Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 9, subsection (1)(b), line 15, after "Pleanála" to insert "and the consultative council for the relevant local area established under section 9".
These amendments go to the heart of our objections to this legislation. The Bill does not provide for any consultative mechanism. The provisions of the Bill are legalistic and bureaucratic. Amendment No. 5 provides for a mechanism by establishing consultative councils in each of the areas affected by the routes selected. This mechanism was used by the Hewlett Packard company when it decided to set up a plant in Leixlip. It decided to set up a local consultative council involving the local community, the planning authority, the local business community and other interest groups and they hammered out the problems of compensation, access routes and other difficulties.
It seems a good model to replicate in this case. A council in this format would speed up the construction of the rail lines and lead to more general agreement on routes. Before the Minister grants a light rail order he should establish consultative councils for the relevant local area. It should comprise the local community, the planning authority, the local business community and any other local interest deemed relevant by the Minister.
It should be a statutory requirement for the Minister to consult with the consultative council on the proposed light rail route in the local area, its proposed location, the amount of compensation, if any, to be paid to affected persons, the schedule of proposed light rail works and any other matters deemed relevant by the Minister. The Minister should seek the consent of the relevant consultative council. The amendment provides for a situation in which the Minister cannot get agreement having gone through the process. The detailed reasons for proceeding without the agreement of the council should be debated in the Dáil.
We could thus have a system for a formal statutory consultation mechanism. There is no provision in the Bill for such a statutory mechanism. That is the main problem with the Bill. I regret the Government's attitude to this issue. I tabled an amendment to make it clear that CIE could not enter private houses just because it was stated in this legislation. The Minister undertook to take certain action and I will return to that matter later. Last week I tabled amendments detailing suggested routes and seeking to allow companies other than CIE to develop certain lines. These were voted down. I have no doubt my amendments on integration and the need to cost the underground aspect of the plan will also be voted down.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are at the heart of the Bill. A consultation mechanism must be put in place. I propose this system which allows the Government, if it wishes, to steamroll it through but also forces it to go through a transparent public consultation process whereby members of local communities will be able to air their views formally and publicly. If we proceed with the Bill without a statutory consultative mechanism at its heart, the line will not be built in five or ten years. The project will be bogged down in litigation.
If the Minister cannot accept my amendments, perhaps she will bring forward some to provide for a statutory consultation mechanism for communities along the routes. Such a mechanism has already been used in industry and has worked. There is no reason it would not work for this project.
Deputy Brennan's amendment deals with a critically important aspect of the proposed light rail Bill and that is the consultation process. We must accept that individuals and communities are concerned, some with reason because they will be discommoded while others are concerned unnecessarily. However, at this stage many people do not know into which group they fit. People must have a proper, statutory, transparent public consultation process, to borrow the words of the Deputy. I believe they have that.
They have the statutory consultation process in the guise of the public inquiry. The formal consultation process is tried and tested and we all know the procedures. To complement the statutory consultation process we need an extensive informal and easily accessible consultation process. CIE must make itself available to all organised groups and concerned individuals to discuss with them their concerns as they relate to their area or business. CIE has been doing that and will continue to do so. As a result, it is unnecessary to have two formal statutory consultation processes. To accept the Deputy's amendment, as distinct from his sentiments, would be superfluous. We do not need two formal statutory consultation processes.
I will read my note into the record, although I normally would not. It covers all the points made because this area caused much angst on the Second Stage of the original Bill. I would like to respond specifically to some of the points made by different Deputies. We already have a statutory consultation process in the guise of the public inquiry——
It is not realistic.
It is a fact. We need a proper informal consultation process where CIE makes itself available to all organised groups and individuals who have difficulties and problems in this area. That is the Minister's intention. It is happening and it will continue.
I will concentrate on the essence of what the Deputy is seeking to achieve which is to ensure adequate local consultation. We can all but agree with the point he makes. I welcome his amendment if only to allow us to debate specifically this point, which is at the core of the concerns about the proposed light rail system.
We should not forget that consultation was the basis on which the DTI strategy was constructed. It is just as central to the success of the light rail project that the consultative process is clear and well outlined. Where short-comings have been perceived in the consultative process they must be remedied. However, legislation is not the way to augment the existing consultation provided for in the public inquiry. We already have a statutory process through the public inquiry system. A second would be superfluous.
There are two points to take into account here and both have been made by Deputy Brennan and his leader Deputy Bertie Ahern in the debate on the first Bill. Deputy Brennan referred to the formal stages in the approval process as being extremely bureaucratic and legalistic. That is why the early consultation process has not been provided for in detail in the legislation. If the Members are interested I have a long list of the legal difficulties. I will send a copy to Deputy McDowell because I can see a protracted debate about the legal issues. I have a long list of the legal difficulties with the amendment as proposed by Deputy Brennan. By the time these would be sorted out I assure Deputies that the process would be extraordinarily unwiedly.
On the other hand, as Deputy Ahern pointed out, there is a small number of people with legitimate reservations to whom those involved must pay urgent attention. They are the core of concern now. In making this case he was supported by Deputy Gregory and others. The points were well made. The absolute necessity for consultation was stressed by the Minister, Deputy Lowry, when he launched the process last December. It might be useful to recall his speech at the time. He said that he wanted and would insist on the people of Dublin being fully informed about the development of this new mode of transport. He pointed out that the elected representatives would have a vital role to play in the public consultation process. Interestingly, there is no mention of public representatives taking part in the consultative councils in the amendment proposed by Deputy Brennan.
That is provided for.
At the time the Minister encouraged public representatives to act as opinion leaders and in turn to encourage local people to participate fully and air their views. He asked them to contribute to the debate and to represent the views of their constituents. Many have done that very constructively since then. No one can deny that is what happened in practice.
The processes worked differently in different areas. There has been greater tension at some meetings than others. The submission made to this committee by some groups last week, while recognising that progress is being made, said it had been difficult. On the other hand, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald has stated that the meetings addressed by CIE in her constituency were helpful and that local residents had come together to form an umbrella group to respond to the proposals. Another group has been formed among business and other interests in the city. These are the kind of groups this amendment seeks to create through legislation. Formalising that which is occurring naturally would suffocate it.
The legislation provides for a two stage process, informal consultation over a period of at least nine months will take place before any application is made and this will then be followed by the formal stage, involving the publication of documents and the receipt of submissions.
Nine months from when?
Last December when the debate started. Any one who is not satisfied in the first stage has amble opportunity to make their case in the second stage. They can do so at the public inquiry or through direct submissions to the Minister. We have already dealt with that under sections 6 and 7. If after all that a problem remains they have recourse to the courts. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that the first stage, the consultation process, is a well run two way process. In this way problems at the formal stage and the difficulties of legal challenge can be avoided.
It is important to stress that in a proposed route of over 20 kilometres difficulties have arisen only on relatively short sections. Efforts are being concentrated on options for those sections at the moment. Furthermore, the Minister, Deputy Lowry, has agreed a strategy with CIE to strengthen the consultative process. There was some concern that the CIE team was not known at local level and the Minister has, therefore, asked that their names and details of where they can be contacted be published. In addition, individuals are to be assigned to handle issues in particular areas. In this way local people will know the name and telephone number of a local liaison officer who can be contacted to clarify any local issues. The views expressed will be taken into account before any application is made to the Minister, not afterwards as is proposed in the amendment.
