Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications (Mrs. A. Doyle)

There has been considerable debate about the traffic situation in Dublin in recent years. There has been one constant factor in all that debate, that is, there is a traffic problem and something must be done about it. Everyone recognises that the level of congestion on our streets is growing daily. We recognise what this is doing to the economic, social and cultural life of the city. Increasingly we recognise what it is doing to our environment. More and more we recognise that the pollution and disruption caused by our worsening traffic gridlock is having an adverse impact on those who live or work in, and on those who come to visit, this city. There is a heightened awareness that damage is also being done to the fabric of our city. We all agree there is a problem and that something must be done. The question is what?

This is not a new question. It was comprehensively considered by the Dublin Transportation Initiative. It surprised me to discover that this process began almost a decade ago in 1988 when the then Minister for the Environment appointed the Dublin Transportation Review Group with representatives of the relevant Departments — Environment, Tourism and Transport, Finance and Industry and Commerce — local authorities and CIE. A report of the first phase of the DTI, which involved the review of changes that had taken place since 1971 and an assessment of the implementation of previous studies, was published in 1991. Only then did phase two begin with the aim of producing a long-term strategy allied with an implementation programme for the period to 1999 and a continuous planning process for transport in the city.

Phase two was based solidly in consultation. It was an open initiative placing great importance on genuine and extensive public consultation, both in determining what type of city people wanted and in evaluating the proposed response to those wishes. The formal structure included three committees and a consultative panel which included not only Departments, local authorities and public agencies but also a very wide range of transport, business and community interests. It was supported by public meetings, exhibitions, questionnaires and market research. The report on phase two was finalised in May 1994 and deals in an integrated way with all surface transport as well as with traffic management and enforcement and institutional issues.

It is an ambitious strategy. It is a strategy that has been accepted by two Governments. It is a strategy that, because it was firmly rooted in what could realistically be achieved, is being steadily implemented. At last, after years of debate, Dublin is getting the chance to remedy its traffic problems. What is more the solution is based, not simply on transport issues but on a vision of the type of city we want.

It is an integrated strategy. The DTI strategy comprises a mix of investment and policy measures, covering national roads, including port access, a switch of investment towards public transport in the form of light rail, quality bus corridors, DART and other rail improvements, and park and ride facilities. It also incorporates traffic management proposals, including some to ensure more appropriate movement of heavy goods vehicles. It is supported by a comprehensive range of measures to improve the use of assets already in place, including enforcement and other measures to enhance compliance with traffic and parking laws and regulations.

The strategy has to be viewed as an integrated package which, in order to achieve its total benefits, must be implemented fully and in a coherent manner. The report itself recognises it could be tempting to say yes, for example, to the public transport proposals and no to parking restraint, but one will not work properly without the other. Each element builds on and supports others. Public transport is a key element in the strategy and it includes development of quality bus corridors, improved suburban rail, extension of the DART and integration of the different modes of transport. All the agencies involved, including Departments, State companies and local authorities, are working to implement that strategy. It cannot all be done at once but it is being done in a planned way. At the core of the public transport programme is the proposal for light rail. DTI identifies it as being vital to the implementation of the strategy.

The overall strategy incorporates the development of a core three line network of on-street light rail as follows: Tallaght to the city centre; Cabinteely via the old Harcourt Street railway to the city centre; and Ballymun to the city centre. The routes will join together to form a single network permitting cross city operation and will be designed to serve both the north and south sides of the city centre with a route along O'Connell Street. They will be supplemented by the provision of park and ride facilities and bus feeder services as appropriate. A fourth line serving Finglas — via the old Broadstone railway — and a fifth, being an extension of the Ballymun line to the airport and Swords, were judged to be viable and as funding was not likely to be available for these schemes, it recommended that the opportunity to introduce them should be kept under review during DTI phase three.

Mr. Cassidy

We have a U-turn here.

Mrs. A. Doyle

It was recognised that there were limits, both physical and financial, to what could be achieved. DTI effectively acknowledged that only two of the three lines, costing approximately £200 million, could be implemented by 1999. Allowance has been made in the Operational Programme for Transport, 1994-1999 for a project of this size and the Commission has agreed in principle to co-fund £175 million of the costs. The EU, therefore, has indicated its willingness to contribute approximately £114 million to the project provided it is substantially complete by the year 1999.

A multi-criteria analysis was carried out by the Dublin Transportation Initiative consultants, Steer Davies Gleave, for my Department on six possible variations based on the DTI core lines which could be implemented within the budgetary and time constraints. This analysis favoured a Tallaght/Dundrum option and this was accepted by two Governments as the policy framework within which the project should be developed. Once sufficient work was done to determine possible alignments, consultation with the EU Commission and the Irish public commenced in late 1995. That process has been ongoing and has led to a number of issues being raised, including variations on the alignments proposed or alternative routes, specifically that to Ballymun, being included in the first phase.

These are real and genuine questions. In some cases individuals have real fear about how light rail will affect them. I assure the House that these question and concerns are being addressed. Where communities have sought changes in routes these are being considered and alternatives drawn up and published. This process of consultation will continue for some months yet and no decision will be taken on routes until it is completed.

Mr. Cassidy

That is a welcome change.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Even then there will be a public inquiry and the opportunity for any interested party to make submissions directly to the Minister.

That brings me to a second major point, and here too I believe there is general agreement. Without legislation none of the possibilities can be implemented. We are now at the point where there is a consensus that something must be done to relieve Dublin's transport situation and that legislation is needed to provide the powers to implement the light rail based elements of that solution. The Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill, 1996, provides these enabling powers. This is enabling legislation. It is silent on matters such as routes or whether the system will be underground or onstreet.

I want to be clear with regard to the underground option. During the public consultation process it has been argued that the light rail system should be underground in the city centre. While this is not in line with the Government's stated policy position, nor with the previous Government's stated policy position, it is an issue which has been raised consistently during the consultation process and in the Dáil debates. It, therefore, merits clarification. In the light of this and as part of its preparatory work for the public inquiry, independent transportation consultants engaged by the CIE project team are carrying out an assessment of the implications of the suggestion. I will instruct CIE to publish the findings of this work in due course. Those people who favour an underground alternative will be able to review the published findings and offer their views to the inquiry, which will be an independent and open forum.

Notwithstanding the policy position I outlined earlier, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications will be obliged to consider CIE's application for a light rail order on an objective quasi-judicial basis and to consider any submissions made to him.

The legislation provides mechanisms whereby any proposals must be approved. If the present proposals are not approved and if an underground option is subsequently developed, this legislation does not preclude that option being progressed in exactly the same manner. I repeat, this is enabling legislation which precludes none of the options now being discussed. It is essential this distinction is clearly understood.

The Bill does not end the debate on light rail or which routes should be implemented first. It does not restrict the number of lines which can be built or preclude an underground option. Informal consultation is likely to continue until September at the earliest when an application can be made by CIE to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. There will then be at least six weeks in which to consider the application and to make formal submissions to the Minister. This will be followed by a full public inquiry on all aspects of the light rail proposal.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide the necessary statutory powers to construct, maintain and operate a light rail system in the greater Dublin area. The Bill proposes a single comprehensive statutory procedure authorising the provision of a light rail system, the main features of which are as follows. It proposes that CIE will be the statutory agency responsible for the development of the light rail system and will be given the powers to develop the system through a light railway order made by the Minister. CIE must apply to the Minister for the necessary light railway order and its application must include a draft of the light railway order together with detailed plans and an environmental impact statement. The statutory approval process will be a one-stop-shop dealing with all aspects of the project, including transportation and physical planning issues, environmental impact assessment and the compulsory acquisition of land.

There will be a mandatory public inquiry into all aspects of the light rail proposal, including the planning and environmental issues. In addition, any person will be able to make a written submission to the Minister in relation to the proposal and to appear and make his or her case at the public inquiry. The light rail network can only be built when the Minister has made a light railway order, having fully considered any submissions made on the matter, the report of the public inquiry and the environmental impact assessment.

Mr. Cassidy

The Minister makes the decisions.

Mrs. A. Doyle

The main provisions of the Bill are as follows. Section 2 empowers persons authorised by the Minister or the CIE board to enter any land and carry out inspections, examinations and tests for the purposes of the construction of a light rail system. Where this applies to a dwelling, consent must be obtained. I amended the original Bill in the other House to strengthen the provision relating to obtaining consent.

Section 3 sets out the documentation which must accompany an application for a light railway order. These include a draft of the order, a plan of the proposed light railway works, a book of reference to the plan indicating the identity of owners and occupiers of the lands described in the plan and a statement on the likely effects on the environment of the proposed light railway works.

Section 4 proposes that light rail developments will be exempted developments for the purposes of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. This avoids an unnecessary duplication of effort and treats light rail in a similar way to road projects, which are also exempt from planning permission.

Section 5 sets out the information to be contained in an environmental impact statement based on the relevant EU directive. To provide the greatest degree of openness and transparency, there is a requirement that a summary of the statement in non-technical language be included to ensure it is clear and accessible to as wide a range of people as possible.

Section 6 requires CIE to give public notice that an application has been made to the Minister for a light railway order. The relevant documentation must be available for inspections in places easily accessible to the public and interested persons may purchase copies or extracts of the papers. The original (No. 2) Bill was amended to include the requirement that the places must be accessible to the public for the inspection of the documents.

Section 7 allows the Minister to require CIE to furnish additional information on the environmental impacts. Again, notice must be given that this further information is available for inspection by the public and supplementary written submissions may be made to the Minister in relation to this further information.

Section 8 stipulates that there must be a full public inquiry into the application for a light railway order. An Bord Pleanala must be consulted on the appointment of an inspector — another amendment made in the other House — and the inspector may be assisted by one or more assessors. It will be the inspector's sole responsibility to prepare and submit to the Minister a written report of the inquiry findings, and to make any recommendations he or she thinks appropriate. This report will be published.

Section 9 requires the Minister to consider a range of information before coming to a decision on light rail. This includes the documentation submitted by CIE with the application for a light rail order, the public inquiry report, local authority submissions and other formal submissions. Where the Minister is of the opinion that the application for an order should be granted, the Minister may make an order authorising the construction, maintenance and improvement of the light railway, attaching such conditions, restrictions and other terms as he or she thinks proper and specifies in the order. The Minister may revoke a light railway order where CIE fails or refuses to comply with any condition, restriction or requirement specified in the order. CIE may appeal this decision to the High Court. Notice of the making of an order must be published.

Section 10 provides for the inclusion of specific provisions in the light railway order. These can include specifying the land to be acquired, the manner in which works are to be carried out or a time limit within which they must be completed. Conditions to protect local communities can also be added. This is a new amendment made during the passage of this Bill through the other House.

Section 11 requires CIE to retain and make available for inspection or purchase by the public the light railway order and related documentation for a period of five years after the light railway order comes into operation. Section 12 provides for judicial review by the High Court of a light railway order made by the Minister. Application for leave for judicial review must be made within a period of two months from the date on which the order was made unless the court considers that there is sufficient reason for extending the period.

Section 13 authorises the compulsory acquisition of land by CIE following the making of a light railway order by the Minister. In practice this will have the same effect as if the light railway order were a compulsory purchase order and the board were a local authority exercising its compulsory purchase powers. It will have the same effect as would operate if a new motorway was being constructed. The board is also given the option, under section 13 (2), to acquire additional land adjoining that to be compulsorily acquired under the order. Here again let me emphasise that the exercise of such an option requires the consent of the Minister and of the owner of that adjoining land and is only allowed where it would be efficient and economical to do so for the purposes of the light rail project. This allows a sensible approach to land acquisition and provides a necessary degree of flexibility.

Section 14 gives CIE power to enter land to carry out works authorised by a light railway order. Provision is made for entry with consent — this aspect of the section is an amendment — or after the serving of a notice on the owner or occupier of the land, who may apply to the District Court for an order prohibiting entry. A judge of the District Court may prohibit entry or impose conditions on CIE. Where any loss or damage results from the exercise of CIE's powers to enter on land to carry out works, there is provision for the payment of compensation to the owner or occupier and for arbitration where agreement on the amount of the compensation cannot be agreed.

Section 15 provides that CIE may lop any such tree, shrub or hedge. Notice of the proposed works must be served on the owner who may carry out the necessary works and recover the cost from CIE. Section 16 proposes that CIE will be authorised to carry out works on any existing public road or to construct a new road provided this is specified in the light railway order. The prior consent in writing of the road authority in whose area the road is situated will be required before work starts and the road authority may impose conditions, restrictions or requirements in its consent.

Section 17 provides that no part of the light railway may be open for traffic until it has been inspected and certified by an inspector appointed by the Minister. This is a technical provision relating to safety certification and is similar to existing procedures applied to new sections of mainline railway.

Section 18 provides that the Minister may make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the Act or for resolving any difficulty in bringing the Act into operation. Sections 19 to 22 create offences of trespass, unauthorised use of a light railway, obstruction or interference with the performance of functions under the Bill. Section 24 gives CIE the power to make by-laws for the regulation of a light railway and specifies a number of particular matters in respect of which CIE may make by-laws. In relation to the trespass provisions, the original (No. 2) Bill has been amended to rationalise the requirements and penalties accompanying trespass which relate more to the degree of seriousness of the offence. Standard provisions for the service of notices under the Act are made under section 23.

Section 25 provides that CIE may, with the consent of the Minister and of the Minister for Finance, acquire or form and register one or more subsidiary companies pursuant to the Companies Act, 1963. This gives the option of forming a subsidiary company to operate the light rail system. While CIE will obtain the statutory powers to construct and operate light rail, no final decision has been taken on the precise arrangements which will be made within the CIE group for the operation of light rail.

Section 26 applies the Railways Acts, 1840 to 1889, and any other Act relating to railways to any light railway under this Bill, except where such Acts are inconsistent with the provisions of this Bill. A light railway will be deemed to be a railway within the meaning of those Acts which cover matters such as the powers of the railway inspecting officer to hold inquiries into accidents.

Sections 27 to 30 are standard provisions common to most Acts and cover procedures for the laying of orders and by-laws before the Oireachtas, administration expenses, fees and commencement of the Act.

A great deal of resources have been invested in developing the DTI strategy, particularly during the past four years. We have reached the critical point where we must support our words and strategies with decisive action. Only by doing so can we improve our public transport services and create a lasting climate for increased public transport priority — in keeping with the fundamental DTI principles. This Bill gives us the means to achieve another important, indeed vital, step towards improving the traffic situation in Dublin. It allows proposals to be fully evaluated before final decisions are taken and does not limit those decisions.

This is enabling legislation. It does not preclude alternative routes to those under discussion or alternatives to the on-street model, which is the preferred form of light rail system at present. There has been some misunderstanding and I must reiterate that this is enabling legislation. Therefore, decisions relating to a light rail system for the inner city or the greater Dublin area are not carved in stone. However, we require a statutory framework in order to move forward. It is time to make decisions if we are not to face complete traffic gridlock in Dublin in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Cassidy

I welcome the Minister of State who is an able public representative. I had many years of experience of working with her when she was a Member of this House and, having listened to her contribution, it is clear that she has lost none of her great ability, enthusiasm and drive.

There is an increasing need for the passage of this legislation. People who live or work in the Dublin area are aware of the city's traffic problems. The best example of the increasing traffic congestion in Dublin can be seen by driving around the city on a Saturday or Sunday. That is when one realises the difficulties being created by——

Mr. J. Doyle

It is good to know that the Senator is in the city at weekends.

Mr. Cassidy

——people coming to Dublin to carry out business for the betterment of themselves and the city's permanent residents.

The Dublin of the rare old times that people knew in the 1960s and early 1970s no longer exists. A person might be obliged to travel from the city's northside to the southside to fulfil three appointments and, depending on the time of day, could lose up to 25 per cent of their working hours. I sympathise with people who must work from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. Self-employed people have the option of getting up at 6 a.m., arriving at their offices at 7 a.m. and working only half the day.

