Vol. 708 No. 1
38 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Transport his views on the subvention this year to CIE, particularly Dublin Bus; his further views on whether Dublin Bus’s plan is in contravention of his policy on Smarter Travel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18339/10]
The enhancement of the public transport system is at the heart of the sustainable travel agenda. In this context, notwithstanding the very real challenges the Government faces in the current difficult economic climate, it remains committed to providing the infrastructure and services required to deliver a modern, high quality public transport system. This has been demonstrated by continued Government support for bus services. The provision of Exchequer subvention to CIE in 2010 is €276 million, of which €76 million will be allocated through the National Transport Authority to Dublin Bus.
It is imperative in the current environment that public services are delivered in an efficient and effective manner and reflect the economic, social and demographic changes of recent years. In response to this challenge, Dublin Bus is currently undertaking the biggest redesign of its network in the history of the company. The objective of the redesign is to provide current and future bus customers with a service that will be modern, accessible, integrated, easy to understand, punctual and frequent. The redesign will deliver real and tangible benefits to the vast majority of bus users. For example, there will be a doubling in routes with a frequency of ten minutes or better and 60% of customers will be carried on high frequency routes — currently this stands at 23%. Complementary measures supporting the quality of the service to customers will also be introduced during 2010, including the provision of integrated ticketing, real time passenger information and further investment in bus priority measures.
The proposals to streamline and improve the frequency of bus services in the Dublin area, improve the quality of service, attract more customers from cars are perfectly aligned with the intent of "Smarter Travel". This is also fully in accordance with the Government's aim of measuring outputs for taxpayers' money and getting more for less.
Is it not a fact that the subvention for Dublin Bus ten years ago was €17,000 per bus and that this figure currently stands at approximately €80,000 per bus, a significant increase in taxpayers' subsidy? Also, there was a decrease of 210 in the number of buses on the road and owned by Dublin Bus in January 2009. The company has cut back its fleet by more than 200 which means the public are getting a rougher and raw deal. Perhaps the Minister will state if this is true. Also, is it not a fact that the Government's concept of smart travel, as enunciated in Government policy, is completely and absolutely riddled with inaccuracies and is resulting in a poor service? The ultimate fact is that Deputy Dempsey has, as Minister for Transport, failed miserably to insist on a proper public transport system for Dublin.
The Deputy is quite incorrect. I am surprised to hear him state that we have a very poor public transport service. This is not true. We may have a somewhat lesser service than we had but we certainly do not have a very poor service.
With regard to the number of buses, I made it very clear from the very start of my term as Minister for Transport that I would not measure success by the number of buses but by how effectively and efficiently they were organised. If I had listened to advice from across the floor of the House in 2007 when I became Minister for Transport I would have purchased another 300 buses at huge cost to the taxpayer — approximately €200,000 apiece — and those buses would not be used now. We are doing precisely what the Government wants in getting more from less, ensuing that the buses in the fleet we have are properly streamlined and serve the needs of customers. The Deloitte report emphasised this and the changes being introduced will further emphasise the quality of the service rather than the quantity of buses. It is possible, with the changes that Deloitte proposed which the Deputy opposite has supported, to provide an even better service with fewer buses, as I outlined in my answer.
One cannot carry more people on fewer buses. There are 210 fewer buses owned by Dublin Bus on the streets of Dublin today and the subsidy has increased by almost 400% in ten years. Is it not a fact that there is a sweetheart deal between the National Transport Authority and Dublin Bus? The authority was established last December and has agreed to allow Dublin Bus to close off the market to competition. Private enterprise cannot compete with Dublin Bus on any new routes that have been opened up or are about to be opened up. This is a shame and it is a mockery of democracy and of the right of people who own private transport to compete with Dublin Bus to service these routes. It is an absolute disgrace.
The Deputy has come forward with a whole series of half-truths. Having 500 buses operating at 20% capacity——
The Minister has increased the subvention and reduced the number of buses.
One can increase the numbers by ensuring that buses are fuller by providing the type of service that consumers want. The subsidy has increased substantially over the past ten years because the number of buses, capital expenditure and the service have improved. Admittedly, in recent years the number of passengers has decreased.
With regard to Deputy O'Dowd's final point, he completely misunderstands the role of the National Transport Authority. It is not possible for it to advertise or put in place any new public service obligation routes without opening it up to competition. The commercial market has been open for many years.
That is exactly what it has done.
