Vol. 626 No. 5
1 Mr. McEntee asked the Minister for Transport the way driver training and education can be improved; his views on the provision of special closed driver training grounds for learner drivers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36003/06]
2 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport his proposals for the reform of the driver licensing system; and the timescale proposed. [36052/06]
At the outset, I apologise to the House for the inability of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, to attend as he has been ill in recent days. I have no doubt Members opposite will accept why he is not present.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Under the Road Safety Authority Act 2006 (Conferral of Functions) Order 2006 (SI No. 477 of 2006), the Road Safety Authority, RSA, has responsibility for the oversight of the operation of the driver licensing system, including the preparation of proposals for draft regulatory provisions relating to driver licensing and testing. At the Minister's request, the Road Safety Authority has been examining the driver licensing system as to what further reforms might be introduced in the interests of road safety. The RSA has submitted to the Minister in recent days a range of proposals with a particular focus on licensing reform and on targeting drivers between 17 and 24 years of age. I share the concern of the RSA board about the high risk factors of death and serious injury to this category of drivers and, with the Minister, I will consider these proposals in the coming weeks.
The Minister met the chief executive of the RSA last week and asked that the authority come back to him as soon as possible with a structured approach to a complete transition, with time lines, from the current regime of provisional licences to a regime of learner permits and restricted category drivers and related learner drivers formation arrangements. Such a complete transition will take some time, but I genuinely feel that there is great potential for saving young lives in this approach. The Minister intends to meet the RSA board in the coming weeks to discuss these matters.
The RSA is in the process of introducing the registration of driving instructors. One of the benefits that I hope will arise from setting standards of instruction is that there will be a greater emphasis on general driving skills and less on merely passing the driving test. It is proposed that driving instruction for all types of vehicle will be covered by the system of regulation. This will lead to a significant improvement in the quality of driving which will produce a road safety dividend for all road users. The provision of special closed driver training grounds for learner drivers is one of the matters the RSA will consider in responding to the request for a structured transition from provisional licences to learner permits and restricted category drivers.
In the area of driver education, the Road Safety Authority has the task of working in partnership with the Department for Education and Science to develop a specific additional road safety resource suitable for transition year pupils. I understand this work is currently under way and details can be obtained directly from the Road Safety Authority. In addition, the Road Safety Authority has a number of initiatives in place to ensure road safety is targeted at schools.
Two weeks ago, we stood here and thought things were looking good. Then everything went wrong when many of our young people were killed. Young drivers must be brought to centres and trained properly, as in other countries where they are not allowed to drive on the roads until they have received a certain number of hours of instruction under different conditions, such as wet, snowy, frosty or dark. I was stupid to be fooled into thinking that the situation would improve, but we will continue to see multiple deaths until we teach our young people and train them in the same conditions as those in which we train the gardaí who drive our Ministers and Taoiseach around. Then we might be able to go at 110 mph and know we will be safe on our roads.
Fine Gael will propose five designated areas throughout the country where people can go to learn to drive a car properly under proper instruction and where parents can bring their 16 or 17-year-olds. Motorbike training would be available to 16-year-olds. Yesterday, the chief executive of the RSA, Mr. Noel Brett, told me he intends to have centres for motorcycles because the level of motorcycle deaths relative to the numbers of motorcycles is higher than that of cars.
If we want to stop these deaths, it is crucial we provide areas where people can learn. It is law in other countries that one cannot drive on the road until one has attended these centres. It will be part of our election manifesto and we will implement it. However, rather than waiting, I would like to see it brought forward and done now because much can happen in six months, many people will die in the next six months. We must tackle every aspect of road safety, including training, alcohol and drugs. We all received an education in drugs yesterday. In Victoria, Australia, in 2003 some 31% of people killed in road deaths tested positive for drugs. However, the Tánaiste this morning said we have no law ready to come in to check if people involved in road accidents have taken drugs.
We have asked the RSA to consider the provision of closed driver training grounds and it is doing so. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and I will have the opportunity to discuss this with the chief executive and the board in the near future. Regarding the request for a structural transition from the provisional licences to learner permits and restricted category drivers, the Deputy will also be aware that the 2006 Act makes provision for driver training and instruction.
The Members opposite will be aware that one can establish a driver instruction school without any qualification. We want to regularise this and can do so through the 2006 Act. The Deputy will recall that the consultation document on the registration of instructors was launched last May. Many submissions were received by 8 September and these are currently being considered by the RSA.
