I have provided for any other route which the Minister feels is appropriate after further study.

It is appropriate to include these routes in this Bill because the other routes have not yet been designated or even studied but these routes have to some extent and, therefore, should be enshrined in legislation as part of a programme. One cannot include every turn and bend but one can include the routes from Sandyford to Dublin city centre, Ballymun to Dublin city centre and Tallaght to Dublin city centre if there is the political will to do so.

Subsection (3) proposes that a railway link be constructed to Dublin airport from the city centre. I have left the methodology deliberately vague and have not specified whether it will be light or heavy rail. To be fair to the Minister, I left the methodology deliberately vague. I did not specify light or heavy rail, but a railway link linking Dublin airport to Dublin city centre.

I do not need to make a speech to this or any Minister about the fact that it is preposterous we do not have a rail link between Dublin airport and Dublin city, given their size. Virtually every other major airport in the world has such a rail link. A number of those cities rail links are run not by the transport authority but by the airport authority, something which should be considered. The Minister should not exercise his power under section 9, that is, the giving of an order, until these provisions have been complied with.

Amendment No. 2 puts into the heart of the legislation the requirement to build the Dundrum line to Sandyford, to build the Ballymun line, the Tallaght line and to build a rail link from the airport to the city centre. I do not see why that cannot be put into the legislation. It would give a lot of comfort to communities if it included. The Minister will be aware of our reservations about consultation and the need for communities in the city centre, in Kilmainham and in Arran Quay, to be consulted, which is essential. Given that the Government bulldozed the Bill through the Dáil this week, we are now stuck with this legislation. I am trying to ensure that Sandyford, Ballymun, the airport and Tallaght are not neglected.

Amendment No. 6 seeks to insert a new subsection which will provide for the integration of the three systems we have at present. My amendment suggests that no light rail order should come into operation until the Minister has brought forward a detailed plan to integrate the proposed light railway with the existing Dublin Area Rapid Transit, Arrow and mainline rail systems and until such plan has been laid before and approved by Dáil Éireann. It also proposes that no light railway order shall be signed unless the "costings for alternative methods of construction and operation of the city centre section of the proposed light railway, being the section falling within the functional area of Dublin Corporation," have been put before the Dáil.

I suggest the Minister does not sign an order to construct a section of a line until he first brings to and has approved by the Dáil a plan to integrate the three systems, which are the light railway, DART and the mainline track coming into the city centre. We do not want to build three separate systems in the city for the next generation. I am not competent in terms of engineering to tell CIÉ or the Government how to handle this aspect of it. A link will be provided between Tara Street and the proposed light railway. The proposed light railway comes close to DART and the mainline railway lines in a number of places and perhaps common platforms could be used, so a person could step off one system, cross the platform and onto another.

I am aware a number of groups have put forward ideas on how to do this. The main point I want to make in relation to amendment No. 6 is that we should not build anything until the Minister plans the integration of the three systems and puts the integration plan before the Dáil. We can then construct a system which links the three systems. The last thing this city needs is three separate railway systems. I believe it is possible in terms of engineering to integrate them.

The second part of amendment No. 6 proposes that no light railway order shall come into operation — in other words, that we do not build anything — until the Minister puts before the Dáil alternative methods of construction and operation of the city centre section, which falls within the Dublin Corporation area. Much has been said about tunnelling. Any sensible person would agree that we cannot tunnel all the way to Tallaght, Sandyford, Ballymun or the airport. The case for tunnelling in the city centre between the canals in the corporation area is sensible, if affordable, to avoid unsightly wires and to ensure houses in the area will not be threatened.

What I find frustrating about this section is that the Minister told the Dáil it would cost £60 million per mile to go underground. Independent observers have spoken about £11 million per mile. The Minister will not allow us an independent study, so the only way we can decide whether it is practicable to go underground is by independent studies to tell us exactly how much it will cost to go underground within the square mile or so of the city centre. Will it cost £60 million or less and is it practicable?

In tabling amendment No. 6, I wanted to give the Legislature an opportunity to enshrine in law that the Minister cannot build the light railway until he publishes the cost of going underground in the city centre and the implications of so doing. We should not need to put it into law and it is an unusual requirement. However, given that what are doing is for the long term, before we proceed to build a light railway in the city centre we should satisfy ourselves that it is not possible to go underground, a case which has not yet been proved apart from Minister's saying it is too dear.

Mr. T. Kitt

I would like to make a strong case for the extension of the line to Sandyford, a major issue in my constituency of Dublin South. Dundrum is an old village and it is not able to cope with traffic at present. If one listens to traffic reports on radio in the morning, one will always hear Dundrum mentioned as a traffic blackspot. As I live in the area, I can tell the Minister that traffic is at a standstill for long periods during the morning and evening. It must also be pointed out that this area has many two car families.

It would be an act of economic and social madness if the Minister was to allow a light railway to proceed from the city centre as far as Dundrum and not continue on to Sandyford Industrial Estate. It is only a matter of going an extra mile. As the Minister will know, there are thousands of workers in that expanding and thriving industrial estate. My colleagues and I who represent the constituency have attended many public meetings on this issue and there is all party support for extending the line to Sandyford. Members of the Minister's party and the Labour Party are encouraging constituents to write postcards and letters to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to ask for the line to be extended. This is a cross party issue and there is tremendous support for this measure.

If local democracy means anything, the Minister should accept this amendment. If it is not agreed at this stage, it will become an election issue and every party involved in it will end up promising it anyway. There is a lot of cynicism among the public about election promises and I would not like to see this develop. Why not sort this matter out now because it will come about anyway. It would be crazy to do anything other than extend the line to Sandyford. That is the one case I wanted to make to the Minister and I hope that she has noted my concerns.

Mr. Costello

Deputy Brennan's amendments reflects much of what has been said to Deputies, particularly in the Dublin Central area, at various meetings in terms of the scope of the proposals, the type of construction that will take place, whether part of the route will go underground, the interference to business and homes, if the light rail line will be extended to other areas, whether Sandyford or Ballymun, or short stages that would allow an inner city connection. For example, there is great support among businesses for the light rail link to go around Parnell Square. There is also considerable concern that there is no proposal to bring it across O'Connell Street to join other public transportation services in Busaras and Connolly Station, which would link up with bus services from the northside and provincial areas, the DART and the rail lines. These proposals about which people have expressed concern are not being included because of financial costs.

