Vol. 608 No. 1
79 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he has received the business plans from three State airports to date; if not, if he views the immediate completion of such plans as a priority; his views on whether the airports cannot adequately respond to future demands and adapt to changes within the aviation industry in the absence of such plans; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29709/05]
In keeping with the provisions of the State Airports Act 2004, the board of the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, has a statutory mandate to do everything necessary to give effect to the restructuring of the State airports.
The Shannon and Cork Airport Authorities were incorporated in September last year and in line with the framework provided by the 2004 Act, these two authorities will, in due course and subject to operational and financial readiness, own and operate their respective airports, once sufficient distributable reserves are available to transfer the relevant assets.
Both the Minister for Finance and I must be satisfied as to the sate of operational and financial readiness of the Shannon and Cork Airport Authorities before the assets of the airports are vested in those bodies. The formulation of comprehensive business plans by the boards will be a key aspect in evaluating operational and financial readiness. The three airport authorities are continuing to work on preparing their business plans, with the DAA co-ordinating the process. In this context, a range of issues needs to be considered, including the unsustainable cost base at Shannon Airport, the recently announced charges determination for Dublin Airport by the Commission for Aviation Regulation and the optimum mechanisms for the financing of the new terminal in Cork.
These are complex issues which the airport authorities must consider carefully and I have not imposed any artificial deadlines on the business planning process. Since the establishment of the new authorities last year, all three airports anticipate record traffic this year, with passenger numbers likely to exceed 18 million and 2.6 million at Dublin and Cork, respectively, while Shannon is expected to reach the 3 million figure for the first time. Even in advance of full autonomy, it is clear that the new boards for Shannon and Cork, in conjunction with the DAA, are bringing a new impetus to developing and growing their airports, with growth this year expected to be over 30% at Shannon and close to 20% at Cork. Both these airports have the potential to build further on this success in the light of what is best for their particular business and their regions.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he agree that we are now at an absolutely critical juncture as far as aviation is concerned? There is a complete lacuna as regards the restructuring of the various State airports. The Minister says he is not placing a deadline on the business plans. Will not this just allow the type of drift we have at the moment to continue? I am sure the Minister recognises that the Dublin Airport Authority does not know at this time the type of debt it will have to carry forward, either from Cork or Shannon. It does not know whether it will have to carry the debt from the hotels. Already, it has admitted that it cannot build a terminal because the increase in the charges allowed will be less than what it asked for.
Is the Minister going to look for another bidder to provide the terminal, given that he has picked one that cannot guarantee delivery? Will be insist on business plans being produced by the airports? Is he going to make a decision on the hotels? In short, is he going to make any decision in respect of Dublin Airport, which is at a complete disadvantage now that it faces an open skies policy?
I agree with the Deputy that there are complex issues surrounding the three State airports. However, we must not lose sight of the important fact that all of the airports are showing record growth at the moment. That is fundamental to their futures, particularly for Cork and Shannon, with Shannon due to reach the 3 million passengers mark for the first time, while Cork will show a throughput of more than 2.6 million this year.
As regards the Deputy's second last question, it does not necessarily follow that if somebody else is building the terminal, he or she is in a better position. The Commission for Aviation Regulation still determines the charging regime. No private person interested in constructing a terminal at Dublin Airport can do so unless it is profitable. He or she is in it for business reasons and this is significant.
The Minister is assuming there are no charges.
Then there would be no income from it and I do not know whether anybody would actually do that.
The Minister assumes that the same cost levels are involved but that cannot be assumed.
I assure the Deputy that no one has given me any indication that the current rate of charges at Dublin Airport can be sustained. We now have the determination by the Commission for Aviation Regulation. That clearly has implications and is being studied by the board of the Dublin Airport Authority in conjunction with officials from my Department. The process of the airports separating is well under way.
I cannot make a decision before the proposals are submitted to me for consultation with the Minister for Finance. I am aware of the issues that Dublin Airport Authority is dealing with and it is working extremely well. That should be put on record.
As regards the new boards in both Cork and Dublin, the three boards share a high degree of confidence that the outcomes will be very good. Importantly, the progress they have made this year on the core issue indicates that they are growing enormously in traffic throughput numbers, which justifies confidence that the projections for the future will be more than sustainable when we are in a position to separate.