I am confident that the result which this amendment seeks to achieve can be achieved through the existing consultation process and the improvements that have been made to it. This is additionally protected in the changes made in the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill to provide for easier access to documents and to ensure the independence of the inspector holding the public inquiry. Those points were extremely well made during the debate on the original Bill and have been included in this Bill. I, therefore, cannot accept the amendment as proposed.
May I make a quick comment?
I want to give other Members an opportunity to contribute. It has been a lengthy reply which normally I would not accept.
The amendment does not appear to get anywhere, but I want to support strongly the idea of a local consultative council. I see it as involving the community and as a process of real consultation. I fail to understand the Minister's argument that this will duplicate the public inquiry. By the time this process reaches the public inquiry stage it will be half over. We are supposed to be going through the consultative process at this stage. The real consultation is at the stage when the routes are being selected. Until now, despite all the public relations exercises, there has been no consultation with the communities affected.
The submission from Arran Quay Terrace group points out that the consultation meetings to raise public awareness as to the implications of the preferred technical route on residences and businesses were organised and instigated by resident's associations. I speak from direct experience in two areas -Kilmainham and Arran Quay Terrace. In particular, the process in Arran Quay Terrace was to inform people what would happen to their homes and businesses, and where the route proposed, it was a fait accompli that was presented to residents. While I am sure that is not what the Minister intended or wanted it is what happened.
It was only the tenacity of a small group of local people that prevented that being the end of the process. I tried and failed to get some progress on the publication of details on these routes. The alternative routes were dragged out of CIE and the Luas people by the local community with the help of the Minister. This amendment would at least help to undo some damage. If the approach of real involvement, of setting up a local consultative council involving the community had been set in train at the beginning of this process, it would have avoided most of the conflict that has arisen. I have no doubt about that having been involved in many local meetings.
The Minister of State mentioned the public inquiry. If the community is to be fully involved in the public inquiry it will need funding for professional or technical advice in order to guarantee a quality of representation at the hearing. In most cases, the people live in disadvantaged areas of the inner city. They simply do not have the resources to be properly represented. How can the Minister of State say that the public inquiry will give a quality of representation to these people? It will not. The Minister of State appears to be against real involvement with a local council. A compromise would be that local communities should be funded to be represented at the inquiry with the proper technical and professional advice so they can be a real part of that inquiry.
I pay tribute to the work of local people who were threatened with losing their homes and businesses and without compensation. Despite the obstacles, they have made a strong case for involvement at this stage of the process and I regret there is no indication from the Minister of State that those communities will be given any equality of representation in the process. I ask her to show some willingness to involve those communities in a meaningful way. The process will not work if they do not have full and equal involvement.
Part of that question has been answered but, perhaps, the Minister of State might like to respond to the other points made by Deputy Gregory.
I gave a substantial response to this point. There is a new aspect to it that is important. As I understand it hardship could arise for communities who would not be able to fund representations at a public inquiry or take on issues on the same technical basis as the official side. I am in dangerous territory here because there is no provision in the Bill for this. Members cannot add to the charge on the Exchequer on this stage.
I am not in a position to state categorically from my experience whether the Government or the Minister can consider looking at the possibility of incurring increased Exchequer expenses which is implicit in the question. It is a matter that I will examine because there is a precedent for it in the local government public inquiry legislation in hardship cases. There would no question of opening the floodgates to cater for everyone who, for whatever minor reason, might want to complain. It could apply to cases when there are genuine problems in communities. I will examine whether I am in order agreeing to incur increased Exchequer costs.
Will the Minister give that information on Report Stage or directly to the Deputies concerned?
It would require more than an announcement on Report Stage; it would require a Government amendment, if it was in order. I am being straight and sincere about this. I am not sure if I am in order in implying that we can add extra Exchequer expense. It cannot be done from the floor of the House and I could not accept it from the Deputy by way of an amendment.
Is the Minister of State prepared to accept that?
If it is in order, I will look at it and go to the Minister between now and Report Stage which is scheduled to be taken tomorrow.
A specific request has been made by some of the communities along the proposed route, particularly Arran Quay Terrace, Chancery Street, Ormond Square and Ceannt Fort and the business community. The business community in Old Kilmainham is substantial but nevertheless it would have to engage professional and technical expertise if it was to make a substantial submission to the public inquiry. It could be quite expensive if you had to show the technical reasons for going a different route or using a different approach to a particular proposed route. If there is to be equality of access to the public inquiry, it is important that this matter be taken into consideration because it would create hardship for every resident. They are automatically at a disadvantage. I welcome the Minister's commitment to look into that matter to see whether some funding or expertise can be made available.
I have much sympathy with Deputy Brennan's amendment. If one embarks on a consultative process where people are involved from the word go, by and large one avoids a showdown, and the fears and rumours that arise when people are not informed.
I do not recollect having come across anything that was as badly handled as this in my time as a local or national representative. There was little consultation, decisions appear to have been taken prior to consultation and were presented to the people in question as the preferred option.
The proposed consultative process is simply that; a consultative process. It does not bind the Minister in any area. It simply provides for local representatives, residents, the planning authority, the local business community and other business interests and, obviously, public representatives, to be included. The fact that this Bill by-passes local government per se and is, in effect, a ministerial order which will avoid the normal planning procedures means that Deputy Gregory and I, as Dublin city councillors, cannot bring in local groups to make submissions to local councillors and planning officials about other routes, obstacles or problems. We do not have that normal consultative process and that is a pity because I do not think there would have been problems getting a good route but in the absence of that procedure it seems appropriate that there be a consultative process.
The Minister indicated that there was ongoing consultation with CIÉ. As Deputy McDowell said, that process started last December. It has gone on a long time — two-thirds of the nine months are over and it has left much to be desired. Unless we are satisfied there will be real consultation, we will have a bitter public inquiry and a huge number of rows. No doubt legal actions will be taken. All that could be avoided if we had an initial consultative process.
If the Minister finds it difficult to accept the amendment, as CIE will put the package together that will form the Minister's order, it must agree to a substantial consultative process in which local residential and business communities, the planning authorities and public representatives would be represented. To a certain extent, CIÉ has almost been compelled to do that in an ad hocfashion by the local communities in Ceannt Fort, Arran Quay Terrace, Chancery Place, the business community in Old Kilmainham and in the markets. Do not forget that the fruit, vegetable and fish markets will be affected by this.
The Bill must provide for a substantial consultative process. Otherwise, we will end up in a bitter row which will continue after the public inquiry and delay the development for years.
I speak as somebody who supports public rail transport in Dublin and who strongly objects to what CIÉ is planning. In case anybody is under any misapprehension, there must be a public transport solution in Dublin which must involve rail, but the LUAS proposal is a half-hearted one which will fall between a number of stools. It has been rushed at us in a foolish way.
Dublin deserves something far better than LUAS and we are getting a bad, under funded, half thought out scheme in which CIÉ has taken on the function of supplying what should have been a very different process. I agree with Deputy Brennan's amendment that there should be a local consultative process. I agree with what Deputy Gregory said. I have had experience in the last year of a similar situation in Sandymount, where all the parties and people were opposed to the erection of an incinerator. The matter came before An Bord Pleanála and the residents were completely under-funded. If it had not been for the fact that they could twist people's arms, including mine, to act on their behalf in the case, they would have come up against a phalanx of experts on the other side with all kinds of graphs, slide shows, etc. It is not a fair process unless there is rough equality of firepower. For instance, to ask people in Arran Quay Terrace, Mount Brown or Ceannt Fort to put up a technically acceptable argument as to whether a light rail system should go through or under their houses or a half a mile away from them and to deal with objections based on soil types, traffic flows, etc., is simply not acceptable. It is kicking around the have nots in society to say that they can come along and make their point. A person cannot fight like with like and say "this is my traffic projection and this is yours", "this is where I say something should be done" or "this is a feasible alternative", unless he or she has some assistance.
