I will endeavour to reach consensus on a finishing time but in view of the lengthy discussion on many aspects of the Bill last week, I am reluctant to set a fixed time. Hopefully, we will finish by 5.30 p.m.
SECTION 5.
Question again proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I had raised a number of points on this section 5. In response the Minister of State referred to section 5 (1)(e) which states: "where appropriate, an outline of the main alternatives . . . studied and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative, taking into account the environmental effects . . . ". I am not clear on this.
Where communities have expressed concern alternatives have been proposed. Will the environmental impact statement give only a detailed analysis of the preferred route and simply outline the main alternatives studied? That would seem to indicate the alternatives are not being taken seriously, that we are getting an outline of them and the detailed study of the preferred route.
The people of Arran Quay Terrace submit that there should be a detailed analysis and costing of the main alternative routes included in the EIS. My assessment may be incorrect, but it would seem otherwise to be a fait accompli, we are really only getting an environmental impact statement on the original preferred route and the alternatives are not being taken seriously. This point should be clarified.
I also ask the Minister to clarify section 5(3) which provides that the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994 shall not apply to proposed light railway works. One of the submissions from the local community groups demands that EU regulations should apply so an independent body can ensure that the EIS has been thorough in its assessment. This ensures the independence of all deliberations. I would like the Minister to be clear as to why this section provides that these regulations should not apply to light railway works.
I ask the Minister to clarify for Report Stage that she will attempt to reach a compromise on the input from local communities. Up to now all they could do was make a submission to those conducting the environmental impact assessment. The submission does not have to be considered. It can be put into the waste paper basket or elsewhere, although I am not suggesting it would. On Report Stage the Minister should introduce a mechanism whereby such submissions are seen to be taken seriously and their content included in some way in the published EIS.
The Deputy made some important points. There is concern about section 5(3) which reads:
The European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (SI No. 349 of 1989), and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994 (SI No. 86 of 1994), shall not apply to proposed light railway works.
There is nothing Machiavellian about this. The regulations do not apply because the details required for the environmental impact assessment are set out in subsections (1) and (2) of section 5. It would be duplication without this subsection.
To ensure that all environmental considerations and impacts are taken into account, the two foregoing subsections specify that even more detail is required than would be required normally. Subsection (3) does not preclude anything. The only reason it is there is to avoid duplication. The relevant regulations have been incorporated in the light rail legislation rather than being left to environmental impact legislation.
The other point related to the extent to which submissions made by interest groups and individuals would be taken into account by the consultants carrying out the EIS. We are not in a position under the law to dictate what any consultant employed to do an EIS takes into account. In any EIS most of us are not sure of the grounds on which they come to their final conclusion. Depending on the consultant, they will to a greater or lesser extent take all submissions they receive into account. However, I cannot speak for them. I do not even know who the consultants will be.
Certain groups will not be satisfied. If after the EIS is published, there will be groups who will have a difficulty or who believe that their point of view has not been considered sufficiently, the law provides for a full inquiry which takes their point of view into account as well as providing for assurances as to the extent to which their view can be accepted or the reasons their view cannot be accommodated. We are reasonable, rational beings. If people get a full explanation and an assurance that their view is being considered most of them will understand how a conclusion was reached, even if they are not very happy with the outcome.
I thought we reached an agreement the last day that the Minister would, between now and Report Stage, examine a mechanism whereby such submissions would be included in an appendix to the EIS. Is that still the case?
I did not mention an appendix; the Deputy did. Report Stage may be taken tomorrow. I have asked my officials to ensure that all the points we want addressed on Report Stage can be accommodated where possible. However, against some advice I am getting, I accept that the submissions of individuals and groups who have particular concerns about the impact they believe light rail may have on their immediate environment must be given to the consultants who will be undertaking the EIS. I do not know who they are; they have not been appointed.
We cannot dictate what the consultants do with the submissions, but we can make statements on Committee Stage and again on Report Stage. I have asked the officials to prepare a wording whereby there will be an obligation on any responsible firm of consultants to ensure that all points of view and submissions they receive are considered fully. I cannot legally oblige consultants to do certain things; that is not how the system works. However, it is important to assuage fears. It is natural that such fears exist about the possible impact of light rail in certain localities and neighbourhoods.