In this document, it is suggested that, from 1 July 2007, all new entrants into the industry as driver instructors must be approved and registered to operate as driving instructors and the RSA will set down clear criteria to which they will have to adhere. This will protect the drivers by ensuring the ability of the instructors. They will have to be fit persons, be tax compliant and record the details. There will be annual inspections, some announced and others unannounced. The RSA will be in a position to respond or to remove them from the register. That would commence in July 2007. We must take cognisance of the fact that many existing instructors do good work, but they will have to comply by July 2008.
We are proactive. While we might have different views and express them inside and outside the House, we are all anxious to reduce the level of fatalities and injuries on our roads. When there are multiple fatalities as we had in Monaghan recently and in Buncrana in February of this year, it focuses us more on the issue. If we can introduce all this legislation, all the necessary——
On a point of order, we have heard ten minutes of this waffle.
It is not waffle but fact.
Can we take it that ten minutes will be allowed for each of the priority questions?
Priority questions have 20 minutes. Two questions are being taken together in 12 minutes.
I differ from Deputy Shortall. I am giving facts, not opinions.
The Minister should do something.
We are doing this and we have been working on this for a considerable time. I can tell Deputy Shortall the facts. We have the high-level Cabinet——
The Minister only talks about it.
We have strong political leadership on this with the full support of the Taoiseach.
What is the time limit for the Minister of State's second contribution?
We are on priority questions. There is an overall time limit of 12 minutes.
I am answering the central questions that were put by——
There is a second question within that 12 minutes which has not been mentioned yet.
There is, yes.
I am trying to maximise under time for the benefit of all of us.
The Minister of State is not, he is just filling in time.
I am not trying to filibuster in any way.
The Minister of State is.
Deputy McEntee has asked sensible questions in relation to——
The Minister of State's time is up. His four minutes are over.
I am not the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We are looking at all these, working in consultation with the RSA.
Looking.
We are pleased to look at views and opinions expressed by the Deputy.
How long is left, overall, for this question?
There are eight minutes, overall, for supplementaries and most of that has expired now.
We have not done anything about Question No. 2 yet.
There is still one minute left.
It is entirely unfair, but in the one minute allowed for a priority question I want to ask the Minister of State whether he accepts that the senior Minister has spent the past two years looking at this issue, talking about it and doing nothing. Now, after two years in office, what he is proposing to do is pass the buck to the RSA. The former Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and his predecessor in that office, Deputy Brennan, spoke about their intention to end this indefensible policy whereby learner drivers with provisional licences are allowed to drive unaccompanied. People who have failed their test are still legally permitted to drive. We know that 50% of those killed on the roads are aged under 25. It therefore makes sense that if the Government is serious about tackling the whole issue of road safety, this area of licensing and driver education must be addressed.
Deputies Brennan and Cullen, as Ministers for Transport, stated on numerous occasions that it was their intention to end the practice whereby provisional drivers can drive unaccompanied. Is the Minister of State now saying that the Government is serious about doing that and what is the timescale that is proposed?
The Minister requested the Road Safety Authority to make further proposals to him. It has done that very——-
I am asking the Government, not the Road Safety Authority, what its policy is on provisional drivers.
The Road Safety Authority, of course, as I stated on numerous occasions, has responsibility for oversight of the operation of the driving licensing system. Of course, we must work together with——-
What is the Government policy?
We have responsibility for our policy. If we——
The Minister of State should stop passing the buck on this. What is the Government's policy?
If we ignore the views of the Road Safety Authority——
It has just been set up.
——the Deputy would be the first——
It has just been set up.
Allow the Minister of State to speak.
I have to defend the Road Safety Authority. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Gay Byrne and its chief executive, Mr. Noel Brett, the RSA has been doing excellent work over the past few months since it was established
Fall guys.
We set it up some time ago and it was not vested——-
I asked the Minister of State about his policy in respect of provisional drivers.
The Minister of State is in possession of the floor.
I am asking about Government policy, not what the RSA is doing. What is the Government policy in respect of provisional licence holders driving unaccompanied?
I will repeat, if necessary, that we must work with the Road Safety Authority. Is the Deputy suggesting——-
Does he have any policy?
The Deputy will please allow the Minister of State to speak.
The Deputy should hold on, please. I am not filibustering.
He is wasting time, waffling about it. I am asking him whether the Government has a policy in respect of provisional drivers.
The Minister of State is in possession.
I am not the one filibustering. We have had proposals from the Road Safety Authority. The Minister met the chief executive and will meet the board in the near future. On top of that agenda——-
I am asking if there is a policy. Does the Minister have any policy?