I accept what the Minister said. I do not want to create a gravy train for lawyers.
The Deputy has already offered his services for nothing in case he has forgotten.
One of my colleagues said I was mad to do it because if I lose they will blame me.
It is not Deputy McDowell's constituency.
One would think Dublin Central was the only area which had a problem with this. Most of the Harcourt Street route is pre-determined because it goes down the old railway line so there is no argument about that. Local consultation is needed when planning the city centre routes. I have never been invited to a meeting to discuss the pros and cons of having access to Georges Street or Grafton Street. The Minister cannot say there has been a consultative process if Deputies for Dublin south east have never been invited to a meeting where those issues were discussed in depth. The Minister said CIÉ has consulted with the people for nine months. Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, my constituency colleague, organised a meeting in Beechwood community centre. Most of the people there were reasonably concerned with the effect on their front and back gardens, on trees and bushes and whether bridges would be high or low. CIÉ's well thought out set piece was presented but there was no one to put forward a different argument.
The Harcourt Street corridor has been decided. I am not convinced that Dawson Street should be devoted to Luas or that Nassau Street, between Dawson Street and Trinity College, should be closed off completely to vehicular traffic. Some people like that idea but there may be alternatives. When will those alternatives be argued out and by whom? Surely the Minister does not expect the people who live in the flats in Aungier Street to fight against those in Dawson Street about whether LRT should go down that road.
It is important to emphasise Deputy Gregory's point about the inquiry. As regards Deputy Brennan's amendment, the Minister said it must be a fair occasion. It cannot be so if a group of people from Arran Quay Terrace are confronted by architects and engineers with limitless resources to argue down their point of view. There should be some process to the have nots in society to argue on fairly equal terms. I am not saying that hundreds of millions of pounds should be set aside, but they should get some funding to allow them to employ architects and town planners to put forward their point of view.
If the Minister does not accept Deputy Brennan's amendment and says the public inquiry is the answer to it, she must do something to equalise the fire power on both sides. I have experience of public inquiries where local resident associations go in like lambs to a slaughter. We know CIÉ has expertise available to it, that French consultants are doing the work for it and that it will have every argument nicely polished in favour of its chosen option. However, those who try to oppose it will be at a disadvantage. I support Deputy Brennan's amendment. The Minister's reply that the public inquiry is the answer is not reassuring.
The Deputy did not listen.
I did. When I asked the Minister about the nine months, I discovered seven months had already elapsed and I began to realise she was working on auto pilot.
I never stated that the public inquiry was the total answer to Deputy Brennan's amendment. It is only part of the answer, but it is a statutory consultative process. What is as important is the informal consultative process that will precede it and because some weaknesses were identified and complaints made as to how it was proceeding, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, agreed a strategy with CIÉ to strengthen the process. There was concern at local level that the CIÉ team was not known and the Minister asked that the names and details of where they could be contacted be published. In addition, individuals will be assigned to handle issues in particular areas. This is not part of the public inquiry; it will precede it. Local people will now know the names and telephone numbers of the local liaison officers who they can contact to clarify any local issue. All views will be taken into account before any application is made to the Minister, not afterwards as is proposed in Deputy Brennan's amendment. I have asked an official to check the Local Government (Public Inquiry) Act in this regard.
I take the point made about both sides having equal fire power when putting cases. Deputy Michael McDowell said Deputies in Dublin south east were never invited to a meeting.
That was in regard to Georges Street and Grafton Street. I have organised a meeting.
The Minister asked six months ago for all public representatives to get actively involved and be leaders in terms of the consultative process. I am delighted to hear the Deputy is proceeding in that way.
The Minister should go down Grafton Street with a sandwich board.
The Deputies who represent Dublin south east are not shrinking violets. They are well able to lead their communities and make a strong and effective case. That is as it should be in every Dublin constituency. They must be leaders in terms of the consultative process. We see that here today — there are now only four Dublin Deputies present.
Deputy McDowell said he agreed with a local consultative process. The Minister made changes recently in this regard, but if any Deputy feels that more or something specific can be done in terms of a strategy with CIÉ to ensure greater openness and access for the public or individual groups, please let the Minister know. He wants to ensure that every possible avenue of consultation is made available to the people.
What is the Minister's telephone number?
The Deputy might find that in the telephone book. No business community is funded under the Local Government (Public Inquiry) Act. I am concerned that local authority tenants would not be in a position to employ professional advice for a public inquiry. I am also concerned that we could have a residential scheme of old age pensioners or unemployed persons. How would they ensure their voice is heard or employ technical expertise to make their case? As regards properly organised local groups where hardship can be proven, I will advise Deputies on whether I can go further in that regard. I accept the point about equity. There is a precedent in other legislation to make provision for properly organised local groups under strictly defined hardship circumstances.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Every Member has had a number of opportunities to make their points but if there is any fresh subject matter, I will consider it.
May I seek the Chairman's guidance on another matter? I wish to raise a point of order with regard to Report Stage. Is this an appropriate time to do so or would it be preferable that I raise it later? My point concerns the tabling of amendments on Report Stage.
I will always take a point of order, if it is one.
When I raised a question at our meeting last week on my first amendment about CIÉ having the power to enter dwellings, the Minister undertook to consider the matter for Report Stage. The advice I received on that occasion was that if the amendment was put and defeated, it could not be reentered on Report Stage.
That is not so. Under Standing Orders, any amendment can be run again unless it has been defeated by a committee of the whole House.
The point of order has been raised by Deputy Brennan. I clarified the position this morning at the commencement of business. Having researched the subject, I issued a written document which I read into the record and asked to be circulated to Members to clarify the position. Deputy Brennan has a copy.
While I appreciate the advice given to the Chairman, and I accept his bona fides in that regard, the record does say that if an amendment is put and defeated, it cannot be reentered. On that understanding of the Chairman's advice, I withdrew the amendment so that I could re-enter it. It transpires from advice I received that I could have pressed the amendment to a vote and still be entitled to re-enter it on Report Stage.
That is correct, but as a result of my research, and from advice given to me and to the Clerk of the Dáil, the position is that the Deputy has the right to re-enter his amendment, but the decision on whether it is accepted rests with the Ceann Comhairle and not with me. That is the information I gave the Deputy.
The advice given to me is that if I wish to re-enter amendment No. 1, which I did this morning, that is in order.
The advice I received following research was that I am not in a position to decide an issue which is properly a matter for the Ceann Comhairle. Therefore, all I can say is that the Deputy has the right to re-enter the amendment. The question of whether it is accepted is for the Ceann Comhairle to decide.
It has long been the practice of the House, as I understand it, that an amendment rejected by a Committee of the whole House cannot be run again on Report Stage, but that no Member of the whole House can be precluded from tabling a legitimate amendment from Committee Stage on Report Stage because 12 Members making a decision on the same issue in semi-private.
That is why I sought further interpretation of Standing Order No. 105. This was raised by Deputy Brennan and as I had some doubts about it I thought the wise thing to do was to seek advice. I circulated the information to Members. The Deputy's point of order is valid.
