Section 5(3) states that the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations shall not apply to the proposed light rail works. Was the advice of the Attorney General sought on this issue? Surely the EU is not about to give two-thirds of the funds for this scheme and allow legislation to exempt the light railway works from the environmental impact assessment regulations. What is the legal position?
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
This subsection provides that the European Communities Regulations and the Local Government Regulations specified in the subsection, shall not apply to the light railway. It is considered inappropriate that these regulations would apply to the light railway as they provide detailed regulations for the submission of environmental impact statements in connection with applications for planning permission under the planning Acts.
Subsections (1) and (2) of this section provide specifically for the matters dealt with by these regulations. In other words, we have detailed in those subsections the environmental impact requirements specifically for the purposes of the light rail project.
Is the legal advice saying they do not apply——
The legal advice is that we meet EU requirements. I specifically asked that question because it appears strange on initial reading. However, subsections (1) and (2) ensure the section fully meets EU requirements. It is not quite appropriate because the planning acts do not apply.
Is a full environmental impact study required before a railway order is signed?
Absolutely.
Does this section take away this requirement?
No. An environmental impact study is mandatory.
Is there provision for input to the environmental impact statement by the communities affected?
At the public inquiry stage individuals and local communities will have an input. The statement will be prepared by consultants on behalf of the developers; it is published and becomes part of the inquiry.
I take it the answer is "no"?
That is the normal procedure with an environmental impact study. It is usually prepared by a firm of consultants on behalf of a developer. They become part of the debate when they are published.
Local communities feel strongly that this is in contradiction to the Local Agenda 21 which puts great emphasis on the involvement and input of local people. In some areas people feel strongly that the communities should have an opportunity to have an input to the environmental impact study at that stage. The experience is that local people are excluded from that stage of the process. Can this be reexamined? Surely the making of a submission in the context of the development of the statement is not unreasonable?
My recollection of the legislation which arose from the EU Directive on environmental impact analyses some years ago is that the procedure does not contemplate submissions from third parties during the drawing up of an analysis. When the statement is published it becomes part of the public debate. These are usually done by the developers of projects.
The legislation is as the EU Directive required and this is as environmental impact analyses are operated throughout Europe at present. To my knowledge, there is no precedent in any environmental impact analyses for submissions. It only becomes part of public debate when it is published — in this case it will become part of a public inquiry.
I understand the angst of local individuals and communities about a major project such as this. The formal consultative procedure will be laid out carefully and every opportunity will be given to hear the concerns of the public. The environmental impact study will be part of that debate.
Does the Minister of State accept that when the environmental impact study is being drawn up it is reasonable that the people affected make an input? I understand this is not the way it is done at present, but we have an opportunity to change that.
We would have to amend other legislation to allow for that as this legislation is not appropriate. The appropriate legislation would be that which deals with environmental impact analyses which is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
This issue should be pursued. Whatever legislation is required it is essential if we are to keep to the principles of Local Agenda 21, which have been highlighted in the last year or so, that provision should be made whereby local communities can make submissions.
I support Deputy Gregory. Will the Minister of State consider bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage to make provision for local communities to have an input to the environmental impact study?
As I understand it, this legislation is not the correct vehicle to amend the legislation governing environmental impact statements.
In this legislation there should be a requirement that local communities have an opportunity to express their concerns to those carrying out the environmental impact study so that their views are incorporated in the process before the statement is presented to the Minister.
I suggest the Deputy makes that point to the Minister for the Environment and asks him to amend the relevant legislation. If that was amended and enacted before we go down this road, the whole procedural relation to EISs would have changed and we would be in order. However, this legislation cannot amend the EIS legislation.
This legislation sets down what the environmental impact statement shall contain. It would be a normal addition to put in a requirement that local communities shall have an opportunity of stating their views to the people appointed to prepare the environmental impact statement. It is not good enough to say that this is a matter for the Department of the Environment and that one should speak to the Minister about it. The section sets down specifics for environmental impact statements. We are suggesting through Deputy Gregory's proposals that a requirement be added that local communities should have an opportunity to be consulted. I am asking the Minister to consider bringing that in on Report Stage.
Had I had an opportunity to table amendments myself it was my intention to do so and the reason is in one of the submissions which have been circulated. I hope those submissions will be studied by Members and by the Minister. An effort should be made to take on board some of the suggestions in the submissions. If that is not done, it will not be helpful to the communities concerned merely to have circulated them.