39 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport if he was consulted by the Department of Finance on plans to subcontract key functions in terms of the invigilation of imported cars including the Revenue Commissioner check and collection of vehicle registration tax payments to the national car test operator; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18067/10]
A working group of local authorities, Departments, including a representative from my Department, the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners and the Road Safety Authority was established to identify improvements in the legislative and enforcement framework arising from the increase in the numbers of foreign registered vehicles on our roads. The group reported to the Minister for Finance in October 2008 and recommended that all used vehicles should be examined prior to registration in Ireland. Section 61 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2008 provided that the Revenue Commissioners could appoint a competent authority to carry out pre-registration checks on used imports on their behalf.
I understand there is a separate contract between the Revenue Commissioners and the NCT operator on import conformance inspections. The operation of this contract is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners.
This change and the granting of this contract to Applus+ is a very significant development given that almost 11,400 cars were imported and had to be re-registered here during the first quarter of 2010. The performance of Applus+ with regard to the NCT test is the key concern of those who import cars — whether for personal use or for resale. This was the main thrust of my question, which was deleted unfortunately. The key concern relates to the administration of the NCT.
Is the Minister satisfied with the current performance of Applus+ Technologies? Does he know how many people are waiting for an NCT appointment and what is the average waiting time for an appointment? Is it still the case, as The Irish Times found last month, that at 34 of the 46 NCT centres it was not possible to receive a date for a test within six weeks and that one could not book a test more than six weeks in advance? The Minister is presiding over an NCT system that has been a total shambles and grossly unfair to our constituents since Applus+ started to operate it in January.
A few weeks ago, the late Gerry Ryan, the much missed broadcaster who died in recent days, received a call on his show from a person who, on seeking to arrange an NCT in Tipperary, was offered a test in the Dublin area several weeks later. Applus+ is responsible for the collapse of the NCT system yet the Minister does not appear to be remotely concerned.
The Deputy is incorrect that I am not remotely concerned. I agree that the start of the contract with Applus+ has been difficult, largely due to the success of my efforts to ensure people comply with the national car test. I was criticised in the House when I introduced a proposal to impose five penalty points on those who do not comply with the NCT. This proposal resulted in a surge in the number of applications for the test.
In addition, the first quarter of the year is generally very busy as most cars are registered in this quarter. I accept that difficulties have arisen. Under the contract agreed with the Department, Applus+ must reach specific targets and failure to do so will result in the company being penalised vis-à-vis the payments it receives. In response to concerns raised by my Department, Applus+ has taken a number of steps to address the problem. It employed an additional 14 vehicle inspectors and a further 18 inspectors will soon commence employment. This will bring to 420 the number of vehicle inspectors available to the company, the highest figure ever. An additional 29 posts are being created in the company’s call centre, 26 administrative staff will shortly commence employment and two new test centres are in operation.
While I accept that a problem arose at the beginning of the year, it is being tackled. In the period up to mid-April, the number of applications on the waiting list peaked at almost 32,000. By 30 April, the waiting list had fallen to 7,180.
Under the old system, the testing company, which at that time was SGS, informed vehicle owners that the NCT was imminent. Why did we not keep a system which appeared to work well for most citizens? Deputy O'Mahony has repeatedly raised the four week rule, under which drivers who are not given a date for a national car test within four weeks are, it seems, entitled to a refund. Refunds do not appear to be forthcoming, however. Is the Minister aware of the position in this regard?
The Road Safety Authority was reported to be considering serious sanctions against Applus+ on the basis that it was not performing according to its contract. Has the Minister received a report on this matter? Does he agree that the RSA should take stringent measures against the company if it does not implement its contract, which runs for nine years and is worth €400 million?
The current system is largely the same as the previous one. The contractors involved have changed as a result of a tender process which was established following the completion of the previous contract. SGS provided a reasonably good service, although it was not without its problems and there were complaints from Members about some aspects of it.
I am aware of the difficulties. I visited the RSA recently and I was briefed fully on the new contract, which includes penalty clauses, meaning that the company will lose money as a result of not meeting certain criteria on the notification of tests and so on. If people are not informed within four weeks, they are entitled to a free test and that is at the expense of Applus+ rather than at the expense of the taxpayer. There is a very good contract in place and I commend those who put it in there.
40 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Transport if he will ensure that all future proposed appointments by him to State bodies will be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport in the interests of transparency and accountability; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18340/10]
Appointments to each State board under the remit of my Department are made in accordance with the relevant legislation. I believe that strong State companies need strong boards to lead them. Appointments made by me are done on the basis of the appointees having the necessary skills, competencies and experience to contribute effectively to the work of the board. I am conscious that there are many skilled and experienced people in society who would welcome the opportunity to contribute their expertise by becoming members of State boards, but who may consider that they have no avenue for expressing this interest.