My understanding of what Deputy McDowell said is that a Member can table an amendment on Report Stage——
Provided it arises out of Committee Stage proceedings.
——provided the amendment was tabled on Committee Stage.
Provided the issue arose during Committee Stage. It cannot be something new.
I would prefer if the committee did not make a decision on what is primarily the responsibility of the Ceann Comhairle according to the advice I received. That is clearly the case according to the document I circulated at Members' request. If Members wish to list any amendment on any subject relevant to Committee Stage, it will be a matter for the Ceann Comhairle to decide, not the committee Chairman.
I have a strong inkling that only the Government gets a hearing at Report Stage. I will wait and see.
It is my intention to draw at the appropriate time the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to this issue which needs to be clarified. It has been clarified for me and following my research into Standing Orders, I am satisfied that the advice given to the committee is correct. The Deputy's point of order is valid and I ask him to proceed with the debate on his amendment.
Amendment No. 4 is consequential on No. 5 being agreed even though amendment No. 4 comes first. The Minister said that there is a statutory consultation process enshrined in section 8 and defined that as the public inquiry and formal consultation process. As far as I am concerned, the public inquiry is not a consultation process in a real sense. Deputy Gregory put it very well this morning when he talked about consulting local communities. The Minister said there was no need for two consultation processes.
I did not; I said two statutory consultation processes.
Two formal ones?
Yes, formal ones.
I understood the Minister of State to say that two formal consultations were not required. I fundamentally disagree because the one she has opted for is extremely legalistic and bureaucratic. For example, section 8 provides that any person will be entitled to appear and give evidence at the inquiry. They must give evidence if the inspector requires it, on oath and any witness at the inquiry will have the benefit of the same immunities and privileges as a witness in a court of law.
If the Minister is saying that a statutory consultation process taken on oath, with witnesses having the same protection as in a court of law, is as genuine a consultation process as the consultative council mechanism which I suggested, then it does not make sense.
A child could see that putting people into the box, making them take an oath, treating them like witnesses — as the section says — in a court of law will be petrifying for many individuals. They are being asked to enter an environment which they have no experience of or confidence to deal with. It is patently silly to hold out a cross examination process as a consultative mechanism when it is a court procedure. I want to make that point in the strongest possible terms to the Minister who seems to be under the impression that the consultative council approach, where communities are negotiated with as equals, is the same thing as an inspector calling people to give evidence on oath as witnesses in a court of law.
That is the fundamental difficulty I have with the Minister's approach to this legislation. It shows the Government's intention about consultation is, in effect, to have a court case with witnesses on oath. That is not a consultation process. Planning permission is not required to build the line and the Minister is expected to make an order which will by-pass the need for planning permission. That is a major step and the least we can do in such circumstances is to have a genuine process of talking to people about where the line is going. To describe my amendment as duplication is to misunderstand my intention. I do not regard the public inquiry as a sensible or real consultation process.
My colleagues mentioned funding and there is a precedent, as the Minister said in regard to this. Local groups going before a public inquiry to give evidence on oath should certainly be entitled to some financial support. Under the local government Acts, county councils can fund local groups in cases of hardship. In this instance it should not just be hardship because CIÉ does not have to demonstrate hardship before it gets funding. I am sure it could show it, but it is not the intention. A residents' association should not have to demonstrate hardship. Like any free legal aid system CIÉ should have to show that it has a legitimate case and that they do not have sufficient funds. Hardship is a different concept.
The Minister should insert that amendment on Report Stage thus allowing anyone to appear at the public inquiry. The inquiry is not a negotiating system where everybody can thrash out their differences; it is a "handed down" court-type procedure. The difficulty of having to take an oath means that under section 8(2) one shall be guilty of perjury if one gives false evidence to the inquiry. Talk of perjury is a long way from consultation.
Section 8(1)(b) states:
The Minister shall, after consultation with An Bord Pleanála, appoint a person to be an inspector to hold the inquiry referred to in subsection (1).
In moving amendment No. 4, I am seeking to ensure the Minister cannot appoint an inspector without consulting with the local consultative council about who that inspector is. The Minister has inserted a new subsection making it necessary to consult An Bord Pleanála but why not consult the people whom the line will affect most of all, about the appointment of the inspector? All this amendment seeks is genuine consultation.
The tone of this section and the Minister's rebuttal of my amendment is that we have to get on and do this, and we cannot be putting in all these little consultative mechanisms because they will hold up the entire process. That is not acceptable.
Deputy McDowell mentioned consultation in the city centre which is implied in my amendment. On a number of occasions I asked that the costings for the underground section should be made available to the committee or to the public. The Minister changed her position on this point. At first, we were to have no underground sections yet, last Thursday, the Minister said that consideration would possibly be given to short underground sections.
It is being looked at.
To what extent is that being looked at? Are we genuinely going to examine the possibility of putting the city centre section underground? Can the real costings of that be published? The Minister told the Dáil the cost was £60 million per two kilometres but independent groups estimate that as a fraction of the real cost.
On Thursday, Deputy Molloy argued strongly that passing this legislation without that information demonstrates the Government wants to ram this Bill through at all costs. When we asked for the city centre costs we did not get them, and neither did we get consultative councils or restrictions on CIÉ entering people's houses. When we asked for people other than CIÉ to be involved we were refused. The Government says it is listening to us but on these practical issues we are not getting a hearing.
I was amused by a point raised by Deputy McDowell this morning, that the consultation process started last December because it is nearly over. I do not know why we are bothering with amendments to bring about a better consultation process when in the Government's mind the consultation process is over. I will press this amendment to a vote because it is at the heart of this legislation and it enshrines the Government's attitude to it.
Within minutes of the last Bill being defeated in the Dáil the Minister announced that the same Bill would be back next week. He had to back down on that and said he would insert some changes, including consultation, when reintroducing the Bill. However, the changes and consultation were minimal. We are down to the heart of the Bill in this amendment. It is an attitude problem because there is no political will to have genuine consultation. It is not consultation to tell people they can go to a public inquiry, but they will not receive any money for it, that they can take an oath in the witness box and that the inspector will announce his decision later. Offering to publish the names and phone numbers of CIÉ officials is insulting. Any self respecting residents' association can discover who is in charge of what in CIÉ. They do not need the Government to tell them that is a consultation mechanism.
We need answers to these questions and to remember that this Bill was defeated in the Dáil. The Government is sailing along as if that was just a technicality and the House did not know what it was doing. The House knew very well what it was doing but there has been no response to the will of Dáil Éireann. It should not be written off as a case of the Whips not rounding up the numbers. That may or not be the case.
With due respect, that is not relevant to the amendment before us.
No, but it is a good point.
I have given the Deputy enough leeway on that.
We have been around the house and back again, and in and out of this amendment and several sections so often that if I forget to respond specifically it is not intentional. The Deputy might draw my attention to any questions I omit. There seems to be no direction in the way the questions are being put. I will try not to repeat answers to questions I have already answered, because I will not change my point of view.
The Government is completely committed to an accessible and open consultation process. I agree with Deputy Brennan that the public inquiry process is extremely legalistic and bureaucratic. However, any statutory consultative process by its nature will be bureaucratic and legalistic to ensure fairness, access and equal treatment and to prevent some of our colleagues in the legal world having a field day on deciding who is to be let in, who should be consulted and who should be included. As there is much concern about this issue — this is an important part of the Bill, an essential one as far as the Opposition is concerned — I will indicate some of the reasons I will not be in a position to accept Deputy Brennan's amendments.