That is one of the suggested amendments in the submission from the Arran Quay Terrace group who went to a great deal of trouble to produce this literally in the last 24 hours. They are concerned that they should have had an opportunity to make such a submission. The section reads: "An environmental impact statement shall contain the following specified information. . . ", and it goes on to list what it shall contain.
In this instance I fail to appreciate why the Minister cannot simply add a section which specifies that submissions from the local community will be accepted. I fail to understand it because legislation is in place which specifically excludes the possibility of this happening in the context of the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill.
I agree with the Deputy that a lot of trouble was taken in a short period by interested individuals and representative groups. I went to the trouble of facilitating the circulation of that information as soon as was humanly possible.
I appreciate that.
I am sure the Minister and her officials will take into consideration the points in the submission. We are only on Committee Stage and have yet to go through Report and Final Stages, as well as the Seanad. There is still a long way to travel with this Bill.
Can it be looked at between now and Report Stage?
We may have found a way to accommodate the point the Deputy has raised. As you know, the consultative process is up and running and will be for some months. There is no reason this submission, or any others relating to environmental impact and other concerns, should not be forwarded to the board as part of the consultative process. I will undertake to ask CIÉ to send copies of any submissions they receive to the company doing the environmental impact assessment so they can be taken into account.
Nothing is precluding CIÉ from presenting a copy of all the submissions they receive to the consultancy company preparing the environmental impact report. We can ensure that is done. This will have the same effect as written submissions being sent directly to the company as part of the EIS.
Is the Minister suggesting that she might include in that the submissions made which I have circulated to Members of the committee?
Yes, I am. That is part of Deputy Gregory's concern if I understand him correctly.
We record our thanks to the Minister for that because it goes a long towards satisfying those people who went to a lot of trouble and effort to make submissions to me and to other Deputies this morning. That meets the point which was eloquently made by Deputy Gregory.
Provided that any such submissions which are sent in form part of the written environmental impact statement.
I am afraid that I cannot guarantee that.
That is outside my scope. That is as far as I can go.
There could be a wide range of submissions, some of them excellent while others may not be as relevant. The Deputy knows that from dealing with a huge range of individuals and bodies. I cannot give any guarantees about what will form part of the final report.
The submissions could be included as an appendix.
Can the Minister put the undertaking she has given into a line in the legislation on Report Stage, because she may not always be the Minister.
I could, but we can put in on the record again. I can assure the Deputy that I will be the Minister of State and Deputy Lowry will be the Minister with responsibility at Cabinet when this gets up and running.
To the year 2000?
We are not talking about the year 2000, this will be working long before that.
We have reached a consensus on that so let us not push it. I want to move on from section 5 after virtually a whole day's discussion.
Since our concerns are clear to the Minister, will she consider them between now and Report Stage to see if an appropriate mechanism can be found that would be written into the legislation to ensure that such submissions can be made and that they are utilised in the statement?
Or taken into account.
Yes, but I would like that to be qualified.
The indication was that they should be forwarded to the consultants. The Minister's recommendation was that they will be taken into account, otherwise there would be no point in sending them. When people presented submissions to me I took them into account and circulated them to Members as well as to the Minister who will subsequently pass them on to the consultants. Thereby, she has clearly indicated they will be taken into account. Whether they act on them is not a matter for this committee to decide at this stage.
I will reconsider it between now and Report Stage to see if I can go further than I have already offered. I will take advice on that and we can talk about it again on Report Stage. I offer that as a base line in terms of meetings the Deputy's requirements.
We have reached consensus on that. Can I take it that section 5 is agreed?
We have not dealt with other parts of it. Earlier, I raised the necessity for an economic impact statement on the effect of the proposed light rail system on businesses in Dublin. I asked why specific provision had not been made for that or for compensation for those who will lose because of the disturbance and the change in trading patterns that will arise in view of the current proposals, unless they are drastically amended.
I want to ask the Minister about section 5(1) which states that: "an environmental impact statement shall contain the following specified information",
. . . .
(c) a description of the likely significant effects, direct and indirect, on the environment of the proposed light railway works, explained by reference to their possible impact on
. . . .
(iv) material assets.
This is the closest we can get to what will be the economic impact of the Bill. Can the Minister elaborate on the effect of section 5 (1) (c) (iv)?