The law provides that if there are still problems, dissatisfaction or doubts about whether submissions have been considered fully after the environmental impact statement has been published, the public and individuals can ensure that their point of view is heard through a public inquiry. At least they can get assurances one way or another, know where they stand and can pursue their complaints from there.
The Deputy's first point related to section 5(1)(e) which states that where appropriate an outline of the main alternatives (if any) studied and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative etc.
Again, I am not in a position to dictate, nor would any Minister be in a position to dictate to consultants over and above the law as to what they must or must not do with the EIS. However, if there is any doubt as to how they have done their work, investigation or fairness, the public inquiry will provide an outlet for individuals, groups and Deputies to express their views once the statement is published.
CIE will request consultants to investigate a route. It may not necessarily be what we are now referring to as the preferred route. When the debate is over, all the alternatives have been examined and important points made by certain groups of residents and commercial interests in certain areas, CIE, having considered all that, will ask the consultants to consider a route. That route will be the main examination focus of the consultants, but they will also have to indicate that they have studied any other routes.
If the preferred route is not that which they were asked to examine or any of the alternatives mentioned since discussions started six months ago, they will have to specify the grounds on which other routes have been ruled out. That is my understanding of section 5(1)(e). I cannot tell the Deputy the detail which will be given on each route, but greater detail will be given on the route they are asked to study. However, they will be asked to comment on other routes and why they are not being chosen as the preferred route.
This is an important section dealing with the environmental impact statement, how it is commissioned and carried out. This is now required as a result of EU demands. The EU regulations provide for an independent evaluation by assessors and consultants who would be chosen in an independent fashion. I am sure the Department does not intend that there should be any question over the study or those commissioned to carry it out, but there is a perception that when consultants are chosen by the body that is carrying out the proposed development, in this case, light rail, they are anxious to provide the required information and would do so knowing what is being sought by the people who commissioned them. I would have preferred if the European regulations were the actual statement in the legislation.
Unless there is full scale consultation, by the time the EIS has taken place it will be too late to do anything about it, even if a public inquiry is held, because the matters will have been examined and the preferred option put.
The lack of consultation is constantly mentioned and that is why communities have been protesting and public meetings have taken place. We are constantly getting documentation from bodies saying that they have very little information about it. For example, I got some this morning from the Fruit and Vegetable Grower's and Distributors stating "We have considered the proposal of the advent of the trams at St. Mary's Abbey albeit from the scant information supplied to us." Many people along the route discovers that mcuh work has taken place without them being consulted.
Under section 5(1)(e) alternative routes must be outlined. These should have been discussed, examined and assessed following consultation, long before we had a preferred route. We have our preferred route for a couple of months but we are now going back to the drawing board to discuss alternative routes. The alternative route that will come before us is no doubt the likely one to go forward. To what extent are the alternative routes being examined and are consultations taking place? I would also like to know whether we can be satisfied that the provisions in section 5(1)(e) are being followed in terms of the main alternatives that are being studied taking into account the environmental effects. At the meeting last week with the Minister and representatives from CIE I pointed out that I had proposed an alternative route on the northside, along North King Street, and how that could be integrated into the Broadstone line. The CIE representatives came back and dismissed it out of hand without giving a single reason for doing so other than to say it was not on. That is not an in-depth study or evaluation of an alternative route. Last Wednesday, they made a commitment that they would give the pros and cons of each alternative route presented to them but it is a war of attrition. Step by step we are dragging something out of them.
I remind Members that we are dealing with Committee Stage of the Bill, not Second Stage.
In the case of environmental impact statements, too often it seems as though an agenda has been set in advance so that one gets the result one wants. Our experience to date has been that we have been provided with the result CIE wants without looking sufficiently at the possible alternatives communities along the line want. That is the key to it. Section 5(3) states: "The European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 — shall not apply to proposed light railway works." If we can be satisfied that what is proposed in the detailed section makes good that deficit in terms of evaluation and assessment I will be more than satisfied with it but our experience to date has not been in line with that.
I have covered most of the Deputy's points substantially. I appreciate what the Deputy is getting at and the constituency concerns of Dublin Deputies in particular. The system is in place to ensure that all concerns are heard. If there is any question that the environmental impact process does not consider in sufficient detail the points made in various submissions, there will be ample opportunity, when the EIS is published, during the public inquiry for groups and individuals to go through all the points they have concerns about. It would be disingenuous if we were to give the impression to our constituents that we can have development without any environmental impact; we cannot.