Amendment No. 4 depends on amendment No. 5 being accepted. Because we do not accept the consultative council, amendment No. 4 does not follow so that is why that was not specifically referred to. One amendment breaks the other. I agree with Deputy Brennan on what is necessary and on the consultative process. We differ on whether we should have two statutory consultative processes or one, in whatever guise the second one would be. I will put on record some of the legal advice we received on amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and why I am not in a position, regrettably — none of us can disagree with the sentiment behind them — to accept them.
The consultative process proposed by the Deputy in his amendment is not precisely defined. For example, would a reference to a local residential community include a college student renting a bedsit for 26 weeks of the year? Where would we begin and end in defining the local community? How long would a person have to be in situ to be considered local? This is important because if it was challenged by someone who was not included in the residents group who considered him, or herself local, we would be on the never ending gravy train for some of our legal colleagues, despite those, like Deputy McDowell, who offered to do it for nothing. Not all lawyers will be that gracious. I had not realised we had such a generous colleague. Perhaps he operates on a no foal, no fee basis.
The inclusion of the planning authority in the amendment represents duplication of the procedures in section 6(1) (c) and section 11 (b). The local business community referred to in the amendment is not clearly defined. Does it include postal accommodation addresses? We are into a legalistic and bureaucratic nightmare here. The moment we formalise it we have to define the bounds of what we are talking about. The reference to any other local interest group in the amendment could include any group whatsoever and if not included in the consultative council some group might seek a judicial review on the failure to include them. How would we define exactly every group?
The requirement on the Minister in relation to the proposed light rail route and the location of its line is a duplication of his obligations when considering whether or not to grant the light railway order. By virtue of section 8(1) any interested person shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the mandatory public inquiry. The proposal that the question of compensation be the subject of consultation is inappropriate as the rules for assessing compensation to be paid to persons affected by any scheme of this nature are set out in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 and compensation will be determined by the property arbitrator in default of agreement.
It will not be possible for the Minister to furnish any information as to the schedule of the carrying out of the works in each local area, as this schedule may be affected by the length of the public inquiry, the time taken by the inspector to complete his report, the time taken to determine any judicial review application which might be taken by any aggrieved person or group, the time taken to accept tenders from contractors and such matters as, for instance, ground conditions which may not become apparent until work commences on the site.
The obligation in the amendment on the Minister to obtain the consent of a consultative council seeks to impose an unreasonable burden on the Minister. There is no requirement that such consultative council act reasonably or, indeed, give reasons for any failure to give consent to the grant or refusal by the Minister of an application for a light rail order.
In relation to the legal points which preclude me from considering the Deputy's amendments, the reference in the amendment to the local area is not defined in the amendment. No guidance is given as to how such local area might be designated. The result of this is that the proposed new section 9 could be used by any person or group as a reason to bring a judicial review of proceedings in respect of the grant of any order by the Minister. Perhaps the most important aspect is that what the Deputy is requiring in his amendments and what the Government wishes are very close indeed. Our only difference is as to whether we should have a second statutory consultative procedure of any kind together with the public inquiry procedure or whether it should be the consultation process as outlined and augmented recently by the Minister.
The Minister would be delighted to hear from any Deputy on any other way they feel we might strengthen the existing consultative process. Deputy Brennan ridiculed the Minister's augmentation of the process by publishing the names and addresses of the CIE officials involved and the names of the local liaison officers. The Minister did so at the request of the Opposition during the debate in the other House, because it was stated that people do not know who these officials are and could not make contact with them. Lest anybody has a difficulty contacting the relevant official to make their case and consult with them, we decided to make it easier and more accessible by publishing the names and addresses of the officials involved in CIE. I make that point because when the Minister accedes to a request, it is not fair to ridicule him.
I am objecting to this being put forward as a consultation mechanism, that is all.
It is part of the consultation mechanism.
It is a part hardly worth mentioning.
It is an important part of the mechanism and was requested by the Opposition. I referred earlier to the Local Government (Public Inquiry) Act but for accuracy I should have referred to the Local Government Act, 1946 as amended by section 64 of the Local Government Act, 1955 when talking about possible funding for parties to a public inquiry.
What we are trying to achieve here is subject to legal advice to myself and the Government. There are no funds at the disposal of the Department of the Environment for making a contribution towards the cost incurred by individuals or groups in engaging legal representatives or expert advice for the purpose of making objections or representations at a public inquiry. There is no power vested in a Minister to direct that such payment be made in advance of a public inquiry. I referred to a precedent and said we would look at it. I will quote the precedent so that we will be clear about the position.
Under section 91 of the Local Government Act, 1946, as amended by section 64 of the Local Government Act, 1955, the Minister has the power to certify that a contribution should be made by a local authority — in our case it would be by CIE if we go down that road — towards the costs and expenses reasonably incurred in relation to any inquiry. This power is only exercisable after an inquiry has been held and a decision reached in the scheme. No consideration can be given to the issue of providing such contributions until that time.
After the decision there is a precedent in the Department of the Environment for looking at costs reasonably incurred by groups or bodies who have particular difficulties in funding themselves. The criteria are available from the Department of the Environment. I am having them researched so as to be able to decide on what basis some would be funded. I do not have the details with me. In practice, only a small minority of claims for such contributions are successful but the precedent is there and we must look at it in the interests of equity and fairness.
Would the Minister agree that this precedent is useless? Even if she lifted it lock, stock and barrel and took it into the public inquiry it would mean that, for instance, a local residents group would have to fund itself, maybe take out a loan and then only after it has run up thousands of pounds in expenses and the inquiry has concluded, could it apply to the Government for money. As the Minister said it is rarely granted. Even if the Minister were to make a major gesture and use that precedent lock, stock and barrel, it is useless.
I accept that it is limited. We should be fair to people rather than raise expectations.
People living in a have not area of Dublin cannot employ a traffic flow expert, a soil engineer and somebody else on the basis of a half baked assertion by the Minister, even if it was reflected in an amendment to the Bill. They cannot take out a £20,000 loan to pay for a soil survey of Mount Brown, as the Minister knows. What the Minister said does not go anywhere near addressing the issues raised.
This is the procedure which has been used in all other major capital works, including motorways, ring routes and other major schemes which have had a serious environmental impact on individuals and communities. We are looking at how it might be applicable, if only in limited circumstances, to what we are talking about. There is a precedent, particularly in the legal profession, in terms of helping these bodies on a no foal no fee basis.
The idea of a no foal no fee payment is that there could be a foal at the end of it.
I would like to be helpful on this matter. If there had been consultation there would have been no need to table such an amendment. I have much sympathy for the proposal which is being put forward. The Minister of State outlined specific difficulties with regard to terminology, definition and so on and she indicated that she will not accept the amendment.
Let us look at the substance of the amendment to see if we can beef up the consultative process. The time which remains, however, is short. What has taken place has been at the initiative of local communities who demand that the consultative process be adequate, which it has not been to date.
To what extent can the Minister instruct CIÉ to have a real consultative process from now on? Liaison structures should be put in place which involve the business and local community who have been raising these issues. Meetings arranged with the Arran Quay and the Old Kilmainham business and local communities, were postponed on a number of occasions. Those arranged for the end of June have been postponed to late July. It would seem that these postponements are par for the course when one considers the delay in getting the legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The postponement of those meetings was by agreement with the local groups which set them up with CIÉ pending publication of the Semele report in July. It wanted to wait until it had the report and then to discuss it on the basis of alternatives and other issues. I am advised it was a mutually agreed postponement pending the report.
