Amendments Nos. 22 to 26, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 30 and 32 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2001: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 40.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 27, subsection (1)(a), lines 33 and 34, to delete “, the plan, the book of reference to the plan and the environmental impact statement” and substitute “and all documents”.
This relates to an earlier debate on the 1996 light railways Act. When Luas was being planned and put forward in legislation, we laid out how appeals would be dealt with under that Act. This is an extension of that whereby an eminent person would deal with appeals. Judge O'Leary, who I cannot praise enough, did so in that case and it has been suggested that it would be a person such as that. He or she would hear oral appeals made by a person, group or community, make a decision, refer that decision to the agency involved in the railways – in the case of Luas, it is to CIE, or the rail procurement office – and place an onus on the Minister to see that the decision he or she made is implemented. It is a very good system.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 27, subsection (1)(b)(ii), lines 44 and 45, to delete “, plan, book of reference and environmental impact statement” and substitute “and accompanying documents”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 28, subsection (1)(b)(v), lines 5 to 7, to delete “, plan, book of reference or environmental impact statement” and substitute “accompanying documents”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 28, subsection (1)(c), lines 13 and 14, to delete “, plan, book of reference, environmental impact statement” and substitute “and accompanying documents”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 28, subsection (2), line 22, to delete ", plan, book of reference or environmental impact statement" and substitute "and accompanying documents".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 28, subsection (3), line 29, to delete "14" and substitute "30".
This amendment seeks to extend the length of time in which submissions can be made in writing to the Minister from 14 days to 30 days.
I accept that amendment; it is reasonable. People might be away or something might happen.
I thank the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 29, subsection 1(b), lines 42 and 43, to delete “the Minister shall, after consultation with An Bord Pleanála” and substitute “An Bord Pleanála shall”.
These amendments are self-explanatory. They seek to have the appointment of the person in charge of the public inquiry made only by An Bord Pleanála and not by the Minister after consultation with An Bord Pleanála.
I refer to the way in which the light railway Act was conceived and passed in 1996. We are not talking about an arrangement which we do not know whether it works. It has worked very well. We have the example of how it has worked. I do not see the point in regard to An Bord Pleanála. Judge O'Leary was appointed by a previous Government and I kept him on because I was so delighted that somebody of his eminence agreed to continue to do the work. It should be the job of the Minister to put forward somebody of eminence. It is not that I want to put forward anyone of eminence because I guess we will be on the hustings before this comes in, so it would be another Minister. I am not seeking to promote anyone in particular.
The Minister will be there.
Not in this job. It is better that the Minister has the right.
I am quite sure the Labour Senators were not thinking of the Minister but of Ministers yet unborn—
I hope they are not unborn or there will be babies here.
—who would not have as broad a vision. I can see the Minister would like to keep it because it has worked satisfactorily in the past.
It has worked and we have the example.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 30, subsection (2)(b), lines 36 and 37, to delete “, plan, book of reference to the plan and the environmental impact statement' and substitute “and documents”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 31, subsection (4), line 32, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "2,000 (£1,575.13)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 32, subsection (1)(b), lines 28 and 29, to delete “, plan, book of reference to the plan and the environmental impact statement” and substitute “and documents”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 32, subsection (2), line 41, after "and" to insert ", subject to section 11(7) in the case of the Agency,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 33, subsection (4), line 8, to delete "two" and substitute "2".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 33, subsection (6), line 27, after "operate" to insert "the railway or".
It is a mirror of an earlier amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 35, subsection (3), line 5, after "light railway" to insert "or as a metro".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 45 and 46 agreed to.
SECTION 47.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are related and both may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 36, subsection (5)(a), line 37, after “High Court” to insert “or Supreme Court”.
This came up before in an earlier Bill in this House, so I accept the recognition of the Supreme Court.
I thank the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 36, subsection (5)(a), line 38, to delete “High”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 48 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 52.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 41, subsection (4), line 19, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "2,000 (£1,575.13)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 53.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 41, line 30, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "2,000 (£1,575.13)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 54.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 42, subsection (6), line 18, to delete "£500" and substitute "600 (£472.54)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 55 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 58.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 43, subsection (3), line 15, to delete "£500" and substitute "600 (£472.54)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 59.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 43, subsection (4), line 24, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "2,000 (£1,575.13)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 59, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 60 and 61 agreed to.
SECTION 62.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 44, subsection (3), line 3, to delete "£1,500" and substitute 2,000 (£1,575.13)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 62, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 63.
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 44, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "£500" and substitute "600 (£472.54)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 63, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 64.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 44, line 38, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "2,000 (£1,575.13)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 45, subsection (3), line 25, to delete "£500" and substitute "600 (£472.54)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 65, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 66.
Government amendment No. 48:
In page 45, subsection (2), line 38, to delete "£500" and substitute "600 (£472.54)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 66, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 67 to 71, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I apologise for not being here earlier.
I understand.
We made far better progress without the Senator.
That is the embarrassment of having amendments tabled and not being here to argue and present them, but I am sure my colleagues sitting behind and in front of me would have done the business adequately. I am also aware Senator Tom Fitzgerald helped us out.