Finally, I am absolutely committed to the separation of the three airports under the State Airports Act. Everyone involved in the process wants to ensure that we get it absolutely right.
I accept that Dublin Airport is working well and that the new board is trying to work well but it is faces unbelievable disadvantages. I forgot to mention the fact that the authority now faces the possible re-evaluation of its credit rating, which will further disadvantage it. Will the Minister not accept that aviation in Europe faces a new open skies policy, with airports, airlines and all aviation authorities looking at new routes and new airports? The only country not in a position to do that is Ireland. All our airports are in the position that they literally do not know what the future has in store for them. It appears that no one is making decisions. It is very unfair, particularly for Dublin Airport, which is the national airport, to be disadvantaged in such a way.
The DAA is not supposed to make policy. It is supposed to be given direction by the Minister, who should govern and decide on an aviation policy. The authority is expected to operate at the moment in a vacuum and this is completely unfair. It is absurd to say that the authority is doing a good job when it cannot make any decision.
I reject absolutely what the Deputy has said. Having attended a couple of European Council meetings on transport, with Ireland being very much to the forefront, I can confirm that this is one of the few countries with an absolutely clear view on open skies. That is led by the decision that I made in office——
I am not saying that we do not have a clear view on open skies. However, we are not delivering any of the policies that will benefit Ireland.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. In less than 12 months in office, I made a decision on aviation, in conjunction with the Government, that no previous Ministers in 20 years had made. The Deputy might disagree with some of the decisions. That is her right. However, the decisions have been made with absolute clarity on the development of the airports and the structure of Aer Lingus for the future. There is no question about this. These matters are all in play and are being worked on.
The Deputy is absolutely right——
There is no terminal, no plans, no runway.
——and that is why Ireland is best positioned to capture open skies with the transatlantic routes. We do not even have to look just to the transatlantic routes, we should also be looking at the Middle East——
Where will they land? On what runway will they land?
I am very happy with that and should get some acknowledgement for it.
80 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport his proposals for management of the estimated 7,000 additional heavy goods vehicles which will be obliged to use the Westlink toll bridge following the opening of the Dublin Port tunnel, in view of the existing serious congestion on the M50 and the long delays at the toll bridge; the policy directions he has given to the National Roads Authority in respect of its most recent negotiations with NTR as provided for under Section 41 of the Roads Act 1993; if he has given direction on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29726/05]
Traffic management in general is a matter for the appropriate local authority and in the case of the M50, the city centre and the vicinity of Dublin Port, that authority is Dublin City Council.
As a major new element in the capital's road network, the port tunnel will have a considerable beneficial impact on traffic flow in the Dublin area. It will be of particular benefit in facilitating improved access to Dublin Port for heavy goods vehicles while reducing HGV traffic in the city. The National Roads Authority and Dublin City Council are working to ensure that the tunnel, when open, will integrate smoothly with the road network.
In parallel with the opening to traffic of the Dublin Port tunnel, Dublin City Council will be introducing a heavy goods vehicle traffic management strategy to ensure that maximum traffic benefits are secured from the Dublin Port tunnel.
My Department's formal role will be to put in place the necessary regulatory framework relating to traffic and parking management and road signage to support the strategy. In addition, the Department will continue to liaise with Dublin City Council as the strategy is finalised, so that I may be assured that the primary objective of the Dublin Port tunnel — to provide a high quality access route to Dublin Port for heavy goods vehicles — is achieved in a manner which maximises the overall traffic benefit of the tunnel. The issue of increased traffic on the M50 due to larger volumes of heavy goods vehicles must be considered in the context of the current average of 85,000 vehicles per day on the West Link section. In the first half of this year, between Monday and Friday, average daily traffic was running at 98,000 vehicles. The solution to peak hour congestion on the M50 requires the implementation of the M50 upgrade project and, as part of this, a move to free flow tolling at the West Link bridge.