As Fianna Fáil spokesperson I fully appreciate and acknowledge that urgent action is required in relation to rail transport, whether in the form of a light rail system, an underground system or a monorail system — a proposal which was not previously mentioned. Monorail systems are the newest form of rail transport. The monorail was developed by Disney and is environmentally friendly and cheap to operate. A monorail system is currently in use in Sydney and has made a showpiece of that city's harbour area. Anyone who has travelled on the monorail in its current form must admit that it is the most friendly type of rail system. I visited Sydney last week and I was aware that this legislation was coming before the House. I took time off to inquire about the difficulties experienced in Sydney when the introduction of a monorail system was first mooted eight years ago. There was much furore and alarm that it would be anti-community, anti-environment, etc. However, it is the most silent and comfortable form of rail transport one can use.

Will the Minister of State ask her officials if a monorail system was considered in proposals for a light rail system for Dublin? Ireland is being showered with laurels as a terrific country. We are far advanced in terms of telecommunications technology and the expertise we have developed in television production, particularly in relation to the Eurovision Song Contest. As a small nation, Ireland is blessed with mind boggling and stunning abilities and is the world leader in theatre and music. Why contemplate constructing an old fashioned system, when we are the leaders in so many other areas?

I do not want to get involved in the argy bargy of party political debate on this Bill which was defeated in the Dáil. However, Government legislation has not been defeated on Second Stage for over 20 years. The Government was made aware, in no uncertain terms, of legislators' fears regarding the light rail system and the Minister of State has made an effort to allay them.

One of the proposed lines affects a close member of my family and they and their community met us here today. They are decimated because they got nowhere when it came to consultation with the Department. They have not even received a letter of acknowledgement from the EU Commissioner for a document they submitted, although a considerable amount of EU money will be spent on this project which is welcome and badly needed. It is regrettable that communication is not being used to the extent suggested by the Minister.

There is a perception that this legislation is being railroaded through and that people are not being consulted. Regardless of whether one has lived in an area for one, 60 or 80 years, as in the case of my family member, they will be told to leave their homes and they will receive compensation. Those fears must be addressed. I met a man today who will lose his factory, the house in which he was born and his community. He gave me a submission which stated that the preferred technical route from Tallaght to the city centre proposes to wipe out a traditional local community in the north inner city by its proposed destruction of Arran Quay Terrace and that the preferred technical route has been chosen on purely economic and traffic costs with total disregard to the social disaster it will entail. We are all for progress, but at what cost? Will the Minister say these people will not lose their homes in which they were born, some up to 80 years ago, unless they are satisfied with the money being offered? That is an important point. It would be unconstitutional if that was not the case.

It does not make sense to bring passengers from A to B without a link from B to C. Whatever the final proposal, it will need a circuit similar to that in London and other European capitals. Dublin is the only capital city in western Europe which has no rail link to its main airport. The master planners advising the Government and the Minister must devise a plan which will be agreed. We have heard about phases one, two and three of the plan which will be implemented as money is made available. Enabling legislation is one thing, but nobody in this House will give anyone carte blanche. All the proposals in the Bill must be published in full.

I commend all Governments over the past ten years, from Charles Haughey's reign in office to that of Deputy Albert Reynolds, on their investment in the inner city. Last night Members who were fortunate to be invited to the EU Presidency inaugural celebrations and those of us who watched them on television could see where the £200 million or more was spent in Temple Bar. That project is to be applauded; so too is the Custom House Dock site which was very controversial. It is fine work which has improved that part of the city.

The north inner city is in an appalling condition. According to my friends in theatre, television and film, if one wants to find a place in western Europe which looks as if it predates the war, they should come to the north inner city of Dublin. There has been no investment in Dorset Street and the surrounding areas. Although there was a recession, the urban renewal scheme applied to this area but it was removed by an Administration of which my party was a member. The urban renewal scheme should be restored to the north inner city. I cannot understand why Parnell Square at the top of O'Connell Street where the road is quite wide was not included.

My party is opposed to the Bill for the reasons I stated. Consultation is paramount to the success of this legislation. It is proposed to run a line down Dawson Street. One can imagine what would happen if we reduced the number of lanes on that street. Fianna Fáil has offered flexibility in terms of getting the legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. It supports the introduction of a light rail system and it has sought consultations with local communities.

In addition, Fianna Fáil requested the Government to provide studies and estimates for the costs involved so that it could make better judgments on the choices. The Government's proposals deal with these issues in a piecemeal way and that is not acceptable. The position being adopted by the Government is contrary to the image it wishes to create, that is, that of openness and transparency in policy matters. The Government's attitude to this legislation is neither open nor transparent, which the Minister, Deputy Lowry, has demonstrated, unfortunately.

Fianna Fáil has consistently supported the light rail project but it is opposed to the form of this Bill. However, I welcome the efforts to engage in consultation mentioned by the Minister. There is no plan to integrate the new system with the DART and mainline rail. There is no provision for the Dundrum line to extend to Sandyford and there is no proposal for such an extension.

The Minister of State voiced the aspiration that, in the long term and if money is available, the Ballymun line will be extended to the airport. It must be extended because, in the last two years, the traffic at the airport has been growing at a rate of 16 per cent per annum. I remember Dublin Airport being chuffed in 1983 about having a throughput of four million passengers. Today, that figure is more than nine million. Air fares have been reduced and since it is more convenient to fly than to travel by sea, more people are flying to Dublin. In addition, many people travel to Ireland from the UK for weekends and reduced air fares facilitate such trips.

This study was carried out two or three years ago and it was decided to omit the airport. Since then, however, traffic at the airport has increased from six million to nine million. A new terminal is being built at the airport and traffic will increase further. The proposal that the Ballymun line extend to the airport and that a connecting mainline link be provided is vital.

I oppose the Bill. It still does not clearly provide the necessary information that many communities seek. Their fears have been outlined in submissions from the Arran Quay Terrace and other groups and they will be related to the Minister of State by other Members of the House this afternoon. Their fears are still not covered although I welcome the attempts made by the Minister of State in this regard.

Mr. Magner

I thought the Deputy's party would support the Bill.

The idea of implementing a light rail network as part of the solution was not plucked out of thin air. It was the result of the most exhaustive, comprehensive and open investigation ever undertaken into Dublin's traffic and transportation needs.

Mr. Norris

That is not quite accurate; it was not that open. It was very closed —"tunnel vision" is the phrase that springs to mind.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Norris will have an opportunity to make his contribution.

Mr. Reynolds

The Dublin Transport Initiative not only examined all the transport and traffic issues but considered the critical relationship between transport and land use policies. In so far as public transport is concerned. DTI conducted a detailed examination of three options for improving public transport services in the greater Dublin area. They were a comprehensive bus based option, an extended city wide DART option and a combined light rail quality bus option complemented by a limited expansion and upgrading of the Dublin suburban rail network, including DART.

While the DTI recommended a major upgrading of bus services, it pointed out that something more would be required to get motorists to change to public transport. In effect, this meant some form of rail based system. Two options were considered, DART and light rail. The dedicated DART option was not recommended on economic, financial and accessibility grounds. Light rail can be implemented at a far lower cost than a similar extended DART network. In addition, light rail uses less power, produces fewer pollutant emissions than either buses or DART and is accessible for mobility impaired people.

We must make as much progress as possible on the implementation of the DTI strategy in the short term. DTI has warned that, unless significant progress is made by the end of the century, the transport situation could develop in a different way from that envisaged when the strategy was being drawn up. For this reason DTI paid particular attention to the extent to which the stragegy was capable of physical implementation during the 1994 to 1999 Structural Funds round.

The DTI strategy has been accepted by two Governments as the policy framework for transportation planning in Dublin. The operational programme for transport agreed by the Government and the European Commission made provision for an expenditure of £200 million on the implementation of the first phase of the on street light rail network. The CIE project team is proceeding with the detailed design and consultation work on this basis. Subject to compliance with national and EU procedures the target is to get phase one of the core light rail network in operation by the year 2000.

Mr. Cassidy

The money will be gone then.

Mr. Reynolds

Much concern has been expressed about the need for consultation. It is worth recalling some of the results of the consultation work undertaken by DTI. It found that 78 per cent of people supported the introduction of light rail, notwithstanding the disruption it would cause during construction. In addition, 90 per cent of people supported the introduction of quality bus corridors despite the explicit statement that it would mean less space for cars. Clearly, people took the view that the long-term benefits of light rail outweighed any short-term disruption in building the system.

The DTI public consultation process highlighted the importance of ongoing consultation and effective two-way communications. The clear message from DTI was that the case for ongoing local consultation on the implementation of individual elements of the DTI strategy was strong and that the strategy would not be effectively implemented if this did not happen. The public consultation programme on the planned light rail links was launched on 12 December 1995. At the time it was pointed out by the Minister, Deputy Lowry, that he was not launching the construction of the light rail network but the start of an extensive and open public consultation process which was an essential part of the preparation for the project. The people of Dublin were to be fully involved in the development of this new facility. As far as I can see, this has been the case and furthermore, public reaction to the light rail proposals has been generally positive.

In a limited number of cases, there has been opposition to particular stretches of the route and the views expressed by these communities must be fully taken into account. Alternative routes have been published and hopefully these will allay the fears of local residents. It is important that these issues are dealt with properly at this stage.

This Bill provides that the public consultation programme will be followed by a statutory approval process for the light rail project. The legislation will, among other things, provide for a mandatory public inquiry into all aspects of the proposed light rail project. Anyone with concerns about the light rail proposals should use the opportunities afforded by the public consultation programme and the statutory public inquiry to explain those concerns and have them considered. They can also make submissions directly to the Minister. The Minister will be obliged to take both the inquiry report and the submissions into account, along with the environmental impact statement, before he makes any decision. These requirements are necessary and a welcome safeguard. However, it would be a mistake to leave any major issues for resolution in this process. It would be much better to deal with these issues in formal consultation stage and I urge all involved to make the maximum use of the coming months to ensure that Dublin gets the best project possible.

Another issue of concern has been the question of disruption. The DTI was up front and honest in pointing out that the building of the light rail system would cause disruption. This must be kept to the absolute minimum. The construction phase, like the operation of the service, must be customer driven. In this regard, a big responsibility falls on CIE not only to minimalise the inconvenience caused by the construction but also to ensure that everybody knows what is happening at all stages of the construction phase. People must be convinced that everything possible has been done to limit the extent of disruption.

There were doubts too when DART was being introduced, but since its inauguration it has provided daily proof that high quality public transport can compete with cars. Along the DART corridor, 55 per cent of journeys in the morning peak are made by public transport and 36 per cent by car. In the city, the situation is reversed. It has been estimated that up to 6,000 cars are left at home each day by commuters who would rather use the DART.

Light rail can now provide similar benefits on other corridors. It is at the vanguard of urban transport development internationally. More than 300 light rail systems have been implemented worldwide with many more under construction or in planning. Thanks to the detailed work carried out by the DTI and the assistance of the European Union, we now have a unique opportunity to build on their experience and give Dublin a modern and permanent transport system which will support our economic development, job creation and urban renewal strategies.

Mr. Norris

I was listening to the Minister's speech in my office. I was considerably surprised to hear her say that if we wished to avoid gridlock, we must go with this system. I am sure the Minister is aware that this system will create gridlock — there is no arguement about that. Her officials or the senior officials in CIE will tell her that if she asks them.

This is a deliberate policy. The ambition of those supporting Luas is to drive the private motor vehicle out of the centre of the city precisely by creating gridlock. Let us not pretend that this will be a solution to the grid-locking of traffic. There is no question or doubt whatever about this; it is a mathematical formula that can be ascertained with not too great a difficulty. If the Minister of State doubts me, she might apply for further information from the former leader of her party and former Taoiseach of this country, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, and he will confirm for her that this is the mathematically inevitable result of implementing this particular form of light rail transport.

The first thing one must ask in this debate is to what extent and in what manner the Minister has lived up to the obligation imposed upon him, not the Minister of State, as a result of the passage of a motion in Seanad Éireann on 14 February this year. That motion read:

That Seanad Éireann urges the Government to inquire into the feasibility of providing an underground railway system before committing itself finally to the development of an urban light rail network for Dublin.

It is certainly not clear to me that the Minister has discharged the obligation placed upon him as a result of the unanimous approval by Seanad Éireann of this resolution. It is in this context that we must see the debate on the light rail Bill here this afternoon.

I have had useful and valuable discussions with senior members of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. I am grateful to them for their courtesy and the help they gave me. I was assured during the week that this Bill is, and I like this phrase, agnostic between light rail and underground. It does not seem to me that this is the case. Perhaps it is; maybe I am a little too reticent in accepting this kind of reassurance from senior civil servants. If this is the case and the senior civil servants in the Department are satisfied that this is so, they can have no difficulty whatever with what I require — a clear undertaking that this option is secured and is left open as an option. That is the meaning of "agnostic". I want it written into the Bill.

Mrs. A. Doyle

It precludes nothing, Senator.

Mr. Norris

I am not interested in whether it precludes nothing; I want it written physically into the Bill.

The LUAS lobby has apparently decided to pick off opponents of its plan one by one by pretending to meet the concerns of local groups such as the Arran Quay Terrace Residents and the people from Mount Brown, who are both represented in the Public Gallery this afternoon. The Arran Quay residents, for example, have produced a petition with over 1,000 signatures of people whose lives will be intimately affected by this proposal.

I was abroad at the time but I understand the Minister of State gave some reassurance that the possibility of an underground section at that point would be investigated to obviate the necessity to destroy the homes of over 1,000 people. Surely that also leads to some problems. One would then have the question of a gradient leading down into and back up from it and it makes it very expensive to do it in this piecemeal way.

The strategy of picking one group off after another will not work. It is, however, interesting to note that the Minister of State has apparently conceded the principle of a part underground system to meet these difficulties. The principle having been conceded, there can be no further obstacle to a proper and ruthlessly honest investigation of the full underground option. Despite the undertaking given by the Minister on 14 February, this has never been done and it is for that that we look this afternoon.

I am slightly surprised by the immaturity of some of the arguments employed to support light rail, including some from friends of mine and colleagues in the battle to preserve Dublin and its historical centre. One well known environmental correspondent, for example, who has consistently refused to meet with the instigators of the unified proposal so that his mind would not be cluttered up with inconvenient facts, apparently believes that Luas will be "pretty". Personally, I regard this aesthetic argument as extremely debatable and would certainly take an opposing view. In any case such a justification for a sophisticated transport network seems to me to place the whole debate at the level of children playing with model cars in a sand pit.

The Minister and the civil servants have been notably reluctant to have any interface with the principal proposers of the unified proposal. Of what are they afraid? Why would Ministers not meet people who have put in an immense amount of unpaid work and have countered a lobby so successfully with such slick and cutely managed PR? What the proponents of LUAS are afraid of can be seen in the report of an MRBI poll in one of today's newspapers which shows that support for LUAS has slipped from 95 per cent, or whatever the initial claim was, to 60 per cent. Of course, this depends on the questions asked and how the questionnaire is programmed. Support for an underground, which was at the statistically remarkable level of 1 per cent — a figure not even achieved by the Maoist Party of Ireland, Marxist-Leninist, in its heyday — has risen to over 33 per cent. Perhaps it is this slippage, the "Boris Yeltsin syndrome", which is worrying the proponents of LUAS.

I am also astonished at the shifting arguments put forward over the years by those who have an innate prejudice against any form of underground system. About 15 years ago, when I first mooted such a proposal, I was told that the soil mechanics and population distribution of Dublin made it impossible to implement successfully. However, Newcastle has an equally difficult soil mechanics problem — in other words, one which is perfectly ordinary — and a similar distribution of population. That city, which is half the size of Dublin, has not only put in an underground rail system but made it pay. Why can we not do this? Both these arguments were subsequently proved to be quite untrue. Next we were provided with examples of cities all over the world where light rail was the perfect, ideal solution to traffic management and an unblemished godsend, only to find on closer examination that virtually all these cities have either experienced major difficulties or are now supplementing the light rail with an underground.

The most laughable arguments are those most recently produced. In the last few weeks we have been told that a metro is impossible because women are afraid of tunnels. Most bizarrely of all, the authorities who presided over the drowning of the most important Viking site in Europe under millions of tons of concrete are now concerned about the possibility of archaeological disturbance. They must think we came down the Liffey in a bubble.