The benefit of sustainable development or development that we need to support for the greater good must outweigh the cost environmentally and financially. We must be guided by strict environmental principles on any major capital project such as the one before us. The procedure for consultation is explicit. We are guided by the EU Directive in terms of what we have to do in this proposal. I am satisfied that all the serious concerns of certain groups this will impact upon will be taken into consideration and ameliorated before the final route is decided. I am not in a position to tell the Deputy what that route will be and I am not sure that CIE knows at this stage because it is considering alternatives over and above the preferred route and the most contentious areas but given that we are proposing over 20 kilometres in the first phase of light rail, the length giving rise to serious concern is small. I am convinced that the consultation process that we will put in place will allow everybody's view to be heard and submissions to be considered in detail. Most people will be satisfied. We must take a balanced, straight and honest view with the people and I guarantee that the Government will ensure that all the procedures for listening to and considering in detail the major concerns of some sections of the community along the route of the light rail will be put in place.
Section 5(3) is essential because the planning Acts do not apply to light rail and a major portion of the requirements under EU legislation, as spelt out in section 5(3), deal with the details in the planning procedures which must be gone through. From the environmental impact point of view, everything is stitched into subsections (1) and (2). I assure Deputies that subsection (3) will not dilute the importance or scale of the environmental impact assessment.
I want to push the Minister on that point. Deputy Gregory and I raised the matter of section 5(3). The Minister is saying that it is not necessary because it is all spelt out, but it is unusual. I am somewhat suspicious that the Minister still chooses to provide in a Bill that the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. 349 of 1989) shall not apply. I understand the second one, which is about planning. The light rail will be substantially funded by the EU.
We are obliged to have an EIS too. There is no question of it.
Yes, but would it not be just as useful in section 5(3) to say that the appropriate parts of that statutory instrument shall apply? Will the Minister consider leaving that subsection out altogether? If the Minister spells out everything else, it is not necessary. There may be some small print in the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. 349 of 1989) which would give added protection to local communities with regard to environmental impact studies. It is there for a good reason. To just say European legislation "shall not apply" to a European project is not on.
The Deputies make a very good point because they must be able to assure their constituents and people in the broader Dublin area that there is no weakening of the requirements of the European Directives which relate to environmental impact statements in the Bill.
If it is not weakened in any way, why not just say that the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. 349 of 1989) shall apply?
I want to make two points. First, I want to return on Report Stage and read into the record the specific reasons that our advice is to proceed in this way. I do not have them in front of me at present. However, I am quite satisfied. This is the first point I made when I looked at this Bill. I asked why we are not being bound by the European directive, and I have been assured that we are.
Did CIE give the Minister that advice?
The officials gave me the advice. It was the Attorney General's advice.
This is an important point. There can be no confusion or doubt nor can we sow seeds of doubt. I am absolutely satisfied with what the Bill proposes but, for the Deputies' benefit, I would rather read into the record on Report Stage the precise advice we have as to why this is the road on which to proceed and how this will not dilute in any way the requirements of the EU directive governing environmental impact statements.
Does the Minister accept that it is most unusual to provide such a clause in a Bill?
No. Let me finish. I said I wanted to make two points.
Questions must be addressed through the Chair. I do not want a "grand jury" type arrangement at this committee. If the Deputy addresses his question through the Chair, he will get the answers. I would ask the Minister to take note of that also.
I accept that. If we have an exchange with the Minister on details through the Chair rather than lay out long position papers on where we both stand on either side, it is more useful. I am dealing specifically with section 5(3). Between now and Report Stage, will the Minister reconsider her position on this matter and leave in the EU clause?
I will not reconsider my position but, to reassure Deputies, I will read in to the record on Report Stage more detailed legal advice, which the Department has received but which I do not have in front of me, as to why this is the course we should follow. I will reassure Deputies that it in no way weakens the requirements of the EU directive with regard to environmental impact assessments.
Second, the Deputy suggests that no other legislation has made such a requirement. That is not so. The former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, introduced exactly the same legislation in the Roads Act, 1993, to which I refer Deputies. In fact, section 51(8) of the Roads Act, 1993, states:
(a) The European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Motorways) Regulations, 1988 (S.I. 221 of 1988) is hereby revoked.
(b) The European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. No. 349 of 1989 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1990 (S.I. No. 25 of 1990) shall not apply to the proposed road development.