I must make a statement to the contrary because I consulted with the groups today. They have not been contacted by CIÉ in relation to the postponement as such but, I presume, it will do so. The reason CIÉ gave for postponing the meetings was that it was doing an in-depth analysis of the alternative routes——
That is what I said.
——and that it would inform the communities, but it has not been in contact. This is up in the air at present and that is why I spoke about the Minister instructing CIÉ to engage in the consultative process, so communities will not feel matters are being decided without consultation. Can the Minister put the substance of the amendment into effect on a non statutory basis, that is, to ensure consultation between CIÉ and the local communities which have expressed interest? If that were done, at least we would be assured of a real and substantial consultative process.
I would like a commitment in respect of funding, although no amendment has been tabled in this regard. It has been specifically requested by local communities which will be affected and there is a precedent. Will the precedent be taken on board in a sympathetic manner rather than by adhering to the strict the letter of the law which means there could be a recouping of expenses incurred at a later date, without knowing what they may be? The Minister might indicate if there is sympathy for this? Perhaps she might come back to that on Report Stage when she has had an opportunity to consult further.
We have already adequately discussed this section. Members should not believe that I will allow them to initiate another discussion having debated this matter over and over again.
There are a number of significant points about this section.
I have already allowed three hours of debate on it.
On a point of order, Deputy Brennan's amendment has virtually nothing to do with the conduct of the public inquiry — there is only a very small overlap. There is a lot of material in relation to that public inquiry with which the committee must deal.
I would not accept that as a point of order.
Is it in order for the Chairman to indicate that he will curtail a discussion on a central section which has not been discussed in substance by the committee?
We already had a long discussion on that the last day. This is the second day of the debate.
The committee should go through each section.
I do not want the Deputy to argue with the Chair about how the business of the meeting should be conducted. Much of what Deputy Costello and other Members have said is repetitive. Many of these points were already made before lunch and were answered by the Minister. I ask for the committee's co-operation.
On a point of order, Deputy Brennan has indicated that he will press this amendment and the Minister has indicated that she will not accept it, so we should vote on it.
Deputy Brennan is quite capable of speaking for himself and I have given him every opportunity to do so. Deputy Gregory has indicated that he wishes to speak.
The Chairman indicated that he has allowed debate on this section. I would just like to make a couple of points.
On a point of order, Chairman, I object to the section being discussed when we are discussing Deputy Brennan's amendment, which does not have anything to do with the section.
The Deputy's advice is helpful because that is exactly what I have been saying since this discussion commenced.
With regard to the question I raised this morning about funding the community at the public inquiry and the Minister's response, I was trying to achieve equality of representation for the local community at the public inquiry. I was concerned about the reference to hardship cases. Few communities, if any, could compete financially with a State or semi-State organisation that would have more or less unlimited resources. If we are serious about this we should try to achieve equality of representation. I accept the Minister of State's comments about local government legislation but that does not appear to be relevant or adequate. Can the Minister of State, on Report Stage, introduce a Government amendment to provide for funding of representation for local communities, in view of the specific circumstances involved?
I also accept the Minister of State's point about opening the floodgates. I would be reasonably happy if the community groups that made submissions to this committee were the groups to be funded at the public inquiry. They are the groups that have participated up to now and their involvement will continue. As soon as this Bill is passed their effective role should not be extinguished by a financial inability to provide representation. Will the Government introduce an amendment on Report Stage to provide for equality of representation of local community groups along the route of the light rail?
We would not be honest if we spoke about equality of representation because, as the Deputy pointed out, the State effectively has unlimited resources, although in practice the State will only go a certain distance in that regard. To ensure that local communities can get to the table with proper technical advice so they can argue on a basis of equality is a reasonable request.
How will the Government ensure that?
I cannot ensure it but I will look into the matter. Standing Orders provide that on Fourth Stage no new section or amendment may be proposed which creates a charge on the public revenue or on the people.
That is in Standing Orders but the Government can table an amendment which commences with the following, "Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders. . . ..".
We can get around that.
I would prefer if we did not introduce the subject of Standing Orders at this stage; it is the prerogative of the Chair.
I accept that and I am not questioning the Chairman's rights. I made it clear when Deputy Gregory raised this point earlier that I would have to clarify whether amendments which increased a charge on the public purse were in order even when proposed by the Government. I realise Opposition amendments which do so are not in order. I will have to check the matter.
That is a matter for the Ceann Chomhairle.
Before we consider tabling an amendment we must check out the position.
That is a minefield and I would prefer to proceed with the amendments.
The Minister of State is quoting Standing Orders as the reason why she cannot accede to Deputy Gregory's request. He wants to know if it is the Government's wish to provide funding for local groups to make technical submissions at the inquiry. If it were the Government's wish the Minister of State's officials would find a way to table a relevant amendment before 10 p.m. tonight, which is in order on this Stage, or to table one for Report Stage.
I have so requested my officials. They are working on this. I also want to know how the local government legislation operates in this regard and whether we can use it as a temporary means to achieve this.
Is the Minister of State looking for reasons to do this?
I am totally dissatisfied with the manner in which this discussion is proceeding. We have strayed away from the amendment and I have tried to bring the discussion back to it. Instead we are discussing hypothetical situations and even the functions of the Ceann Chomhairle. Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?
Yes. On a point of order, is the Minister of State entitled to vote?
Is it relevant?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá; 2, Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Brennan, Seamús. |
McDowell, Michael. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Bell, Michael. |
Doyle, Avril. |
|
Boylan, Andrew. |
Dukes, Alan. |
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
Finucane, Michael. |
|
Byrne, Eric. |
Fitzgerald, Brian. |
|
Costello, Joe. |
McCormack, Padraig. |
|
Creed, Michael. |
Ring, Michael. |
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
A number of issues arise with the detailed wording of section 8. Section 8 (1) (b) of the Bill provides that the Minister shall, after consultation with An Bord Pleanála, appoint a person to be an inspector. That is taken in conjunction with section 8 (4), which makes a provision for more than one person to be appointed inspectors. How does the Government propose to operate the power given to the Minister under this provision? Will there be more than one inspector? I take it that all the inspectors must be the subject of consultation with An Bord Pleanála. In that context, the Minister should indicate to the committee, before we approve this section, the way it is proposed by the Government — I am not asking for the name of the inspector — to operate these two provisions, first, the provision allowing for appointment after consultation with An Bord Pleanála, and second the provision relating to the appointment of more than one inspector. There is provision for a multiplicity of inquiries if necessary but there is also provision for just one inquiry if the Minister determines it should be situated in one of the local authority areas. I presume Dublin Corporation will be selected for this purpose. Will the Minister confirm this?
Section 8(1)(c) states:
The inspector so appointed shall hold the inquiry and shall prepare and submit to the Minister a report in writing of the findings of the inquiry and . . . recommendations he or she considers appropriate having regard to the inquiry and the Minister shall, as soon as may be after such submission, cause the report to be published.
Will the Minister of State promise to publish the report before the Minister makes a decision on it or will we find out the Minister has approved the report on the same day the public find out what the recommendations were?
Section 8(1)(e) provides that the Board and "every owner and occupier of land on, under or over which it is proposed to construct the light railway works" can make submissions. The public and this committee are entitled to know what proportion of the line will be underground within the city canals, and where. The Minister should clarify this.