Deputy Brennan proposes a programme for the construction of the light rail that would incorporate all those elements of a completed and integrated system for the city. The design to be presented would not only include what is being proposed but also make provision for future extensions to other areas. We would then not have a set of proposals and routes that would make it impossible to integrate the entire Dublin public transport system at a future date. That should be our stating point. Although there is only sufficient money at this point to construct some of the integrated light rail, Arrow, DART and bus systems, we should build future possible stages into the design.

Naturally, I would have preferred to have Ballymun included in the design. If the present proposed Tallaght route bypassed the particular preferred route on the northside and instead went up along North King Street, that would nearly link it to the Broadstone station which has a direct rail route to Cabra, Finglas and Ballymun. The cost of this would be less than anything proposed under any alternative route.

If it was not to go ahead under the present phase, we should make provision for it to be easily linked up to a future phase. That would enable us to go along a route — North King Street — which has been lying derelict for the last 30 years, because the local authority bought up premises after premises, business after business and household after household to create an inner city tangent which it never constructed. That seems an obvious route as it would allow close proximity to the Broadstone rail station, which is currently lying idle, and could then serve the communities of Cabra, Finglas and Ballymun. That would be very much in line with the EU proposals.

In that context, I ask the Minister to give us some confirmation on the consultants report recently commissioned by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications; the Socioeconomic Evaluation of the Dublin Light Rail Project. How will it operate? Will there be an opportunity for all businesses and communities along the lines being evaluated to make individual submission? Will they be taken on board and made publicly available for discussion?

The terms of reference are open, comprehensive and generous in the case of the two light rail routes from Tallaght to Ballymun and from Tallaght to Dundrum. It would assess the long-term return to the local economy, evaluate the permanent effects on the local economic performance, its contribution towards exploiting local development potential, assess its ability to reintegrate the long term unemployed into the economic mainstream and combat social exclusion. Many other elements there deal with assessing the economic impact of loss of employment, existing employment, creation of future employment, new investment, urban regeneration, reduction of congestion and the minimisation of disruption during construction and implementation. All these important socioeconomic matters have a bearing on all the points raised this morning about communities directly affected by this proposal.

This amendment refers to alternative methods of construction. The Minister's Second Stage speech referred for the first time to the possibility of having certain segments of the route underground. What will this will mean in practice? Will substantial sections go underground or will it be a possible option that will be explored if we come to a bottleneck?

There is provision in section 3 for an environmental impact statement. Will this EIS study be on the basis of European Union regulations that would provide for an independent body to make the statement?

Mr. Gregory

These are important amendments. I would like to see the other routes written into the legislation. I am surprised that none of the representatives from the Ballymun area is here to present the case for that route and establishing it in legislation. On the basis of social need, it is an essential route. I hope, however, that when any future routes are being considered the communities will not have the same experience as those along the proposed routes which are to get under way next year.

The effective community activity has forced the authorities to introduce an element of real consultation at this late stage and produced a series of alternative routes which would be more acceptable in the local areas. It is interesting that as soon as the local people got together, studied precisely what was happening and dragged information out of the LUAS proposers, they were able to come up with alternative routes, independently of LUAS, that would not involve the same level of disruption and demolition of houses or communities. LUAS gave a commitment to a meeting that took place with Minister Lowry and the local representatives yesterday to come back by 10 July with the details on those alternative routes, specifically in the Kilmainham and Arran Quay Terrace areas. I hope that agreement will be reached on alternative routes in those areas because it will avoid huge disruption.

In the Kilmainham and Mount Brown area a number of businesses will suffer and many of them feel strongly that they face closure because they are totally dependent on access. Nobody intended that a light rail project, which is presumably there to revitalise an area, would have the opposite effect because it chose an inappropriate route. There does not appear to be any consideration on the issue of compensation if such businesses are forced to close. That is a prospect which I hope we will not have to face, we should not have to face it if agreement can be reached on alternative routes particularly those two flash-points. I am emphasising this in the context of Deputy Brennan's amendment because whatever the future holds for Ballymun, Sandyford or wherever, I hope that the process by which the precise routes in those areas are selected is based on the lessons learned in the process. I cannot find a name for it because it was not a consultative process, although that was the name that was put on it in the inner city areas to which I referred.

The question of linking the lines into an underground in the city centre area has not been given the consideration that I would like to have seen. We have been told vaguely that it would cost too much. I have never seen independent studies into this based on present day methods and costs. It is vital to do so because we are making a decision which, if it does not work in the city centre, could cause chaos for the future of Dublin. There are many who believe that if an underground is not selected in the future, particularly in the central areas, we will create traffic chaos rather than doing what was intended, to remove chaos from the city and provide a proper public transport system that people will use. The more I hear from different interest groups, the more I am concerned that this issue of the underground needs to be fully explored and needs an updated independent study carried out on it to see precisely what the costs are and the difference between them and those of the current proposals.

The fact that the current proposals do not even link up with Connolly station and the DART system is a major failure in the plan. Again we are told that this is because of a lack of money. How much more money would be involved to link a system to Connolly station? It is incredible it would not be done.

My main concerns are not the future routes that may be developed but the two routes currently being designed by the LUAS planners. I hope they are genuine when they told us that they are, for the first time, looking seriously at local alternatives, that would have unanimous community support, which should have been the intention in the first place.

Many people who do not know the north city may not be aware that Arran Quay terrace is one of the only remaining established 100 year old communities in the north city area at the back of the Four Courts, the area from the fruit market up to the Phoenix Park. There are many reasons for the dereliction in that area although many new apartment developments are springing up. Arran Quay Terrace was going to be demolished because the route was seen to be the shortest, quickest and easiest line that could be drawn in that particular area. That is unacceptable to the people who live there and to their public representatives. We have not been remiss in providing easily accessible alternatives in that locality that involve going through derelict property and diverting from that community. That was open to the people who were designing the preferred routes and, yet, they failed to even look at those alternatives until they were forced to by the people concerned. That type of thing should not happen, I hope these issues will be resolved and that we will never again see that type of total failure to consult people. The LUAS planners have discovered that people matter and that they will stand up and fight when their futures are threatened.