I am not a spoiler or a begrudger. Second Stage of this Bill must be passed in such a manner as to enable the construction of a proper urban transport system for Dublin and to ensure that it includes provision for a possible underground element and for the possibility of some degree of private enterprise involvement. If I am satisfied on the following three elements, I will vote for the passage of Second Stage. First, the Bill should spell out clearly, unequivocally and specifically that an underground portion remains an option. I do not say that the authorities or the framers of the Bill should be compelled but I want what I have been told to be put into legislative form — that is, that the Bill is agnostic as between underground and light rail — so that there will be no fudging or going back on promises or commitments. Second, there should be an assessor for the programme who is genuinely independent, rather than a referral back to LUAS. If that is what happens, "LUAS Carroll" would be a more appropriate name for the scheme:

I'll be judge, I'll be jury

Said cunning old Fury

I'll try the whole case

And condemn you to death.

That is what happens when the principle of impartiality is vitiated by having an interested party sitting as judge in an examination; it is inconsistent. Third, the possibility of private enterprise involvement in the development should be clearly and explicitly left open.

The price tag is as I have indicated. If the Government introduces its own amendment or supports amendments of mine on Committee Stage so that the Bill contains clear, specific and explicit reference to the possibility of an underground element between the two canals and the appointment of a truly independent arbitrator to assess the feasibility of the underground component and if provision is made in the Bill for some degree of private enterprise involvement, I shall vote for it on Second Stage. However the Government must make today an unequivocal and binding commitment on those points.

I understand there will be a vote and I am selling mine. However, if that vote goes against us, we will marshal the troops on Thursday and do our best to blow this proposal in its existing form out of the water. I will move heaven and earth to include those three elements, which, so far as I have been informed, do not conflict with the thinking of the Department. If that is true, there is no reason why this should not be included. If I do not receive that commitment I will know that what I was told was either untrue, unfounded or ill-founded.

In the aftermath of the Seanad debate the Minister apparently referred the matter of an underground for Dublin to LUAS for review. That is not what I call an independent analysis, it is a quite extraordinary procedure. The principal problem with the approach to any solution for Dublin's transport difficulties is that, ironically. LUAS suffers from a severe case of tunnel vision. To ask LUAS, composed as it is of dedicated light railers from Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann and the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, to adjudicate on such a matter is, as one proponent of the unified proposal suggested, like asking Aer Lingus to analyse a proposal from Ryanair.

It also gives an idea of the tactics employed by this group that the report it drew up should have been made directly available to the media apparently without the sanction of the Minister. I am astonished that this should have been allowed to happen in the light of the Minister's difficulties with leaked information, etc., in the past. It is even more astonishing when one considers the nature of LUAS' response; entitled Tunnelling for Metro—the Realities. Has the Minister of State seen this semi-literate document, which shows as little acquaintance with the realities of transport management as it does with grammar? Can she answer a question which has been intriguing me: who precisely is the author of this report? It uses the personal pronoun “I”, when the author writes: “I suspect that the full cost of the proposed system has not been included in the appraisal.” This slanted and personalised opinion begs the question of its authorship. The team includes people from LUAS, the Department, the various components of CIE and a professional PR person and I want to know who prepared the report.

The language it uses is overheated and unscientific as well as ungrammatical — the anonymous author accuses the proponents of the unified proposal of being "guilty of the worst crime against the DTI". In view of the inaccuracy of the figures included, the vehement bias displayed, the massaging of opinion polls, the selectivity of view point involved and the inaccuracies contained in the report, it is essential that the Minister instruct that this disgraceful document be withdrawn instantly. The report is not part of a civilised debate which will enlighten the subject.

Let me place on the record for the citizens of Dublin a small number of salient points. If a on-street light rail tram system is implemented for Dublin not only will there be massive disruption of city centre traffic during the period of years while the system is under construction but, more importantly, after construction traffic will remain permanently gridlocked. We must consider this. Senator O'Toole mentioned the interruption of traffic by motorcades containing a few "clerks" from Brussels. One would have to multiply that by a considerable factor to imagine the disruption which will continuously affect Dublin during the construction phase. That will by no means be the worst, which will come when the trams are on the streets.

We can quote examples from the cities which are held up as ideal illustrations of traffic management. This is known to the authorities and they privately accept it. It has been indicated to me that one of the principal benefits of the light rail system will be that it will force private cars out of Dublin city. This attempt to turn the transport network into a weapon against the citizens and their right of free choice is a recipe for disaster. People will not leave their cars at home because they are terrorised by the implementation of an inappropriate transport system.

The economic impact on business in the city centre will be catastrophic and negate the effects of those of us who have been successful in bringing life back to the core of Dublin. LUAS cannot carry the necessary passenger numbers whereas the unified proposal which includes both a light rail and metro element can do so. The unified proposal would carry 150 per cent more passengers per twin train set and complete two rush hour trips for every LUAS trip.

The cost of the unified proposal is very competitive for a much better system. The proponents of LUAS ask if we can afford to do it. Let us ask a more sensible question — can we afford not to do it? Let us have a level playing field; let us have a few honest figures; let us hear about the tunnelling costs and let us have some comparative costs. I happen to know a good deal of them from people directly involved in tunnelling operations. The position advanced by LUAS is either grossly disingenuous or an outright blatant lie. It is attempting to disadvantage the unified proposal by using totally unrealistic figures.

LUAS does not even contain an airport spur. The idea of having such a system with no airport access is ludicrous. I raised this point in the beginning; I could not believe that anybody would suggest a system such as this with no access to the airport. The unified proposal would service the airport and Sandyford efficiently.

While attacking the costings of the unified proposal and dishonestly massaging figures, LUAS has significantly failed to produce any detailed cost benefit analysis. This must be demanded by the Minister from his minions. Despite what LUAS maintains, ever since the Dublin rail rapid transit study of 1975 it has been accepted that the best proposal for Dublin's traffic management should include a significant metro element. This has apparently been ruled out because inadequate, inaccurate and prejudiced costings were produced in a one-sided manner by the proposers of an exclusively surface level light rail system.

I call on the Minister to ensure that a full social and economic impact statement and cost benefit analysis is included as a requirement in the Bill. I also call on the Minister, given the passenger capacity limitations of a LUAS light rapid transit system and the consequent revenue limitations, to assure taxpayers they will not have to pay a massive subsidy in years to come. The estimates for the DART given by those who are so accurate and fastidious about the unified proposal, were out by a factor of three.

I appreciate that. I have no problem with a full disclosure in terms of the possible options including costings. That is fair enough and Minister Doyle said this this afternoon. I do not honestly see where the conflict is and if Senator Norris wants to sell his vote, he should sell it for a higher price because the Minister of State is agreeing with him to a large extent that this information will be forthcoming and the decision will be published. An extensive consultative process is also contained in LUAS. The people who are on the official side in the consultative process cannot possibly know what it is like to have your house knocked down and to be compelled to move out of a community in which you have spent all your life. It is understandable if the people feel they are not getting a fair hearing, that nobody cares or understands. It is difficult to be objective about this. However, that is not to say they are wrong. I am simply trying to put the issue in context.

There are a number of things on which we all agree. Dublin is being strangled. It is almost impossible to conduct business in this city. This city is not only about Dubliners. This is the capital city and where the business of the nation is done, and it must be done effectively and efficiently. Reference was made earlier to the fact that we have now embarked on the Presidency of the EU. We take great pride that a small nation is now guiding the fortunes of Europe and it behoves us to have a city and country that operates and can do its business efficiently. While we accept that Dublin is grinding to a halt, we also have to accept that we cannot dodge this issue any longer, although it might make great political sense to try to avoid making this decision because there is only a year left to an election.

Senator Cassidy made a temperate speech, so temperate that I thought he was going to support the Bill but at the end, he said he was sorry and he could not support it. I suppose that is opposition. We understand it, but Senator Norris' point was more relevant in so far as I believe that the fullest possible information should be given. I have no objections to that. I have heard various Ministers, including Minister Lowry, speak about the need to be conscious that we are dealing with people's lives, businesses and neighbourhoods.

Senator Norris talked about gridlock. It is a fact of life that, if you engage in this huge civil contract it will cause massive disruption. Who is going to pretend that it will not disrupt life, disrupt the traffic in Dublin or cause all sorts of chaos? If a person has work done on a house there will be a certain amount of disruption in that house; if work is being done on a street it often creates obstacles; should you go left or right because they change direction of the arrow every 24 hours? Whichever option is chosen, there will be serious disruption, whether it is an underground or overground system. We have to accept that. We should not pretend that a major civil engineering operation like this can be done without disrupting anybody. It is just not possible and it is dishonest even to pretend otherwise.

When you propose those massive undertakings you must get them right. I am satisfied on the basis of my colleague's contributions that this is enabling legislation. Senator Norris will never get a spur to the airport if he keeps blocking this. The process has to be started, that is simple common sense. It might be popular to say "come hell or high water, I am going to stop this. But stop what? Stop everything." That is a Luddite approach. We should not have anything to do with that. You start the process, you fight your corner as best you can and you ensure that as much information as is possible is available to the people concerned on all sides. In light of that, I ask that Senator to reconsider his opposition to passing this enabling legislation. Let us fight the other battle another day.

Mr. Mooney

There is an old theory Senator Magner might understand: in black and white films where the alleged criminal was being interrogated, there were two detectives, the good detective and the bad detective. If Senator Magner sees Senator Cassidy as being comfortable with the Bill, he is casting him in the role of the good detective——

Mr. Magner

I did not say that. The Senator is not here. He was nice about it.

Mr. Mooney

——but he is about to listen to the bad detective. This is fundamentally flawed legislation, and I make no secret of it. My colleague in the other House has argued the reasons Fianna Fáil believe it to be flawed and anybody who has read it in any great detail can see it is full of pitfalls, even if it gets through this House. I love the term "enabling legislation" that is being thrown around like snuff at a wake. Why stop it? It is not giving the Minister anything but a framework and we can work out the little details later. I find that astonishing in the context of the ongoing public debate and the massive amount of emotion, to which Senator Magner correctly referred, that has been generated as a result of this legislation. It is not true to say that there has been legislation of a similar ilk which generated the same level of emotion. For example, will this enabling legislation mean that the communities in Kilmainham and Arran Quay will disappear under the weight of the new LUAS proposals? Are we to take it that Governments will ride slipshod over the wishes and needs of communities, particularly the most vulnerable?

Since this issue has its genesis in a Fianna Fáil proposal to introduce a light rail system, it is mischievous and inaccurate to suggest that Fianna Fáil is opposed to the concept of a light rail system. That should be nailed on the head. We are not opposed to a light rail system. We were the architects of the concept of a new vision of transportation in Dublin. It was Deputy Bertie Ahern, as Minister for Finance, who helped to negotiate the sum of money we are talking about to implement these proposals. However, there are strongly held objections and they can be grouped under a number of key headings — lack of consultation, an integrated system of transportation for Dublin, extension of the rail to Dublin Airport and whether there should be two or three light rail systems.

I do not want to single out Senator Magner but, on the question of consultation, he articulated a view that many of us feel about these Houses being the arbiters of legislation, of deciding ultimately on behalf of the people who put us here what is in their best interest. If that were the case so far as the issue is concerned, I would feel more comfortable about relying on this legislation to carry out what is intended. However, I suggest the powers in this Bill could be open to a great deal of misuse.

There is a great deal made about consultation in the Minister's speech. There has been a variety of suggestions made as to how the consultation process will take its course once the Bill is passed. Let us look at the inner city communities for a moment. Let us take one of them, the Arran Quay and Coke Lane area near the markets which many of us who drive into Dublin from the west will know well and see how the consultation process has impacted on this community over the last couple of months, keeping in mind that the examples I cite occurred before this enabling legislation is put in place. Last February the local resident's association called a public meeting and asked CIE to show evidence of the surveys that had been carried out on which it had based its conclusions for the preferred options for the light rail system. On 2 April, CIE agreed to review the routes. It was asked, and agreed, to bring the results to a meeting in May. What happened in May? Come May, not only did CIE refuse to meet with the resident's association but it indulged in a little sleight of hand. Like the words of the old nursery rhyme "Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly", CIE would not meet the community in its backyard where it knew the community had real concerns but in the plush environment of Hueston Station. CIE would not meet the community in public but it would meet a small group in private and tell them what it had been telling people individually in that area: that irrespective of what the community and individuals thought, it was going to build this light rail system in their community and that if it meant knocking down houses and trees and changing roads and routes, so be it. They were going to do it because it was all in the greater good. Anyway, the Minister would ensure it would all be written in law and the community would not be able to do anything about it. That is what this Bill is all about despite all the flowery language surrounding public consultation. If the examples I have quoted are any indication of how the public consultation process will proceed after this enabling legislation is passed, God help the communities of the inner city which are trying to maintain their livelihoods and their very existence.

With whom have these people being dealing? They have been dealing with an architect and an engineer who are members of the LUAS design team, one of whom said "There must be winners and losers in this debate and, unfortunately, on this occasion, Madame, you are on the side of the losers." This was said of the preferred option when an individual spoke of the damage and impact LUAS would have on her community. Is that consultation? That is dictation. That smells of fascism.

Last Thursday a representative of this resident's group requested costings on the alternative routes which had been put forward and CIE refused to provide any. Why? They turned around to a representative of the resident's group and said that it might be used as ammunition against CIE in any future debate. What an extraordinary statement. In other words, there might be some grain of truth or validity in the alternative routes proposed by this group but they would not give the residents the costings because they might use them against CIE. In other words, the residents might interfere with the grand plan which I would suggest has been cooked up by a conspiracy of vested interests in this city who only care about spending £220 million of European money simply because they happen to have it in their back pockets, not because they are interested in the long-term future viability of the traffic plan for this city.

I will get more emotional about it because it is an emotional subject. We are dealing with a burgeoning car population in the capital, where, as Senator Norris correctly pointed out, there is daily or almost all day gridlock in certain parts of this city. Travelling through the quays before lunch today took 20 minutes by car.

Mr. J. Doyle

Why not use public transport?

Mr. Mooney

The Senator had his opportunity. If I had taken public transport, I would still be at Hueston Station waiting for a bus. When I would get on a bus, I would be waiting another half an hour before I would get up the quays. Let the Senator not worry, I know that road well. It took 20 minutes to come from Hueston Station to O'Connell Bridge today, and that is without any light rail scheme.

The Bill proposes that two lanes on Dawson St., with which all Senators will be familiar, should be for private cars and one for LUAS. If this particular proposal would mean a reduction in car traffic in Dublin, that would be all very well. Quoting from statistics of cities of comparable size, the unified proposal states that there will be no benefit in terms of a reduction in the car population of this city following on the proposals for the LUAS scheme as it is currently set up.

In the context of the consultation process, several residents of the area surrounding Arran Quay, Coke Lane and Smithfield discovered on 5 June, when they went to a meeting organised by the Arran Quay and Coke Lane Resident's Association out of curiosity, that many of their homes and businesses would be demolished as a result of the proposals contained in the LUAS project. It has also been alleged, and I hope it is not true, that a communications expert attached to the LUAS project went into the home of an elderly resident in the inner city and offered her a bribe to sell her house. If that is the sort of public consultation which is going on with regard to this Bill, shame on the Minister.

Senator Norris referred to the underground option and the motion of 14 February in this House. I am pleased the Minister bowed to opinion expressed both inside and outside this House and employed consultants who will now cost the underground option. Why are we so scared of the underground option? All I have heard in its regard is not so much that it is not technically feasible or unacceptable but that it might cost too much. I am sure the same people who are using that argument in 1996 sat down in their office, perhaps it was even the same office, in 1949 or 1950 when the decision was taken to remove the trams and tram lines from this city in the interests of progress, efficiency and economy. Are we going to condemn another generation of city dwellers and people who use the city to another legacy similar to that which surrounds the decision to dig up the tram lines? Effectively, this whole argument is about replacing the trams in Dublin 40 years after the tram lines were taken up by the predecessors of this transport company. The great economists of the time looked into their crystal ball and said that they had seen the future and it works. We have all seen the future in terms of transport and it does not work. In fact, it is a disgrace. There is a valid argument to be made for the underground option as it relates to the centre city portion of this project.

In addition, in the context of the consultation process, I would argue strongly, as has been argued in the other House, that consultative councils be set up. These should be provided for in the Bill. To date, the people to whom I have been referring have been dealing almost exclusively with technical and engineering people, all of whom seem to have a one track mind. Senator Norris referred to tunnel vision. They all seemed to have decided that the proposals as outlined will be implemented come hell or high water, irrespective of what the people in the communities to be affected or the European Commission think. It has been conveniently forgotten that most of the money is coming from them.