In this context, the M50 upgrade motorway scheme and environmental impact statement were published in September 2004 and approved by An Bord Pleanála in April 2005. The upgrade involves the widening of approximately 32 km of the motorway from two to three lanes in each direction, from the M50-M1 interchange near Dublin Airport through to the Sandyford interchange, and the upgrade of ten junctions along this length. The NRA envisages that a design and build contract will be awarded by December 2005 for phase 1, the N4-N7 section, and a contract to expand the West Link section operated by National Toll Roads to three-plus-three motorway will be awarded during 2006. The public-private partnership contract for the remainder of the upgrade project is also expected to be awarded during 2006.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The NRA, in the context of the proposed upgrade of the M50, is in negotiation with National Toll Roads regarding the upgrade of the section of the M50 operated by NTR. These negotiations are addressing the upgrading of both the road section and the tolling arrangements. No policy direction has been given to the NRA under section 41 of the Roads Act 1993 in the context of these negotiations. The NRA is, however, well aware of my objective to secure significantly enhanced capacity and an increased level of service on the M50 for road users, including through an early move to barrier free tolling. The NRA will report to me on the outcome of these negotiations.
I assume the Minister accepts there will be a significant increase in traffic volume on the M50, particularly in the vicinity of the West Link bridge, as a result of the opening of the Dublin Port tunnel. My question asked what proposals the Minister had for managing the imminent increase in traffic volume, particularly of heavy goods vehicles, on the West Link toll bridge. We know traffic in the area is chaotic, with the M50 operating to capacity and daily reports of the problems associated with queuing at the toll bridge. A further 7,000 trucks per day will use the M50 and West Link toll bridge when the port tunnel opens. This is a recipe for chaos and gridlock on the outer fringes of Dublin.
In answer to my question, the Minister attempted to pass the buck by referring to a variety of agencies. He knows perfectly well that Dublin City Council has no role in respect of the West Link. The council is doing one thing in the city centre, the National Roads Authority something else on the outskirts and National Tolls Roads and Fingal County Council are also involved. It appears nobody is in charge despite the fact that we face chaos when the port tunnel opens next year. Traffic on the M50 is bad enough as it is. What are the Minister's proposals for managing the major problems which will arise in the middle of next year when Dublin Port tunnel opens?
The Minister referred to open road tolling, an issue he has been talking about for a long time. Legislation is required to introduce this system which is urgently needed on the West Link. What is the Minister's target date for introducing open road tolling? A number of proposals have been made to lift the toll gates on an experimental basis to encourage greater use of the road at off-peak times. Has the Department carried out a cost benefit analysis in respect of the possibility of lifting the toll gates or the impact such an initiative would have on traffic flows?
I fundamentally disagree with the Deputy's opening remarks. Dublin City Council, not the Minister for Transport, is the authority responsible for this matter.
Dublin City Council is responsible for Dublin Port tunnel, not the M50.
The Deputy should not try to pass the buck for responsibilities with which Labour Party councillors and other members of Dublin City Council are charged.
Dublin City Council has no responsibility for the M50 or the West Link toll bridge.
Order, please. Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. Dublin City Council is responsible for traffic management in conjunction——
It is responsible for traffic management in the city.
It is specifically responsible for managing port tunnel traffic.
It has no responsibility for the M50.
Even if the Deputy does not like my answer, she should at least give me a chance to give it.
The Minister should tell the truth and stop pretending Dublin City Council has any role in the M50.
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
The Deputy's behaviour is typical of the Labour Party which is in control——
That is not true.
Her party tries to absolve city and county councils of their failures on a weekly basis.
The Minister should stop trying to change the subject.
I am not changing the subject.
Traffic management on the M50 has nothing to do with the city council.
There is no point in the Deputy tabling a question if she does not want me to answer it.
Allow the Minister to speak without interruption.
He should answer the question honestly.
I have been specific in answering the question. Dublin City Council is the authority responsible for traffic management in Dublin. The council is in consultation with the National Roads Authority about the M50 and the toll bridge to work out traffic management solutions for the period after Dublin Port tunnel opens.
What are the solutions?
Like the Deputy, I would like to see them.
As the Minister for Transport, he is in charge.
Dublin City Council, not the Minister for Transport, is responsible for traffic management in Dublin. I have encouraged the NRA to——
The Minister should not be so disingenuous.
Would the Deputy support legislation to transfer further powers from local authorities to the Department and Minister?
The Minister should stop changing the subject. That issue has nothing to do with my question. What is he doing to meet his responsibilities?