Mr. Molloy

I would be interested to hear the Minister's response because this amendment relates to the routes. The Bill does not refer the routes or the method to be employed whether it is underground or overground. All we know about this scheme so far is what was contained in the Minister's announcement last December when it seemed that he was announcing the routes and that it was a fait accompli. The reference to possible consultations related merely to moving the lines a little here or there while sticking to the proposed route.

Something quite dramatic happened before December and it only emerged in recent weeks. The EU Commissioner had asked the Minister to conduct a socio-economic assessment of the Ballymun route as distinct for the Dundrum route, and I understand that a firm of consultants, Oscar Faber, are working on a report. In the event that Oscar Faber's report favours the Ballymun route ahead of the Dundrum route, where does that leave the timescale to which the Minister referred in the House? That is an important question and I hope the committee gets answers.

One of the sad aspects of the debate is that we have received no answers from the Minister to some of these specific questions on Second Stage. I put a specific question to the Minister with regard to one of the alternatives being recommended by a large number of people who have carried out extensive studies on the potential for light rail in Dublin. It related to the necessity to go underground in the city centre. The Minister dismissed that out of hand with a comment to the effect that the cost would be enormous, the idea was ridiculous and it could not even be considered. We sought specific information on the costings but have not yet been given any information in that regard. I asked the Minister what engineering studies were carried out on the prospect for tunnelling in the city centre, the only area to which I referred; the name of the engineering company which carried out that study; the study's recommendations; the estimated cost per kilometre and if the Minister would make that engineering report available to Members of the House. CIE officials told me that no such study had been carried out. Civil servants who briefed the committee on the changes between this Bill and its predecessor stated that they were referring the matter back to the DTI. They also confirmed that CIE had undertaken a preliminary estimate. It is not good enough to say that the underground option was dismissed due to the enormous cost involved on the basis of a preliminary estimate carried out by CIE based on the proposed port tunnel, which is a completely different engineering project. It is not satisfactory that the Department which is dismissing tunnelling is not prepared to produce the engineering report and the exact figures on which this decision is based.

When the Minister was in difficulty with this Bill in the Dáil and came in with a new speech he included a paragraph that the tunnelling option was one which would have to be examined. This was from a Minister who had said that the cost was enormous and could not be considered, and that it would cost £65 million per two kilometres. If he has already closed his mind against tunnelling, what is the point of saying that? I am not convinced that the Minister's reference to tunnelling is sincere and genuine. Unfortunately he is not here. The Minister of State is here and it would be mean of me to ask her to answer for something the Minister said. The whole matter is unsatisfactory.

One of the big difficulties is that the Minister has predetermined that this light rail system will be on the roadway. From discussions with civil servants and from what the Minister has said, the intention is to put the twin tracks on the roads of Dublin. We will force the cars, vans, lorries and trucks out of the way and force people to use light rail. That seems to be the philosophy behind the proposal to have an unsegregated system. The Minister chooses to have it on the road unsegregated from, and competing for space with, the ordinary traffic, which will have to get out of the way when the trains come along. The other option is to have the system segregated as far as possible. One of the studies has shown that there are segregated routes on which this light rail could come close to the city centre without competing with the traffic on the road. This option would involve going underground in the city centre.

The recent Forfás report clearly recommended that there be an opportunity for private investment to combine with public investment in major transport projects and the policy of the EU is to attract private investment into major transport infrastructural projects. This Government proposal for a major transport infrastructural project excludes any private investment. Certainly, contractors will be involved in the construction of the light rail system because the State does not have its own building company, but there is no opportunity for private investment. That is difficult to understand. When the Minister says that anything anybody else suggests will cost too much and is, therefore, out of court, he conveniently ignores the fact that if other projects were attractive to private investment it would reduce the financial burden on the State, which is undertaking this project alone with the aid of EU grants. The EU grants will be available up to 1999 and the Exchequer is carrying the balance, so the Minister is limited in what he can do to a figure close to £200 million. If the project had been opened up to private investment, other opportunities might have been made available.

The Government decided that this project would be undertaken by CIE, a State organisation. There was an option to advertise and seek tenders from interested transport, construction or design companies who would then have had an opportunity to put forward and cost alternative proposals. We heard recently that a Japanese company has undertaken some exercise in this regard. There was no attempt to have any private sector alternatives put before the Government or the people.

In addition, we have seen that if a wrong decision is made on this matter it is a total disaster in that the problem is not solved. If the commuters are not attracted to use this system, the investment will have been a waste and this train will be trundling along the streets empty and getting in everybody's way. If we were saying that three weeks ago, it might have seemed a wild scenario but we have seen in recent weeks that this is what has happened in Sheffield where the huge investment of £241 has proven to be a failure. That system has been offered for sale to the public at a third of its construction cost because Sheffield commuters are not using it.

There are other successful light rail systems.

Chairman

I do not want to interrupt a Member but this is Committee Stage and we are discussing two amendments. I have allowed you fair scope but I ask you to conclude.

Mr. Molloy

We are in the unique position that this Bill was not discussed on Second Stage.

Chairman

I understand that.

Mr. Molloy

That has never happened in the history of Dáil Éireann.

Chairman

I appreciate the difficulties which have occurred.

Mr. Molloy

The difficulties were not created by me.

Chairman

The Deputy will have an opportunity to make his points on other sections. We are discussing Deputy Seamus Brennan's two amendments. While I understand the points raised by the Deputy, we are on Committee Stage of the Bill. I am not responsible for what happened in the Dáil last week.

Mr. S. Brennan

There was no Second Stage debate.

Mr. Molloy

This is the first opportunity we have had to speak on this Bill.

Chairman

I kept that in mind and I have given the Deputy wide scope.

Mr. Molloy

I wanted to say a lot more.

Chairman

We will be discussing this Bill for another day and a half when the Deputy will have an opportunity to make his points. If we have a Second Stage debate on every amendment, we will never get through the Committee Stage.

Mr. Molloy

It is a broad amendment.

Chairman

The Deputy should cooperate with the Chairman.

Mr. Molloy

The Chairman should know where I am coming from by the tone of what I said. During the discussion on the first Bill, I put forward a suggestion along the lines of Deputy Brennan's amendment. I have no difficulty supporting his amendment, but I hope to hear specific answers from the Minister to some of the points made.

Chairman

I ask the Minister to reply to the matters relevant to the amendments.