While there are many questions I could ask, I will just ask one regarding section 38 which we opposed on the basis of a concern that all the works consisting of the construction, operation, maintenance, improvement or repair of a railway should be exempted for the purpose of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Why is that broad exemption to apply, given that it would mean the matter would be authorised by the Minister and the planning process would not apply to such works, which is a significant departure?
We had quite a debate on that section on which Senators Henry, Quinn and Caffrey asked questions. The Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act, 1996, proved to be an exemplary Act in the setting up of an appeals system whereby the Minister of the day appointed an eminent person, in that case Judge Seán O'Leary, to implement the appeals process and deliberate on it. He set up his office in Dublin Castle, as far as I recall. Individuals, communities or organisations who felt they might be aggrieved by Luas passing through their area called to him and made oral submissions. The appeals process was held in public and the proceedings were reported daily in the newspapers at the time. Judge O'Leary listened to each case, inspected the matter and reported on it and his report on the process was presented to me. The Minister of the day is obliged to ensure the stipulations laid down by Judge O'Leary are put into operation. Such stipulations seek to ensure that the system provided under the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act for other rail developments is put into operation. That procedure was exemplary and it worked.
As I said to Senator Henry, it is not as if we are talking about something we did not see in operation. When I took up this brief there was a controversy about whether part of the Luas line would go underground. When Judge O'Leary began his deliberations on the appeals process, I asked him to continue in office, which he did and he saw through lines A, B, and C and then asked to be released from bondage, as he called it, to return to mainstream judicial work. We saw that system working and we were very taken by it, as was the public. It had direct access to the person making the decisions.
I understood the work carried out by Judge O'Leary related to the construction of the light rail service. What about maintenance, improvement, refurbishment and upgrading works that will be carried out in the future which could continue ad infinitum? Substantial works might be required in five to 20 years' time that may have no bearing on the initial project or may have diverged considerably from it, which might require access to the planning laws or it might be suitable that the planning laws should apply to the carrying out of such works. That is my concern. I am satisfied with the work that has been done.
I take the Senator's point that while the works done now might suffice for ten to 15 years, substantial works may need to be carried out in the future. The agency, CIE or whoever would carry out those work would have to apply to the Minister who would then set up another process, such as that overseen by Judge O'Leary.
Is such a system not cumbersome?
No, it is very direct. I read the reports of many of the oral submissions and planning meetings Judge O'Leary held. Miriam, one of my officials here, worked with Judge O'Leary on that. He listened to say, Mrs. Browne, who told him the Luas line would be very near her back garden and he was courteous but very succinct. He went out to inspect Mrs. Browne's back garden and reported that either the line would be very near her back garden and something would have to be done or that nothing would have to be done. The writing in his reports was a model of succinct English but also reflected great justice done. I sent copies of his reports to everyone concerned. The onus is on the Minister of the day to ensure everything he stipulated is carried through. The carrying out of such works in the future would require another such process and the appointment of an office holder such as Judge O'Leary to oversee it, although I doubt if we would get someone as good as he was to do such a job. I am reminded by Senator Tom Fitzgerald that he was a Senator for a short period.
He was a Member during the Minister's time.
He was. I mentioned that to him on the telephone one day. If there is a need to make a change or an addition to the service, the agency that would carry out such work would have to apply to the Minister of the day who would have to set up such a system. If there was a need to amend, they would have to apply to the Minister of the day who, in turn, would have to set up such a system again.
I would like to compliment the Minister, as I have done on many occasions since she became Minister for Public Enterprise, for initiating this important Bill in the Seanad. As she said, it was originally intended that it be more widely encompassing, but it is still a milestone in the spectacular programme she has for public transport, not only in Dublin but throughout the country. It is so essential and urgent. I concur with her fully regarding the efficiency with which the programme is progressing.
I join with her in complimenting Judge O'Leary. Many years ago in Galway, I had the honour of participating with him on "Questions and Answers" with John O'Donoghue, before the present incumbent began to present it. I recall, to my embarrassment at the time, the clarity with which he approached all the subjects raised. I am not at all surprised that he approached the tasks assigned to him by the Minister in such an efficient and effective manner. No doubt, he set a good example for the future.
The Minister has been extremely accommodating, as always, in terms of accepting the views expressed by Senators. During Senator Costello's unavoidable absence, Senators Henry, Quinn and Caffrey played a spectacular role in convincing the Minister to accept some of their amendments.
Senator Fitzgerald should not go over the top.
Rarely are so many amendments accepted so enthusiastically by a Minister. We are delighted the Bill has passed through the Seanad and that we have had the honour of initiating it here.
I thank the Minister for explaining this legislation so thoroughly to us today. Initially I was disappointed that the Bill did not go far enough in addressing the heavy railway system. Nevertheless, it is specific legislation for a specific purpose. We all agree that it is worthwhile and necessary. The only section about which I have reservations is section 38, pertaining to exempted development. However, the planning process is cumbersome, slow and inefficient and one cannot think of enough negative terms to describe it. Anything subject to it is delayed, often interminably. In this instance, and judging by the sentiments of all the Senators present, the development of the transport system in the city does not need to be delayed any further. We are all conscious of the city's traffic problems. I thank the Minister for attending today.
