This section provides that such function of CIÉ as the board may determine may be performed by a subsidiary company. This may seem unimportant but it transpires in this section that the board of CIÉ may decide which of the three companies or a new one runs the system.
SECTION 25
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
I have specific information on this which may be of interest to Deputies. By virtue of section 13 of the Transport Act, 1950, CIÉ was vested with certain powers and duties but not the powers to form subsidiary companies or to enter into joint ventures. The Transport (Reorganisation of CIÉ) Act, 1986 authorised CIÉ to form three subsidiary companies, Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath. Section 25 empowers CIÉ to form a subsidiary with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. A subsidiary so incorporated might, with the consent of the two Ministers, be authorised in its memorandum and articles of association to form and take part in a joint venture company. Two options exist, therefore, for the establishment of a joint venture in which a third party would contribute equity or other capital investment. Either one of the existing CIÉ subsidiaries could enter into such a joint venture or a new subsidiary could be set up and be authorised to participate in a joint venture company.
The question of involving the private sector in the financing of the project was considered by the Dublin Transportation Initiative, but it was felt that the scope for equity investment would be limited. The DTI estimated that five per cent might be a good working assumption. Private sector funding is only meaningful where part of the risk of the project is accepted. The rate of return on a light rail project is not such as to readily attract private equity and delays while trying to secure private funding have been detrimental to other projects. This does not preclude the private sector being involved in the detail, design and construction of the light rail project. An international consultancy team with extensive experience of the implementation of light rail projects abroad is working on the detailed planning with the CIÉ project team. The actual construction of the light rail will be carried out by private sector firms on the basis of specific contracts which will be awarded after the Irish public sector and EU competitive tendering requirements have been observed.
Has CIÉ the option to form a subsidiary company to run the system?
Yes, with the agreement of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 26
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
I understand that this section means that the Railways Acts, 1840 to 1889, will actually apply to Dublin's light rail. Is that appropriate?
This section applies the Railways Acts, 1840 to 1889, and any other Act relating to railways, to any light railway under this Bill, except where such Acts are inconsistent with the provisions of this Bill, and a light railway shall be deemed to be a railway within the meaning of those Acts.
My memory is that Iarnród Éireann, as a subsidiary company, had the powers granted under the Railways Acts — I am referring to the inspectors, safety, etc. — when CIÉ was broken up. Does this section mean that the Minister has to give Iarnród Éireann the running of the railway? Does it tie the Minister or is she satisfied, if she were to give it to Dublin Bus or to a new company, for example, that Iarnród Éireann could not say to her that section 26 states that the Railways Acts apply to the railway company and that, therefore, they have to run the railway?
I am advised that this will apply to whatever company is set up to run the light railway. I will think about the question and if anything in my answer is inconsistent with the facts, I will consult the Deputy.
I take it for the moment that a bus company could run it and that this section would not stop them.
No, it would not.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are cognate on amendment No. 9 and all three may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 20, line 38, after "order" to insert ",regulation".
This is a technical amendment to include reference to regulation along with references to orders and by — laws to be laid before the House.
May I be helpful without being mischievous — it is not my usual nature? The Minister's amendments are not properly drafted. Amendment No. 9, states that in page 20, line 38, after "order" to insert ",regulation". I suggest it should read after "or" to insert "regulation". It says, "annulling the order or regulation".
No. It reads, after the word "order" to put a comma, then "regulation or bye-law", otherwise we would have "the regulation or order or bye-law" which, if I may suggest, is not good English. There is a comma instead of the "or". A list of items are separated by a comma and the last one is added by "or". The Deputy wants "the order or regulation", but it should be "the order, regulation or bye-law".
Not "the order or regulation"?
No. We are being pedantic but I am satisfied.
I am trying to be helpful.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 20, line 40, after "order" where it firstly occurs to insert ", regulation".
This is another technical amendment to include reference to regulation with reference to orders and by-laws to be laid before the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 has already been discussed with amendment No. 9.
I move amendment No.11:
In page 20, line 40, after "order" where it secondly occurs to insert ", regulation".
This is a technical amendment to include reference to "regulation" along with reference to orders and by-laws to be laid before the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.