In preparing for the establishment of the National Transport Authority, I took the decision publicly to invite applications from members of the public who wished to be considered for appointment as an ordinary member of the authority. The application process was straightforward. Applicants were simply asked to demonstrate their experience of certain areas, such as finance, transport, land use planning and so on, as provided for in the legislation establishing the authority. I received 68 applications and I appointed four of these to the board of the authority on its establishment on 1 December 2009. This was a very useful experience and one that I may draw on again. Future appointments will be considered when the proposals contained in the current programme for Government are finalised.
There was no public consultation whatsoever when the Minister recently appointed an executive chairman to CIE, a job that pays at least €210,000 per annum. Given this appointment was made after the Minister's experiment with the National Transport Authority, which we all supported, why did he not advertise the position publicly? It is important that the principle the Minister rightly supported for that authority should be continued, but he ignored it with his reappointment of the chairman of CIE. While I am not questioning his capacity to do the job, there are dozens of other people who would love to have a go. The transport committee would be very happy to invigilate the Minister's nominee, especially in respect of policies, transparency and accountability in the CIE group.
It is true that the Government reappointed Dr. Lynch on my recommendation. I do not think the Deputy is comparing like with like. Dr. Lynch is an executive chairman and that is a completely different situation from appointing a member of the board. I reappointed him on a three monthly rolling basis for 12 months in order to ensure continuity at the company at this critical juncture. It is not any secret that the finances of CIE are in a very precarious position. There have been ongoing negotiations on change, including the implementation of the Deloitte report. Dr. Lynch has a very "hands on" approach to these matters, so I felt it was in the best interests of the company that he continue in his role for up to 12 months.
Different issues will have to be discussed. Dr. Lynch went in there at a particular time for particular reasons. The company was not in great shape at the time and it had been involved in various controversies. He was appointed because of his expertise and experience. He has done well on that but the question now arises as to whether or not there is a necessity to continue with the role of an executive chairperson. That is something we could discuss at some time in the future.
I agree with the Minister that there is a need to break up the CIE group of companies and let them run their own show, but they should be made accountable to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport. Fine Gael agrees that the person should be appointed as a chairman rather than as an executive chairman. However, there are critical issues concerning transparency and accountability within CIE, and particularly concerning the exceptional audits that took pace within the company. Arising from the Baker Tilly report, there are issues concerning further audits on which CIE is refusing to make a public statement. That is of great concern to me.
One of the key accidents that happened in recent decades was the one at Malahide. CIE and Irish Rail, however, have lost their corporate memory on the construction of that viaduct. It is terribly important that the chairperson the Minister appointed should be invigilated on all these issues in his capacity as chairperson. However, the Minister has reappointed him for another year without any accountability or transparency. It is more of the same and that is what we are concerned about.
The Deputy is incorrect on that. As I understand it, Dr. Lynch has been involved at least twice on the Baker Tilly report and, in addition, concerning the Malahide viaduct.
Yes, but as chairperson.
I would welcome an examination by the Joint Committee on Transport of the reports on that matter, once they are published by the Railway Safety Commission. Ultimately, however, the Deputy and I will never agree on this matter, as I am the person responsible. I am the person who has to answer questions in the House and I am not going to allow a committee to appoint a chairperson, unless the committee is prepared to take full responsibility for all of his actions.
No, but we have to invigilate him.
41 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport if he will report on his recent meetings with European Union Transport Ministers; if plans were drawn up to establish a central air navigation system for Europe or a wider Functional Airspace Block; the way this new agency will function; when it will be operational; the further way it will interact with the Irish Aviation Authority and the Commission of Aviation Regulation; if he has satisfied himself with the new three-tier guidelines for aircraft flying through areas with volcanic ash; if regulatory authorities had been requesting, for at least three years, a review of ash levels through which airplanes can fly; the cost to Irish airlines and businesses of the recent disruption to air travel due to the Icelandic volcanic eruption; the suggestions he has made to the EU on a support package for airlines in crisis due to the volcanic eruption; if he has further satisfied himself with the level of protection afforded to air passengers under EU law during the aviation closure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18068/10]
On Monday, 19 April, EU transport ministers met via video conference. On the basis of a recommendation agreed unanimously by the national authorities of the 38 members of Eurocontrol, ministers agreed to new measures which would allow for the progressive and co-ordinated opening of European airspace with effect from Tuesday, 20 April. These measures involved the designation of zones based on ash concentration levels.
A further Council meeting was held yesterday in Brussels. Ministers agreed that the implementation of the second phase of the single European sky initiative should be accelerated including, in particular, the establishment of functional airspace blocks, also known as FABs, and the appointment of a network manager. The Ireland-UK FAB established in 2008, was the first in Europe. The appointment of a European network manager is expected to take place by the end of 2010, which will greatly improve co-ordination of European airspace.
