I remind Senators that on Report Stage amendments must be seconded and that only the proposer of the amendment may speak twice.
Amendment No. 1 is out of order as it has the same effect as amendments ruled out of order on Committee Stage.
Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stages.
It appears there has been a good deal of sleight of hand and an attempt to prevent discussion. I very much regret that, but in deference to people who do not want time wasting I will just place my indignation on the record of the House.
I thank the Senator.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 6, to delete the text inserted by amendment No. 11 in Committee and substitute the following:
"(e) where appropriate, an outline of the main alternatives (if any) studied and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative, taking into account the environmental effects, and".
I will not delay the House. Senators are aware of my views on this matter, which I stated on Second and Committee Stages. Regarding Senator Norris's comments, no sleight of hand was involved. I will not debate the issue now; there will be another occasion on which to do so.
I second the amendment.
It does not need to be seconded.
I do not know what Senator Norris means by sleight of hand. I hope it is not a reflection on the Chair and it had nothing to do with this side of the House.
Or this side.
I ask Senator Norris to accept that.
I will not rerun the discussion this morning. I believe in dealing with people as I find them, in an open and fair manner. We had this fight this afternoon; it was over and should have been left at that. I dealt with the Government in an open way during the Bill and I made it clear when divisions might or might not be called in order to accommodate Members as much as possible. I did not expect a division on Report Stage or that this matter would be re-entered. I recognise the Government is entitled to do it, but it is a short term strategy. It is unfair but, well done, the Government gets its desired result, which is ultimately what it is all about. However, long-term relationships are also required and, given that I indicated there might be another division today, I would have expected people to share the information that there was another voting issue. That is usually the way business is done.
I moved the amendment which was carried earlier with the support of my Independent and Progressive Democrats colleagues.
It was my amendment.
We made our position clear all day. In an effort to avoid being repetitive, I will not go further. However, Senator O'Toole said everything which needs to be said in relation to agreements conducted in the House.
That is outrageous. There was no agreement.
It is a fact and it is true.
It is not true and there was no agreement. I resent very much any implication regarding the integrity of myself or the Whip.
The Leader's integrity is not being impugned in any way.
Somebody's is; perhaps the Senator should clarify the matter.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Haughey, Edward.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Norris, David.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Fitzgerald and Ormonde.
Amendment declared carried.
Question, "That the Bill be received for final consideration", put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
This has been a long, somewhat contentious debate and much hard work was carried out in relation to the Bill. I believe that some concluding remarks are in order.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks for the constructive way in which comments were put forward in this debate and the general support for what we are trying to achieve with this Bill. It is evident that there is support for light rail and I hope I have reassured those who raised concerns on the consultative process or in relation to alternative options, either on-street or underground. I reiterate that where there have been complaints about the consultation process, steps have been taken to remedy them. If difficulties remain, I repeat my request to public representative to inform myself or the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, of the specific instances where these take place and they will be remedied. We place a very high value on effective and inclusive consultation and we are committed to ensuring that consultation is carried out to the highest professional standards in an open and responsive way.
Dublin's transportation problems will worsen if significant action is not taken quickly to remedy the situation. Traffic congestion is one of the most serious threats to the efficient running of our cities. It imposes heavy social costs on the community through pollution, wasted time and energy and road accidents. The seriousness of this situation for the future development of the Dublin region, not only in terms of transport but also in overall socio-economic terms, is clearly acknowledged by all sides in the debate.
Light rail is to the forefront of modern urban transport developments worldwide and, thanks to the detailed work of the Dublin Transportation Initiative, we now have a unique opportunity 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. The evidence from around the world shows that light rail has many positive benefits. It is helping to reverse the decline in public transport in urban areas. In many instances the LRT system has helped in the development of the urban fabric and this has been responsible for the rapid growth of light rail systems throughout the developed world in the last ten to 15 years.
This Government is committed to the introduction of an on-street light rail system for Dublin. Light rail has evolved considerably in the decades since trams disappeared from the streets of Dublin. The modern equivalent is a quiet, attractive, streamlined, single deck vehicle which fits well into a modern city centre environment. Unlike conventional heavy rail systems, light rail is flexible. It can run through most city streets sharing road space with general traffic and even pedestrians. It combines the reliability, speed and comfort of the traditional railway with the flexibility and efficiency of the bus. The proposed light rail service for Dublin envisages a service frequency of five minutes at peak to 15 minutes off peak, utilising 29 trams each with approximately 60 per cent low floor to facilitate ease of access.
