Vol. 503 No. 1
23 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she will have arrangements made to commission consultants from the private sector to complete the design of the entire extended Luas network in order that all routes can be designed concurrently rather than sequentially and thus facilitate the early construction of the entire network. [6839/99]
The indicative timetable for the expanded Luas project, announced last May, provided for the concurrent rather than sequential development of the individual elements of the light rail network. However, the timetable also had to take account of the relative stage of development of each individual element.
For example, the Tallaght to Abbey Street line was already at the stage where the preferred technical route alignment and preliminary design had been substantially completed and it was, therefore, possible to bring it quickly to the statutory approval stage. By contrast, no work had been carried out on the Abbey Street to Connolly Station section. Therefore, while the statutory procedures for the Tallaght line were under way, work was being carried out concurrently on the selection of routing options for the Connolly Station section. These were subsequently put out to public consultation in February. Similarly, while the statutory process for Tallaght was under way, the application for the light railway order for the St. Stephen's Green to Sandyford section was finalised and submitted, route alignments for the Broadstone to Dublin Airport section were developed and put forward for public consultation last December and the process of selecting geotechnical consultants for the underground section got under way.
It is intended to continue this concurrent approach to the development of the individual elements of the project, with the objective of completing the implementation of the expanded network at the earliest possible time. CIE already has a substantial team working on the project, comprising its own staff and a very significant private consultancy input, and no constraints have been placed on CIE as regards the resources required.
We sought a public-private partnership approach. Arthur Andersen is advising on it. It has completed its work and I expect to get its report soon.
Would the Minister accept that the time is long since past for commissioning studies into studies in public-private partnership? Would she accept what everybody else knows without the benefit of any studies, that CIE simply does not have the capacity at any level, not entirely due to its own fault, to deliver on the scale required or within the time frame set down, and that the only alternative now is to bring in the private sector to help to deal with a crisis that every report tells us will get worse?
Would the Minister accept that the fact that it has taken the Luas team six long years to design two lines and a small part of the third line and we still have not put a shovel into the ground is proof, if proof is needed, that at this rate of progress it will take at least ten years before we have three lines built, unconnected to one another? How long then can we expect to wait for the extended network?
I do not accept the Minister's statement that the lines are being designed concurrently. There is no doubt that they are being designed sequentially. If, as is becoming more and more obvious with every passing day, we need to bring in the private sector—
The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech. She should ask a question.
I have asked several already and I will get to another now. I do not doubt CIE's capacity to design the work, but I doubt its capacity to do it concurrently. To shorten the lead-in time for these projects, I am asking—
I must ask for brevity and that the Deputy ask a question. It is unfair to Deputies who submit questions when Deputies make major statements instead of asking a question.
It is unfair that the direct questions are not answered.
The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information from the Minister, not for the person who submits the question to make a statement.
Let me elicit information.
There has to be some party-political to-ing and fro-ing as well at Question Time.
I am asking the Minister, at least in the first instance pending her consultants' report, to bring in a pilot project in public-private partnership to help with this design work.
I will not allow the Deputy to continue in this vein. It is unfair to Members.
That is the question.
The Deputy is making a statement, put in the form of a question.
I am asking the Minister to bring in private consultants—
That is not a question.
—and look later at similar arrangements for funding the construction and the operation of the extended network. What I am looking for is a pilot project now in public-private partnership for the design stage so that we can at least shorten the lead-in stage for the project.
Are we in the six-minute mode?
That has been discontinued. We have 20 minutes for five questions. So far I have not seen five questions answered in 20 minutes. We are now on Question No. 3. The 20 minutes is up. In fairness to everybody who submits questions, the Chair tries to ensure that we get through as many as possible. Following this question, the next two will be taken in ordinary time.
I do not know why that procedure was dropped.
Because you kept over-running.
I expect to have a report in the next few weeks on whether Luas is suitable for such an approach, that is, a public-private partnership. I hope it is. I am very keen on puplic-private partnership because it ensures expertise and money faster than would otherwise be the case.
Is the Minister referring to the Anderson report?
Yes. The indicative timetable was given to me earlier by the inspector. I replied to it earlier, gave the decision earlier, and CIE stamped it earlier. We are slightly ahead of schedule. If there is no judicial review, over which I would have no control, that will go ahead from May. The inspector begins his work on the next line on 6 April. I do not know whether the Luas team spent six years designing it but they have done a fair job and it is very complicated.
The Deputy is right on the question of integration. I have been thinking about that. It is one thing to design and build the Luas in all its manifestations. It is another to deliver an integrated system which will integrate light rail with heavy rail, bus and so on. That is something to which I am giving thought, particularly facing into the European money scenario, our own capital development programme and the Cohesion Fund. We now know the amount of money we are getting for transport. I agree with Deputy Mitchell's point on that matter. As soon as we get the report from Arthur Anderson's I hope to publish it.
On the matter of integrating the service, which is critical to the success of the Luas project, is the Minister aware that nothing has been done about a preliminary study into the underground system, that not a single trial bore has been made in Dublin city centre although it was regarded as absolutely critical and a matter of urgency a year ago, and that the sense of urgency to deliver is not there if the entire rail measures, which we were promised would come on stream in the next three years, will deliver only about 12,000 peak hour journeys when the additional requirement each year in terms of going to work is 20,000? At the present rate of progress we will not even manage to stand still.
I am reluctant to intervene, but again I would ask the Deputy to ask a question.
That is my question.
Integration is critical. We now have strategic planning guidelines and the Government is committed to looking at many areas in public transport. I have received no advices and I have brought nothing to Cabinet, but if we are to spend an amount of money on public transport, we cannot do it in a piecemeal fashion. The first lodestar by which we should be guided is one of integration and co-ordination.
The time for Priority Questions has concluded. Questions Nos. 24 and 25 will be taken in ordinary time.