Mrs. Doyle

This has been a wide-ranging debate on the amendments tabled by Deputy Brennan. The debate on Second Stage was curtailed. However, extra time was offered to the Opposition until midnight on Tuesday night and all day on Wednesday if they wanted to continue, but they declined. Time was so scarce that during the Minister's 15 minute contribution to the motion, Deputy Molloy called two if not three quorums.

This is enabling legislation. The passing of this legislation will not preclude any of the routes suggested in the amendment or those mentioned by other contributors from being considered at a later stage when the full consultation process has been completed. I am not in a position to take on board the naming of specific routes.

A light rail system for Dublin has been agreed by two Governments. This legislation is based on what the previous Fianna Fáil-Labour Government agreed. Both Governments agreed to it on the basis that it was a recommendation of the DTI. Neither this Government nor the last one carried out reviews and surveys or commissioned consultants. They accepted the recommendation of the DTI for transport systems in Dublin and they will be implementing that as funds allow. There is an issue as to what should be done first or how far each of the three proposed routes should go at any one time. I accept the sound economic points made but this is enabling legislation. There will be another day and another forum to discuss those points. As no route is mentioned in this Bill none is precluded.

Many Members had much to say about on street lines versus underground lines. The Dublin Transportation Initiative looked at this matter. To the uninitiated — I include myself in that category because I am not an expert in this area as I have no technical qualifications and I do not know how transport systems should be run — it seems to be a good idea to put some of the system underground and leave the streets free for other traffic. However, the DTI dismissed large scale underground transport. Cost is only one of the problems. Accessibility, particularly for the elderly, the young and the disabled, is a major problem. Fire, safety and health regulations require different hardware to travel on tracks underground from that needed on the streets. Other technical aspects, apart from tunnelling, would add to the expense. However, that is not a decision for the Government to make. Both this Government and the last one accepted the recommendations of the DTI, which had experts and consultants at its disposal.

That did not preclude the Minister from committing himself in the Dáil last week to look at the possibility of short underground sections in Dublin. He has asked CIE to commission a feasibility study and I understand it will be published shortly. The total additional cost for two kilometres, including three stations and adjustments to signalling and rolling stock, was £65 million. That is a preliminary evaluation. Extensive underground work has been ruled out by the DTI and I do not think the Government will change that. It does not rule out short underground sections where rolling stock which is used overground could be used underground for short passages and then emerge again. There would be no stations; rolling stock would not be changed and there would be problems as regards accessibility for the less mobile.

Mr. Molloy

Like building a road.

Mrs. Doyle

There are not too many hilly areas in that part of Dublin inner city, although there are a few rivers and canals. That is the information I have in relation to this matter.

Mr. Molloy

Is that the reply to the point I raised?

Mrs. Doyle

Did the Deputy receive a letter dated 17 June from the Minister's private secretary answering the questions he has asked?

Mr. Molloy

What engineering company carried out a study of the costs of going underground? Could we have a copy of that report?

Mrs. Doyle

It was preliminary evaluation work carried out by CIE.

Mr. Molloy

I said that and it is a load of rubbish. CIE was told by the Minister to implement this last December. The Minister is telling me CIE carried out a preliminary exercise. This is an engineering exercise which should be done by someone who is qualified. They should test the ground, make an accurate assessment of the costings and write the report. The House is entitled to have a copy of that report if it was ever prepared. However, it seems that no such study was carried out, so it cannot be made available to the Members. CIE made a guesstimate based on different views and it said it would cost £65 million. Are we supposed to accept that as fact? The Minister says he will look at underground sections and he is arguing for and against that.

Mrs. Doyle

He is not. He is looking at short underground sections which will not need underground stations or a change of rolling stock. A case study will be carried out and it will be published shortly.

Mr. Molloy

Who will carry out that case study?

Mrs. Doyle

I do not have the name of the consultants, but I can get that information for the Deputy.

Chairman

We are becoming argumentative.

Mr. Molloy

The problem is we got no information and that is why the public is getting angrier every day. The Minister will have to provide the information.

Chairman

We are becoming argumentative. The Minister has given the answers to questions, although they are not necessarily the answers that Deputies might want. I am reluctant to allow argument to develop on every point. Minister, have you concluded your reply to the questions?

Mrs. Doyle

I have not concluded. Questions were put to me for three quarters of hour.

Chairman

I am asking you only to reply to those questions which are relevant to amendments Nos. 2 and 6.

Mrs. Doyle

I refer the Deputy to the Dublin Transport Initiative Report to the last Government which was adopted also by this Government. We are proceeding with the on-street proposals on the basis of the DTI's work. The Minister has undertaken to look at very short sections of underground tunnelling. No major underground work is envisaged. The EU socio-economic analysis was also raised by contributors. I cannot recall who raised the issue. Submissions will be accepted in the socio-economic analysis being done in relation to the different routes. It is hoped to complete and publish that report by September. No final decision on any routes will be made until the entire formal process has been gone through.

Deputy Brennan's proposal for a new section 3 and an amendment to the existing section 9 does not take into account the context in which this legislation has been advanced and what it is intended to achieve. I will explain. In the proposal for a new section 3, subsection (1) proposes that the Minister shall prepare a programme for construction of a light railway serving the greater Dublin area. With all respect to Deputy Brennan, we already have such a programme. That programme is the final report of the Dublin Transport Initiative which this Government and the previous Government decided should provide the general policy framework for the future development of the transport system in the greater Dublin area.

Subsection (2) goes on to specify what exactly the programme should comprise. It specifies light rail lines linking the city centre with Sandyford, Ballymun and Tallaght, as well as any other route the Minister deems appropriate. The lines specified in this subsection would appear to be loosely based on the lines specified in the DTI strategy. I use the word loosely because the DTI proposal that the core light rail should extend to Cabinteely has been dropped from the Deputy's proposal.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Minister could always include it.

Mrs. Doyle

I could. The DTI's proposals that the light rail network should eventually incorporate lines to Dublin Airport, Swords and Finglas are not mentioned in the amendment. Deputy Brennan appears to be somewhat selective in relation to the DTI strategy, as he is entitled to be. He obviously feels there should be more emphasis on some areas than on others.

The Deputy's subsection (3) baffles me a little. The purpose of this amendment is to require the Minister to bring forward proposals for the construction of a railway line linking Dublin Airport with the city centre. If the railway line in question is not a light railway line, it is nothing to do with the construction, operation and maintenance of light railway, which is the purpose of this legislation. This legislation only deals with light railway.

