When I made the point about the information in regard to the EU investigation I was extremely angry at what I perceived as the nondisclosure of crucial information to the House. I question to the Minister's competence and political judgment in this regard and his ability to be in charge of this large Department. Time and time again, he has shown himself not to be on top of his brief. I do not question his integrity, which is what he referred to in his reply to me. I would not question the integrity of any Member of this House and if that is the way the Minister interpreted my comments, then I regret it.
The Government has seriously jeopardised our relationship with the EU through his handling of this entire light rail issue. Added to the unilateral announcement of the routes by the Minister last month, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, went to Brussels and indicated that no matter what the EU decided, Dublin had made up its mind on the light rail question. This was unhelpful in building relations between Dublin and Brussels.
Fianna Fáil expressed serious concern about the confusion the Government has created at EU level on this issue. We were disappointed that Sandyford and Ballymun-Dublin Airport were not part of the first phase of the plan. The airport route should be a central part of the plan and the Dundrum link should be extended to Sandyford.
These concerns have been echoed at EU level, but I am convinced the Government's handling of the matter has seriously damaged our relations with the EU Commission in the transport area. These relations will not be advanced either with this Bill. One of the founding principles of the EU is that communities should be involved in decision making and proper consultation should take place. None of this is evident in this Bill. The provisions for public consultation are rigid and only pay lip service to the principle of local community consultation.
The Bill has many other obvious flaws. It is badly drafted and will not facilitate the speedy and proper construction of the much needed Dublin light rail system, which I and my party proposed and fully supported. Even amendment may not rescue it and it needs to be sent back to the parliamentary drawing board for fundamental recasting.
The Bill is in sharp contrast to the straightforward Gas (Amendment) Act, 1993, arising from the Gas (Amendment) Act, 1987. That Act made provision for laying a gas pipeline throughout the country and it was done quickly and simply. Why was that model not adopted, rather than this cumbersome Bill?
The measures proposed will create more problems than they will solve. The manner in which difficulties are to be ironed out with local communities is heavy handed, bureacratic and extremely legalistic. The Bill as it stands amounts to a recipe for enormous delay. The Fianna Fáil view is that it will be unworkable as currently drafted and should be withdrawn. A new Bill to give proper and speedy effect to the light rail system should be presented along the lines of the Gas (Amendment) Act which proved efficient and effective.
This Bill does not, for example, even specify which of the three CIE companies will operate the light rail system. Will one of the existing companies or one of its subsidiaries run the system or will a new subsidiary be established.
I know the Minister's hands are substantially tied in Cabinet, particularly by Democratic Left. It is an open secret that the Minister for Social Welfare has a second look at most legislation. If the Minister has a free hand he would not allow only CIE to apply for a licence to run the light rail system. If the Minister's party was in a majority Government, he may have inserted another section saying not only CIE could apply to run the system.
Governments and Ministers change and there might be a Minister some day who might not want to let CIE have a monopoly in extending the system but the Bill does not allow for this. It specifically says only CIE may apply to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications for permission to run a light rail system. Given that legislation is for the long-term and not for the period of one Government, it is short sighted to tie the Minister's hands in that way. There may be other light rail extensions. Brussels may intervene at some stage to break up the monopoly and then amending legislation will be required. The Minister had to do this because there are people sitting on his shoulder who, at any hint of private sector involvement in State companies, would make life miserable for him at the Cabinet table.
Section 2 of the Bill provides sweeping entry powers to land, property and homes to persons authorised by the Minister. It empowers CIE officials and others to carry out "any investigation or examination" on property or premises. Is that the intention? If the Garda had these powers, there would be an outcry from civil libertarians. Some of the language in the Bill is draconian. It is not necessary and may lead to constitutional difficulties.
Section 2 also makes provision for compensation for damage done to property. However, the compensation provisions are unnecessarily convoluted and may lead to endless litigation. The lip service paid to consultation is evident in section 5. That section outlines in detail all the matters to be included in environmental impact settlements. Subsection (3) points out that neither European nor local government environmental guidelines will apply. It appears the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications has become the judge and jury in that he has now invented his own guidelines and local communities will have to grin and bear it. It is no wonder communities such as Kilmainham are up in arms. They rightly maintain that irrespective of what they say or do, what meetings they attend and what suggestions they offer, the Minister will do what he wishes because the legislation gives him the power to enter onto land and carry out any investigations or examination and do what is necessary.
Fianna Fáil does not believe the Bill can speedily achieve the construction of the light rail. This is apparent in section 6. Provision has been made for a time-span of nine weeks for the publication of notices for application of light rail orders. At the end of the nine weeks there is a provision for a notice of such orders to be served on every occupier and every owner of land referred to in the order. The section uses the word "every". What is meant by "served" in this context? Does it mean the individual has to be found and personally served as in many judicial areas? How long does the Minister estimate that will take? While section 23 sheds some light on the definition of service of notices, it appears to make provision for notices to be served on, among other things, a field.