I am not sure that I can do that because under this subsection we are stating the specified information the environmental impact statement shall contain. It will be presented as specified information about the impact on material assets and cultural heritage. I am not sure exactly what the Deputy is seeking by way of an answer.
Material assets of the built environment can relate to the way it is disturbed. However, one can also think of a business, which is a material asset for its owner by supplying income, and the effect this light rail proposal might have on his income on which he was depending for his livelihood and for his family.
The reference to material assets means structural damage to property.
It does not say that.
I am advised this is the expression used to refer to it. What is meant by material assets is structural damage.
If that is what it means, would it not be more appropriate for it to say so?
I will look at that. The terminology is lifted directly from the EU regulation, Article 3. Section 5 (1) (c) states:
(i) human beings, fauna and flora,
(ii) soil, water, air, climate and the landscape,
(iii) the inter-action between any of the matters referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii),
(iv) material assets, and
(v) the cultural heritage.
It is the parliamentary language used by the EU in relation to environmental impact.
What is their definition of "material assets"? Does it refer to people's businesses?
No. They do not go into detail.
Does it refer to the enjoyment of the family home and the effect on it?
Is the Deputy talking about the time of the construction or indefinitely?
To whatever the Minister's proposal is referring.
I think the Deputy is asking in a roundabout way if the environmental impact statement will be used as a basis for compensation claims.
No. I am asking what "material assets" means.
I have been advised that material assets is structural damage or damage to buildings. The wording is lifted from the EU paper.
If a judge in the court is reading the words "material assets" and is asked to interpret it, he need not necessarily confine it to damage to buildings. He can interpret it as damage to a person's income arising from the damage to trade in a certain street caused by this proposal.
I will get an opinion on the expression "material assets" and we can discuss it again. I am advised it is current parlance in relation to environmental impact assessments. It has not given rise to any confusion. There have been other major construction projects that have caused problems in other areas but there has no been no difficulty with this. I will check it out and come back to the Deputy.
Does the Minister accept there is a major weakness in the Bill as presented in that it does not specifically provide for an assessment to be made of the impact on business? It does not specifically provide for people affected to be compensated.
There is no point assessing the impact on business, assuming it is adverse, if we cannot do anything about it. I am advised that, according to the law, there is no provision for compensation for incidental disturbance and disruption during the construction phase. Whether it is a motorway or any other major infrastructural project, businesses and local communities have not been compensated unless there is material disturbance. They are compensated if land assets are taken from them. In terms of incidental disturbance during construction, I am advised there is no provision for compensation.
In the case highlighted so far, in the Kilmainham area — and there will be dozens of others highlighted — an economic survey has been carried out by businesses estimating a loss of 600 jobs. Is the Minister stating that businesses will be destroyed in that area? Is she suggesting that this Government is going to proceed with the proposal as it stands and destroy those businesses? Does it not feel, because of natural justice or any other reason, it has an obligation to compensate the people for the drastic effect this proposal will have on their businesses?
I can only inform the Deputy of the law as it stands. I did not create the law or the precedent in this area. There is a general view that incidental disturbance during the construction phase——
This will be permanent.
——should be compensated by an improvement in——
We are getting into the area of argument rather than debate. This is not a grand jury.
This is a Committee Stage debate.
This is the Committee Stage of a Bill. This grand jury type arrangement is foreign to this committee. I have allowed the Deputy to ask about ten questions.
That is what I am here for. I was elected to ask questions.
I have allowed Deputy Molloy to ask ten questions in a row.
People can go back out on the streets if that is what the Chairman wants. This is a democracy. It is part of the parliamentary system.
I understand that and that is why I have allowed the Deputy to ask so many questions.
We know the extreme steps the Minister has taken to stop a major protest on the street last Tuesday when the Bill was being railroaded through the Dáil.
I have allowed Deputy Molloy adequate scope to ask the questions he could reasonably want to under any section.
I have no option but to ask the same question in a different way. There are many small businesses on the preferred route through Kilmainham and Mount Brown which are heavily dependent on access. Any prolonged restriction on access to those businesses would be extremely damaging. These businesses are the experts and they believe restricted access would bankrupt them and close them down. I hope that route is not selected and that the alternative route along the canal, or one of the other alternative routes, is selected. If that were to happen, could the Minister be precise about what incidental disturbance involves? At what stage is disturbance seen to be so drastic as to require compensation? Even short-term cutting off of access to these businesses would have dramatic consequences. To say there is no provision for compensation is outrageous.