I referred in great detail to the residents' association in Arran Quay. I am aware that a mirror image of the problems in the Arran Quay area can be found in Kilmainham. Two traditional, historical communities are now faced with the prospect of seeing their communities, heritage and legacy — one individual told me they are the fifth generation of their family to live in the Arran Quay area — being removed in the name of progress. It is ironic that in the context of the proposed route along Arran Quay, 20 years ago — Senator Doyle might have a view on this — Dublin Corporation outvoted a proposal from CIE to have a bus route along the route now being suggested for the LUAS light rail. How ironic.

In regard to the integrated system, is it right there should be three independent transport systems feeding in and out of our capital city? Surely, that is a dreadful waste of resources. I am not an engineer or a technical expert but I am sure it is not beyond the capacity of the technical experts to come up with a more integrated plan. For example, in Tara Street station two separate transport systems operate almost cheek by jowl. Why could there not be an integration of resources there? I am sure there are many other such examples across the city. In the context of the Government's proposals for light rail, should it not also look at the whole question of an integrated transport system for the city?

What about the extension to Dublin Airport and the decision that Ballymun should not be included, although the European Commission seems to have a contrary view? I am not going to get involved on which it should be — I do not believe that is my function in the context of this debate. If I did that I would place myself as being for one side of the city and against the other. However, there should be a route to Dublin Airport. This is the only city in the European Union which does not have a fixed rail route from its airport to its city centre.

If the Government does not have the resources, why does it not ask Aer Rianta to fund it? It constantly has an annual surplus and is expanding worldwide. It has access to funding mechanisms in which the Government might not wish to get involved. If that option failed, why not turn to private enterprise to run the route? I do not believe this debate can be allowed to terminate without maintaining the pressure for an extension to Dublin Airport of whatever rail route is decided on. If we are to have any real credibility as a modern European capital city we have to cater for the increased number of tourists and business people using Dublin Airport. It is getting so bad at Dublin Airport that there is a regular cry for a second airport in Dublin.

Section 9, to which my colleague, Deputy Séamus Brennan referred, is at the core of this legislation. Will the Minister of State clarify that under section 9 the Minister need only consider all the consultative measures and can then ignore them and proceed to make the order for a light rail system? In other words, we can have the cosmetic exercise of a public consultation process but at the end of the day — and the wording of the Bill is perfectly clear in this regard — the Minister need only consider all the consultation measures and can then ignore them. The section seems to leave it open for the process to then start over again. We all know what happens once the legal eagles get at a piece of legislation. We have only to look at the example of the Beef Tribunal to realise how long it would then take to implement this legislation — how long is a piece of string?

Make no mistake, although this money is guaranteed under the operational programme for 1994-99, with all the dreaded talk about what is going to happen to us — it is as if the whole world will collapse after 1999, according to some of the prophets of doom — there is a real danger that if we have not spent that money in a way which is viable and acceptable to the European Commission and for the purpose for which it was allocated, we might have to divert or reallocate it to another project in the country. That would not be to the benefit of Dublin city and county.

There is no question of Fianna Fáil not being in favour of the concept of a light rail system, but it is against the lack of real consultation. The people of the city should be listened to and not ridden over roughshod by technical and other experts attached to CIE and the LUAS design team who seem to have presented people with a fait accompli.

The underground option for the city centre should be considered. Vested interests in the city, whatever their reasons are, which seem to think that once we have a light rail system everything will be hunky dory, are definitely living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The people of this country could not put up with a situation where, having made a mistake 40 years ago on the city's transport system, we made another mistake which people would debate in this House in 40 years time and say what a pity we did not get it right in 1996.

Mr. J. Doyle

I cannot let Senator Mooney's contribution go without comment. Vast developments took place in Dublin in the 1960s, when developers bought houses at very cheap prices and removed the local communities. Those planning permissions were not given by the Dublin city planning authority but on appeal to the Minister for Local Government of the time. No consideration was given to those people, nor were they asked for their views. The Senator should not be too worried about the consultation aspect because when Fianna Fáil was in Government in the 1960s it had very little consultation with——

Mr. Mooney

The Senator is really scraping the bottom of the barrel if he has to go back to 1960; it used to be 1977.

Mr. J. Doyle

I just want to deal with the point the Senator raised. If it hurts him a little——

Mr. Mooney

Not a bit, I just find it astonishing.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

Senator Doyle, without interruption.

Mr. J. Doyle

I have lived in Dublin for 60 years — it was 60 years last Thursday.

Mr. Cassidy

Happy birthday.

Mr. J. Doyle

I have experience of living in this city. Senator Mooney did not mention the company with which my family was involved, but my father and grandfather were employed by the Dublin United Tramway Company. Therefore, I have a long history in regard to transport. I live in a house which was built for the employees of the Dublin United Tramway Company.

I am concerned about the city, which I deeply love. I realise we have a problem with commuter traffic in the city. In the 1950s I could cross Stillorgan road at Donnybrook Church at 8.45 a.m. without the aid of traffic lights. I now find it difficult to cross there at 7 a.m. with the aid of traffic lights. That commuter traffic builds up from 7 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. and pounds into the city. That cannot be allowed to continue.

Part of the solution has been to build a "C" road around the city, which is partially completed. The port tunnel will be under construction very shortly. The only part which has been left out is the eastern bypass. I have always supported the proposal for the eastern bypass. Unfortunately, residents' associations were set up to oppose it and people were elected on that basis because of the destruction of Sandymount strand. However, as we now know from a report by Ove Arup, a tunnel can be put under the strand which would leave the full amenity intact. When the ring road is completed on the east and west sides we can move some of the traffic from Dublin which has no business there. This amounts to 30 per cent of traffic travelling north/south or south/north. However, there is no way for it to get around the city and this is the cause of the terrible congestion.

If the ring road around the city had been fully completed I would not object to commuters paying for their road space if they wish to use the city roads rather than taking public transport, which would be far more accessible given the space that would have been left on the public roads. The Minister of State said that public transport was a key element in the strategy and includes the development of quality bus corridors, improved suburban rail, extension of the DART and the integration of the different modes of transport. Will the LUAS system be integrated with the DART system? Integration in public transport is the main issue. The two proposed lines — the Harcourt Street/Dundrum line and the Tallaght line — exclude a huge area of the city. How are people living there expected to get into the city centre?

I am pleased Senator Quinn is here because he would have the same interest as me in the business life of the city. Between 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. there is continuous traffic in and out of the city by people doing short term business. It is vital for the life of the city that people have this facility. They want to choose between light rail and their cars. However, if we build a light rail system so much road space will be taken up that there will be no room for the car. Senator Norris is correct in that it would appear that one of the purposes of LUAS is to prevent people from using their cars in the city centre.

The construction of the light rail system is a cause of concern. We know how much inconvenience was caused by the road works that occurred last week on Merrion Street. The construction of a light rail system will entail, in the first instance, the removal of all public services, such as water, gas, electricity and telephone pipes. How much will this cost? What cost will it have on business? When this work is taking place it will curtail people's ability to travel into the city to do their business.

Mr. Cassidy

What about a monorail system?

Mr. J. Doyle

I was interested in the Senator's remarks on this aspect. The proposed route from Harcourt Street, to Dawson Street, up Suffolk Street and around by College Green will leave little or no road space for cars. Dawson Street, one of the major streets into the city on the south side, will be completely dedicated to light rail. When Dublin Corporation pedestrianised Grafton Street we had to widen the end of Dawson Street to allow a bus around it. Given this, getting a light railway around the street corner will create engineering problems.

I have lived to see Dublin a growing, vibrant city. I am happy to be chairman of the planning and development committee of Dublin Corporation for the last five years and have overseen the huge developments that have occurred. I want to see them continue. Last year we attracted two million visitors. They made a tremendous impact on the income of the city. However, will people be attracted to a city whose roads are closed?

Given the length of time involved and the nature of the works themselves, my big fear is that the public who travel into the city centre to shop between 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. will have alternatives via the "C" ring road. They can drive to Quarryvale, which doubtless will be built by then, Blanchardstown and the Tallaght shopping centre. The Tallaght shopping centre is already attracting shoppers from County Meath, which proves what a good shopping centre will do.

Mr. Cassidy

And County Westmeath.

Mr. J. Doyle

Correct. When the light rail is completed will we be able to reattract such business? If it is lost it will leave Dublin a ghost city, which I do not want to happen. We have not got the street space to proceed, nor can we afford to dig up our streets, remove our services and lose business from the city centre. When it is completed we could also end up with gridlock.

The Minister of State is examining the possibility of an underground system. However, I am informed that this would cause nearly as many problems because all of the subsoil would have to be removed as the underground system would only start when the light rail gets as far as the inner city. There is also the problem of building the stations, which must be constructed from the top of the ground down. One can imagine how the building of a station on, for example, O'Connell Street would affect the street. I will vote for the Bill, but I hope I am not voting against my better judgment.

Mr. Cassidy

Fair speech.

Mr. Dardis

This debate is unusual in that we are considering a Bill that was recently rejected by the Dáil. It does not inspire confidence in democracy to have a jazzed up version of the same Bill reintroduced and then brought to this House within such a short period. If the Bill is rejected by the Seanad, as I hope it will be, what will happen? Will the Minister return and demolish again the buffers in his path? Will the Government minority in the House be expanded by the absence of some of the Labour Party Senators who object to some of the proposals?

The Bill is almost identical to the one which was rejected by the Dáil. The changes made are minor and they would almost certainly have been made on Committee Stage. My colleague, Deputy Molloy, set out the concerns of the Progressive Democrats regarding the LUAS proposal. It will result in Dublin having two rapid transport systems run by two separate companies with no interchange between them. There will be no services on the north side of the city. In addition, locating a park and ride facility in Dundrum village instead of Sandyford Industrial Estate will greatly exacerbate the traffic problems in the area, while running the system on the street and in conflict with other traffic means that it is likely to add to the congestion rather than reduce it as cars wait for the lights to turn back in their favour, having given priority to the transport system. Furthermore, the disruption caused during the construction phase will be immense.

These problems have not been adequately addressed by the Minister or other members of the Government. Heed must be taken of what happened in Sheffield. The rapid transport system built by that city recently was put forward as something to be admired and as a model for our system. However, the English Independent newspaper on 10 June stated:

For sale — one tram system one year old. Was £240 million new, offers well under £100 million enthusiastically considered.

It continued that the Sheffield system is largely on the streets and trams are often delayed by the traffic, or vice versa. There is a fear that the council and taxpayers will be forced to fork out huge sums to make up the losses. If the sale flops, they may have to pay to keep the system going. This system was presented as an admirable and desirable model.

Debates on this matter frequently mention the systems in Sheffield, Manchester, Antwerp, Brussels and Strasbourg as models of what should be done in Dublin. However, it is only when one goes to see the systems that one discovers the model is not as presented. It came as a severe shock to a Government Deputy on a tour of the Strasbourg system when he found that it went underground. This aspect was not alluded to in any of the debates I heard previously.

During a Private Members' motion moved by the Independents on this matter in February the Minister stated:

Throughout Europe there are many examples of light rail systems. Some cities like Amsterdam have upgraded their existing tram systems, while many French cities, such as Grenoble, Nantes and Strasbourg, have built completely new systems.

The Minister went to mention Manchester and Sheffield as part of the desirable odyssey. However, the facts state otherwise.

Sheffield figured prominently in the promotional video for LUAS, which was produced at huge public expense. I understand the public relations budget has cost almost £400,000 for the year to date. Is it a surprise then that the results of a survey indicate the public thinks in a particular way? I wonder what questions were asked, but the conclusion does not surprise me in the least on the basis of "consultation". I will return to this aspect later.

The Progressive Democrats' first major objection to the proposal is that it completely ignores the transport needs of the north side of Dublin. There is no justification for proceeding with a system which will only serve one side of the city. Apparently the original proposal for a line to Ballymun was thrown out on the grounds that people living there had too few cars to leave their homes. However, if they have too few cars, one would think that was the main reason to allow them access to efficient and good public transport.

Senator Magner made some play of the capital city and I agree with his comments. I also agree with Senator O'Toole's remarks on the Order of Business about the traffic being held up for the luminaries visiting from Brussels and other countries in the European Union. If those points are correct, how is it possible that a light rail transit system in a capital city will not extend to its airport? I have visited Brussels, Budapest and other cities and in almost every instance it is possible to get on public transport involving light rail or an underground system and travel to the city centre. Brussels is a good model in that regard; it is easy to get to the city centre from the airport. The provision of a fast and reliable transport link from the airport to the city is required. In addition, a good argument can be made for linking Ballymun with the airport. The unemployment level in Ballymun is very high and job opportunities exist in the airport. The provision of a link between the two would do much to improve the job prospects of the people living there.

I refer the Minister to the regional report published recently by the mideast regional authority, which includes Counties Wicklow, Kildare and Meath. The report states that the functional area of settlement and transport in the Dublin sub-region has grown beyond the DTI area. It goes on to state that there is a need to improve and extend public transport and alternative transport services to this area in Dublin's outer ring. Dublin is spreading outwards and we must start thinking now about the transport implications in that regard. We must ensure it will not be necessary in 20 years to grapple with the problem of the area outside Dublin.

Logically, to derive the maximum benefits from the Dublin light rail system, there should be on line access on a regular and cheap basis for people living near the railway lines emanating from the city. For example, on the Cork line, the Arrow system should extend as far as Monasterevin or even Portarlington and Portlaoise. As a result of the improvements in the motorway system, the towns and villages in south Kildare are experiencing considerable population growth. Many of these people commute on a regular basis to and from Dublin and the pressure on the Naas dual carriageway is already obvious in terms of the amount of traffic on it compared to ten or 15 years ago. It is bringing unwanted cars into the city centre.

If the objective of the initiative is to remove these unwanted cars, not by force but by virtue of economic attraction, a cheap and efficient link to the city's rapid transport system would encourage many drivers currently using the dual carriageway and other roads to Dublin to leave their cars at home. This would decrease the pressure on city centre traffic. I urge the Minister to introduce an upgraded, efficient and cost effective Arrow system which will deliver people to the city centre as smoothly and speedily as possible. The Arrow service was trumpeted and heralded. People began to use it but found it did not run on time and they were late for work. As a result they stopped using it and it will be difficult to persuade them to use public transport again because they have lost confidence in it. There was a reaction to the service in my local town of Newbridge when it started, but many people have drifted away from it and are not using it.

The Progressive Democrats' second objection to the scheme relates to integration, or rather the lack of it. Dublin needs an integrated rail transport system in terms of linking it to the Arrow service, etc., but LUAS does not provide it. There will be no interchange between the existing DART system and the new train network. The idea of running two separate and unconnected rapid transit systems in the same city defies all logic. It shows the poor planning behind the LUAS idea. An integrated system would greatly increase the number of trip options available to the travelling public and boost the numbers using not just LUAS but existing DART services also. The failure to address the integration issue is one of the biggest flaws of the entire scheme.

The third objection relates to the decision to opt for an on-street system. Effectively, the LUAS proposal involves building 12 miles of double track railway along the streets of Dublin. One does not need to be a genius to know the disruption this will cause during the construction phase. The centre of Dublin will become the biggest building site in Europe; Brussels previously held that sad distinction but Dublin is about to acquire it. The consequences for the city's fast growing tourism trade could be most damaging. People will not come to Dublin to look at holes in the ground. From information given at the public meetings by CIE personnel, it appears construction work will last for up to 18 months in a single location.

Difficulties will arise for businesses along the route. For example, in the Mount Brown area, several businesses will be forced to close with the permanent loss of several hundred jobs. Construction of the LUAS system as currently envisaged will involve the demolition of houses — entire streets in certain cases — and the destruction of entire inner city communities. Reference was made to these aspects earlier. If a roads plan along those lines were to be brought before the House it would be thrown out on environmental grounds, yet LUAS will do as much damage as any inner city road scheme.

Road space in Dublin is a finite commodity. Nobody is proposing the building of more roads in the city centre so it is important to utilise the existing roads as effectively as possible. LUAS will serve about 20 per cent of the city's population. What about the transport needs of the other 80 per cent? Senator Doyle mentioned that it seems that the whole concept was designed as a means of clearing motorised traffic from the city streets. It is a worthy objective to clear the streets of cars, but only if we provide an alternative transport option that will not simply serve the needs of a few people but the needs of four out of every five people living in Dublin.