On the question of the financial impact of the crisis, Commissioner Kallas recently gave his preliminary estimate of the financial impact across Europe, which was in the order of €2.5 billion. Aer Lingus and Ryanair have estimated their losses from the crisis to be €5 million and €6 million respectively per day.
During yesterday's discussions, Commissioner Kallas confirmed that member states could give financial aid to the industry. I have already publicly indicated that Ireland is not in a position to provide financial aid to the industry because of the state of the public finances.
The Council acknowledged that the current European rules on passenger rights must to be applied in full so as to guarantee rights of those stranded during the recent crisis, and that more work needed to be done to ensure entirely consistent application of the rules across all member states.
The safety of passengers and crews is paramount. However, as it is now proceeding, this is the last thing the Irish economy needed. Have the Department of Transport and the Department of Finance collated any figures in terms of the overall, ongoing economic damage to aviation, airports and tourism? We are aware that our two national airlines are losing €6 million or €7 million a day. The Transport Commissioner, Mr. Kallas, to whom the Minister referred, said in that context that this is an exceptional event similar to that which occurred on 11 September 2001 and therefore European governments should consider some support framework programmes for their airlines. Should the Government not urgently reconsider the entire situation and perhaps propose some support mechanism for the airlines if this continues?
When we last met we had a debate on the travel tax. Is it not time to finally axe that tax, which we know even from a cursory cost-benefit analysis is not beneficial? The yield is lower than the damage it does to the country.
When the task force met, the various State agencies were tasked with trying to assess the economic aspects of the closure of airports owing to volcanic ash and that work is still ongoing. In the reply I said that Aer Lingus and Ryanair have estimated their losses from the crisis to be €5 million and €6 million respectively per day. I recollect that the airport authority mentioned losses of approximately €8 million over the course of the previous closedown. On that aspect alone the losses total approximately €85 million or €90 million. From a tourism point of view, obviously, there is a loss of incoming passengers. However, I suppose that is somewhat counteracted by some people having to stay longer than they intended and some Irish people who had planned to travel abroad staying at home and probably making some other arrangements. That kind of sum needs to be done.
On giving compensation, the Deputy knows the current state of our finances. He has proposed to add a further €140 million to that. Would he like to make some proposals as to what expenditure we might cut to eliminate the air tax——
There is no need to cut. I am not a cutter.
——on passengers travelling abroad? Does he suggest that we take that out of education, social welfare or health?
That is not necessary.
Of course it is not.
There is plenty of scope.
It is not at all necessary; money grows on trees.
This is a simplistic, nonsensical and nihilistic analysis. There are resources we can find from segments of the population who should contribute more to help deal with the national crisis. On the scientific advice, obviously the IAA is taking advice from the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre in London. What is the most recent advice the Minister has received? Is he having video conference calls with his European colleagues on a daily basis to monitor this? What is the worst case scenario the Government is prepared to meet? For example it is said that when this volcano erupts, its big sister, Katla — I will not try to pronounce the name of the erupting volcano itself again — is an angry sister and always erupts on time. If this turns into an event that lasts for several years, what is the Government's thinking in that regard?
Once again Irish citizens are stranded abroad and visitors who are very valuable to our country are stranded here. Has the Minister made any special arrangement to ensure that European legislation is enforced for those passengers? In the past week or so we all met people who managed to get back during the previous ash outbreak and found it very difficult. Will the Minister insist that their rights will be respected? Does he welcome that the chief executive of Ryanair, Mr. Michael O'Leary, finally decided to follow European law in this regard?
I have taken a very strong line from the outset that the legislation must be respected and that nobody can break the law. It would be a criminal offence to break that law so I am glad everyone has agreed they will obey it, that is what I expect from our citizens.
On the broader question of fairness in the context of an extraordinary event like this one, that is a debate that will no doubt take place in future. It might not be useful to have it right now in case people feel they could renege on current commitments.
No one can say how long these disruptions will continue, it depends on the volcano and the weather. If the second volcano erupts, the rules agreed by EU Ministers that are being implemented now would be put in place across all European airspace. If it was clear the disruption would last for a long time, contingency plans would have to be put in place. That does not arise at the moment.