As we speak, the body with responsibility for planning in this regard is Dublin City Council, as is the case with the respective councils in Limerick, Galway, Cork, Waterford and elsewhere. If the Deputy is arguing that her party's councillors on Dublin City Council, working with council officials, do not have the capacity or ability to do this job and a special case must be made for Dublin, the Department will reconsider the position.
What is the Minister doing?
I am telling the Deputy what I am doing. I am waiting. I have asked the——
He dropped the strategic infrastructure Bill.
As the Bill will have little to do with traffic management in Dublin, the Deputy should not to throw it into the hat.
It is very much in the hat. The Government spent €1 billion on building a tunnel for which there is no purpose and no clear plan and, as such, deserves to be criticised.
I was the originator of the Bill and it has no provisions for traffic management in Dublin. I have tried to impart a great deal of information to the Deputies about the position of the National Roads Authority, National Toll Roads and other bodies but, as usual, the minute I start to answer the question the Deputies start to interrupt me.
We will not be taken in by the Minister's tricks.
The Deputy is using tricks.
The Minister raised issues which are not relevant. I asked him a question about the West Link toll bridge which is within the boundaries of Fingal County Council.
Rather than giving me a chance to answer, the Deputy started to rant the moment I spoke.
The factual position is that the West Link toll bridge is in the Fingal County Council area and has nothing to do with Dublin City Council. Given that approximately 7,000 additional heavy goods vehicles will use the West Link toll bridge daily in six months, what, if anything, is the Minister planning to do to manage this development which has the potential to bring the city to a standstill? That was my first question. Second, what is his target date for introducing the long-promised system of open road tolling?
Again, the two answers are clear. Like the Deputy, I urge Dublin City Council to fulfil its responsibility to put in place a traffic management plan. The Deputy pretends this responsibility lies elsewhere.
That is not the case. The Minister is misleading the House.
Does the Deputy want an answer to her questions on the toll road and the M50?
Yes, but I want an honest reply. The Minister should stop misleading the House.
We must proceed to the next question.
If the Deputy does not want answers, there is no point in me attending the House for questions. She came to the House to play a political game on this issue but I will not allow her to get away with it.
We do not want the Minister's stunts and distractions. He should answer the question.
The stunts are taking place on the Opposition side of the House.
81 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Transport when he will publish the ten-year transport investment plan for the country; and if contractual commitments on the major public transport projects within the plan are expected to be agreed within the lifetime of this Dáil. [29724/05]
82 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he has considered the impact of projected population changes within the greater Dublin area and its implication for his Department’s ten-year transport plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29710/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 81 and 82 together.
I hope to submit proposals to Government shortly regarding the ten-year transport investment framework. I will publish details of the framework once it has been approved by the Government. Responsibility for entering into contractual commitments for the major public transport projects under the framework will be a matter for the implementing agencies and not directly for my Department. However, the framework will set out the annual global financial profiles and indicative timeframes for the implementation of major projects and the agencies will be expected to work within these parameters. The implementation of the projects will be spread over the ten-year lifetime of the framework, having regard to the state of preparedness of individual projects, their relative priority and the annual financial profiles.
The forecast increase in population in the greater Dublin area was considered. In developing the framework, my Department asked the Dublin Transportation Office to carry out transportation modelling on the impacts of a number of different scenarios to help assess the optimal mix of investments.
It is clear from the Minister's response that no major public transport projects will be contractually signed in the lifetime of this Dáil. In the exchange with Deputy Shortall it was interesting to hear he has nothing to do with traffic management in the capital and now he is saying he has nothing to do with the contractual arrangements that these are up to the agency.
And nothing to do with the subject.
I did not say that either, and the Deputy should not misquote me. I answered a specific question on who is in charge and gave an answer.
He is like Manuel, he knows nothing.
The Minister stated that it would be up to the implementing agencies whether any contracts would be signed. This is the exact replica of what happened four years ago, where Fianna Fáil stated before an election that it would build a metro and six months later when the election was over, it was goodbye to the Metro. Anything he will say about public transport will have the same credibility. It is a Fianna Fáil promise before an election. If the contracts are not signed before the election, sorry, it counts for nothing.
Are the media reports true with regard to the front-loading in the roads programme, that the Department of Finance after its clever analysis of the transport scene in the past six years when they let through a €6 billion roads programme which cost €16 billion, is fighting the good valiant fight and insisting that we spend more on roads and then eventually, after 2014 or some such date, we will start building public transport? Is that general trend emerging from the Minister's detailed analysis which was meant to be completed last March?