The unified proposal put forward by Mr. Cormac Rabbit and his group of engineers provides an excellent blueprint for the development of an integrated rapid transport network for the whole of Dublin. The unified proposal differs in three main ways from the LUAS plan. The city centre sections of the system would run underground, the system would serve the north side of the city and the system would be fully integrated with the existing DART service. Such a plan would give Dublin an integrated rapid transport service covering most of the city.

The system would consist of two lines in addition to the DART. One line would run from the Sandyford Industrial Estate via Dundrum along the old Harcourt Street line, going underground from the Grand Canal through the city centre as far as the Broadstone. It would then proceed overground utilising the old Broadstone track bed to Ballymun and on to the airport. The second line would run from Tallaght via the existing busway reservation through the densely populated suburbs of Kimmage and Harold's Cross and run underground through the city centre before linking up with the DART at Connolly Station. The two new lines would intersect at a central underground station at Temple Bar, right in the heart of the city.

This integrated system would offer a tremendous variety of trip options. With interchanges it would be possible to travel on the same ticket from Tallaght to the airport, from Dundrum to Howth and from Ballymun to Dún Laoghaire. The unified proposal would effectively be an extension of the DART system to cover most of the city. Interchanges would also be provided with the developing network of Arrow services operated by diesel rail cars which link Dublin to the satellite towns of Drogheda, Maynooth, Kildare and Arklow.

The operational advantage of the unified proposal over LUAS would be considerable. The average speed of the system would be 22 miles per hour compared to just ten miles per hour for LUAS. The total track length would be three miles shorter, further reducing journey times. The passenger carrying capacity of the system would be up to 12 times higher than LUAS. With shorter and faster journeys the system would require less staff, less rolling stock and less operating subsidy. If the Minister wants to see how this would work in practice having toured the rest of Europe, he should look at the German city of Hanover, which has an excellent light rail system running at street level along wide suburban roads and underground through the city centre.

There has been a lot of talk about the cost of these proposals. It is somewhat ironic that the company which is now trying to convince us of the need to spend over £200 million laying tram tracks in Dublin is the same organisation which ripped people off in the first place and closed the Harcourt Street line. If it had been less stubborn then and more willing to listen to contrary viewpoints costly mistakes like that would have been avoided. Equally, if it is less stubborn and more willing to listen to contrary viewpoints now, costly mistakes can be avoided.

One of the things we have to talk about is the issue of consultation. I received a document during the week which had on its cover — I do not have it with me — the matter of consultation that was taking place in respect of LUAS. In only one instance could I see consultation in existence. In every other instance, when we talked about leaflets, videos and everything else, information was provided to citizens, not consultation. We had better decide that there is a difference between the two. Providing information to people is not the same as providing them with a means of consultation.

No independent study has been conducted into the feasibility and cost of running the city centre sections of the light rail system underground. No effort was made to involve the private sector in the overall financing of the project and no consideration was given to putting the whole project out to competitive public tender. Instead, it was handed to CIE. I note that the Minister in her speech this afternoon said that in the light of arguments that the light rail system should go underground in the city centre independent transport consultants engaged by the CIE project team are carrying out an assessment of the implications of the suggestion. She further stated that CIE will be instructed to publish the findings of this work.

I suggest that since CIE is the main proponent of the on street option, any such assessment cannot be independent or objective by definition. It is like — Senator Norris made this point — asking Aer Lingus to examine proposals made by Ryanair. The State has a completely separate role from CIE in this matter. Its function should be to act as the regulator of a key public utility rather than to act as its advocate. The powers granted in the Bill should include a power to provide an underground light rapid transport system. Otherwise, any examination of that option is illusory.

Mrs. A. Doyle

That power is in the Bill.

Mr. Dardis

The Government must not commit itself to a particular light transit system until after the public inquiry is held. The Minister has referred to the fact that any application from CIE for a light rail order will be treated on an objective quasi-judicial basis. From my experience, which comes from things like the Kill dump and some of the issues relating to motorways, this will mean that there will be no access to the Minister by groups seeking modifications or alternatives to the system, because the Minister's standard reply will be to say that he cannot meet such groups in light of his quasi-judicial functions. I believe the Minister will hide behind the quasi judicial function to avoid any such meetings.

If the Minister had shown a bit of imagination and innovation, things could have been handled altogether differently. I refer to the matter of the underground sections. The starting point for any urban rapid transit plan is an assessment of the relative attractiveness of underground versus on-street systems by an independent party. That independent study should be carried out in relation to the Dublin system. On 14 February last the Minister, Deputy Lowry, said in the House, at column 497 of the Official Report:

However, I wish to assure Senators that CIE, as the implementing agency, is committed to ensuring that construction of the system is done on a basis which minimises inconvenience to people and businesses as far as possible.

Surely that is contrary to everything we know about how the European Union works? Surely something of this nature has to be put out to tender throughout the European Union? It is not within the remit of CIE to do this work and it is questionable if it would have the competence to take on a project of this size in any event.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister to the House today for this very interesting and important Bill, one which is deserving of the attention it is getting. I know this is merely enabling legislation, but it is one of the few opportunities we will get to debate the issue of light rail itself.

I have considerable doubts about the merits of the proposal on the table as well as doubts about other aspects of the Bill. I attach a very high priority to doing something decisive about Dublin's traffic congestion problems. People have been talking about doing something for over 30 years and in the meantime the situation has got steadily worse. We have fiddled around the edges of the problem, but the fiddling has had practically no effect because of the increase in the volume of traffic.

The fiddling has not made things much better, but at least it has not made things any worse. That is my first doubt about the current proposal. On-street light rail will have a dramatic effect on the amount of space available to traffic. We have heard quite a lot about that today and Senator Dardis has just referred to it again. Except at intersections, on-street light rail will not share space with cars. It will take up space used by cars at present. In the case of some streets — Senator Doyle referred to Dawson Street — this will reduce the present four lanes of traffic to just one. In other cases it will close streets off to motor traffic entirely. Therefore, on-street light rail starts with a major strike against it in that its very existence will add to traffic congestion by reducing the space on streets. Senator Doyle referred to Nassau Street and Lower Grafton Street in this regard.

To return to square one, a considerable number of people who would otherwise use their cars must be encouraged to become passengers on an on-street light rail system. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that it will take a considerable shift of motorists to on-street light rail just to return us to the current situation. A positive contribution can only be made if even more motorists are encouraged to switch to using on-street light rail. Attracting more motorists over and above those switching to light rail would merely compensate for reduced road space. The nightmare scenario is that this might not happen.

Let us suppose on-street light rail is put in place and the switching from cars does not take place. The evidence from around the world on this issue is very mixed. Sometimes light rail produces switching by motorists and sometimes it does not. There is no conclusive evidence that massive switching will inevitably take place. In this regard, the figures bandied about in respect of LUAS can be regarded as wishful thinking at best and pie in the sky at worst. Let us also suppose that little or no switching occurs. Congestion will be made worse, not better, because of the reduced road space. At enormous expense and disruption, we would have made things worse. That is not a legacy that any Minister or Government would like to leave to the people of Dublin. This is the fundamental argument for considering the underground option very carefully. Putting light rail underground for part of the route would solve the problem of road space. It would mean that all switching by motorists would have a positive effect on congestion.

When we debated this matter on 14 February, I supported Senator Norris's motion because I felt the underground option had not been properly considered. There is some evidence of closed minds at work in this regard. Any alternative suggestions to on-street light rail are rubbished and are not met by logical arguments backed up by reliable evidence. In assessing the underground option, cost is obviously a major factor. Digging a tunnel will always cost more than laying a track along the surface. However, the question is how much more it will cost and what costs will be taken into account? As far as the basic cost of tunnelling is concerned, there is an enormous gap between what those promoting LUAS state it would cost and what the proposers of tunnelling state in that regard. Someone is wrong, since this is a matter of fact and not one of opinion. A wide gap clearly exists.

The second issue is that the figures quoted in respect of costs reflect only a part of the overall cost. In particular, they do not include the very considerable cost of disruption to businesses along the route during the construction phase. Not to include those costs in a cost-benefit analysis is daft, because they are very real costs. In many cases, such costs may cause businesses to close down completely. They may turn out to be very real costs for the Government if the affected businesses are successful in suing for damages, as were their counterparts in Strasbourg. Including the costs of disruption would change the picture dramatically because the underground option would cause less disruption. More importantly, however, when the real total figures are considered, it becomes clear that the difference between the on-street and underground proposals is not as great as it is purported to be. The other advantage of including all the costs involved is that it puts the £120 million from the EU into perspective. We should make no mistake that the lion's share of this project will be paid for by Ireland, not Brussels. Light rail, whether on-street or underground, will not be a free ride from Brussels.

When this Bill was debated in the Dáil, the Minister announced that he was going to have consultants look at the possibility of putting short stretches of LUAS underground. Unfortunately, I must be sceptical about this because of the people who were chosen to carry out the examination. A number of earlier speakers referred to this issue. The consultants in question are not independent of the existing proposals and were involved with CIE in their planning and development. I am also unaware of the terms of reference of this study, but I guess that they do not include a costbenefit analysis based on the total costs. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister of State that the costs of disruption will be taken into account in any comparisons that are made. I would also welcome an assurance that the true costs of tunnelling will be established in an objective way.

I would like to be able to welcome the Minister of State's decision to consider the issue of tunnelling. However, I have difficulty doing so because of the overall lack of credibility attached to the LUAS consultation process. It seems clear that the kind of consultation taking place is essentially retrospective and is a matter of informing people about what has already been decided. Senator Dardis identified this as a major problem. There is a considerable lack of openness about the implications of what is proposed. For example, the way in which it emerged that an entire row of houses at Arran Quay Terrace is to be demolished is nothing short of a scandal. Demolishing the houses is bad enough, but the way in which the information emerged was even worse. More fundamentally, however, there has been an unacceptable lack of openness in regard to the routes that will be built during this phase.

When the LUAS project was launched before Christmas, an impression was created, whether intentional or not, that the Ballymun route was dead. I have carefully studied the Minister's statement on that occasion. There was not a single word which could be interpreted as meaning that the Ballymun route remained a live option. On the contrary, it would be very difficult for a reasonable person to take any inference other than that the Ballymun line was dead. It has now emerged that the Ballymun option is not dead and that Brussels insisted, in November 1995, that a study be made of the comparative benefits of all three lines before a final decision was taken. The fact that this did not emerge until the facts were dragged out months later does not enhance the credibility of the consultation process; nor does it reflect well that it took from November to June to appoint the consultants for this study, largely because of the difficulty of agreeing with Brussels the terms of reference for it.

What were Dublin and Brussels arguing about during that period? It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that CIE and the Department wanted the terms of reference to lean in the direction of the decision that had already been made. The latest blow to credibility is the announcement that these consultants, who have just begun work, will not start from scratch. Instead they will be obliged to take over six months preparatory work carried out by CIE, which can hardly be considered an independent source for anything connected with LUAS. I dwell on these issues of credibility because they raise the question of the genuineness of the consultation process. They also bear on the nature of the Bill before the House.

As the Minister of State indicated, the Bill is a mechanism to dispense with the planning process in the case of light rail and, as such, is a very serious matter. I do not question the need for it, but I do question the manner in which the Bill attempts to do this. The Bill provides for a mandatory independent inquiry into the proposal. However, it does not delegate the decision on the light rail order to the independent inspector. That decision will be taken by the Minister. Today this Minister said: "Notwithstanding the policy position I outlined earlier, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications will be obliged to consider CIE's application for a light rail order on an objective quasi-judicial basis and to consider any submissions made to him." The Minister is not bound by the result of the independent inquiry. The suggestion is that he takes it into account, that is, that he considers it, along with any other submissions made. In other words, anyone who does not like the outcome of the inquiry can go along to the Minister and be heard before he makes his final decision. This makes nonsense of the proposal.

The Minister described his role as quasi-judicial. If a case was brought before a judge in which he had an interest, he would immediately disqualify himself from it. The present proposal for on-street light rail is Government policy, it is departmental policy and it is being implemented by the Minister's agent, CIE. The Minister has been a tireless propagandist for the proposal, as is right and proper. However, his zeal in that cause must surely disqualify him from the quasi-judicial role envisaged for him in the Bill. The notion of being judge and jury in one's own case flies in the face of natural justice to which Senator Norris referred.

There is a practical dimension to this. If this Bill is passed in its present form, its constitutionality will be challenged by anyone who disagrees with the decision the Minister eventually takes. Regardless of the outcome of that action, it would certainly cause further delay in a project that is already in danger of running behind schedule. I urge the Minister to rewrite that part of the Bill before Committee Stage and I would welcome an assurance to that effect before we vote. The Minister would be expressing confidence in it, which could be easily done. The outcome of the independent inquiry should be binding on the Minister. A little work now may save a great deal later.

We want to see a system which will solve Dublin's transport problem. Both Houses of the Oireachtas are working towards the best Bill and we are anxious to ensure it works. However, grave doubts and considerations have been expressed. As regards the lack of unbiased opinion, it is not possible to bridge the gap between those who say it will be outrageously expensive to go underground between the canals and those who say it can be done and should be examined. I urge the Minister to find a method to ensure an independent inquiry rather than one presented by someone with a vested interested.

Mr. Wright

The Minister's and the Government's proposals for a light rail system for Dublin, as reflected in the Bill, reminds me of old cowboy films. When speculators in the wild west set about laying down railway tracks, they ignored or were unaware of the needs and rights of people who did not count for much. Senator Doyle made an honest contribution in which he set out his concerns which reflected those of the people he represents. Those of us who represent Dublin constituencies must listen to people who are genuinely concerned and afraid. They believe the Minister and the Bill, as it stands, have not taken their concerns into account. There are advantages to a light rail system but not as outlined in this Bill.

I, like other speakers, would like to outline a number of reasons the Bill should be amended. The lack of consultation has been the main theme in contributions from this side of the House. Somebody mentioned the video which was recently produced. I took the opportunity to look at it this weekend and, at best, it could be described as a cartoon. It does a disservice to those trying to sell the system. There has been no consultation, a lack of commitment in relation to costings and no mention of a northside link.

One of the founding principles of the EU is that communities should be involved in decision making and that they should be consulted. Consultation will not take place in relation to the proposed light rail system. Those concerned with the benefits and effects of the system in places I represent and in other areas have had little say and will have even less under the proposals in the Bill. Local people must deal with technical and engineering experts they did not meet previously and who are likely to confound them with science and technology while telling them nothing at the same time.

People do not know who to contact with ideas, expectations or objections. Is it CIE, the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications or other such bodies? The Bill does not make this clear. It is not stated who will run the light rail system. Will it be CIE, one of subsidiaries or a new company? Lip service is paid to consultation throughout the Bill but as far as people are concerned, it means very little. In fact, the Bill makes it difficult for anyone to have a voice.

Section 12 specifies that the only way a person can question the legality or validity of an order is by judicial review. Appeals to the High Court, which exist under judicial review provisions, is mentioned. Section 8 provides for a public inquiry and inspector system. What could be more intimidating to a concerned person than the thought of a court hearing or a public inquiry, especially when this section states that any person giving incorrect information innocently or otherwise will be guilty of perjury and punished accordingly? What about the cost of such a case?

According to section 6, the public can purchase copies of the documents relating to an order by paying a fee not exceeding the reasonable cost of making such copies or extracts as may be fixed by the board. Does this mean the cost of photocopies of the document or the cost of drawing it up with lawyers, surveyors and so on? Sections 8 and 9 clearly show the Minister will do what he wants, irrespective of what local communities want or demand. While the Minister is not going around the city and its environs pushing aside anyone who gets in the way of the light rail system, the Bill gives him and his agents sweeping powers to ignore the rights of people. Section 2 gives the Minister. CIE officials and others powers to enter land, homes and property to carry out any investigation or examination. No legislation relating to crime or otherwise has given such powers to the Garda. The suggestion is that when the Minister makes an order in accordance with the Bill no dog should bark.

Environmental issues are referred to in magnificent detail in section 5 but the Minister is given power to ignore them. The section states that neither European nor local government guidelines will apply and the Minister will rule on any environmental issues. Local communities will have to put up with that because he will be judge and jury. When one considers the position taken by the present Administration in relation to interpretative centres, people living in Dublin and along the routes are asking how such powers can be given to the Minister in relation to environmental issues.