Section 8(2) states that evidence can be required to be given on oath and "any person who gives false evidence at such an inquiry shall be guilty of perjury and punishable accordingly". I am surprised by that provision. I do not know what is meant by "punishable accordingly." I know that under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, special provision had to be made for the chairman of the tribunal to make a complaint and for people who gave false evidence or did not co-operate with the inquiry to be prosecuted as a separate offence.
If this inquiry is to be a proper one, will the inspector have power to send for papers? Can he ask CIE for all the reports and materials it has, not just those favourable to its point of view? In any proper inquiry the chairman should be in this position. There does not seem to be power to require anybody to produce documents or to compel any party to disclose all the material it has on a particular area. This absence of power of compellability is serious. It means, for instance, that CIE could have material which was favourable to the plan it did not recommend. As I read this section, it is free to suppress that, which is serious.
If there is a genuine inquiry and someone is allowed to obtain the truth and make a recommendation to the Minister, it would be unacceptable if CIE could sit on material which was favourable to the objectors' position. They need only produce the material which suits their case. These are significant issues. There is no point in providing in section 8(5) that the inspector will be independent if the inspector cannot get at the truth. I assume it would be perfectly reasonable to provide a power for the inspector to compel people to produce material and documents. People can be convicted of perjury in this rather half-hearted way — I am doubtful of the legality of subsection (2) — for giving false evidence, but they commit no offence if they suppress the whole truth. Half of the relevant facts which the other side are seeking can be suppressed and kept in the bottom drawer, whether in the case of an objector or CIE. These are serious implications.
It has been reported that the Semele report is supposed to assess and producing costings for the underground option. This worries me as they were appointed before the commitment to evaluate the underground option was given. They were effectively on board and pursuing a different agenda when they were suddenly asked to look at the unified proposal as an afterthought. There should have been a proper tailor-made independent evaluation of the unified proposal if those who suggest a better and more comprehensive rail scheme is required to do justice to the people of Dublin are to be given a fair crack of the whip. Consultants already on board should not be asked to extend their remit to carry out that function when they are half in hock to the whole process before they start.
In relation to section 8(1)(a) and where the public inquiry might be held, no decision has been made. It could be any one of the three functional areas, but more than likely it will be in the Dublin Corporation area.
It would be a bit ludicrous to have the inquiry in Dundrum.
In relation to the question on the underground, no decision has been made——
Is there only to be one inquiry?
Yes. The inspector will chair the inquiry and will have the same powers of compellability as regards production of documents and information as had the public inquiry on motorways. There is a precedent.
The inspector does not have any power of compulsion. There is nothing in the Act to give the inspector powers.
There is nothing in this section.
Where are the powers?
It is the same procedure as under all capital construction works and public inquiries.
This is different from those.
There is precedent in law regarding the format of public inquiries. The same procedure is envisaged here.
It is most unsatisfactory that someone can suppress all the relevant facts in favour of the people who are objecting to them.
What is the compellability procedure?
I will come back to Deputy Gregory. Will the Minister answer Deputy McDowell's questions?
I understand the inspector can send for papers. I am not sure what the format is if people refuse to comply with his request. I will have to check that out. It is the same as all public inquiries into major construction works. At this stage no changes are envisaged unless Deputies can indicate exactly why there should be changes.
I want to be clear about the underground option. A fundamental departure from the street light rail option is not acceptable. CIE, through Semele, is looking at the possibility of short underground sections as part of an overall street light rail. I do not know where or how long these sections will be. There are a range of options. The entire route is being considered to see if it would be feasible and if it would be better to do so from the point of view of the environmental impact involved. They will be very short sections and it will remain, fundamentally, a street light rail programme.
The decision to use on-street light rail was made for a number of reasons, including, but not primarily, costs grounds. There are those who do not agree with this option but we must be clear about it. If the argument for an underground system succeeds, the finance is not available to meet the extra cost involved. Even if the money were available, the timetable would be extremely difficult to adhere to. I must be frank in this regard.
The decision to include on-street light rail as a core element of public transport strategy was taken, at considerable expense, after years of consideration by the DTI. We have an opportunity to implement that decision and those promoting the underground option should be confident that it is worth losing the light rail project and that the underground system can be built. We are operating on the recommendation of the DTI. This Government, and its predecessor, fully accepted the recommendations of the DTI. Perhaps we should not have, but this issue was debated for some time and it is now being implemented.
The public must understand that this is the option before them. The loss of a light rail system that can be built, in favour of the possibility of another system which may prove impossible or undesirable to build, is what we are facing. The possibility of running short sections of the light railway underground is another option under consideration. This may or may not become a reality. As has been repeatedly stated, preliminary work completed on this matter indicated that it would be expensive and pose some practical difficulties: However, this has been of such considerable interest during the consultation process that, in response to questions raised, it has been decided to undertake a more detailed examination of the issue of running short sections of the light railway underground.
Who is carrying out that examination?
The firm involved is Semele, a French consultative company with expertise in the area of transportation. If the work turns up substantial variations on the preliminary work, a reevaluation will be necessary. However, it may confirm the initial calculations in which case I hope that those who raised the question will accept that their concerns were taken seriously and steps were taken to further evaluate the options. This is exactly what is being done.
Did the Minister say that only short stretches are under investigation?
That is correct.
So the unified people must then accept that their entire idea was taken on board and examined, when this is not the case?
To whom is the Deputy referring when he talks about the "unified people"?
The people with the unified proposal.
Let me make it clear that an underground system is not being considered. That was quite a comprehensive proposal and we are not considering it. I made that clear on the last occasion the committee met.
I was just about to make that point. I am aware that Deputy McDowell was not present on the last occasion and every question he asked was posed last week. The Minister of State repeated verbatim what she stated last week.
I noticed that.
I allowed Deputy McDowell to pose his questions because he did not engage in a long contribution on the amendments.
Deputy McDowell explored the question of the independence of the public inspector quite well. My first point relates to ensuring the independence of the inspector. Section 8(1)(b) reaffirms this independence by stating that:
The Minister shall, after consultation with An Bord Pleanála, appoint a person to be an inspector to hold the inquiry referred to in subsection (1).
Is it envisaged that a member of the Judiciary will be appointed as the inspector? It seems that the appointment of such a person would be appropriate because the Judiciary and State agencies are separate organs. A number of communities have indicated their preference for a member of the Judiciary to be appointed inspector.
My second point relates to the compellability of witnesses. This is a very serious issue. If there is no power to compel witnesses to appear, a huge vacuum will be left as a result. I indicated earlier that there is an eminently reasonable route on the northside of the city — the North King Street route — which would permit a future link up with the Broadstone rail line. CIÉ did not consider this route because it was informed by Dublin Corporation as to the routes it could and could not examine. Dublin Corporation has been planning an inner city tangent along the route in question for the past 30 years and did not want any interference with it. The corporation's planning staff should be present at any public inquiry. If we cannot compel them to appear, there is no point in having an inquiry. This is a key issue and I would like the Minister of State to address the points I made.
The position of the public inspector is critical to the entire process and it is essential that the person chosen is independent. What is the precedent for appointing the inspector for such inquiries? Is it usually a civil servant?
Yes, it is usually a civil servant. The ambit of the Department of the Environment is the main area of precedent.