Order now, please. The Minister of State should be allowed to speak.
We are looking at a structured approach to a complete transition, within time-lines, from the current regime of provisional licences to one of learner permits and restricted category drivers as well as related formation arrangements. Of course this will take some time. We will do this.
The Government has been looking at and talking about this for several years.
We are——
Does the Government have a policy in respect of provisional licence holders driving unaccompanied?
Order, please. We must now proceed to Question No. 3.
I have just spelt it out for the Deputy.
What is the policy?
I have just told the Deputy.
No, the Minister of State said he was looking at it and discussing it with this, that and the other person. Does the Minister of State have a policy in respect of learner drivers driving unaccompanied?
I have just told the Deputy we are looking at the question——
They are looking at it. Has the Government any policy now? After all these years does it have any policy?
We have used 16 minutes. I ask the Minister of State to proceed to Question No. 3.
Apparently, the answer is "No".
It is not, we are proactive.
3 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Transport the way he will protect the strategic interests of Ireland and address the concerns of Aer Lingus employees and the travelling public in view of the fiasco which has ensued after he and the Government chose to privatise Ireland’s former national airline. [36006/06]
From the outset as regards the Aer Lingus IPO the Government has been committed to ensuring that our strategic interests are protected. It was always the intention that the State should retain a significant minority shareholding for this purpose. The State's shareholding currently stands at approximately 28.3% of the capital in Aer Lingus and will be approximately 25.4% from tomorrow following completion by the employee share ownership trust, ESOT, of the exercise of the share option agreed in advance of the IPO. A shareholding at this level is important for a number of reasons. It means that the company's memorandum and articles of association cannot be changed and other changes requiring special resolutions cannot be made, without Government support; the safeguard arrangements for Heathrow slots, while requiring the support of other shareholders, are linked to the State's minimum level of shareholding which was targeted at 25.1%. The safeguard arrangements are built into the company's memorandum and articles of association. It ensures that another company cannot acquire the 75% shareholding that is required to force delisting from the official list of the Irish Stock Exchange.
I reject Deputy Crowe's assertion that the IPO has been a fiasco. On the contrary, as a result of the successful flotation of the airline, Aer Lingus now has the means to fulfil its potential and contribute in a positive way to the country's economic development. The company's capital requirements have been met though the IPO which will enable it to implement its business plan.
The hostile bid for Aer Lingus by Ryanair has been the subject of much media comment since it was launched. My view is that the Ryanair bid is unlikely to succeed. Ryanair has yet to achieve the majority it requires to gain effective control of the company and the prospects of it doing so now seem limited. Indeed, the Ryanair chief executive stated at a press conference on 20 October that Ryanair would be "unlikely" to get 50.1% of the company without the support of the ESOT. While the ESOT has not publicly declared its position as regards the bid, it stated in a press release issued on 26 October that the figure quoted by Ryanair in its offer document as to the cash proceeds ESOT members would receive if the offer succeeded, was "inaccurate".
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In addition to the difficulties Ryanair faces in achieving the majority that it requires to gain control of the company, it is also the case that the proposal will require regulatory clearance from a competition perspective and it cannot be taken for granted that such approval will be forthcoming. I have previously stated that the Government's view is that Ireland's strategic interest in aviation is best served by the provision of regular, safe, cost-effective and competitive air services linking the country to key business and tourism markets around the world and that the Government's strategic objectives would not be well served by a takeover of Aer Lingus by Ryanair.
Earlier this week Ryanair applied to the European Commission for approval of its bid. My officials have already had initial contacts with European Commission officials to outline the Government's position in relation to the proposed takeover and will make further representations to the EC on this in the coming weeks.
I stand by my remarks about a fiasco as the airline is still in crisis. In his reply the Minister of State said the State had reduced its percentage share in the company from 28.3% to 24%. Is that correct?
That is correct.
There is a crisis in the airline, certainly among the staff. We see the staff attempting to buy shares in the company and so on. The flotation has not created stability and certainly has not guaranteed jobs. Indeed the situation now is that Aer Lingus is talking about shedding more jobs. Is the Minister of State aware that last week's British-Irish study on an all-Ireland economy recommended an all-Ireland strategy on the development of the airports and aviation? Does he realise that as much as such a strategy is needed, so is a national plan for the development of Aer Lingus? As the Government is a major shareholder in the company, when will he discuss that strategy with the House? As a shareholder, will the Government continue to have an interest in the running of the company and staff relations? How will that right be exercised?