This section gives the board the power to "enter on any land and attach to any wall, house or other building any bracket, cable or wire or other fixture required for the construction, operation or maintenance of the light railway concerned". Nobody can object except through a process of judicial review and I have already referred to the daunting prospect that offers. Furthermore, section 24 is likely to require people to make a serious study of the law before they can deal with matters associated with light rail. It provides for more unnecessary bureaucracy through the making of by-laws. I shudder to think where these by-laws might lead — to further confusion, no doubt.

Section 15 gives the Minister and his agents power to chop down any tree or shrub that is in the way. No account is taken of a tree on which there might be a preservation order. No local body need be consulted, not even the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht or the Heritage Council. Section 16 gives wide ranging powers for the breaking of roads and the building of new ones. There is provision for notifying the local authority about road works but the local community need not be notified of any road works or new roads. It will just have to accept it and put up with the disruption.

It should be clear from these sections of the Bill that there will be no real communication or consultation with local communities. The Bill gives the Minister and CIE the power to do what they like in providing a light rail system. There is still plenty of time for the Minister to set up consultative councils comprising local residents, businesses and other interested parties. He could take a lead from other agencies that have tried to implement new routes, such as Bord Gáis. The time to do this could be set out in the Bill.

Section 9 refers to appeals to the High Court in cases of judicial review. Section 12 specifies that the only redress available is through judicial review and that is extremely complicated. Can the Minister of State explain what the following means?

Where an application is made for judicial review in respect of part only of a light railway order, the High Court may, if it so thinks fit, declare to be invalid or quash the part or any provision thereof without declaring to be invalid or quashing the remainder of the order or the part, as the case may be, and if the Court does so, it may make any consequential amendments to the remainder of the order or the part, as the case may be.

This passage may take time to interpret and section 9 is a recipe for huge delays. Section 2 provides for compensation for damage done to property. The compensation provisions are so complicated that they must lead to endless litigation.

Section 6 allows a timespan of nine weeks for the publication of notices for applications for light rail orders. At the end of the nine weeks, notice of these orders must be served on every occupier and landowner referred to in the order. How long will this take? This and many other provisions in this badly drafted Bill will lead to enormous delays and there is a genuine doubt about whether we will have a light rail system in our lifetime.

The measures in the Bill will create more problems than they will solve. The Bill is unworkable and should be redrafted. Hopefully, it will be amended before it leaves this House. There is far too much confusion in the Bill and far too many questions are left unanswered. Who will control the light rail? Will it be CIE, a subsidiary or another company? Will the workers on the light rail be employed by CIE? In view of the experience of the constituents of Dublin North with the problems between Aer Lingus and TEAM Aer Lingus workers, this matter should be teased out thoroughly by the Minister. The question in that case was whether TEAM Aer Lingus workers were part of Aer Lingus or otherwise and it led to tremendous unrest and major disruption. There are no provisions in this legislation governing the conditions of employees. Is this also to be left to the discretion of the Minister? I cannot understand why the Minister and his Department could not have taken the gas pipeline legislation as a model for this Bill. That Act was executed simply and quickly and is straightforward legislation.

My recollection of cowboy films is that speculators set their minds on building a railway line from A to B and disregarded any other mode of transport. The Minister, Deputy Lowry, is doing the same. There is no evidence of integration in this proposal, as has been mentioned by many speakers. It is ludicrous that we will have several modes of transport and there is no effort to implement an integrated system for the different modes. Will we find the DART, Dublin Bus and ordinary rail services located in the same areas? Will buses and light rail leave from the same part of the city with one leaving half empty? If the Minister is to confer credibility on the system he must come forward with an integrated plan.

I will now refer to a subject that is dear to my heart, the fact that the north side of the city has been excluded from the light rail service. The Minister recently made a decision, for sound reasons, that there was no need to locate a second airport at Baldonnell. However, it is extraordinary that there is no suggestion of a light rail service for Dublin Airport, which is an international airport, and other parts of that constituency. That demonstrates the double think within the Department. On the one hand it encourages Aer Rianta to spend over £200 million developing the airport and projects an increase of throughput to 14 million passengers while, on the other hand, it is spending over £200 million on a light rail system and there is no suggestion of a system to transport those passengers from the airport into the city. That is hard to understand.

According to Senator Dardis, an individual who made the transport decisions in this regard put forward as the reason Ballymun could do without a service the fact that there were fewer cars there. The cars in Dundrum would have to be dealt with. The mere fact that the people in Ballymun and its environs have no cars or other means of transport means that the choice should have been to provide them with a proper and fast transport service.

I would like to see the establishment of a light rail system. My party supports the system in principle. Our party leader was the Minister for Finance who negotiated the funding for such a proposal. However, we have outlined the problems and the fact that the consultation process is cosmetic. Each day every Member receives concerned deputations and submissions from residents in this regard. The Kilmainham business group, for example, forecasts the possibility of over 600 job losses as a result of businesses going bust, with no provision for compensation. The Mount Brown, Chancery Street, Mary's Abbey and other residents' associations represent real people who have real concerns.

I hope that before the Bill leaves the Seanad some of the amendments proposed by my party will be accepted in the interest of ensuring that the light rail system will become a reality and in the interest of the people who will be affected by it. I hope it will be amended and improved with the support of other parties.

Miss Ormonde

I have no difficulty with a light rail system for the Dublin area. Having been a public representative for the last ten years I am aware of the problems people have trying to get to and from their homes to work. We need a light rail system that will be acceptable and Fianna Fáil has no difficulty with an ongoing discussion about such a system. The problem is how to implement a light rail system that will be acceptable to the people. There is traffic chaos and that has implications for the social, economic and cultural life of the city. We must seek a strategy of traffic management that will embrace all aspects of life.

This Bill proposes to construct three lines from Tallaght, Dundrum and Ballymun to the city centre. There is no difficulty with that. Analysis is also taking place as to whether the Harcourt Street line should be extended to the Sandyford Industrial Estate and the airport. It is regrettable that this will not be included in the first phase. Extending the line an extra mile to Sandyford Industrial Estate would bring in many thousands of people living in the Sandyford, Dundrum, Balally and Stillorgan areas. It has a colossal business unit output and it is a shame that is being neglected. It is regrettable that it is not part of the first phase and I hope it will be included after this analysis has taken place.

The reason I am opposing this Bill is because of the lack of consultation. My telephone answering machine has been inundated over the last few days by representatives of powerful bodies complaining about the lack of consultation in this Bill. This is a shame. Everything comes down to consultation. We have an educated population who can assess matters and, if not, can find people who will help them. When there is a realignment of a small road in my constituency much consultation takes place between residents associations, hired engineering bodies, architects and environmental personnel who can then answer the various points raised by people. Introducing a Bill without consultation is not a good idea. I am surprised the Minister presumed it would have been possible to implement this Bill without consultation. It is not that difficult to organise a consultation process.

The guidelines will be laid down by the Minister but none will have come from the local authorities in the areas affected. They should play a major role in this regard. However, under this Bill no consultation about how best the new lines will impact on the local areas will take place and I cannot understand this. Little consultation has taken place and the guidelines have not reached the local county councillors, who will have to represent the people on the ground in regard to how best we can implement a realignment of a certain route. If that is in this Bill, I have not seen it. This consultation process does not exist. There is also no consultative process in regard to by-laws. They will also have to come into being but we do not know which ones will be involved. There is little knowledge about how this process will get off the ground.

Consultation is the best way to go forward. This Bill is necessary as a starting measure to initiate a plan. However, one cannot put a Bill on the table unless the various consultative bodies are involved. I have met representatives of the Kilmainham Residents and Business Association, who talked frantically about the potential impact of this line on their area. They claimed that jobs would be lost, businesses would close down, that it would cause noise pollution and have a bad impact on their lifestyle; but nobody consulted them. I have attended meetings involving residents groups in Balally, Stillorgan and Dundrum and they do not know what is happening either. They do not know whether the line will be extended and what the impact would be on them. It is a shame the Minister should railroad this measure through without consulting those involved.

The Minister should welcome consultation in the real sense of the word. The plan could then be put into libraries. Local authorities could then become involved and the plan could be placed before local councils, which could communicate with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and local residents' associations in each area so that public meetings could be organised where professional bodies could explain it in greater detail. Suggesting that this can be done with video cassettes is not on. Many people do not know how to operate a video recorder and prefer to communicate in a simple manner. They want to ask questions of these people so they are comfortable with the impact of these new light rail lines. That assurance is not coming from this Bill and it is a shame. I do not like to oppose for opposition's sake but the Minister has done nothing for the people involved. I will be forcibly opposing the lack of consultation in this Bill.

Integration is another area of difficulty. This operation as set out in the Bill is piecemeal. While it would cost more money to do it, it would be more worthwhile to spend it now and get it right. This operation proposes quality bus corridors, the DART, an airport link and trams running in line with the bus corridors. We should put an overall integrated system in place. For example, the DART could be extended, there could be a link between it and the trams, a crossover between north and south of the city, etc. This policy seems to be piecemeal and should not be an objective of this Bill. There is no reference to the integration concept which is necessary before any light rail system is introduced.

Many Members mentioned the underground system as against tram corridors. That proposal has not been examined enough. The Minister said it is too costly, but some people tell me that this is not necessarily so. When one analyses all the services that will be disrupted, such as electricity, gas lines and the tearing up and strengthening of roads, etc., against the construction of an underground system, I am not sure it would be that much more expensive. Even if it is, it might be worthwhile to spend a little more money to have it. Although it might take longer to pay it back, it might be the best option. If it is good, we should go for it. The best option would be an underground system, possibly between the two canals. What will Nassau Street be like from 3.30 p.m. each day with a bus corridor, a tram corridor and all cars on one lane? Can one imagine Dawson Street from 7.30 a.m. every day? What will it be like in Knocklyon, Balally and Dundrum? We have not got ourselves together if we have not thought about this.

We must opt for the underground or at least look at it again. I do not know whether it is more costly but an independent body must be set up to analyse the costing before we make a final decision one way or the other. We should also set up a body to represent local authorities, residents' associations, professional bodies from the areas, local representatives and anyone else who would be knowledgeable about the areas where this light rail would have an impact. If we do that, we will be in a position to say whether it is workable in a particular area. The Minister should seriously think about setting up such a group in every area where the scheme will run rather than setting his own guidelines and telling people it will be done his way and they must do as he says. The extension of that is that they must do as he says, not as he does.

I will oppose the Bill because of lack of consultation, lack of integration and lack of analysis of the costing. We must reconsider including in the first phase the extension of the line to the Sandyford Industrial Estate on one side and the airport on the other. That is where the traffic goes and it is a pity these areas have not been included in the Bill. It is worth spending more money to get this right rather than introducing this piecemeal measure. I will do everything in my power to get people to oppose this Bill.

Mr. O'Toole

I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this seriously flawed Bill. I welcome the Minister to the House and I hope she will forgive me for beginning with a negative tone, but the truth will out. I intend voting for this Bill on Second Stage for strategic reasons, because I want it to be changed. It is important that Dublin should address its transport difficulties and traffic problems. I do not want this Bill to be defeated and the matter returned to the Dáil to be dealt with there. As a Senator who is, for once, in a position to make changes, I do not want the Bill to leave this House and to risk the possibility that the Government will do nothing until after the next election, when whoever is in power will have a majority in both Houses and we will all lose opportunities. For strategic purposes, therefore, I will vote for the Bill tonight, flawed as it is.

To give equality of emphasis, I can also assure the Minister than on Committee Stage on Thursday I will put down a number of amendments and will support others. This House will have done a bad week's work if it does not change the Bill substantially. I hope the Minister will be as open and malleable on these matters as is her norm and will accept the arguments.

I have not been convinced and no evidence has been given that we need a tram system in Dublin, either on the basis of the number of passengers it can carry or the amount of road space it will take up. I ask the Minister to answer a basic and fundamental question: what will this system do that a system of priority bus lanes could not? I do not believe there is an answer to that. People have spoken about what happens in other cities; buses with two carriages are also common in other European cities. Can any case be made for light rail in terms of the traffic upheaval it will create and the road space it will take up? Is it necessary to invest in digging up roads and putting down rails when Dublin buses have perfectly good rubber wheels which could do the same thing if given clear bus lanes?

I was astounded at this morning's report that the people of Dublin would prefer one rail system over another. I have read all the material I have received over the last few weeks. I do not know much about transportation systems and I suspect there are few people in Dublin, other than those who live in areas which are immediately affected, who know what is meant by light rail transport. They do not realise that cars travel over and back along the same road space used by the light rail train and that all the train has is priority. It has been said that they will move more quickly than buses but they will not — in European cities such as Amsterdam I have seen buses and cars overtake the LRT on the same street. Meanwhile, another lane of traffic has been lost. I am not convinced that the upheaval or the costs will be justified.

The Minister did not deal with the merits or demerits of light rail transport as opposed to other forms such as buses. She appears to have taken that as read and perhaps she is entitled to do so. An integrated approach has been drawn up, but those involved were Departments of Government, CIE and no one else. That does not inspire a sense that this was open or consultative.

The Minister said the second report was firmly based on consultation but, unless people are lying to me, that did not happen. I am sure the Minister is dealing with the advice she has received, but I have spoken to communities of decent people with no axe to grind other than to protect their community. They were not consulted at any stage and knew nothing about this until they found out for themselves. Perhaps the Minister can point to examples but I am not asking her to justify her position, I am simply stating as a matter of fact that those who spoke to me had no involvement in the consultation. That has been a poor start. I listened to the comments of Senator Mooney. Whereas he may have gone over the top and become carried away, as is his wont, what he said about the views of individuals in local communities was factual.

It is disgraceful that there is no spur to either Ballymun or the airport in the initial proposal. It is grossly and utterly unacceptable to public representatives that we will not provide a spur to Ballymun because people there do not have cars, so they are not a problem, we do not have to worry about them and can let them suffer for another ten years. That should be anathema to us as public representatives. Similarly, the thinking must be that those who arrive at the airport have enough money to take a taxi into the city. There may be another European capital city which does not have a train service from the airport into the city but I do not know of one. Although the system in Rome is only recently been completed and that from one of the Paris airports does not go all the way to the centre, in broad terms from one or more airports in every capital there is a full rail service into the city centre.

The lack of consultation to date has led to a total lack of confidence in the proposals on the part of communities. That should be addressed first — the people behind these proposals should go out of their way to meet local communities and allay their fears. I compliment those communities who have at their own expense put together alternative proposals to deal with this issue. They have not taken the traditional line of opposing everything but have put forward firm, operable and practical alternatives.

The Arran Quay Terrace and the Mount Brown groups have put forward proposals which they consider do not affect the integrity of their communities. We should focus on the integrity of those communities. The various elements of the social fabric have come together. The business interests of the areas have worked with the local residents, with whom they might not always have seen eye to eye, in an attempt to save the integrity of the communities. We must listen to their views.

I am one of the few Members on this side of the House who supported the centre at Mullaghmore, the Dunquin heritage centre and the centre at Luggala. I do not protest each time it is proposed to put a spade in the ground to turn the sod. I take a realistic and practical approach. Changes must be made to improve the traffic flow.

Nothing said in today's debate convinces me that we need to further clog up the roads, that we need to take up more of the space on the roads, that we need to demolish houses or terraces of houses, that we need to run trains outside people's front doors or that we need to disrupt local firms to the extent that they go out of business. My grandfather used to say that if people get into the habit of going to the business across the road they might not come back. I do not know if Senator Quinn would agree but my grandfather's approach was to hold on to one's customers. However, a business cannot hold on to its customers if it is shut down during major excavations.

I have told the Minister of State how I will vote on the Bill so any explanations I get will not influence my vote; that will hold firm even if she gives me advice on how best to answer an awkward question. Will she explain why the EU regulations are being set aside in section 3 (3)? The explanatory memorandum does not indicate why this is being done and I would like the strongest assurances that it is necessary. The EU regulations are crucial; we should make sure they guide and inform our proposals.