On the funding envelope that the Minister called the global financial portfolio, if we are adopting a funding mechanism for the proposed metro which would involve, not the State funding it — Lord forbid we put a penny into public transport — but rather private finance over 20 or 30 years of the lifetime of the project the Government has proposed, how does that funding fit into the overall funding about which the Minister talks?
All the Deputy's assertions, as usual, are wrong. Some day I might figure out what the Greens want. They do not want roads.
Public transport.
They do not want private money in public transport. They do not want investment in this or that. It is an extraordinary policy.
Public money into public transport. That is the answer.
I will look in glee to the distant future when Fine Gael and Labour might sit down and come up with some cohesive policies that they might operate together.
Public money from the public purse.
The reality is that no such decision——
After eight years in Government we might have one.
——will emerge on the investment over the next ten years that will prioritise roads over investment in public transport. That is not the way the plan will be implemented and I am happy to say so in the House this afternoon. I do not know from where the Deputy got that.
From him.
There is a huge commitment in investment in public transport in the plan. His assertion that nothing is happening is nonsense. Only last week I signed the railway order for the upgrade of the electrification of the Kildare and Maynooth lines into Dublin.
It will not go to construction for another three years.
Only last week we completed €175 million investment in the DART, the largest investment ever. Every station is now upgraded to take eight carriages. Passenger numbers per day on the DART are increased by thousands.
Does he believe this rosy picture? Does he think the people believe this nonsense?
Order, please.
Does anybody want me to answer a question here this afternoon? It seems the Deputy has come in, like everybody else——
It is entertainment.
——to just rant and rave. Investment is taking place as we speak. There has been significant investment, from a paltry sum of barely millions up to 1997——
Four to one in favour of roads.
——to billions. More than the Deputy would ever imagine has been invested in public transport.
We all agree that a longer-term horizon is welcome but the idea of such a horizon is that it gives certainty as to what projects will go ahead. That has not happened. There has been every effort to obfuscate about what is planned to hide the fact that nothing is happening. There have been five year plans. There have been national plans. There have been national envelopes of plans. There are plans which are about to be announced. They will take ten years. We do not know whether it is a nine year plan or an 11 year plan. In other words, projects are being dropped, hidden, delayed, put back in and taken out to the extent that nobody knows exactly what is happening. Would the Minister agree now that we know for certain from all the projections, that the population is increasing even faster than we expected, that there is a real need to start delivering on projects and that the rate of the population increase is far greater than the rate of delivery of public transport projects? There has been a large increase in investment in the DART. There has been an increase in investment in recent years in commuter rail. Despite the fact that Luas has taken 20 million trips off the roads in the year, we still see no net improvement because the population is growing at a much faster rate than that at which the Minister is delivering projects. Similarly, the last section of the motorway has been completed——
A question, Deputy.
——and yet every day we hear that there are tailbacks on the new section of the motorway, which it is not planned to widen. The reality is we are losing competitiveness every day as a result of congestion in this city and every other city and the public is losing patience with the Minister. As a result of these compelling figures about population, has the plan been expanded, adjusted or accelerated to cater for these increases?
Is there anybody in the Government who thinks there will ever be a better time for investment in public transport? Will we be richer than at present? Will there be a greater need than at present? In other words, for what on earth is he waiting to get up and going with the public transport projects?
I agree with a number of points the Deputy made. We need to make a huge investment in public transport generally, but specifically in Dublin. I have not changed my view. When I came to conclusions having listened to everybody about what should be in the plan, I would not accept any attempt to alter the plan because it must be a fully integrated plan that will take Dublin into the future.
Deputy Mitchell is correct. This country is income rich but, as I stated recently, we are not public wealth rich. It is time we created the public wealth, like the investment in public transport and other facilities, throughout this country. I am happy that the discussions I have had with the Minister for Finance have gone exceptionally well. However, never again will I put myself in a position of guessing numbers on projects and finding myself back in this House hearing Deputies state that I said it was X and now it is X plus Z. For that reason, the due diligence that has been done on every single project with every single agency, the analysis, the cost benefit analysis, the real costs, the inflation costs and the projected costs all have been put into this programme. They have been scrutinised inside out. We now have almost completed that process and I will be ready to go to the Government shortly with the full investment portfolio. Never before in the history of the State has the roll-out of a project such as the ten year investment for the entire project come, side by side with considerable financial muscle that will stand up to anybody's scrutiny.