As the law stands, any businesses and private residences discommoded by major infrastructural projects, even in the long term - — if they are rerouted off the main road by bypasses or whatever — are not provided with compensation. I remember this matter being argued vehemently over the years. We objected to by-passing major towns and villages because people felt business would be taken away from them. At least annually, for 24 years, I remember a major debate either at local or national level on this issue. Successive Governments have operated the existing system where no compensation is provided for either incidental disturbance during the construction phase or even permanent discommoding of business. The law does not provide for compensation, even where people are put out of business.
We are making the law.
The law does not provide in this matter. There are numerous precedents. There are huge ramifications in providing compensation for disturbance when the disturbance is being caused for the greater good. For example, over the years many people have objected to compulsory purchase orders because it did not suit the individual business or private residence and they had to accept what they considered to be second best in the interest of the greater good. There is a view that to free up Dublin traffic and to speed up entering and exiting Dublin will result in a greater turnover in the number of people who can get into Dublin and shop and do their business. This will pay huge dividends in the long run for the greater number of those in the commercial and business sector.
I can understand where the Deputies are coming from. There is no doubt that it will not be to some individual's benefit to have light rail outside their door or to have the public whisked past their door. There are also cases where some businesses will have to be acquired compulsorily for the route to go through. All these issues will come out in the public inquiry. I have no doubt that if a particular route is to seriously discommode a range of businesses and commercial interests, an alternative route will have to be considered. I am not in a position to do this.
I am sympathetic to the point being made by the three Deputies. Nobody likes to see any businessman or woman or anybody in the commercial sector who is trying to earn an honest penny, create employment, pay their rates and provide a service seriously discommoded or put out of business. However, these matters that will be discussed at the public inquiry and will be taken into consideration at that stage.
I would be dishonest if I gave false hope to anyone who is concerned at this point with a possible routing — none of the routes is agreed — of the light rail or with the possible damage light rail construction will do to them. It would be a major disservice if I gave false hope by saying there would be compensation. Honesty on the part of everybody involved is what is called for at this stage. We will do a major service for people is we can be as honest as possible with all our cards on the table.
It has been the case in too many major construction projects that it was only after the event that people realised the implications for them. I am confident that the consultation process and the public inquiry, which will be entered into between now and the end of the year, will allow everybody at least the benefit of being heard and having their concerns taken into account. However, we would be dishonest if we said that, at the end of the day, nobody will be discommoded or upset by whatever route is taken. By its very nature, it will upset a certain number.
I have listened to the debate about the people who will be discommoded by the process and I want to put the other side, which concerns me most as a public representative from Dublin South-West. There are thousands of people in that area who desperately need an improved transport service, not just simply to have a good day out but to improve their prospects for a decent life or their chances of getting jobs. For many of them mobility is severely restricted. Research on transport has shown that restriction of movement is a factor in curtailing people's possibility of employment. I want to put that on record. Thousands of people are expecting this light rail to be delivered speedily, efficiently and without hiccups. They will not forgive people who disrupt it.
They do not want to put people out of business or force people to leave jobs.
There will no forgiveness because they have waited a substantial time. For the first time a project is in train and going in the right direction. There are difficulties, but we must put the side of the majority of people who have very little and will get much from this against the side of those who will be discommoded. Without any question or doubt, the good outweighs any difficulty. I am absolutely certain of that.
It is hardly just discommoding. The suggestions for Kilmainham and the Mount Brown area is not just discommoding; it is wiping out businesses. There might be a case for introducing a form of compensation in this legislation. The Minister does not have to be bound by all of the precedents of other major works; they did not wipe out businesses completely. They discommode but, in this case, one is talking about the massive shutdown of businesses in the Kilmainham area. Is there not a case for some form of compensation? This is not just incidental; it is central and fundamental discommoding.
Given the context outlined by the Minister, it amazes me that the Kilmainham route was chosen by the LUAS people, given the obvious effect it will have on those businesses. I do not think the people in Kilmainham want compensation. They want to be left as they are and with their jobs.
We have been told that there is no likelihood that these people will get compensation, even if their businesses are forced to close. A precedent should be set in this legislation to provide for compensation in that instance. The correct alternative would be a route away from that area which would leave those people in their jobs and those businesses operating.
