A GOVERNMENT defeat in the Seanad, which would have been the fourth in this parliamentary session, was overturned within a matter of hours by the Government because of the absence of the two PD senators.
The drama occurred during the debate on the Dublin Light Rail Bill when the Government suffered a 26-25 vote defeat on an Opposition amendment during the Committee Stage of the Bill.
The amendment, proposed by Fianna Fail and by the Independent senator, Mr David Norris, sought a detailed analysis of the main alternatives to the Light Rail Plan. This would replace an outline analysis as proposed in the Bill.
The amendment had the support of the FF senators, the two PD members, Mr John Dardis and Ms Cathy Honan, and the three Independents, Mr Norris, Mr Joe O'Toole and Mr Feargal Quinn.
The Government parties were supported by the Independent senator, Mr Sam McAughtry. The two other Independents, Mr Joe Lee and Ms Mary Henry, were not present.
The Bill passed the Committee Stage, but on the Report Stage the Leader of the House, Senator Maurice Manning, resubmitted the Government's original proposal of an outline analysis and called for a vote.
This was passed by 25 votes to 24 because the two PDs had left the House.
The calling of the vote by the Leader of the House was described by Mr Norris as "a sleight of hand".
A Government defeat in the Seanad could have meant a delay of three months in implementing the Bill.
The Minister of State, Ms Avril Doyle, said it was evident that there was general support for the Bill.
She said that where there had been complaints about the consultation process steps had been taken to remedy this.
If there were still difficulties the problem could be taken up with public representatives, who let her know, and these would be remedied.
"We place a very high value on effective and inclusive consultation and are committed to ensuring that consultation is carried out to the highest professional standards in an open and responsible way," she said.
It was known that the Government could face another embarrassing defeat on the proposed amendments during the committee stage of the Light Rail Bill.
Mr Norris had signalled that at the second stage and had in fact put a price on his vote the price was the inclusion of an underground option, the appointment of an independent arbitrator and the possibility of some form of private enterprise.
After protracted meetings with Opposition senators which involved her officials and the Attorney General's Office, Ms Doyle conceded one main amendment - that an underground section could be considered as part of the light rail system.
This was revealed by the Minister when she agreed to amendments by Opposition senators when the Committee Stage of the Bill came before the House yesterday morning.
The Minister said the central concern expressed during the debate on the Second Stage in the Seanad was that the Bill did not make explicit issues which were in effect contemplated in the legislation.
This related in particular to the concern that an underground option was being excluded. During that debate she promised that she would look at the Bill with a view to introducing an amendment which would make it absolutely explicit that the underground option was possible under the Bill.
She was therefore proposing to make an amendment to define a light railway as a railway whether above, on or under the ground.
"I trust that senators will be assured by my amendment that this enabling legislation does not seek to dictate the detail of how light rail is to be implemented and in no way excludes the possibility of any section of the light rail going underground," she said.
Mr Norris said he welcomed the Minister's amendment.
It was important and it copperfastened what she said about it being simply an enabling Bill and that it did not rule out an underground option although the underground option was nowhere specified in the Bill.
He said the Seanad had succeeded in making changes to the Light Rail Bill which the Dail attempted and failed to pass. The Seanad had produced the goods.
Members of the Seanad, he said, had co operated with the Minister and her officials during a fruitful and detailed series of meetings ending at 2 a.m. on Thursday. As a result of that meeting, they had this successful amendment.
Senator Joe O'Toole (Independent) said there were many people in Dublin who would be pleased that the option for the underground was now open for consideration.
It was significant that Seanad members managed to put forward a more convincing argument on this issue than the members of the Lower House, "who are still involved in a learning process".
Ms Doyle, replying, said there was no original proposal to place any section of the light rail system underground.
The original proposal was based on a DTI recommendation which advocated an entirely on street system.
This was enabling legislation and, if the consultants were considering the possibility of underground sections, they would recommend this when they published their report later.
Ms Doyle said that neither she nor her officials or the Attorney General had any difficulty conceding the explicit definition of railway to ensure underground was not excluded from this legislation. This was a worthwhile amendment which augmented the Bill, she said.
However the Minister said she could not accept the Fianna Fail amendment asking that the programme include proposals for a railway line linking Dublin Airport and the city centre.
She said the programme did not include or exclude a spur to the airport. In fact, the legislation did not mention any particular line or route or terminal. None was precluded.
She did not want to start putting these in and leaving others out. That would restrict rather than enhance the legislation.
The Minister said she would have her own "shopping list" of preferred terminals and preferred routes, and the Minister and the consultants would have theirs. There were sound economic reasons, she said, for a spur to the airport.
"I fully support the economic rationale behind the debate in relation to a light rail or regular rail link to Dublin Airport," she said.
"It has not been decided yet whether it should be the conventional rail or light rail to the airport. If it is the conventional rail, it has no part of this Bill".
She said that, by mentioning Dublin Airport, they could preclude other options which might turn out to be better when they had listened to transport consultants in this particular area.
She stressed that she was not against any of the particular routes suggested. Rather she thought it handicapped the Bill.
A Fianna Fail senator, Mr G.V. Wright said the airport and area around it were the fastest growing part of the city. It was a matter of fact that you could not get into the city from the north side at the moment any day of the week.
He thought that in an expenditure of more than £200 million there would be provision for a link to Dublin Airport.
He said that what was coming across to those who had an interest in the airport and its environs was that there was no commitment in relation to transport to the airport.
Yet the EU Commission and many others had been making the point that they could not understand how it was decided not to have a link to the airport.
Senator Pascal Mooney (FF) said that Dublin was the only city in Europe that did not have an airport rail link.