It would appear from the Deputy's amendments that he is to some extent cherry picking from the DTI proposal. The legislation, being enabling legislation, is allowing all aspects of and all proposals from the DTI report to be taken on board in the years ahead and as money becomes available. It does not nail specific parts of the proposal into the Bill as that may preclude a broad brush approach when completing the DTI proposals as I hope we will eventually be able to do. The three routes have been agreed by the two Governments and these include Ballymun, Cabinteely and Tallaght as money allows and as the phases of construction allow them to be reached.

Subsection (4) of the Deputy's amendment precludes the Minister from considering or making a light railway order until subsections (1) and (3) have been complied with. It would appear, in other words, that the light railway project could not be progressed until a proposal for the construction of a DART line or diesel or some other form of railway to Dublin Airport has been prepared, regardless of whether or not funding existed to enable this to be done or any other relevant consideration. Deputy Brennan has been very vocal about the absence of any real commitment to public consultation in relation to the proposed light rail network. I find it surprising, therefore, that this amendment proposes the Bill should dictate exactly what light rail and other rail lines should be constructed. It is also interesting to note that the proposed new section 3 does not provide any power to amend or change the programme; I am sure that was an oversight.

The proposed amendments to section 6 are along the same lines. The proposal once again is that the Minister should be obliged in the legislation to carry out selected elements of the overall strategy. Deputy Brennan will be aware that integration was one of the DTI's highest priorities and is a fundamental part of the DTI's transport strategy. It has been adopted and fully supported by this Government, as it was by the previous Fianna Fáil/Labour Government. The effect of the Deputy's amendments would be to delay and perhaps even jeopardise the whole light railway project while new plans would be drawn up and other options investigated. I know that is not what he intends.

Mr. S. Brennan

Was all that on the computer?

Mrs. Doyle

What is written here is worse.

Mr. S. Brennan

Was all that on the computer?

Mrs. Doyle

What is here is a bit stronger. I am sanitising it slightly because there is no point in being unnecessarily combative. For all of these reasons I have to oppose the proposed amendments.

Chairman

We have had a peaceful morning and afternoon; we had better keep it that way. We had enough conflict last week.

Mrs. Doyle

I agree.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Minister of State is nit-picking over my amendments. Perhaps they are not worded in the great legal detail that the Minister would wish. I do not have the facilities the Minister has to do that. However, it is clear what I want to achieve. I want to achieve the putting into the Bill of the three routes, to Sandyford, Ballymun and Tallaght, and to make a provision for other routes. That is my amendment. I also want to achieve the integration of the three systems and I want nothing to happen until we cost the possibility of tunnelling in the city centre, which Deputy Molloy quite rightly referred to. That the Minister may find the amendments deficient is not a substantive point. If she accepts what I am trying to achieve, she has the facilities to bring forward alternative amendments to mine, which would be legally tied up.

Mrs. Doyle

I said at the beginning that this is enabling legislation. We cannot be specific about the route; no route is precluded by it.

Mr. S. Brennan

We are getting to it now.

Chairman

This morning, at the request of Deputy Gregory and Deputy Costello, I met a fairly large delegation, representative of many communities in the city. The Deputies accompanied me during the discussions. I undertook with the assistance of one of our staff, Mr. Ben Dunne, to write up a synopsis of the main points of the discussion, which lasted an hour, for the benefit of the members and also for the information of the Minister, as well as to provide copies of the submissions they presented. Mr. Dunne spent lunchtime preparing the documentation from his notes and getting them printed. They are now available for Members' information and for the Minister. I thank him on behalf of Members and the delegation we met this morning.

Mr. S. Brennan

I join the Chairman in thanking Mr. Dunne for that useful work. I am trying to make three sensible requests: to include proposed routes in the Bill; to integrate all three systems; and to do nothing until the costs of tunnelling under the city centre are published. It would make sense to put those three items in the Bill.

There is no point in talking about the two Governments concerned. The DTI was a list of recommendations but the Minister has not taken them all on board including the proposals on integration, some of which have been left aside.

The Minister has cherry picked the DTI report, which is only a recommendation. It is the responsibility of the Minister, Deputy Lowry, and the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, to design the country's transport system, not to slavishly accept as gospel what a group gives them.

As Minister for Transport I would certainly not have accepted this type of legislation. I would have costed the tunnelling project and integrated the three systems. I would also have laid out a route programme in the legislation. Most of all, I would have had a Second Stage debate on the entire business.

We still have to get some clear answers, and the Minister should give us a straight answer regarding the short periods of underground travel in the city centre. One story going around in the last couple of weeks was that engineering problems would prevent tunnelling. Suddenly, there are no longer any engineering problems and the system can go underground for short periods. The Minister talked about fire safety underground but if they can build the Channel Tunnel from France to England it surely is possible to build a tunnel under the Liffey. There is no engineering sense in what the Minister says.

Deputy Molloy's question in regard to the "short period underground" requires an answer. What will that entail? How long a distance underground are we talking about; is it yards or a mile? Why is it suddenly on the agenda when it was out of the question earlier? If the Minister believes in the DTI why is this suddenly on the agenda when the DTI did not refer to it? Above all, why are we suddenly looking at the underground project when it was not previously on the agenda?

Mr. T. Kitt

The Minister said no final decision will be made on any route until the whole process has been gone through. I am aware there is an urgency about the task and, clearly, the Minister wants to make good use of EU money. There has been speculation in the media that if the Minister does not use up these moneys they could go to Portugal instead. All sorts of works are being carried out by consultants like Oscar Faber. I support any moves the Minister makes to try to include the underground option and it is clear the Minister has the support of the committee. However, what is the time limit within which the process has to be finalised so that EU moneys will not be lost?

We want to get it right. I support my colleagues who suggest that it will help the process if the Minister clearly establishes her lines. We are putting forward these concrete proposals in order to make sure that as much work as possible is done at this stage. We want clarity in the Bill to ensure there is no confusion. Equally, I am concerned we should not lose these moneys.

Mr. Molloy

I am disappointed the Minister has not given any kind of satisfactory explanation about tunnelling costs. That is a huge weakness in the Minister's position, particularly now that she stated the Government is prepared to again look at tunnelling. It creates a major doubt whether that is a serious look or some kind of gesture to get the Bill passed and the Opposition out of the way.