Living in the same neck of the woods as the Minister, I know the interest she takes in the public transport system, although she is a great walker like myself. We go to the same paper woman who tells me I have been preceded by the Minister by about two hours.
She has gone to Lourdes for the week.
The Minister is always about two hours ahead of me coming to work. After all, she is a Minister. It was deplorable that the public transport system was allowed to get into its present state and I appreciate the work the Minister has been doing in this regard. There is a Russian delegation visiting this week and I was in Russia last week. It is not just the Moscow metro system that is marvellous; I was also in Rostov-on-Don. I found it easier to get around there without having Russian than in Dublin having English.
It is dreadful that we have to work for things such as bus shelters. We should have maps showing where all the bus routes are, so one knows where one can inter-connect. Simple things like that would make such a difference to the public.
This would be a major job, but I can suggest more minor things that could also be done. My bleating on about bus shelters has been taken to heart because we now have more, but there is still none for the number 10 bus near the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, and the run from the portico of the Department building to the bus stop is too far. We have to work on that. So many minor things can be done in conjunction with the major work of the Minister to make it possible for people to use public transport more often.
I also compliment the Minister. It is good to see the legislation focuses on the light rail and metro. We have been waiting for it for a long time. There have been many changes since the initial light rail proposals came into existence. It is almost a decade since money was originally produced by the EU; it was £400 million initially. In that time, successive Governments have not delivered the goods. I hope the actual work will take place very rapidly. We can see where streets are now being dug up. I still have reservations about exemptions regarding the planning laws. It is a question of precedence. We will see how it works. The original section has worked quite well, but for every person who has been contacted and is happy with Judge O'Leary, I know of others who are quite unhappy.
That will always be the way.
That is the way the world is. In any case, I hope the legislation is a substantial step forward in establishing much needed public transport in the capital. As always in this House, the Minister is forthcoming, prepared to answer questions that are put to her and willing to discuss amendments.
Once again, the Minister has shown that when she is determined to ensure something will happen, as she always is, it happens. Senator Fitzgerald used the word "spectacular" of those who are not on the Government side. I think the Minister's work is spectacular. Her ability to listen and take into account the views of those proposing amendments is admirable.
I thank the Senators who are here today, Senators Liam Fitzgerald, Caffrey, Costello, Henry and Quinn, and the Senators who contributed to the Second Stage. Senator Ryan made some interesting comments on Second Stage. Senators Caffrey and Liam Fitzgerald were here for all Stages. Senators Caffrey and Quinn had very practical points of view.
I want to thank the officials, Maurice Treacy and Miriam Delahunty. It is interesting that Miriam was the one who worked with Judge O'Leary, and perhaps she too is responsible for some of the excellent drafting of the Bill. Peter Fitzsimons, who is not in the House, was also involved with the Bill.
I understand what Senator Henry was saying about bus shelters and problems on certain bus routes. All change takes a long time, which is a difficulty when making substantial changes to the public transport system. While going through change, until the time of completion, this is painful for commuters and customers. I remember John Prescott saying to me at a Council of Ministers meeting, "Public transport is bloody awful, Mary." He meant the working out of it, as public transport is necessary, and so too is its funding. We are only beginning to wake up to that.
Russia was referred to. I was in St. Petersburg for two days about two months ago and it is not just the metro in Moscow that is exemplary. The buses come up with such regularity and there are nicely covered bus shelters, which all adds up to proper public transport. When I said that in the Dáil it evoked a huge piece in the Sunday Tribune saying I am a socialist.
Does the Minister agree?
Yes, I agree. Of course I do because whatever else they did they provided public transport. It is a fact that there was no other transport available as the cars were clapped out.
We all fell in love with cars. Everyone wanted one, two and three cars if they could get them. Governments of different persuasions only woke up in the last decade to the problem of where all the cars and the people using them were going to go. Traffic jams made us think, but there is still a reluctance to put money into public transport.
If we do not get trains, light rail, metro and buses up and running in sufficient quantities then life will not be worth living because of the congestion, fumes, environmental hazards and stress. All of these factors come from being behind the wheel, gritting one's teeth, gnawing on one's fingers and making 40 telephone calls as one waits in the queue not able to get through the lights. We also need to pay decent wages to those who run public transport. To travel by any type of train, be it light rail, heavy rail or petrol, is relaxing, safe and environmentally friendly. The change is taking a while but it is happening. I hope successive generations, Ministers, Senators and everybody including the public at large will have the benefit. I would bet even money they will say they are not benefiting. There is always a demand for perfection.
When I started public life at local authority level so many years ago it seemed that if everyone could have a decent house, and then if everyone could have a proper education, the world would be right. Now that they have houses and education I feel that if they could get decent public transport maybe everything would be right then. I guess that I will go to the grave pondering what is the new area of life that has to be put right before everyone will feel they have a decent return for their money.
I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach, the Cathaoirleach and those who helped to conduct the putting through of what I think is a good Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 12.15 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 p.m.