The independence of the inspector should be guaranteed. The appointment of the inspector is crucial. He should not necessarily be a member of the Judiciary as has been suggested elsewhere, although I would not rule it out. However, the inspector should be independent. In the recent debate on the Refugee Bill, 1995, an issue which concerned Members more than any other was that the commissioner the Government was to appoint would be acceptable to all sides, would operate in an open and transparent way and his decisions would be implemented.

I will propose amendments on Committee Stage to ensure we comply with EU regulations, that the inspector will be appointed independently and that all submissions, including those the inspector is empowered to require, will be made available for public inspection so that the basis on which decisions were taken will be open and transparent.

The outcome of the inspector's work and the implementation of his or her proposals should work in a similar fashion to that of An Bord Pleanála. The proposal of the inspector should be implemented.

Mr. J. Doyle

Unfortunately, it does not always work like that.

Mr. O'Toole

I know it does not always happen. As chairman of a local authority planning committee the Senator will know how the process can be abused. The decisions of An Bord Pleanála should be implemented. I regret that in some cases discretion was allowed at a later stage in the process. It must be remembered that the pendulum can swing both ways. There should be one point at which a decision is made. People involved with "environmental issues" many years ago wanted such decisions to be taken at local level, not centrally but when they ran into difficulties they wanted the decisions taken at a public level and then back to local level. I reiterate that the reports of the inspector should be implemented.

I will also table amendments to ensure local communities are consulted and that the consultation process is real. Just because a local community wants something does not mean it should always get it. However, on this issue the local communities are looking for nothing more than we would like to concede to them. No public representative who reads the rational and practical proposals of the communities opposed to the scheme could do anything but support them. It is important for those communities to have faith and confidence in the political system, especially at a time when confidence in the Oireachtas is low. The Arran Quay and Coke Lane residents make specific reference to the amount they have learned about the system recently and that they require our support.

The Bill does not contain a definition of a light rail train. Perhaps it is not necessary, but I will put forward an amendment to indicate that a light rail train could run overground or underground. Senator Dardis cited Strasbourg as an example of a city where the light rail runs underground. The underground proposal would be cheaper in the long term, less disruptive, more amenable to carrying people and quicker and more efficient.

As to whether it could be done by private enterprise, I carry some baggage in that regard. However, times have changed and I would not rule out the involvement of a private company if it can support a State policy. I object to a private company making what should be State policy. However, if there is a State policy on an underground system there is no reason it should not be achieved through dealing and haggling over the franchise over a period of years. However, I do not know enough about this to come down clearly on one side or another.

I will support the Bill, flawed as it is, because if it is defeated here it may not reappear until the Government has a clear majority in the House and does not have to listen to communities. Furthermore, I do not want the Bill dealt with in the other House. There is less of a strong party political element in this House. We can make proposals that will be listened to sympathetically and progress can be made.

The issues I have raised are reasonable; they reflect the concerns of local communities and public representatives. They respond to the traffic needs of those of us who drive in and out of the city every day and recognise that something must be done. That is the other reason I could not vote against the legislation. I feel something has to be done but I want to ensure that it is the correct procedure. Therefore, the Minister of State should be prepared on Thursday to accept amendments by the dozen, if necessary, but enough to make sure that we have consensus in this House. Would it not be a great thing if the Minister of State was to come back on Thursday, take amendments without a vote and by consensus change this legislation and tell those people over in the Dáil that this is how business should be done to look after the needs of local communities and in that way restore public confidence in the political system and the system of public representation? As an Independent Member, I would ask the Minister of State to listen carefully to what we have to say. On Thursday we will be calm, but we will be voting against her if she does not accept our amendments.

Mr. Lydon

Senator O'Toole said he would be voting for the Bill. I suppose it does not matter which way you vote because, even if it is voted down, it will be brought back again with a couple of changed lines in a week or so. It is a new form of handling Bills; it is handy if you are in Government to do that. However, I am not even sure, like Senator O'Toole, what exactly we are talking about because there is no definition of light rail in the Bill.

I will be voting against the Bill for a number of reasons. The first is because of the consultation process. I have a document from the Arran Quay Terrace and Coke Lane Resident's Association. They sum it up better than I could. They say "The consultation process to date has been totally one sided. Meetings to raise public awareness as to the implications of the preferred technical route on residents and businesses have been organised and instigated by resident's associations. The exclusion of the role of our local representatives in this light rail order compounds the exclusion of the public voice and their involvement as we experienced it through the consultation process."

They put forward many alternative routes, ones that do not involve the destruction of homes and businesses, of cutting through communities and separating them friend from friend. I understand that the Government has caravans around the place. This is a new type of consultation. It is called "caravan" consultation, or it might be called "chipper" consultation, where you drop in for a brief meeting and move on. It is not the type of consultation that these resident's groups looked for. It is not real and meaningful consultation.

The system should go underground in the city to avoid disruption of traffic and keep the place clear. I cannot make any decision on that because there are no prices. Some people have said it will cost £60 million per mile, others say £10 million. Somebody must know. I understand that the Minister has figures but I have yet to hear them. Perhaps, when the consultation process mentioned in the Minister of State's speech is over, we will find out what it will cost to put an underground line in. It is important that it goes in. We are one of the few cities which does not have it. We should know the price of it.

The Minister of State's speech says "Cabinteely via the Harcourt Street line" but it is not going to Cabinteely; it is going to Dundrum. It is not even going to Crazy Prices and it is not going to the Sandyford Industrial Estate.

Mr. J. Doyle

It might go to crazy prices now.

Mr. Lydon

It might. "Live horse and you will get oats." Why not bring it to the Sandyford Industrial Estate, half a mile up the road, where six or seven thousand people are working? Logic alone would suggest it. These things do not pay for themselves; but where there are people in a working area who might use this facility to go to their jobs everyday, they are left out. They can drive half a mile up the road to it. It does not make any sense.

Certainly, it does not make any sense to exclude the airport in the first tranche. We have a new high speed railway system being developed coming down from Belfast to Dublin and what happens? There is no light rail out to the airport. Did you ever try to come in from the airport and have to look for a taxi or a bus? We have an opportunity to do something. What do you do at every airport in the world when you get off a plane with heavy bags and you want to get into the city centre? You get on a light rail or something similar.

That brings me to another reason that I could not possibly support this Bill in its present form, although I support the thrust of the Bill. I look forward to the light rail system being established, but it needs amendment and I hope to support the amendment put down by Senator O'Toole and many other proposed amendments. How could anybody design a system that comes into the centre of the city, drops you and you get off and walk to the DART or railway? Would sheer logic alone not tell you that it must connect with either the DART or the railway? Why can it not be integrated? You have short lines going all over the place. It says here that you can go from one area to another along this light rail. I do not doubt that will be possible. I saw a plan that drops you in College Green and what do you do? Get a bus to Amiens Street or Séan Hueston station? This is not clear thinking. I know the money has to be spent by the year 2000, but at least Deputy Reynolds brought in £8,000 million and if you are spending money from this, it should be done so wisely. We are all for spending it and helping the Minister of State along the way.

We are all for the light rail system, but we are looking for one that is built through consultation, that is integrated with the other systems around the city, that goes to populated working areas, that does not sever communities, that does not break up homes and businesses and put people out of work, that does not disrupt traffic and one that goes underground in part of the city. That is the kind of system the Government can provide. There are intelligent, effervescent, ebullient, exciting people in this Government with plenty of energy and drive and they have the money sitting there. All they need is planning and we will gladly help to provide that planning so that the system may be sensible.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I want to make some brief observations on this Bill. Like my colleague, Senator Lydon, I support the principle of a light rail development in Dublin, but the manner in which it is being introduced in this legislation leaves a lot to be desired.

We recognise that the transportation system in Dublin over the years has developed willy-nilly according to the needs of the city as it grew and developed. This city has expanded in a way perhaps that is more worrying than in any other equivalent city in Europe. The balance between town and country has swung greatly in favour of the city. The population of greater Dublin has expanded enormously and will continue to do so if current trends are not reversed; I do not expect that they will be. On that basis, any programme one has for any element of transportation in the greater city area has to be looked at in an integrated fashion. You have to consider particularly how to integrate existing and proposed transportation in and around the city and also on the perimeter and approach to the city through the arterial road structure. That has not been properly covered in this legislation.

No matter what you would do in the inner city or in servicing Tallaght, Ballymun or Dundrum — there is a query as to whether it is the intention to serve all three of these and that raises a big issue — it has to be recognised that these points and other areas on the periphery of the city are involved in the whole road infrastructural programme feeding into Dublin at this point. What we need to do before we look at the city in isolation is to look at a proper integration of the systems that exist, particularly the airport and port development. This whole programme for a light rail system for Dublin must be seen to be linked directly to and must feed and service what is there already. Otherwise, it will not be an effective co-ordinated system and it will give rise to considerable problems. I regret the fact that this Bill does not provide for that integration so obviously essential in any development where there is a growth pattern such as that in Dublin, which is likely to continue.

Second, while the Minister in her statement said that there is consultation, the reality is that if we are to have effective consultation with the communities most directly concerned, that is, those on the routes from Tallaght, Ballymun or Dundrum, it must be real and meaningful community consultation and not what I might call "caravan" consultation, where there will be questionnaires which you can answer and respond to in caravans which are made available from time to time. That is not community consultation. Community consultation must be a constant ongoing thing, not just with the elected representatives but also, and particularly in this sense, with the community representatives who have emerged, not just in the city but throughout the country, as a positive and healthy element in society. This process of consultation means literally sitting down with these groups. Some of their reservations may not be entirely well founded and some might not even be reasonable, but the reality is that to have a system which will serve this city and its communities you must have the maximum degree of consultation and that, in my view, is not provided for in this Bill.

Third, even before one would finally put in place a programme following consultation and the integration of systems, you would and must look at this point in time — because we are dealing with an ongoing process all the time — at alternatives which might suit. For instance, anybody who has had experience of travelling through other cities will say that Dublin's city centre is becoming chronically congested. There is probably only one city of which I am aware in Europe which is more congested and that is Athens. The system in Athens only allows cars to travel into the city on alternate days, according to their car registration numbers. There are two reasons for this, incidentally: pollution control and traffic congestion. Because Athens is built underneath the Parthenon in what you might call a saucer if not a pot, the air is trapped and the pollution levels are intolerable. For that reason the Greeks have regulated and restricted the flow of traffic to the city.

As the construction stages of the system will go on for quite a while, we must consider whether the city will be choked completely during the course of what I do not deny must be a major programme. In that context and with regard to the centre city area, the cost of alternatives such as an underground system must be fully researched. If we can consider such measures for Cork, where is the reason for not sanctioning something similar for Dublin? A reasonable and objective analysis will show that an underground system at the centre of the city which could be integrated into the light rail system generally, as happens in many other cities throughout Europe and the world, must be worthy of serious consideration. The costing of such a system must be up front. Has the alternative of a city centre underground system been costed? If there is a cost effectiveness survey which had all the details and concluded, having considered the best advice and consultations, that an underground city centre section would not be cost effective, we have not heard of it. We need to know the precise basis on which that alternative for the city centre, in particular, has been considered and apparently excluded.

Finally, airport development is and, hopefully, will continue to be a major issue. The attraction of Ireland for a variety of reasons is ongoing. The greater awareness of Ireland is a positive development from our point of view and it has been the case for some years. It is important that there be provision in the Bill for particular routes to Dublin Airport as that is absolutely essential. I want to hear that that is being integrated into the system too — it is linked to my first point. If there are any other plans for further development of airports on the perimeter of the city, we should at least take on board that likelihood in the planning and implementation of the Dublin light rail system. This must be about the only city in Europe which does not have a direct rail feeder to our main airport.

Those are four broad principles. I do not set myself up as a consultant civil engineer as I would not even wear a lawyer's hat here, although I can ply that trade from time to time. I am certainly not going to suggest the alternatives and the better way of doing it as might a consultant engineer. I would hope the Minister would be able to satisfy us, if not now at a later stage, that all those reasonable preconditions have been considered and costed and that the Government, having had the benefit of all the best advice, has concluded that the best proposal is the one before us.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications (Mrs. A. Doyle)

At the outset, I again apologise for the fact that the Minister for Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, could not be present this afternoon. The House may be aware that he was taking parliamentary questions in the Dáil and he could not be in both places at once.

I thank all the Senators for the wide range of contributions. There were many constructive suggestions from Senators on both sides of the House. I want to assure Senators of my willingness to accept as many amendments as possible on Committee Stage and, indeed, Report Stage if necessary. I did so in the Dáil, where I said I would try to be as inclusive as possible. The record will show that 15 amendments were made between the publishing of the original Bill and its introduction to the Seanad. If anybody wants a copy of that list, I would be delighted to arrange to have it circulated. Some of these are substantial amendments in strengthening the whole procedures of public inquiry, the powers of the inspectorate of public inquiry with regard to the compellability of documents and witnesses, allowing for expenses for witness and allowing retrospective expenses in certain cases for certain communities which may not have adequate means of their own and who must employ technical advice to make their case at the public inquiry. That provision is limited enough, but I took it from the existing provision which is operated by the public inquiries of the Department of the Environment. It was not provided for in the Bill but I insisted it be inserted between Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil.

We changed many of the provisions with regard to trespass to make it reflect reality a little more. The independence of the inspector has been ensured inasmuch as we would now have to get the approval of An Bord Pleanála for whoever we appoint as inspector. I do not think another procedure could guarantee the inspector's independence any more since the State will not be seen to be independent because it has a vested interest and the private sector might not be considered independent by the State because that sector might have a different view. We all accept An Bord Pleanála. We have not all agreed with what it has done but that proves it has been very independent minded since it was instituted some years ago.

That is a tightening up of the original Bill. I will be delighted to consider any amendments and I will go as far as I can to take on board the points which have been made. I can give quite a few assurances now in relation to those points. I will go through individual Senator's contributions and their specific questions later.

Light rail is essential to Dublin. I was delighted that the majority of those who opposed specific sections of the Bill stated they support the principle of light rail. I say to those who support the principle of light rail but have difficulties with some of the details of the Bill, that they should be able to support the Second Stage of the Bill. I reiterate that this Bill is enabling legislation which does not preclude underground transport or end the debate on which routes should be implemented. It does not restrict the number of lines which can be built to the airport, Sandyford or elsewhere. The Bill does not restrict the extension of the concept to other counties, although it deals specifically with Dublin. Anyone who supports the principle of light rail can support this Bill at this Stage and let us continue on Committee and Report Stages the debate on the details and the other very constructive points that were made.

The particular traffic difficulties of our capital city have been debated many times over a long period of time, no later than last February in this House. The proposal to remedy these difficulties in part through the provision of a light rail system has been a key element of the strategy devised as a result of all that debate. It is a proposal which commands broad support. The majority of people recognise that something must be done to tackle traffic difficulties in Dublin and that light rail represents the best option available in practice. This Bill represents a vital stage in the process in that it will provide the statutory framework for the development of a light railway for Dublin.

CIE has a pivotal role in providing public transport services in Dublin and will be the formal implementing agency for the construction of the light rail network. However, it is envisaged that the role of the private sector in the detailed design and construction of the light railway project will be maximised. The possibility of private sector involvement in the operation of the light railway is not ruled out. I will come back to that in more detail because it was referred to by several Senators.

There are some areas of concern with the detailed implementation of the light rail project. Every effort must be made to resolve these areas of concern for local interests. Where possible, solutions which can be found within the obvious constraints of budget, time frame and operational requirements for the project must be accommodated. Where a positive response is not possible, it is equally important that people be given a full and honest explanation. There is no attempt to ride roughshod over people's rights.

I am extremely concerned by reports I have heard in this and the other House about initial consultation procedures with individual members of the board of CIE and those involved in the consultation process, particularly in relation to certain residents who only discovered by default that there was even a proposal — which is all it is at this stage — to demolish their street of houses. I do not consider that to be acceptable consultation. Since that time the Minister, Deputy Lowry, has tightened up the consultation procedure considerably. All those involved in consultation at various levels now have to provide their names and addresses. I will return to that point before I finish.

I accept, on behalf of the Government, the criticism of what happened in the early stage of those consultations. It was not open. I suspect some of our semi-State bodies have some difficulty with accommodating the openness required of all of us in public life today. However, I can assure the House it is the intention of the Government and the Minister that such performances will not be repeated. If individuals or communities have further experiences of the type which were cited here today and in the Dáil, the Minister and I will be delighted to hear about them and we will immediately go to the source of the problem to elicit an explanation and try to resolve the difficulties. We must be honest and frank with people.