The construction of a light rail system in Dublin will inevitably mean a certain level of disruption due to the necessity to divert essential services away from the path of the vehicles and the laying of track along the routes. This has been an issue of concern. However, the light rail construction plans for Dublin were formulated by a team of experts with wide international experience who are working in conjunction with the civic authorities and are supported by conservation bodies. The planning team formed by CIE has drawn on the experience of several cities in Europe, the United States and Canada to develop a plan which will entail a minimum of disruption to trade and access to affected streets.
To ease the construction phase as much as possible, a comprehensive package of measures to keep the general public informed and to provide advance notification of roadworks with the appropriate signage and alternative routes is being planned. This will be ready well in advance of the start of construction.
This is a Second Stage speech. It is crazy.
Past experiences have demonstrated that with advance notice, effective consultation and good traffic management, the city can continue to function well during construction.
On a point of order. This is a Second Stage speech and it is unprecedented.
I am sure the Minister of State has almost concluded her contribution.
Our co-operation is not being appreciated.
The Senator may leave if he wishes. It must be stressed that light rail is not the only element in the overall plan and cannot stand alone. It is part of a wider strategy proposed by the DTI and supported by Government. This strategy is now being implemented in a spirit of co-operation between the various agencies involved.
The issue of integration of light rail with other services was raised on a number of occasions during the debate. While cost is an issue, it is not simply a question of funding alone. Direct links with DART, Connolly Station and Busaras raise significant technical issues. The issues involved and the potential trade-offs between alternative options on integration are quite complex. This Bill takes account of the fact that effective consultation in a spirit of open two way communication is the key to success for this project.
This Bill does not end the debate on light rail; it does not end the debate on which routes should be implemented first; it does not restrict the number of lines that can be built and it does not 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 within 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.
Once again, I express my thanks for the constructive way in which issues were raised during this debate. It is no exaggeration to say that the passage of this Bill will be instrumental in preparing our capital city for the 21st century. I thank the Cathaoirleach, the staff of the Seanad, Senators, the staff and Members of the Lower House and the staff of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications for supporting the debate and the passage of the Bill.
Members on this side of the House are grateful for the in-depth discussion we had while processing this legislation. We represent the genuine views and concerns of those groups and organisations who could not obtain the information required in relation to the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister and her staff for the guarantees given. However, a view I put forward on Second Stage was not mentioned. I understood this was enabling legislation which would start this process. I firmly believe monorail should be seriously considered. It is the rail system which is used throughout the world. I thank everyone concerned for a terrific debate. We look forward to more legislation to enable us to further the objectives of this Bill.
I congratulate the Minister on having this Bill passed. She did so with skill and a great deal of consideration. This is only enabling legislation that will start the work which will give Dublin a better transport system in the future. Those of us who have strong views on going underground believe that view has been listened to and I know my amendments, along with many others, have been considered. I congratulate the Minister and I hope this is the start of a better transport system for Dublin.
I compliment those who took part in the debate, which was a good and sometimes hard-hitting one. I thank the Minister for the degree of consultation made possible during the course of the debate. In the heat of the last vote a suggestion was made that perhaps agreements were reached which were not kept. I gave no undertaking or indication about whether there would or would not be another vote. I would not like people to think there was a breach of faith or fast dealing on this side of the House. I have always been very straight with my opposite numbers, as they have been with me. That is the way we do business in this House and there was no deviation from it today.
I join with colleagues in congratulating the Minister on piloting this Bill through the House. She has proved to be open and frank and where faults were exposed, she had no hesitation in accepting responsiblility on behalf of the State. Not only do I congratulate Members for their stamina, but I congratulate members of the public who have an interest in this legislation and who spent the same amount of time in the House. Their staying power must also be recognised. Many issues raised today are not included in this legislation, that is, concern for people, their homes, businesses and environment. Now these concerns are on record, woebetide any Government which does not take them fully into account.
I compliment the Minister, particularly for her openness, and for arranging meetings to allow us to express our views and opinions. There is a strong onus on her to act as watchdog to ensure that the principles which were not included in the Bill but with which she agreed are acted on.
I refer to a procedural matter which must be considered and which has arisen on several occasion, not only in relation to this Bill. People have been told they cannot table amendments because of the Title. When they try to amend the Title, they are told it cannot be done, although I am told the Title can and has been amended by the parliamentary draftsman during the parliamentary process, at least in the other House. That is something which must be considered because it creates a catch-22 situation which means one cannot affect the Bill once a particular determination is made.
That is a matter which the Senator can raise with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Question put and agreed to.