Subsection (2) (d) provides that where the owner or occupier of any land or premises cannot be ascertained it may be addressed to the owner or occupier and left at the place. Is it lawful to leave the notice at the place? Does that constitute it being served and is it constitutional? Has the Attorney Generally made any observation on this and other matters in the Bill? If so, will the Minister give the House the benefit of the Attorney General's comments on this point and also on the right of entry by CIE officials, particularly in the context of the phrasing of the Bill? I would be interested to hear what the Attorney General has to say about this on Committee Stage.
Section 6 allows members of the public to buy copies of the documents in relation to the order — this is where the Bill is badly drafted——"...on payment of a fee to the Board not exceeding the reasonable cost of making such copies or extracts as may be fixed by the Board". Does this mean the cost of photocopying the document or the cost of drawing it up with lawyers and surveyors? Is the public expected to fund the cost of drawing up the plans? This is typical of the poor phrasing and confusion throughout the Bill and the reason I have come to the conclusion that it would make more sense if it was redrafted.
Section 7 deals with further information on the environmental impact statement and builds in a further time frame of three weeks in which to provide it to those occupiers or landlords involved. The time-scale is open-ended and enormous delay could result here also. The Minister would be better served by having a real consultation process rather than the phoney process which is now taking place. There is no confidence in local communities about the public inquiry which has been planned for later. It will be extremely bureaucratic and legalistic and people will have to make their case under oath. The vast majority of people in local communities will find it bewildering and totally unresponsive.
Fianna Fáil believes the Minister should have adopted the model taken on board by many multinational companies setting up in Ireland, for example, Tulip Packard which is building a large plant near Leixlip. It is a good example of this type of consultation not the austere remote type in the public inquiry where a verdict is handed down. That company has appointed a consultative council to deal with concerns from local residents, businesses and schools in the construction phase. The council is made up of people from Tulip Packard, the local community, the schools and businesses. Those with problems are dealing with people with whom they are familiar who can empathise with the problem in the construction phase. This is in stark contrast to that proposed in the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Bill.
Local communities are dealing with people they have not met before, many of whom are technical engineers rather than communications experts. Local people meet these experts once and hear nothing further. There are reports that engineers have pointed out and measured the route and that if people wish they should attend the public inquiry and make their case on oath. A railway line cannot be built in that way. It can only be built following full consultation and by working out the problems. Do local people consult CIE, the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, the local light rail office or the engineering consultants?
It would have been better to establish a light rail consultative council in each of the sensitive areas the system will visit. These councils could be made up of experts, local community activists and business interests. The councils could remain in place for a year or two even after the system is up and running. Local people dealing with them would know those involved. They would know they were not going through bureaucratic steps but were dealing with people who knew the areas concerned and would assist in the construction of the light rail programme. If there were a problem the public would know where to go and the people involved would be clearly identifiable. The communities would also know that some of their people would be involved in the decision-making process and that it was not all done behind closed doors and was not merely a judicial process.
One of our main concerns about this Bill is that the entire process is of a judicial type where people give their evidence under oath, a decision is handed down and that is the end of it. That system will take years. A quicker way would be to have a proper consultative process with people who have good recommendations to make on the routes and who would work out the problems with those people.
Given that the success of the light rail will depend on its acceptance by local communities, some type of local consultative councils rather than the hands-off type should have been provided for in the legislation. It would have been better than the formal and impersonal public inquiry and inspector system provided for in section 8. It is ironic at a time when we are trying to make the courts less intimidating that the public inquiry system proposed is as rigid as any court. All representations made to the inspector have to be given under oath. Those who give incorrect information, whether accidentially or otherwise, will, according to section 8, be guilty of perjury and punishable accordingly. That is no way to consult local communities.
Section 9 provides for whatever the Minister wants irrespective of what local areas may have demanded. The Minister will railroad ahead irrespective of what local communities want. It is also one of those sections which, because of the way it is drafted, will give rise to enormous difficulties. Part of the section appears to signal that once an order is made by the Minister the entire process can start again and there will be more inquiries. In this legislation the Minister should be trying to achieve agreement without the obvious litigation. It appears that in every section of the Bill there are opportunities for a legalistic maize to be followed. That legalistic route of public inquiries and High Court proceedings will hold up this process interminably. That should be headed off early on through proper consultation with local communities. If agreement is sought from local communities in a proper manner, the light rail system can be built according to the timetable set. That will not be the case if we give CIE officials the right of entry and provide for the right to hold public inquiries, judicial reviews and to go to the High Court — a handed down mechanism of building the route. The only way to successfully build the route is to convince local communities that their concerns are being taken into account and discuss alternative routes, engineering problems and compensation with them. It is clear from the Bill that only lip service has been paid to such a process. While a form of public consultation is proposed, it is only a junior system and does not measure up to a real consultation process.