I am glad to hear the Minister has done such a detailed costing. Regardless of whether they are included, could he give me the figure for the cost of the eastern by-pass proposed by IBEC or the interconnector rail tunnel proposed by Iarnród Éireann?
This all would be far more credible if we had not heard it week in, week out for the past 12 months. Would the Minister accept, at least, that it is totally false economy to keep postponing projects, that not alone is the cost of each project increasing but the scale of the response is increasing with every passing month?
In reply to Deputy Ryan, "no" is the answer. I will not get——
It is the scale of the response that is needed.
First, as the Deputy knows, I have instructed the NRA and everybody else to do the complete feasibility study on the eastern by-pass and, therefore, I do not have a costing.
The Minister just said he had costed all the projects.
Sorry, the Deputy should wait until he sees the plan.
He just stated he costed everything.
Who said that was in it?
The Minister did.
I did not. The Deputy did, I did not.
No, I do not want it in.
Give me the answer. Put the facts again on the record, if you want to hear them.
It is not in it.
I agree, Deputy but if it takes an extra few months to get this right, I have been willing to do it. Every day I hear in this House Labour, Fine Gael and the Greens pretending that with a click of their fingers they will change health services and infrastructure, as if they have some magical solutions. Not one policy has emerged from the Greens, the Labour Party or Fine Gael——
Eight years.
Eight years.
Since 1998 we have listened week in, week out to the Minister telling us the Government would give us a metro system in Dublin. Where is it?
Order.
——on any area, but they come into this House day in, day out pretending that they have solutions. It is a load of baloney and it is time they were asked by us and the media to stand up what they are saying or shut up.
I would ask to see the Transport files if I was in the position.
83 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport the reason for his failure to fund additional buses for Dublin Bus as promised under the national development plan; and his proposals for addressing the significant unmet demand for extra bus capacity in many parts of Dublin. [29727/05]
Significant Exchequer funds have been allocated to Dublin Bus under the National Development Plan — NDP. Some €349 million in operating subvention has been paid to the company over the period from 1999 to 2005, rising from €16.8 million in 1999 to €64.9 million in the current year. Under the NDP, Dublin Bus has purchased 497 new buses of which 93 are additional and 404 are replacement buses. Some 248 of these buses have been purchased with Exchequer assistance, 179 of which have had their cost met in full by the Exchequer. A further 20 buses will be purchased later this year with Exchequer assistance. In excess of €100 million in Exchequer capital funding has been provided to Dublin Bus since 2000. Included in this is €22 million in Exchequer funds allocated for the construction of a new bus depot at Harristown.
Significant changes have taken place in Dublin since the start of the national development plan. These changes include substantial increases in rail capacity, such as Luas, commuter rail services and the DART upgrades, together with ongoing demographic changes. As a result of a reconfigured fleet, passenger carrying capacity has increased by 255 at peak times. It is in this context that Dublin Bus is carrying out a review of the bus network in Dublin. The company has advised me that the review will be completed early next year. The company is, in the first instance, assessing how to maximise the utilisation of its existing bus fleet.
I anticipate that the company will respond to the challenge of meeting customer expectations in Dublin with new and innovative solutions. I intend to carry out full public consultation on the company's proposals. Given the level of investment in the bus market in Dublin, I want a wide range of views on any proposals for further investment in the bus market to ensure that it continues to represent best value for money for the taxpayer.
The Minister puts much store in the famous ten-year transport plan for which we have been waiting for the past ten months or so, but I am sure he will forgive us for being utterly sceptical about plans. The public shares our scepticism. The experience with the most recent plan, the national development plan, was that it gave absolute guarantees on funding allocations. That plan provided for an additional 275 buses for Dublin Bus — an absolute guarantee of funding set in stone as part of the national development plan. However, not one additional bus has been provided to Dublin Bus since 2001. Meanwhile, the demand for public transport is exploding in the city and thousands of people are turned away from buses daily during the morning and evening peak hours.