I asked a specific question about the Oscar Faber report due in September. If it recommends the Ballymun line instead of the Dundrum one, where will this project stand? The Minister did not answer that critical question as it affects the timescale for this proposal I am surprised it has not yet been answered.

Why are routes, which could be used where the rail line is segregated from the roadway, not being utilised in those published by the Minister? There are many alternative routes coming in from Tallaght and Dundrum to get to the Ballymun side which could be segregated from the roadway. We want to provide a transport system in the city which will be rapid and, therefore, attractive to people wanting to move quickly from one place to another, rather than ambling along competing with motor traffic on the road, which is what the Minister proposes.

The service will be economic only if it attracts large numbers of passengers, and this will happen only if it is fast. Public submissions to the Department show that segregated routes are available, but why have they not been examined? When this work is undertaken how long will disruption last on a roadway? If the Government finally gets this Bill through the Oireachtas and proceeds with the construction of the light rail system, when it comes to digging up parts of Dawson Street how long will it last?

CIE personnel stated at public meetings that the road will be dug up for 18 months. If that is the case, the people of Dublin are facing a horrific prospect. There will be massive disruption of business which will switch off the tourism trade and seriously affect turnover in shops in certain areas.

The Mount Brown case has already been highlighted but other areas will be hit just as badly. Why has no study been carried out of the economic impact of these proposals? Why is there no provision to compensate people for loss of business arising from the massive disruption if locations like Dawson Street are to be dug up for 18 months? How will traders conduct business in areas that are dug up, and who will compensate them for lost business? What will happen to those who are made redundant? There are huge implications because the Minister has chosen the most disruptive of all the options to provide a light rail system in the city.

After all this money is spent and disruption is caused with huge financial losses incurred to companies along the route, there is no guarantee it will be a success. This is probably one of the biggest issues for many years which will affect so many people in such a dramatic way. It is a serious matter for the people of Dublin and for business interests in the city.

Chairman

The amendments in Deputy Brennan's name under section 8 will offer an opportunity to discuss the questions posed by Deputy Molloy. The Deputy should bring up those questions when we reach that section. Were other relevant questions posed in the course of the debate?

Mrs. Doyle

Deputy Brennan asked for the name of the company which acted as consultants to CIE in examining the underground option. I am advised that the name of the company was Semele, a French transport company.

It should be noted that this Bill is enabling legislation. No route is mentioned in it. I am unable to accept amendments which refer specifically to routes because no route will be precluded on the passing of the legislation. The routes mentioned in Deputy Brennan's amendment can and will be considered during due process.

Mr. S. Brennan

The route to Wexford.

Mrs. Doyle

In theory that could be considered but we both know the answer before we ask about it. I am advised that the Bill will preclude going outside Dublin. That is the limitation on the routes we can consider.

Chairman

We have had an in-depth discussion on these amendments.

Mrs. Doyle

Deputy Kitt made an important point which we have not covered. He referred to the time limits. We must have the project substantially completed by 1999. There can be a little run over into the year 2000 in the tidying up of accounts, once the legal commitment has existed from the previous year. That means that by the end of this year the consultative and legal processes must be complete so that construction can begin as soon as possible next year.

Mr. Molloy

I am sorry to have to ask my question a third time. If the Oscar Faber company reports in September and recommends the Ballymun line, what will happen to the project and its timescale?

Mr. S. Brennan

Would it mean dropping the Dundrum line?

Mrs. Doyle

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. If the Ballymun option is included——

Mr. Molloy

I am asking a specific question and it is not about Ballymun. I am asking how it will affect the timescale for the implementation of the light rail project by 1999.

Mrs. Doyle

If the Ballymun option is recommended by the consultants, the project could be delayed for 12 months at least to do the necessary work to extend the route. Some of the route might be completed within the timeframe but, strictly speaking, we are talking about extending the timeframe.

Mr. Molloy

The effect would be that the project would have to be abandoned because it could not be completed within the timeframe.

Mrs. Doyle

The project will not be abandoned. We will get it up and running and spend the money. We might not be able to extend it as far as we would like, but that will not preclude extensions and further expenditure at a future date.

Mr. S. Brennan

Is the Minister of State aware that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications announced on 12 September 1995 in Dublin Castle that the Sandyford and Tallaght lines would be constructed? The Minister of State now appears to be saying that the two routes might not be built or that there might have to be changes. The Minister told the Dáil that the EU decision of the 26 November to study the three lines again was virtually a formality and that the two routes of Dundrum and Tallaght would proceed, with that to Ballymun being constructed during another phase. The Minister of State is making the startling announcement that if the Oscar Faber report makes a different recommendation, one of the lines announced by the Minister might be dropped and the Ballymun line might be built.

Mrs. Doyle

I was answering a hypothetical question. The Deputy asked what would happen if Oscar Faber recommended the Ballymun line. I answered that if they did the timeframe would have to change. The work will have to be done. I do not know what they will recommend.

Mr. S. Brennan

Will the lines change?

Chairman

We are getting into hypothetical situations. What may or may not happen in the future is not relevant to Committee Stage of the Bill. That will depend on future Governments and their policies. I am concerned about Committee Stage of this Bill. Does Deputy Brennan propose to press the amendments?

Mr. Molloy

I wish to speak.

Chairman

I thought you had received the answers you sought.

Mr. Molloy

You are making the situation worse by saying that what we are discussing is hypothetical.

Chairman

I did not say that what we are discussing is hypothetical. I said we are getting into hypothetical situations.

Mr. Molloy

Perhaps the Chairman will explain the difference after the meeting. We are not being hypothetical.

The Oscar Faber report is being carried out because the European Commission demanded that this study be undertaken. The European Commission is providing over two-thirds of the money for this project. Look at what happened with the major sewage treatment plant for Galway in Mutton Island. The European Commission is the major funder of that much needed facility and its requirements have held up construction for several years.

My question is far from hypothetical. If the European Commission looks at the Oscar Faber report in September and states that it will not fund the Minister's proposal because it believes that, based on the evidence of the report and on its own policy, the lines should go to Ballymun and Tallaght and not Dundrum, there will be a huge question mark on the project. It is not hypothetical to raise that question. It is central to the proposal. If the Oscar Faber report does anything other than support the Minister's proposals, the project is in serious jeopardy.