I dwell on this point because that is the stage we are at in the process. If we continue to go down purely the legal road by encouraging everybody to take oaths and to go to the courts, they will have no other option. If the building of our roads is used as an example, the light rail system will not get off the ground for many years. That is why I encourage the Minister, even at this late stage, to provide for a strong statutory consultation process as the system develops. If that happens there will be very few litigation cases and the system will be constructed speedily.
Section 14 contains more of the heavy handed tactics that are spread throughout the Bill. It would allow CIE officials and others to enter any lands and attach to any wall, house or other building a bracket, cable, wire or other fixture required for the construction, operation or maintenance of the light rail system. There is nothing about consulting the people to whose wall the brackets, wire or cable would be attached. We are talking here about private property and constitutional rights. The Bill gives CIE the right to write the necessary by-laws. I presume the Minister will lay them before the House and they can be objected to, but they will not be discussed here. In effect, therefore, CIE officials will dictate the private houses that will be dealt with in this way. I accept that the work must be done but it must be done properly. The Bill is insensitive and will hold up the entire process rather than deal with it speedily.
Another example of the delays that could take place is given in section 14. Under section 14 (1) (c) the District Court can make an order prohibiting entry onto lands. What will happen to the light rail system in such circumstances? As provided for under section 14 (2), will CIE or others proceed in any case? That matter must be clarified.
The compensation provisions are extremely cumbersome and are likely to prove unsatisfactory. I will expand on this matter on Committee Stage. If ever evidence were required of the approach taken by the Department in building the light rail system, one need only examine section 15. While this may appear a minor issue, I have never seen a State agency being given power in legislation to chop down trees and shrubs that get in its way. The Bill contains a "cut and burn" section that gives CIE the power to lop trees, shrubs and hedges and that is indicative of the thinking behind the legislation. If anything gets in the way the Minister is given the power to sign the necessary papers and down come the trees, or the houses for that matter. Were the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, the Heritage Council or other interested bodies consulted? Will preserved trees be taken into account? Will Dublin's habitats be considered in the environmental impact statements? The Minister made no reference to that in his speech.
Householders who decide to cut their own hedges, rather than let the Minister and his officials loose, will find it difficult to get paid for their work because the relevant section refers to the possibility of court proceedings. People who cut down their own trees may have to go to court to get their money back. This makes the Bill extremely sloppy and, while it may appear an angular point, it displays the attitude that prevails throughout the legislation. Emphasis is placed on the necessary law to railroad through the building of the light rail system, none is placed on a consultation process. I accept that a public relations type consultation process is taking place, but there is no reference to that in the Bill. It does not state how problems with the public will be resolved.
The emphasis is on taking oaths, making decisions and lopping trees, shrubs and even houses and if people do not like what is happening they can go to the courts. That is not the way to build a rail system in a small country such as this. The Minister and his officials will have years of trouble if he does not amend the legislation and the matter will be before the courts long after he leaves office. However, if he takes the proper route and provides for a strong statutory consultation process, the problems will be unravelled long before the lawyers get a slice. By the time the legal people are finished with this matter, the money spent on the beef tribunal could seem very small.
Concern has been expressed about disruption caused by roadworks. Section 16 provides wide-ranging powers for the breaking up of roads and new roads can even be built. While there is provision for notifying local authorities about roadworks, there is none for notifying local communities about the disruption involved. Once again, the public is being ignored. Perhaps the Minister will introduce an amendment to that effect.
I referred earlier to section 23 which deals with serving notices. Will the Minister explain section 23 (3) which refers to what constitutes the serving of a notice. If a notice has to be seved on every individual, the line will never be built. Section 24 provides for another layer of bureaucracy in terms of by-laws. Anybody affected by the light rail plan would need to study law and give up their other work and interests to study all the documents associated with the project. It is difficult to imagine the type of by-laws CIE will draw up for this project. A by-law is a law, but it does not come before this House for debate. The Minister is giving CIE carte blanche to write by-laws. In a few years' time, long after he has left office, he will be horrified by the powers CIE gave itself when drawing up by-laws for this project.
Section 25 states that CIE may set up subsidiaries. However, we still do not know whether the light rail will be run by an existing company or by a subsidiary. Also, the legislation does not provide for employees. Will the light rail staff be employed by CIE or by a subsidiary? Will they comprise existing CIE staff or will they be employed on contract? What terms and conditions will apply to such staff? The cost set for 1996 and anticipated for 1997 and 1998 are inadequate. Will the Minister outline the costs for the following years and how he proposes money will be spent, particularly in 1997 and 1998? I and my party believe the Bill as drafted is heavy-handed and will create a legal nightmare and total chaos. We cannot understand why the simpler model of the gas pipeline was not chosen. We would also be interested to know why an amendment to the railways Acts was not considered and, if so, whether that would have obviated the need for this complext Bill.
I and Fianna Fáil fully support the light rail system structure but this Bill is bureaucratic, possibly unconstitutional and provides for no real consultation with local communities. A new streamlined Bill is urgently required to allow the project proceed.