When a decision is made on the routes, not everybody will be satisfied. Some people will be discommoded or even dislocated. I hope we can minimise that, which is why alternative routes for each of the lines are being considered at the moment where the preferred route will cause disruption. However, it would be dishonest of me to indicate that we will please everybody at the end of the day. No matter how long we talk in this or the other House, or how expansive and extensive a consultation process we put in place, we cannot do that.

I am eagerly waiting.

Mrs. A. Doyle

We need not be facetious because this is a very serious matter which affects many people who live and work in Dublin and those from outside Dublin who need easy access to the city. It is important we treat it with the seriousness it is due.

We must remember that light rail is not a stand alone project but part of an integrated transport policy. We need proper traffic management. Light rail or any other high tech solution alone will not resolve Dublin's traffic problems. We need evidence of the will to manage our traffic properly together with the light rail project. I say that as someone who has been a member of a local authority for 21 years and who understands the pain and difficulty of implementing proper traffic management. Often it is not the most expensive schemes which make the most impact.

Traffic management is about managing people's bad habits, in which I include my own, in terms of where we abandon our cars, why we have to drive from door to door, why none of us is prepared to walk and why we do not opt for public transport. Traffic management is an underrated science to which a great deal of lip service has been paid over the years. However, it is a science which we must adopt and accept, not just in Dublin but in all our major towns and cities. A serious traffic management plan which is implemented and enforced is critical to the success of the light rail project and a successful outcome to the present chaos of Dublin's traffic.

The on-street light rail system is the option favoured by the DTI. It is certainly a lower cost solution in comparison with the underground option and will provide a better economic return. Light rail will be more accessible on-street than underground because more stops will be possible on-street and underground stations, apart from being very expensive, are less accessible to mobility impaired people.

Dublin's transportation problems will worsen if significant action is not taken to remedy the situation. Light rail is to the forefront of modern urban transport developments worldwide. Thanks to the detailed and vigorous work undertaken by the DTI and the assistance of the EU, we now have a unique opportunity to benefit from experience abroad and to provide Dublin with a modern and permanent state of the art transport system which will support our economic development, job creation and urban renewal strategies.

Turning to the specific points made by Senators, there was a wide ranging debate with many good points. Senator Norris sought three guarantees. On the question of the underground versus the on-street option he sought assurances that the Bill was “agnostic”, to use his own word. I assure him that the Bill does not preclude underground. If the Government decided in the morning, having considered the consultant's reports, that it was to be all underground — it is unlikely — the Bill, if passed at the end of the week, makes complete provision for this. Sections 10 and 13 contain examples providing for powers to acquire rights in, under and over land.

The difficulties regarding a possible underground option appears to have exercised the minds of many Senators. In view of this, and to accede to Senator Norris' point, I am prepared to amend the definition of "light railway" under the definitions section — section 1 — to make clear that underground is included in the definition.

Mr. Norris

Very welcome. I thank the Minister of State.

Mrs. A. Doyle

The independence of the assessor was the second point made by Senator Norris. Many other Senators also referred to this. I have already amended section 8 to ensure that the inspector will be independent.

If the Senator can provide me with a specific example where discourtesies have been shown to individual groups or where what I would consider to be fair consultation has been precluded, I would like to know because it is not acceptable.

I have been advised that on the question of consideration of the underground, responses have been made through meetings with those concerned. Indeed, the specific study that has now been requested of Semaly is in response to the case being made for the underground.

Mr. Norris

On any occasion when I requested to be allowed to bring people from the unified group with me I was asked not to. Why this was I do not know.

Mr. Cassidy

Desperate.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Senator Mooney referred to the delay regarding the Oscar Faber report. It was announced last November but was not up and running until this month.

I am assured there have been no difficulties in relation to the European Union. It supported the light rail proposals and any questions it raised related to the routes and not to whether there should be a light rail system. It is examining the specific routes and I understand its main brief at present is a socio-economic analysis of the Ballymun line.

Senator Mooney questioned section 9. However, the Minister must act reasonably when he is obliged to consider the various aspects and his actions can also be challenged by way of judicial review. This is well tried and practised in legislation and the same onus is on the Minister for the Environment in relation to public inquiries and others regarding major civil engineering projects, such as motorways. The meaning of the expression "to consider" is well established.

Senator Mooney detailed his concerns about the lack of consultation. It took time to respond and I was not satisfied with the degree of openness initially shown by CIE. However, following pressure, it is preparing and publishing responses and alternative routes which will be on the table for discussion. There is no grand plan for specific routes and the Bill is not a mock up. The Minister indicated the three lines, two of which will proceed initially, but the detailed routes are not tablets of stone. They are all up for discussion in the public inquiry after the consultation process. This process will provide all the aspects which must be taken into account by CIE before it applies for the light railway order. The environmental impact assessment procedure must then be followed.

There is no grand plan in a tablet of stone which leaves this discussion and the consultation process to mere optics. I assure the House that is not the case. Many communities have major concerns, which were mentioned during the debate and on Committee Stage and, to a lesser extent, Report Stage in the other House. Although I am not in a position to assure them because no decision has been made, I hope their concerns will be allayed. The Government is not in the business of decimating residential or business communities.

I will not say that nobody will be affected or seriously discommoded. However, I assure the House that the Government is not about the wholesale dislocation and discommoding of communities. This also applies to the previous Government, which fully supported a light rail proposal such as the one before the House. The DTI recommended a light rail system and both Governments accepted that proposal. All the alternative proposals will get due consideration, particularly if it will avoid dislocating and discommoding communities, and we will do all we can to minimise disruption.

Senator Doyle made his concerns about integration clear. The DTI plan is based on an integrated transport system for Dublin and I would prefer if the complete details of the master plan were available. This would mean the light railway order, when it is made, is for phase one of the plan, but that is not the case

Mr. Cassidy

The Government is lucky it does not have it.

Mrs. A. Doyle

The Government is working to the DTI's recommendations of an integrated plan and this is phase one. I accept Senators' concerns, and those of the public generally, about the need for integration and assurances from not just the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and the Minister but from CIE. There is evidence of a degree of lack of confidence in those who run transport systems in Dublin. However, whatever lack of confidence existed in the past, it is up to us to ensure this is the beginning of the future and that when the light rail system as proposed in the Bill is implemented, the service will resolve the chaotic traffic problems of Dublin.

Light rail as part of an ongoing integrated plan and serious efforts at traffic management which will be properly enforced are the only way forward. Millions of pounds have been spent on the DTI plan and on reaching this point and consultants of various different types and professions all say this is the correct way forward. There is room for changes in the detail and some of the routes, but the basic plan for a three line light rail system, primarily, if not all, on-street, has been recommended time after time for many years. However, this does not preclude some of the options mentioned by Senators and Members of the other House.

Senator Doyle mentioned the disruption during construction. The construction phase will be very disruptive and it must be strictly managed. Work must not be ongoing on eight or ten sites at the same time; teams must get in, sort out a street and move out. There cannot be general chaos in most of Dublin with sites operating at the same time during the construction period. Part of the requirements on whoever tenders for the construction work will be strict control during that phase. Undoubtedly, there will be major disruption in areas as construction proceeds, but this must be minimised and controlled. It would be dishonest and disingenuous to pretend there could be, as some Senators said, a major civil engineering project in Dublin without disruption. It will be disruptive, but today's pain will be tomorrow's gain. If the problem is not sorted out, total gridlock in the future will be much more disruptive than interim disruption as the construction phase is implemented in a proper and ordered manner in Dublin.

Senator Dardis and others mentioned their specific requirements in terms of the routes. The Sandyford terminal comes up frequently and if the money available did not limit the amount of light rail which can be constructed in phase one, that terminal would undoubtedly be moved on immediately. Nobody disputes the sense of such a move and it is not precluded by the Bill. The legislation does not preclude the Sandyford option or any other option, such as the spur to Dublin Airport. I fully agree with Senators who say it makes sound economic sense, but we do not know yet if a regular or light rail service is required. This is under consideration at present.

No route is stated in the Bill and none of the Senators' requests for different options is ruled out. All the points are sound in terms of the completion of planning of traffic in Dublin and when all the options are in place. The Bill does not rule out any route and Members should not think they are not getting a response because the airport or Sandyford options are not included. The Bill is enabling legislation and all routes are up for consideration through the consultation process, the public inquiry and in the future. A limited amount of money is available and not everybody will be satisfied in terms of the extent of the routes put in place now. However, extensions in the future are not ruled out. It makes sound economic sense to extend it to the areas mentioned by Senators; I have no argument with that aspect. The Bill does not stand in the way of that, even if it is not in phase one.

The Sheffield system came up for much discussion. I am assured specific factors are at work there, particularly in relation to competition from deregulated bus transport. This made the economics of the light rail system——

Mr. Quinn

That is the whole point.

Mr. O'Toole

The buses are more attractive. The point we raised was whether the buses are more attractive.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Those interventions are not in order.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Passenger figures in Sheffield continue to grow. I did not add it up myself but I am assured that is the case.

Senator Dardis mentioned the need to extend public transport beyond the greater Dublin area. However, that is not within the remit of the Bill, which relates only to light rail and the three local authority functional areas in Dublin. However, I do not disagree with the Senator's point. Outer suburban services are being updated at present and there are proposals to extend the DART to Greystones and Malahide. Improvements are also being made to the Maynooth and Kilcock route.

I also agree with the Senator's point about the need to distinguish information from consultation. CIE has done more than give information. I indicated that I was not completely happy with the consultation process throughout. The Minister has strengthened that area and he and I are prepared to accept submissions from individuals who have particular difficulties getting their case heard. That should not be the case.

Senator Dardis said the quasi-judicial function will be used as a shield and that once the public inquiry is instigated, the Minister will say it is sub judice and he cannot talk to groups. That is not the case. I wish to rule out that suggestion completely. That might have been the practice in other public inquiries but the legislation specifically provides that submissions can be given by individuals or groups to the Minister outside and in addition to the inquiry. With respect, I wish to rule out Senator Dardis' criticism on that point. The Senator also asked who will carry out the construction work. I have dealt with that point. The EU tendering procedures will be fully complied with and I am almost completely sure there will be private sector involvement in the construction work.

Senator Quinn referred to loss of space. There will be loss of car space but this must be done in conjunction with the better traffic management and enforcement. I have made myself quite clear on that issue. Much space is at present lost in ineffective or illegal parking and poor traffic management. If we were serious about traffic management, even now, we would free up a full traffic lane relative to what we have now to use. That lane could be used to accommodate the light rail system. However, we are not serious about traffic management. As individuals and as a nation it is part of our nature that we hate being told what to do, but if we were serious about traffic management we would make an enormous improvement in Dublin and our other major cities.

Mr. O'Toole

Freeing up one lane and giving it over to a light rail system will not improve the traffic flow.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Yes it will. If the light rail system is effective, and carries the passenger numbers it is designed to carry, there will be no need for the same number of cars to come into the city.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Every Senator has had an opportunity to contribute on Second Stage. The Minister is now replying. Senators will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to raise questions. I ask that the Minister be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Cassidy

We are being encouraged by the back bench.

Mr. O'Toole

We are only Independents; we do not have a lot of experience.

Would the Minister consider it as an amendment?

Mrs. A. Doyle

I will certainly look at it between now and Thursday. I do not know why that wording was not used when we brought An Bord Pleanála on board; it was not on board originally. It seems reasonable at this point to accede to that change but I will check whether anything precludes me doing so. I will be delighted to come back to Senators on this.

Senator O'Toole asked why quality bus corridors were not used in place of light rail. The DTI strategy devised an appropriate mix of public transport technologies combining quality bus corridors, light rail and improved DART and suburban rail services. The bus will continue to have a major part to play in the public transport system. However, light rail has been chosen as the preferable option on a number of corridors because it can provide greater passenger capacity than buses, it is more attractive to car users and provides a catalyst for urban regeneration, it is less polluting than other modes of transport and it is more accessible, providing level boarding on the street. Quality bus corridors are being developed in tandem with the LRT and there will eventually be 11 in total. The most recent, to Lucan, was opened only this week.

Senator O'Toole also made the point that there was no consultation by the DTI. He was referring to the fact that we depend on the DTI's report. He questioned my reference to consultation by the DTI in my opening speech this afternoon. The whole development of the light rail project has been based on consultation. The overall policy framework in favour of light rail emerged from the Dublin Transport Initiative. The DTI process included two phases of public consultation involving 26 public meetings. The Government can be criticised about many things but not about the consultation undertaken by the DTI. The consultation process also included two market research surveys, each with 1,000 respondents, social and community research and nearly 100 days of exhibitions.

I make that point, lest anyone should question the consultation process entered into by the DTI. This is important because it has been inferred that we are blindly accepting the recommendations of the DTI. We are not. The recommendations of the DTI are being accepted on the basis that it has an extensive consultation process. It is very important to state that fact to place the Bill in context.

Senators inquired why Ballymun was not included in the proposals. Cogent arguments could be made for the inclusion of routes to many parts of the city. The Bill precludes none of the routes or extensions, it is merely enabling legislation. Senator O'Toole and others raised the issue of alternative routes and I can provide an absolute assurance that all options will be examined and we will listen to the concerns of local communities. Senator O'Toole also referred to section 5(3), which was the subject of much debate in the Dáil and deals with environmental impact assessment. The EU regulations on environmental impact assessment deal with general issues in relation to the specific application of the EIA procedures to planning applications. They also deal with EIA where approval other than planning approval is involved. In this Bill, we have applied the EU requirements in full to light rail.

Section 5 (1) and 5 (2) detail the EIA requirements we are making in relation to CIE. Section 5 (3) removes the general requirements of the EU. Specific requirements were included in earlier sections and the 1989 regulations are, therefore, unnecessary, confusing and duplicative. The relevant requirements being removed from section 5 (3) are included in section 5 (1) and 5 (2). The major part of section 5 (3) deals with planning and, as planning applications are not required, the provision is superfluous, irrelevant and confusing. I hope that this explanation provides clarity.

Senators O'Toole, Doyle and others referred to their concerns about the consultation process. I reiterate that the process has been improved. The individuals in CIE involved with the process will be named and local liaison officers appointed in order that people know whom to contact. A contact telephone number will also be provided.

And North Great George's Street?

Mrs. A. Doyle

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister of State to conclude without interruption.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his protection. I will look as kindly as I can on any amendments tabled between now and Committee Stage. If there is any way that the Bill can be improved, I am always open to suggestion in that regard. I reiterate that anyone who supports the general principle of light rail, on-street or underground, can support this Bill, even if they are unhappy with certain details. It is a general enabling piece of legislation.

The Bill will not end the debate on light rail or that relating to which routes should be implemented first. It does not restrict the number of lines that can be built or the extent of those lines. It does not preclude the underground option. I look forward to Senators' support on Second Stage and to constructive debate on Committee and Report Stages. I thank Senators for their constructive contributions.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 24.

Tá

Belton, Louis J.
Burke, Paddy.
Calnan, Michael.
Cashin, Bill.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Cregan, Denis (Dino).
Doyle, Joe.
Enright, Thomas W.
Manning, Maurice.
Neville, Daniel.
Norris, David.
O'Sullivan, Jan.
O'Toole, Joe.
Quinn, Feargal.
Farrelly, John V.
Gallagher, Ann.
Howard, Michael.
Kelly, Mary.
McAughtry, Sam.
McDonagh, Jarlath.
Magner, Pat.
Maloney, Seán.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Ross, Shane P.N.
Sherlock, Joe.
Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Townsend, Jim.
Wall, Jack.

Níl

Byrne, Seán.
Cassidy, Donie.
Daly, Brendan.
Dardis, John.
Farrell, Willie.
Finneran, Michael.
Fitzgerald, Tom.
Haughey, Edward.
Honan, Cathy.
Kelleher, Billy.
Kiely, Dan.
Kiely, Rory.
Lanigan, Mick.
Lydon, Don.
McGennis, Marian.
McGowan, Paddy.
Mooney, Paschal.
Mulcahy, Michael.
Mullooly, Brian.
O'Brien, Francis.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
Ormonde, Ann.
Roche, Dick.
Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Fitzgerald and Ormonde.

Question declared carried.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 2 Jul 1996