Mrs. Doyle

The project is not in serious jeopardy.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister of State does not know that. She hopes it will not.

Mrs. Doyle

It will not be in serious jeopardy. We will have the enabling legislation in place to cope with any route.

Mr. Molloy

We will not.

Mrs. Doyle

The timetable might change if Oscar Faber makes an alternative recommendation.

Chairman

I have given the Committee every opportunity to discuss this.

Mr. Molloy

You think you have but you are not allowing us to ask questions.

Chairman

I have allowed you to question and talk so much——

Mr. Molloy

You are trying to wrap up the debate.

Chairman

——that you have been given double the amount of time you would have been allocated on Second Stage, if not treble that time. Is Deputy Brennan pressing the amendments?

Mr. S. Brennan

I am strongly pressing the amendments. I am shocked to hear that the Harcourt Street line, which is a segregated line, might not be built if the EU say it should not. It will be an enormous shock to hundreds of thousands of people in the south of the city who assume that this line will be built because it already has a segregated route. The fact that it might be dropped is a major revelation.

This Bill should have included, if not the routes, the termini of the routes. It should certainly have provided for the integration of the three systems and it should have included the cost of tunnelling. If the Minister of State accepted the three amendments, the Bill would include a requirement to produce costs, a requirement to integrate the systems and a requirement to name the termini. That is not unreasonable.

To decline to accept the amendments demonstrates that the Bill is being railroaded through the House. There was no debate on Second Stage and it will probably be defeated in the Seanad. The scheme is in a mess and Deputy Molloy has demonstrated that it could be delayed by a year to the year 2000. We do not know what the EU will do. Kilmainham and Arran Quay are up in arms and rightly so. The whole scheme is in a mess. At this stage we should go back to the drawing board because we need proper, organised, professional light rail. Refusing these amendments demonstrates the Government is not serious about having these lines built efficiently.

Mrs. Doyle

The amendments are unnecessary. The legislation is enabling and precludes nothing.

Chairman

The Minister has indicated she is not prepared to accept the amendments. Deputy Séamus Brennan has indicated he is pressing the amendments. I will take amendment No. 2 first and then amendment No. 6.

Amendment put.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 12.

Tá
Ahern, Dermot	Leonard, Jimmy
Brennan, Séamus	Molloy, Robert
Fox, Mildred	O'Rourke, Mary
Keaveney, Cecilia	Power, Seán
Kitt, Tom	Wallace, Mary

Níl
Ahearn, Theresa	Doyle, Avril
Bell, Micheal	Finucane, Michael
Boylan, Andrew	Lynch, Kathleen
Broughan, Thomas	Ring, Michael
Costello, Joe	Sheehan, P. J.
Crawford, Seymour	Walsh, Eamon

Amendment declared lost.

Chairman

For Deputy Brennan's information, I will be calling on him to move amendment No. 6 and he is entitled to call a vote on it. However, I must wait until we reach the amendment.

Mr. S. Brennan

Can it not be done now?

Chairman

No. According to Standing Orders, I must take amendments in the order in which they are listed. Amendments can be moved together, but they must be taken separately if pressed to a vote.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Brennan

I submitted an amendment which appears on the list of published amendments. I was surprised, therefore, to receive a note from the chairman before the meeting informing me that the amendment has been ruled out of order. I presume the fact that it appeared on the list of amendments did not indicate it was in order.

Chairman

There is nothing unusual about this. The Deputy will appreciate that I have limited time available to consider amendments. I am obliged to consult Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 100 (1), in this regard. Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Brennan, which provides for other companies to apply for light rail orders, is outside the scope of the Bill. Information regarding who may apply is set out in section 3 and the long Title. Only CIÉ may apply to allow others apply to a substantial widening of the major provision of the Bill. This was not envisaged when the Bill was read a second time and could substantially alter the nature of the Bill vis-�-vis what was agreed on Second Stage.

Mr. S. Brennan

I formally challenge that decision because it does not make sense. I accept that an amendment can be ruled out of order because it imposes a charge on the Exchequer. However, amendment No. 3 sought to ensure that not only CIÉ could operate a light rail system. If a rail line were put in place between the city and the airport, I had in mind that it could be operated by Aer Rianta. I recall that there were discussions with Aer Rianta a number of years ago about its financing, investing in and operating a rail line from the city centre to the airport.

I do not accept this is a major departure from the Bill, which states that CIÉ may apply for an order to construct a light rail system. The amendment merely sought to allow other companies to apply to the Minister. By ruling it out of order, a section cannot now be put into the Bill whereby a Minister — more private sector-oriented than the present incumbent — might invite private sector investment in the future. This is specifically prevented under the Bill. Since the amendment has been ruled out of order, I cannot ask the Government to consider——

Chairman

That is not correct. I advise the Deputy that I have not yet put the question. Due to the fact that he tabled an amendment, Deputy Brennan is entitled to refer to the motion if he wishes. My decision cannot be challenged on the basis of Standing Order 100 (1). It is not a pleasant task for me to rule an amendment out of order. I would prefer it if we dealt with the entire list of amendments. However, I must apply Standing Orders as presented by the Dáil. If the Deputy wishes to speak on the subject in question, he is free to do so.

Mr. S. Brennan

I do not have much to add. I sought to ensure that, at some time in the future, a more creative set of Ministers would be empowered to invite companies other than CIÉ to operate rail lines. I do not know why the Government is tying its hands so that only CIÉ can apply for a light rail order. It is silly to tie one's hands for ten or 20 years by way of limiting the legislation. An alternative wording of the section would state "CIÉ or any other organisation". If it were Government policy to allow only CIÉ to operate a light rail system, this could have been done. However, provision could have been made for future Governments and Ministers to allow other organisations operate particular rail lines. If someone wants to build a light rail line to another part of the city and proposes huge investment, we will not have the legislation to allow it — the prospective builder will be told that only CIE can do it. This is silly and typical of the legislation, which has not been thought through. It is short-sighted of the Government to tie the hands of future Governments by deciding that no private sector interest or anyone but CIE need apply, particularly since this Government may only have a few months to run.

Mrs. Doyle

The purpose of the Bill is to construct a light railway in Dublin in accordance with the strategy recommended by the Dublin Transportation Initiative and included in the operational programme——

Mr. S. Brennan

The Government is letting itself off the hook again.

Mrs. Doyle

No. The Deputy will be on the hook in a minute. He should wait until I have finished speaking.