Why should we believe anything the Minister says in respect of this famous transport plan when he has not honoured the commitments he gave under the national development plan? Some 275 buses were promised but only 93 were delivered, and that was before 2001. Where are the other 182 buses? When will the Minister deliver them as promised? When will he make some impact on meeting the huge unmet demand for bus services in the Dublin area?
I do not know whether people understand this but, at pain of repeating myself, what seems to be the basis of Deputy Shortall's view and that of others is that Dublin Bus should have got new smaller buses. What Dublin Bus did was to buy buses with a completely different configuration which allowed it to increase capacity carrying in Dublin by over 25%. The replacement buses for which we provided funds are substantially different from many of the buses previously operating in Dublin.
Dublin Bus, because of the advent of Luas and other facilities, is doing an assessment in Dublin of how to maximise the existing routes. It is Dublin Bus that is doing the full evaluation, not me.
Nonsense.
It is a time-wasting project.
As Minister responsible, I am charged with maximising the use of taxpayers' money. I have asked Dublin Bus to do this evaluation, but I cannot go to Busáras and write it for Dublin Bus. As soon as the company has completed its assessment, we agree terms and it comes to me, I will give Dublin Bus the new buses.
Unless policy has changed — Labour Party and Fine Gael Party policy seems to be different every morning when the party leaders come into the House — value for money must be part of the equation. Dublin Bus must maximise the use of buses
The buses were promised in 2000.
How many buses would the Minister get for €52 million?
It must maximise the use of buses on peak routes and must be flexible in changing routes because of increased capacity on the DART and the impact of the Luas.
Dublin Bus is certainly flexible. It juggles buses every day.
There has not been an assessment of the route network in Dublin for decades. It may be the Deputy's view that we should stay with what we have ——
Stop spoofing.
—— when public transport investment has changed fundamentally in Dublin, but I have asked the company for its assessment to be completed and given to me. Based on that, we will meet the requirements. What the Deputy wants me to do, in advance of any proper assessment, is simply to give Dublin Bus the buses, without any guarantee of value for money for the taxpayer.
Not us; the Minister promised the buses in 2000.
The Fine Gael and Labour Deputies are speaking in total contradiction of what their party leaders say in the House week after week. When it suits them to sing a different song, they do so.
This is pure spoof. These are the tricks the Minister employs. He muddies the waters, spreads confusion and does not answer the question he has been asked. The Minister promised 275 buses under the national development plan, but he has refused to honour that commitment. He only provided 93 buses and, therefore, owes Dublin Bus and the commuters of Dublin 182 buses.
Given that the majority of people in the Dublin area are dependent on buses for public transport, notwithstanding the popularity of the Luas and DART, will the Minister explain the reason he refuses to provide the additional buses needed and which he promised to provide? Is it not time we had somebody in the Department of Transport who is prepared to champion the notion of public transport and show some commitment to the people who are turned away from buses on a regular basis because the fleet is inadequate and insufficient to meet the demand? Is it not nonsense to talk about getting people out of their cars when we do not have the required capacity in the bus service?
I assure the Deputy that nobody has championed public transport more than I have. The proof of this will be seen in a few weeks. It is frustrating for me. I would love to have the plan out today or last week.
That is just another promise.
No it is not. I will produce the plan. The Deputy will see it and can make her judgment on it.
Why does the Minister not do what he has already promised? Why will he not provide the buses?
I have not refused to give Dublin Bus the buses.
Allow the Minister to make his reply.
Several replies to parliamentary questions indicate that.
What I have said is that the least we can ask Dublin Bus, or any other company or agency that is in receipt of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money, is to account for how it can maximise and get best value for that money.
It does that.
Dublin Bus accepts that, so it is doing a full review of the existing network in Dublin, something which has not been done by anybody for decades.
Meanwhile, people continue to wait at bus stops.
Order, please.
In recent years the DART has been developed and its capacity doubled. We have also had the impact of the Luas. The Deputy is surely not arguing that the existing bus routes should not be touched when the DART and Luas are working. It seems bizarre the Deputy should suggest that. Dublin Bus accepts it has a responsibility to work out the network and has informed me it is in the best position to do that review. I was going to look for somebody else to do it, but Dublin Bus felt it should do it because it knows the network. I agreed and asked it to bring the answer to me.
We move on to other questions. These questions and supplementary questions and replies are subject to a maximum duration of one minute.