It is provided in this Bill for exactly the same legal reasons as those which the Minister for the Environment of the time received with regard to the Roads Act, 1993. I do not have the precise advice with me but I want to give it to the Deputies because when I read the legislation I asked why and if it were weakening of the requirement. I can assure Deputies that it is not. I will provide the advice to Members on Report Stage.
We seem to have found a neat device whenever we do not like European legislation, we simply write into our Bills that it shall not apply. This is a new approach to European legislation.
That is not so but I will give the Deputy a detailed response on Report Stage. I am quite satisfied that the preceding subsections (1) and (2) require what Europe requires of us and, indeed, more with regard to the environmental impact of the proposed light rail, but I will reassure Deputies on the matter on Report Stage.
I appreciate that if one is setting up a specific statutory duty to provide for an environmental impact study, it might be desirable to exclude a competing alternative mechanism to arrive at the same thing. Therefore, I can appreciate that there would be a desire to avoid overlap between two competing environmental impact study regimes. The Minister should be in a position to tell the committee the difference between the two. It is not good enough to say that she will tell the committee on Report Stage because that is a little like telling you as the train pulls out of the station that you have just missed it. One cannot ask questions on Report Stage. The Minister should be in a position to deliver to this committee a clear and concise statement as to the difference between section 5(1) and (3), and whether there is any small print, appellate jurisdiction, supervisory jurisdiction and so on which is regarded as inconvenient and is being kept out of it. Deputies are entitled to know the difference between the two regimes.
I take the Deputy's point but so many detailed questions have been asked on this Bill that, I suppose it would be difficult for any Minister or Minister of State to anticipate all the questions asked to date.
The Minister said she foresaw this question so I do not know why she is not in a position to answer.
It is completely unsatisfactory that we are not being given the information. It is interesting that even though local community groups had only 12 hours in which to look through the Bill, they expressed concern about that and asked us to get clarification on it or, if necessary, ensure it was deleted. I find it hard to accept it could not have been foreseen and the information is not available to show the committee precisely what was involved. The reason I raised the matter again this morning was that the response we received the last day did not clarify the position. I am sorry that information is still not available to the committee.
I am not happy with all the answers that have been given. Section 5(1) states "An environmental impact statement shall contain the following specified information . . ." so presumably it is open to include the information we want in it. If detailed studies of alternatives are carried out to reach a decision on a preferred route, instead of section 5(1)(e) stating that an outline of the main alternatives shall be included, why not state that whatever detailed studies were done should be published? They would be in the statement. Where is the difficulty in that? It would show that a genuine and serious attempt had been made to study the different alternatives. Where a preferred route is given in detail and there is only an outline of others, there is, particularly given our experience up to now, the suspicion that no serious attempt was made to look at the other routes. Would the Minister consider removing the words "an outline" and include instead "the detailed studies" that were carried out?
I do not think any answers would be sufficient to satisfy Deputies 100 per cent. I can only be honest. When there is an environmental impact, and there will be in any major development, it is disingenuous to pretend it will not discommode anybody or any part of the environment, no matter how it is covered in the Bill. I am satisfied with the procedures for consultation laid down from the environmental impact assessment, the requirement of the consultant involved to consider all the concerns to the indication in section 5(1)(e) that:
where appropriate, an outline of the main alternatives (if any) studied and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative, taking into account the environmental effects,
Following publication of the EIS and the public inquiry, if the Minister is not satisfied he can request more information and publish it.
Why not publish the information?
Quite a lot will be published, according to section 5(1)(e).
An outline could be anything. It is completely unsatisfactory.
I know it is an important subject but we have discussed one section, with no amendments, for over two and a half hours.
Can the Minister explain what "material assets" in 5(1)(c)(iv) means? Does it include businesses and buildings? Does it deal with houses and homes?
The term "material assets", as referred to in the EU Directive, has been interpreted to mean buildings and physical structures only. This interpretation has been reflected in practice in other developments such as road and motorway schemes and is supported by the context in which the term is used in annex 3, paragraph 3 of the directive, which refers to material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between those factors.
The environmental impact study will deal with the physical buildings which will have to be knocked down. Will it deal with the businesses carried on in them?
It is an environmental impact assessment not an economic impact assessment.
So it will deal with the physical buildings only?
Yes, land and building structures.
I accept what the Minister has said in relation to the detailed submission of the EIS in section 5 and that there is no need for the EU regulations. She will clarify that on Report Stage.