In that context, I do not know how a servant of the State could be seen to be independent in an inquiry where the two participants are the State on one hand, and local communities on the other. If this inquiry is to be fair, the inspector cannot be a civil servant. The suggestion put forward by one of the local communities that it should be a member of the Judiciary, gains credibility in that context. I will not repeat the argument but there will be no question of independence if the inspector is an agent of the State.
As previous speakers have said, we and the local communities are asking that the inspector, once chosen, would have effective power to call whoever is required, for example, Dublin Corporation planners. If the inspector does not have the power of compellability to ensure witnesses attend and that any documents asked for are brought, I would question the whole operation. One of the communities asks that, to guarantee the openness of the process, all submissions to the public inquiry should be made available for public inspection. I hope that would not create any great problem.
The Government has not accepted any of our amendments to this Bill and not one specific promise has been made to introduce a Report Stage amendment. That is unusual and I want to put down a marker.
We have not proceeded very far.
The Bill has 22 sections. There are many amendments with which we have yet to deal and one would need a crystal ball to establish whether any will be accepted. I ask the Deputy to make his point as I want to put the question on the section.
I am becoming extremely frustrated because the Minister of State seems to have no authority to tell the committee that she will introduce an amendment if she thinks a good point has been made. She says she will consider the points but that is not good enough. Most Ministers taking Committee Stage would have the authority to say they would draft an amendment to take a certain point on board and would introduce it on Report Stage, but so far we have received nothing.
This section is typical. My colleagues have asked sensible questions about the independence of the inspector. The Minister said to Deputy McDowell that she understood documents could be sent for and but she did not know what the position was if they were not produced. Perhaps she would commit herself to introducing an amendment to this section on Report Stage to clarify the matter and ensure documents can be sent for, as is the proper legal procedure. That cannot be too hard and it would not go outside the Minister's authority to give that commitment to the committee.
Section 8 (1) (c) states that when the inspector gets the findings of the inquiry he will give them to the Minister. How far can that inspector go in his report? For instance, is he entitled under this provision to report to the Minister that, having conducted a public inquiry, he is convinced that the rail line should go underground in the city centre? Does the Bill set parameters in regard to the inspector's findings? Will the Minister provide for that in the legislation if the view is taken that the inspector could have that extent and breadth of inquiry?
I support Deputy Gregory's point. There is an inspector of railways in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications who is a permanent and fine public official. I trust it is not intended that an official of the Department would be the inspector. Much as I admire those people having worked with them in the past, surely one wants a person independent of Government to act in this matter.
To take the last point first, the inspector will not be someone from the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, nor from CIE. That would not be considered.
Could it be someone from the Department of the Environment? That is who I think it will be.
I have no idea who it will be but, on a basic understanding of independence, one could not have someone from either the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications or CIE.
Does the Minister think that someone from the Department of the Environment——
May I finish? A range of questions was put to me. I do not know who the inspector will be but I draw Members' attention to the fact that this Bill incorporates several changes made to the first Bill and these strengthen the concept of independence, which quite rightly was mentioned during the debate on the first Bill by Deputies on all sides. Section 8(1)(b) states:
The Minister shall, after consultation with An Bord Pleanála, appoint a person to be an inspector . . .
All of us accept the independence of An Bord Pleanála. We do not always like its decisions but that underlines its independence. The Minister has gone to some length to ensure that whoever is appointed inspector will meet with whatever requirements of independence An Bord Pleanála deems to be necessary, given the inquiry it will have to undertake. That should re-assure reasonable people because, given our structures, the members of An Bord Pleanála would be good advisors as to the independence of a person to be a suitable inspector.
There is nothing in the Bill about the independence of the inspector.
It is in the Bill.
It is not and it should be put into it.
It is. It was added to the second Bill. We have not reached it yet.
It is in section 8 (5).
What about the appointment of a judge?
Independence does not preclude any category of people. However, I am advised that anyone from the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications or from CIE could not be considered independent. Beyond that I am not qualified to state who is and is not included but there will be a procedure whereby An Bord Pleanála would have to be satisfied as to the independence of the person appointed as inspector. That is an addition to this Bill and is different from what was in the first Bill.
The Minister says section 8 (5) deals with the point about independence but it does not. The subsection reads:
An inspector appointed . . . shall be independent in the performance of his or her functions.
That means a civil servant from the Department of the Environment could be appointed, who would be independent in the performance of his functions but not independent of Government because he or she would be a civil servant. Independence in the performance of one's functions is a different concept to independence of Government.
As far as I know there are only two sectors in this country, the private sector and the public sector and the person concerned will have to come from one or the other. This is a question of private sector opinion versus public sector opinion and we will not satisfy both sides on this point. I am satisfied the requirement that An Bord Pleanála accepts the independence of the person to be appointed as inspector, in terms of his or her qualifications and functions, will go as far as we possibly can, in all reason.
It does not say that.
The Bill provides, that the Minister shall, after consultation with An Bord Pleanála, appoint a person to be an inspector to hold the inquiry.
The Minister need only consult An Bord Pleanála, he does not have to pay any heed to them.
That is right but let us not be semantic.
We are having the same argument again. The point has been made and the Minister has accepted and understood it. This is about the tenth time this has been mentioned. Are there any other points relevant to the questions posed?
The conduct of the public inquiry will be equivalent to the motorways inquiries which in their own way could have been and some were, extremely contentious. The same difficulties arose for local communities and groups who were agitated about proposals to route motorways close to them or over their properties. The practice and procedure in those inquiries have been deemed satisfactory and the same procedure is envisaged in this public inquiry.
I had the privilege of attending one last Friday and Monday. I was impressed at the manner in which it was conducted. It seemed a fair procedure.
I presume they were conducted impartially and the chair did not express views.
I am just giving the benefit of my experience. I was impressed with the manner in which it was done. That need not necessarily be a criteria for another one.
It should be noted that the Minister of State is not giving the committee any assurance whatever that the chairman or inspector of the inquiry can oblige anybody to bring any documents before it. That is a serious defect in the legislation.
The section also provides that any person will be entitled to appear and be heard at an inquiry and that, if the inspector requires it, evidence must be given on oath.
The chairman cannot tell CIE to show him its evaluation of the Mount Brown plan. He would only be able to see what CIE wants him to see.
Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 5 has already been discussed with amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, before section 9, to insert the following new section:
"9.—(1) Where an application is made to the Minister for a light rail-little way order the Minister shall establish by Ministerial order a consultative council for the local area to which the application relates.
(2) A consultative council established under subsection (1) shall be composed of at least one representative of each of the following groups—
(a) the local residential community,
(b) the planning authority,
(c) the local business community.
(d) any other local interest group deemed relevant by the Minister.
(3) The Minister shall consult with a consultative council established under subsection (I) on the following matters:
(a) the proposed light railway route in that local area,
(b) the proposed location of the light railway line in that local area,
(c) the amount of compensation, if any, to be paid to affected persons in that local area,
(d) the schedule of proposed light railway works in that local area,
(e) any other matter deemed relevant by the Minister.
(4) The Minister shall obtain the consent of the relevant consultative council to the grant or refusal of an application. In the event that the Minister is unable to obtain such consent, within a period of 6 weeks, the Minister shall lay before Dáil Éireann a detailed statement of his reasons for proceeding with the grant or refusal of the application, as that may be, in the absence of such consent.
(5) The Minister may make regulations under section 18 for the purpose of establishing and making provision for the operation of consultative councils under this section.
(6) Representatives appointed to a consultative council under subsection (2) shall not receive any fee from the Minister.".
Amendment put and declared lost.