42 Deputy Shane McEntee asked the Minister for Transport his plans on expanding commuter rail lines to serve maximum passenger numbers; if there is oversight in his Department on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18341/10]
The renewed programme for Government contains a commitment to the provision of a safe and efficient network of rail services. Under Transport 21, rail services, including commuter services, have expanded significantly resulting in substantially increased capacity for passengers. The 67 new intercity carriages on the Dublin to Cork line and the 177 new intercity rail cars have provided increased capacity on all major intercity and commuter routes. An additional 51 intercity rail cars will begin to arrive in Ireland next year. A number of other projects have also been completed, including the reopening of the Cork to Midleton line, phase 1 of the western rail corridor and the Kildare route. Work is continuing on phase 1 of the Navan line which is due for completion this autumn.
The DART underground project, including associated resignalling, electrification and rolling stock projects, will lead to a trebling of capacity for commuter services in the greater Dublin area, providing for up to 100 million passenger journeys per annum. The Docklands Luas extension opened last year and the extensions to Cherrywood and Citywest are due for completion in late 2010 and mid 2011 respectively.
A decision on the railway order for metro north is expected this summer. This project and the DART underground project are key priorities for public transport in the renewed programme for Government.
The Minister knows where I am coming from with this question. I was brought up 50 yards from a railway line so I have a great interest in railways.
I did not want to get involved but I cannot understand the decision taken on the location of a station outside of Dunshaughlin. When I was first elected and made spokesman on road safety and transport, I had a meeting about the railway line with Iarnród Éireann and was told how sensitive the issue was, the costs of building it and that enough passengers must travel on it. I was delighted when the line reached Dunboyne and then Navan. I cannot understand, however, why it has been taken away from Dunshaughlin. No one has explained how building a railway station outside a town is the way forward, it must be within the town. The people of Ratoath, Ashbourne and Dunshaughlin are being left out in the cold, it is a waste of time if we are not joined up in Dunshaughlin.
The M3 is being built with two tolls on it, which is stupid, because those from Kells will not drive on it because it is too expensive. The railway line to Navan is going down the old route but that line was used 70 or 80 years ago to bring fodder to Dublin when Dunshaughlin was a very small town. The people of Dunshaughlin and County Meath in general cannot understand why this route has been chosen for the railway line. Can the Minister explain to the people of Dunshaughlin, Ratoath, Ashbourne, Screen, Curragha and the rest of County Meath why the line is going in a straight line and cutting out these people?
The route of the rail line was the subject of extensive consultation and study. A number of routes were looked at in the course of this preparation, to both the east and west of Dunshaughlin and also following the old route all the way. There was extensive study from the environmental, economic and cost benefit analysis points of view. The unanimous agreement of those who undertook all the studies was that this route would give the best return and would be best placed on the old alignment which happens to pass to the west of Dunshaughlin.
The only people I have heard recommending it should go east of Dunshaughlin are those who may have a vested interest in land on the east side because the line would enhance the value of their property. However, from the point of view of trying to ensure the rail line is built at an economic cost and within the time scales in question the line to the west was the one recommended. Going to the east of Dunshaughlin would add at least €100 million to the cost, without taking into account the cost of land, and would involve two crossings of the M3. For that reason it was decided not to take that route.
The Minister's answer in regard to the area east of Dunshaughlin may concern vested interests but the entire county of Meath has to do with zoned land and vested interests. That is why we were at the top of the list the other day.
However, my interest in this has nothing to do with that issue. I do not even know who owns the land but a railway is built for people. The previous rail line was built for cattle and for shipping hay, turnips and carrots to the markets in Dublin. Now, however, we are talking about Ratoath and Dunshaughlin, two major towns. There is more to life than the town of Navan. I want to know who picked this route and I will find that out in the end and will discover how this could be announced on a day when Irish Rail did not even know about it. It was announced for political reasons.
There is no great secret about who selected the route. The recommendation was made to the board——
By whom?
——by the people who did the studies.
Has that study been made public?
Yes. Approximately three studies were done in this regard over the years. This study is available. I am sure the Deputy will find it on the CIE website.
Like the Deputy, I do not know who owns any land, either east or west of Dunshaughlin but when the recommendation came to me——
How can the Minister make that statement?
The Deputy will allow the Minister to reply.
Why is the Minister making a statement like that?
Allow the Minister to reply.
I will discover the reasons.
No Member will be shouted down in this House.
No, they will not.
The Deputy is allowed to put his question and the Minister should be allowed to respond.
There is no point in making implications. We all know what——
If the Deputy is not happy to obey the normal rules of the House, he knows the alternative he has.
I do not think the Deputy——
This is a House of Parliament, not a shouting match.
I do not think the Deputy should go down the route of rezoning in County Meath, asking who was involved in that. It would not be a productive exercise.
By God, it would not.
The studies that were completed on this matter are public. On the recommendation of the consultants it appointed, the board of CIE agreed a particular route. This was recommended to me and I accepted it. There is no great secret about it.