Everything hinges on the acceptability of alternative routes. If there is a satisfactory set of alternative routes, then the problem does not arise. Virtually everybody has said they support light rail in principle although they would like to see certain additions and changes. The alternative routes are a key area and we are not satisfied that there has been a serious analysis of them to date. Section 5 is deficient in that there seems to be no clear statement that the findings of the alternative routes will be presented. I would like the Minister to come back to this on Report Stage. Something more substantial than a mere outline of the main alternative routes should be made available, even if it is a description of the main alternative routes. If the pros and cons are going to be presented in an ad hoc form, it is not unreasonable to expect they be given in a more formal manner which could be included in the EIS and presented in the legislation. I ask the Minister to look at that again as it has been a bone of contention. We are not convinced that CIE will carry out an in-depth analysis of alternative routes. It could skim over the surface and say this is the preferred route. Will the Minister look at 5(1)(e) on Report Stage and satisfy our concerns?
I will and I take on board the cogent points made by Deputy Costello. I have referred to most of them already. I must be strictly honest and not give the impression I am likely to do more than I will do. By the time CIE makes the actual application and the EIS is commissioned from the consultants, there will be a route that CIE will apply for. That may not be what to date we have been referring to as the "preferred route". It could be one of the alternative routes that CIE is now looking at.
But it might not.
Yes, I do not know. I do not know if anybody knows which of the various routes in the more contentious sections of the proposed light rail will be the route that CIE will apply for. It will depend on the outcome of the studies on all the routes, including the "preferred route", and the alternatives. CIE will publish the pros and cons of each route by July 10. I will see if there is any way I can clarify the Government's views and wishes for the Deputy on Report Stage.
I do not have much faith in Report Stage.
It is all that is left.
It tends to be a refuge for the Minister to consider everything and then make set speeches in the Dáil, which is what will happen. That is why I stress the importance of what the Minister is asking us to do here. She is asking us to agree section 3 blindly and take the Government's assurances that the EU's environmental impact assessment regulations should not be in the legislation. That is a major request to make. The Minister is asking that it should not apply to this legislation. She cannot answer the specific question tabled by Deputy McDowell. What is the major difference between the two? Why is it necessary to include wording in the legislation to the effect that "the environmental impact assessment of the EU shall not apply"? There must be a reason for this provision.
If this is such an important item and if the Minister of State requires time to consult with her officials to obtain the information requested by Deputy McDowell, I am prepared to propose that course to my colleagues. When the Chairman states that section 5 stands part of the Bill, it will not be necessary to have an environmental impact study along the lines of the European Union model. An Irish model is being written into the legislation instead and on which CIÉ will probably advise. I offer the Minister of State the opportunity to avail of a short break in proceedings if she wishes to obtain the information in question.
No.
If that information is provided in the form of a set piece speech on Report Stage it is mere word processing and does not represent real discussion.
I appreciate the problem. It would be nice if the Minister of State could answer every question or solve every problem on Committee Stage. However, she explained that she does not have the information.
Then she should not ask the committee to agree the section.
It would not be correct to adjourn proceedings every time a Member posed a question and the Minister of State could not provide a full and absolute reply. Deputy Brennan, as an experienced former Cabinet Minister, should be aware of that fact.
Will the Minister of State respond to my questions?
There is an element of politics involved in this issue. I am aware that this is what the Chairman has been saying in his very diplomatic way. However, there is no question that we will not be obliged to comply with European requirements in relation to the light rail system. I want to make that clear. We are inserting into subsections (1) and (2) of section 5 the specific requirements of the EU on environmental impact as it relates to light rail, rather than leave in place the general requirements which are being deleted under subsection (3).
Both sets of requirements should remain.
There is no need for duplication, confusion and obfuscation. By leaving both we would dilute the strict requirements being put in place by the Government in relation to the EU directive on environmental impact.
Is that the advice received by the Minister of State?
It is, and I will return on Report Stage and read into the record the advice given by the Attorney General that this is the correct way to proceed. I do not have his specific advice to hand but I will read it into the record on Report Stage.
The Minister of State will accept EU money but will not respect its laws.
If the Deputy wishes to play politics that is his business.
The record will show that this issue was dealt with adequately. The Minister of State has answered the same question five or six times during our deliberations on this Bill.
Question put and declared carried.