This issue is crucial and critical. If that route goes ahead there will be virtual revolution in that area of the city, and rightly so. It certainly puts a question mark over the future of the development of light rail along that sector. I am beginning to believe that we will be picking an alternative route and going around that area. Where alternative routes have been selected and referred to by the LUAS people, is there detailed analysis and costing of those alternative routes included in the EIS? Does the EIS deal only with the preferred route or does it include details of the alternatives? I refer in this instance to local alternative routes where there are particular problems. Detailed analysis of those alternatives should also be included in the EIS.
In anticipation that this question would arise following requests made by a number of delegations this morning, I took the opportunity to query that in some detail. I advised the delegation that, in accordance with section 8, the order publicised by CIÉ will show the routes, the land and property owners and people who will be directly or indirectly involved. The route designated will be publicised and the Minister, in consultation with An Bord Pleanála, can appoint an inspector and a public inquiry will then be set in place. At that stage all the people who have an objection to the route or who believe that their businesses or property will be interfered with in some way can make an application and put a case to the inspector. The inspector will act in an independent capacity. That is contained in section 8 of the Bill. The Minister might have something to add.
Will I get an answer later?
Yes. I will try to wrap up this section. We are trying to take all these questions together.
The Minister said that no legislation exists whereby compensation can be paid. We are currently formulating legislation which will impose light rail of a kind which the Government determines. As enunciated so far, it is not considered to be a well thought out proposal.
Is the Minister aware that when the French set about implementing light rail in the major cities in France the legislation contained a provision for payment of compensation where economic losses were identified following studies? Would the Minister accept that in view of that, the logical thing to do is include a provision in this Bill to ensure that adequate compensation is paid to people whose businesses might be wiped out?
A few minutes ago I was handed a letter from the Kilmainham business group which says:
During the construction phase of this system, the road would be closed [this is at Mount Brown, Old Kilmainham] causing severe disruption to daily business. Indeed, after completion of this rail line it will be virtually impossible for business to operate.
They would like to bring to the committee's attention the fact that the construction phase has been stated to be 18 months, so while it is being built, the streets will be dug up for that period. Access to businesses will be severely restricted for one and a half years. Companies will go out of business and job losses in this area alone are estimated at 600 and there is no compensation provision. There will be a loss of revenue to the State because of high unemployment and the loss of PRSI revenue. It will have a dramatic effect on this area, although others are coming to light. The Government could not care less about them. It wants to push ahead, shut down businesses, close companies and force trucks, lorries and cars off the road. That seems to be the attitude. Does the Minister see any merit in the way the French went about this? They successfully built light rail systems throughout their major cities which, in most cases are satisfactory.
I have been informed by Members that they wish to conclude.
I do not want to impose my problems on the committee but I have a matter on the Adjournment. I suggest we adjourn until Tuesday.
May I respond to those points?
Could you be brief?
On the question of the environmental impact statement, the route that will be chosen and any other options, that will be considered, will be part of it. I refer the Deputy to section 5(1)(e), which will include costings and other aspects. I understand the Kilmainham problem is causing many difficulties for businesses and individuals in the area. I would share their views if I was working and living in that area. I understand why they are so concerned and because of that concern, six alternative routes are available for consideration at this point.
This is enabling legislation. No route has been named in the Bill, including the preferred route, as it has become known, through Kilmainham which will cause such trouble. The Bill is not written on a tablet of stone. No final decision on any route has been made. No Government will accept a route which would cause such devastation to the commercial sector as has been suggested will happen in Kilmainham. This will all come out in the public inquiry and in the consultation process.
The valid points in Deputy Molloy's letter, of which we are well aware, will be considered in this process. I have no doubt that if the result of constructing what has become known as the preferred route turns out to be or is likely to be half as bad as the case made, another route will be considered. Common sense will dictate. It is not the Government's wish to put anyone out of business or to discommode anyone to the extent that it looks this route might do. Alternative routes will be available. Let us hope common sense will prevail. I can go no further as it is not within my power.
The Minister is on record in the Dáil as saying routes have been chosen and that is that. I am glad the Government might be beginning to climb down on that.
Six alternative routes are being considered for Kilmainham.
This has been a very useful and in-depth discussion. The committee will met at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow to consider the National Standards Authority Bill, 1996, in the Seanad Chamber. The committee will resume consideration of this Bill on Tuesday, 25 June, at 11 a.m.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m.