Mr. Molloy

Do not mind the DTI.

Chairman

Please, no interruptions.

Mrs. Doyle

I am simply making a broad point to begin. It is also included in the Operational Programme for Transport, 1994 to 1999. Let us recall who was Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications in 1994, as this will be relevant.

Mr. S. Brennan

We would have done it differently.

Mrs. Doyle

Please hear me out. The light railway is being funded from EU and national resources. CIE is the national transport company and the sole operator of scheduled public transport services in Dublin.

Mr. S. Brennan

Not necessarily.

Mrs. Doyle

I am stating it as a current fact.

Mr. S. Brennan

Change it.

Mrs. Doyle

Will the Deputy hear me out? He obviously does not want to.

Chairman

Deputy Brennan, please let the Minister speak.

Mr. S. Brennan

Sorry.

Mrs. Doyle

It is uncomfortable I know, but please do. Accordingly, CIE was identified in the Operational Programme for Transport as the final beneficiary of all EU funding earmarked for light rail and other public transport improvements. In the circumstances, it is neither appropriate nor desirable to provide that anyone other than CIE should make an application to the Minister to construct a light railway.

The Deputy cogently argued a point before lunch and I indicated my willingness to accept the broad thrust of what he said and to introduce an amendment on Report Stage. To return to that point, if we were to give a private company power to construct a portion or all of the light rail or an extra link to the airport, we would also be giving it powers of compulsory purchase and entry to private dwellings. Whatever about an arm of the State being allowed to do that, we are entering into controversy if we give the private sector such powers. Any powers which may be necessary for the State sector in order to construct light rail would have to be afforded to the private sector, otherwise it could not function or construct. I would not agree to the private sector having the same powers of compulsory purchase over land and all structures built on land, nor to automatically extending to the private sector all the other powers necessary for the construction of light rail.

Mr. S. Brennan

What about Aer Rianta?

Mrs. Doyle

The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications was Deputy Cowen of Fianna Fáil, who was so concerned about private sector involvement that he insisted, in his submission to the national plan which drew down the operational programme funds we are now discussing, that CIE be the vehicle through which this should be constructed.

Mr. S. Brennan

Not forever.

Mrs. Doyle

The previous Government, the Fianna Fáil Minister then responsible, the current Government and the Fine Gael Minister now responsible all felt this was the correct way to go and on the face of it I support them. As we said this morning, many sensitive issues are involved and given our Constitution and the way we organise things, I would be more comfortable if this remained with the public sector. Apart from that, the DTI strategy places a great deal of emphasis on the need for integration between existing and proposed public transport services and I am satisfied this can best be achieved within the context of the CIE group. If it appears in the future that it can be achieved by introducing the private sector into part of the planning and construction of the overall Dublin transport system, I have no doubt that it will not be difficult to deal with that legislatively at the time. However, given the current position, I support what is before us.

The Deputy's amendment is out of order but I cannot even accept the sentiment of what he says. This Government is not anti-private sector. We are speaking about what was recommended and drawn down by the previous Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, a member of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Minister is a socialist.

Mrs. Doyle

That must put Deputy Cowen into the realms of communism or Marxism.

Mr. Molloy

Is it not EU policy to encourage private investment in major transport infrastructure projects? I asked that question earlier but I did not get an answer, as was the case with many other questions I asked. The recently published Forfás report states: "Greater private sector involvement in funding the provision of transport infrastructure should be encouraged through extending toll facilities on a regulated basis and through joint ventures." That is Government policy.

Mrs. Doyle

That is right.

Mr. Molloy

However, this transport project is totally controlled by the public sector. We have introduced legislation recently to enable State companies to enter into joint ventures. Has CIE the power to enter joint ventures under current legislation?

Mrs. Doyle

I am not sure.

Mr. Molloy

Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus and many other bodies can.

Mrs. Doyle

The information available to me is that it can but I will confirm that.

Chairman

Perhaps, Minister, you could pass the information to the Deputy.

Mrs. Doyle

I would be delighted to correspond directly with the Deputy on that matter. I think it can.

Mr. Molloy

Assuming it can and that it is Government policy that it should enter joint ventures, if in developing this project CIE decides to enter such a venture, will it be prohibited from doing so under the terms of this legislation? The Bill states that the board may apply to the Minister for light rail and the Minister has rejected Deputy Brennan's amendment which would allow another company or body to apply.

Mrs. Doyle

At this point it is not envisaged that any other company or body would——

Mr. Molloy

That is not the question.

Mrs. Doyle

Hear me out, I heard the Deputy's question. It is not envisaged that any other company or body in the private sector could have a light rail order in its own right but once CIE has the order I see nothing to preclude it entering arrangements with private sector companies for the construction or operation of a light rail system. However, as I understand it, the order would be vested in CIE.

Chairman

Is the section agreed?

Mr. Molloy

I did not receive an answer as to why the Government has rejected the possibility of private sector investment.

Mrs. Doyle

It has not. The private sector will more than likely be constructing the light rail but it will not have——

Mr. Molloy

No, that is carrying out a contract, but there will not be private sector investment or equity in the project.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Government will not take private money.

Mrs. Doyle

I am not sure of the exact reason — whether it was specifically rejected or not even considered. I do not know the status but I will find out for the Deputy.

Mr. Molloy

It raises the question as to what Opposition parties are to make of Government statements on its economic policies. If the policy is to——

Chairman

I will have to draw the line at that.

Mr. Molloy

You are drawing a lot of lines.

Chairman

The section has now been carried as no one has disagreed.

Mr. Molloy

It has not been carried.

Chairman

I have put the question: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Molloy

No, we are not agreeing. I can tell you, Chairman, that none of the sections will be agreed. You cannot assume that any section will be agreed until you put the question clearly to us.

Chairman

I put the question——

Mr. Molloy

No, you did not.

Chairman

——but you were too busy in cross-argument with the Minister so you did not hear. The record will show that I put it not once but twice.

Mr. Molloy

Mr. Chairman, you seem to have another agenda. Yours is to gallop along, mine is to tease out the Bill and get answers to questions.

Chairman

The trouble is that we are going at snail's pace, much slower than the light rail.

Mr. Molloy

No, we are going faster than this light rail will ever travel.

Chairman

I am chairing the meeting and I will decide when the question will be put.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.