The Minister of State has spoken of the Heathrow slots etc. Has he a view on Dublin remaining as the airline's operating base? It seems that for now the airline is on course to become a Ryanair light, when it has a significant role to play in freight transport and in keeping Dublin and Ireland as a major hub of international air travel. When will we have the joined-up national aviation strategy with Aer Lingus at its centre? Are we just witnessing the beginning of asset-stripping and more shedding of jobs within Aer Lingus? That is a concern of the staff as we have seen venture capitalists moving in. Some people are certainly making money out of it, but the insecurity is still there for staff. There is also insecurity pertaining to our strategic interests as an island nation.
Instead of improving the lot of Aer Lingus as a company, we have undermined it. The Minister of State may indicate that everything is rosy for the future, but there are not very many people among the staff or on this side of the House who have a similar view.
The Government's overarching objective is to provide the company with access to new equity to enable Aer Lingus to compete effectively and fund the growth of its business. Through the IPO, the company now has new equity in the order of €500 million. Some €104 million goes towards the pension funds and there will be an additional €400 million plus to go to the business plan and to fund the future development of Aer Lingus.
Deputy Crowe referred to the reduction, which will happen tomorrow, from 28.3% of our capital in Aer Lingus to approximately 25.4%. I presume the Deputy knows the reasoning behind that. Before the IPO, the employee share ownership trust had 12.6% of Aer Lingus and with the new shares that would have reduced to 7%. The trust holds €30 million and it is using that to buy up further shares in the company which will bring it back up to the 12.6% level. We facilitated that option to permit the trust to purchase the additional shares and return it to the previous level.
The strategy is of course to ensure we have an airline that will compete effectively. We will not be involved in its daily running. We will hold 25.1% — I do not want to delay the House as I gave all the good reasons for that. It will ensure safeguard arrangements are in place. Not alone have we done that but we have built them into the company's memorandum and articles of association. We also ensured that a body cannot secure 75%, which would result in delisting.
The discussion of the strategy in the House is a matter for the Whips. If it is raised by question or by way of general debate, I will be only too happy to address the issues.
4 Mr. McEntee asked the Minister for Transport the work that has been undertaken to conduct cost-benefit analyses on all transport projects proposed under Transport 21; when such will be completed and published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36004/06]
All projects provided for in Transport 21 will be required to comply with the Department of Finance guidelines for the appraisal and management of capital expenditure and the Department of Finance circular of 25 January 2006 on value for money. The guidelines require that capital appraisals, including cost-benefit analysis, are carried out for all projects costing over €30 million. The implementing agencies are responsible for carrying out the required appraisals.
A significant amount of economic analysis has already taken place on various aspects of Transport 21. The Dublin Transportation Office's A Platform for Change provides the basis for the proposed investment in Dublin and this was subject to an independent economic evaluation, which is reported in the document itself. Iarnród Éireann carried out an appraisal of its greater Dublin integrated rail network plan. This was reviewed by independent consultants and found to be robust. A full appraisal was also undertaken of the strategic rail review by the independent consultants who prepared it.
Transport 21 is a big issue and the more proper transport systems we put into the country, the better off we will be. We know there is €70 billion, a significant amount of money, for 40 projects, but the costs of the projects have not been indicated. I listened when my party leader asked the question and we could not get an answer on the reason we are not being given an actual price for these individual projects.
Everything can be brought back to a small issue rather than talking about €70 billion. If a person builds a house, a set of plans is submitted to a surveyor and the amount of doors, windows and slates is indicated, and the surveyor comes back with a price. There is no issue that could prevent the Minister telling the House or public how much it will cost to complete each of the 40 individual projects it is intended to carry out.
Thinking politically, the Government may feel it has €70 billion for 40 projects, but it does not know which to carry out because it does not know which will be most effective with regard to elections. That is not the way for any Government to carry on. Everyone agrees the metro and the other systems should be completed, but it is a total abuse of taxpayers' money, particularly with an amount of €70 billion, not to tell the taxpayer what each project will cost.
I listened to the Minister speaking on the issue that day. Thinking about it for a day or two, his excuses were not good enough. To build a railway from Navan to Dunboyne, it would be known how many tracks, sleepers and land is required. It all adds up. It is not a big secret. It is totally contrary to the way we bought lands for a jail. We told the person in that instance that the price should not be in excess of €200,000 per acre.
The Deputy should confine himself to the question.
Yes, but that is a comparison. In this case we are doing the opposite. This has been politicised for the wrong reasons, particularly as we are dealing with taxpayers' money.
The Deputy has made the case for us. Whether the figure is €34.1 billion, €70 billion or €1 million, the principle is the same. The Deputy referred to the building of a house. Of course a person would have an estimated price from a surveyor, but the person would not indicate to all those invited to tender the price suggested by the surveyor. It is the same here. It is not a question of defending the Minister, the Department or the Government. It is prudent.
With regard to any of the projects in Transport 21, a project is first identified by one of the agencies. It will carry out a preliminary appraisal of the project. This would be a study of feasibility as to whether it is a runner, the funds required, the number of passengers, if the project would be a relief on roads and if it would be economically viable. If that passes the litmus test, a full cost analysis is carried out, with a full appraisal of projects over €30 million. The project would be totally scrutinised.
When we are aware of the estimated costs, I genuinely believe it would not be prudent or in the best interests of the Irish taxpayer to flag, for all and sundry interested in submitting a tender, a benchmark. We are out there to get the best value for money. That is the way forward.
I can confirm that we must work under the Department of Finance guidelines for the appraisal and management of the capital expenditure and the Department of Finance circular of January 2006 on value for money. We are going about it in the right way. Transport 21 is not in itself a project for which we can have a cost benefit analysis. Transport 21 is the financial framework, as opposed to a strategy. It represents the Government's decision on the amount of resources to be invested in development. It is a forward-thinking ten-year plan, in sharp contrast to yearly plans we all pursued in the past.
Why does the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform act differently from the Department of Transport? One contradicts the other.
We must proceed to Question No. 5.
I do not expect to get an answer. We are all wasting our time.
5 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if his attention has been drawn to the public concern regarding the proposal to run metro north above ground along Ballymun Road; his views on whether such a proposal will be injurious to the local environment; his views on whether this proposal will prevent the metro running at full capacity at any point in view of its interaction with road traffic and pedestrians; and if he will therefore request the RPA to revise their proposals in order to keep the metro underground until it has passed Ballymun estate. [36053/06]
I understand from the RPA that concerns were expressed, during the public consultation process, regarding plans to run the metro on elevated structures in Ballymun. These concerns were taken into account when deciding on the selected route. The RPA is working closely with Dublin City Council and Ballymun Regeneration Limited to ensure the design of metro complements the new townscape. There will be no elevated structures south of Ballymun town centre. A final decision on whether the station in Ballymun is elevated or at grade is yet to be made. Any potential impacts on traffic and pedestrian movements are being considered as part of this ongoing work. An environmental impact statement is currently being prepared for metro north and the findings will be published as part of the application for a railway order.
I asked if the Minister of State is aware of widespread concern about the proposal to run metro overground from DCU to Ballymun. Is he aware of these concerns? Does he accept that they are valid? There are three heavily congested major junctions on Ballymun Road. It defies logic to consider the metro on the surface through three busy junctions. Does the Minister of State accept that such a proposal will split Ballymun in two?
Does the Minister of State accept that if the project proceeds, there will be major investment in a metro that will never realise its capacity because it will be running at surface? It will never be able to run at a frequency of 90 seconds. Does the Minister of State accept that running it on the surface will inhibit the project? Will the Government review this aspect of the proposal and ensure the metro is kept underground until it passes north of the Ballymun estate?
There is congestion at the three road junctions. This has been considered by the RPA. Many would prefer if the line was underground but we must consider the cost of stations being underground as well as the line. The World Bank tells us that an underground metro costs five to six times the cost of a metro at grade. The cost is affected less by tunnelling than by the construction of underground stations.
Discussions and consultation between the RPA and Ballymun Regeneration Limited are ongoing. The design and plan of the metro will ensure it has little impact on residents and that it will complement the townscape. There are opportunities for discussions and I expect no intrusion into the lives of those living in the vicinity if it is overground.
I accept Deputy Shortall's point that it will result in longer journey times but believe this will not be an issue. The at grade station will be adjacent to the road junction. The metro will accelerate or slow down and the timing of the traffic signals can be synchronised with the departure of the metro. The RPA has estimated that a stop at grade would add less than a minute to journey times. The RPA does not believe that less people will use the service because it is at grade. I will bring the Deputy's views to the attention of the RPA and the Minister, even though I am sure she is in contact with them.
What is the cost difference between running the project at grade and underground?
The cost could be five to six times greater not just because of tunnelling costs, but because stations would have to be built underground.
