Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 2013

Vol. 803 No. 2

Priority Questions

Public Transport Provision

Timmy Dooley

Question:

1. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the actions he has planned to ensure that Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath have a viable future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23304/13]

Dessie Ellis

Question:

2. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the efforts he is making to work with CIÉ and its subsidiaries to develop a plan to ensure adequate funding for public transport services into the long term, avoiding further run down of service and protecting the pay and conditions of ordinary workers. [23296/13]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

These questions are about the viability of the CIE group. In the three years from 2009 to 2011, CIE as a group suffered a total loss of €137 million after exceptional items. Clearly, this level of loss cannot be sustained and must be addressed. While progress has been made over recent years in reducing costs and headcount, these reductions have not been sufficient to eliminate the deficits in the operating companies.

While additional funding of €36 million was provided by the Government to CIE last year to ensure companies could continue to operate public service obligation, PSO, services for the rest of 2012, the funds are not available to do so again. Instead, the board of CIE is pursuing a range of measures such as the sale of non-core assets and reductions in cost base, including payroll reductions. At the end of 2012, a significant voluntary severance programme was implemented in Irish Rail and the group generated cash of €20 million by selling its interest in the ground lease in Spencer Dock. CIE will also benefit from the introduction of a fuel rebate in July and, in addition, the group has benefitted from fare increases approved by the NTA. The group is also in negotiation with its banks on refinancing and I understand these discussions are progressing well.

Any refinancing will rely upon the delivery and implementation of a credible business plan. CIE has undertaken a rigorous business planning process with the aim of returning to a break-even position and achieving a sustainable debt. The implementation of a credible business plan will be essential to CIE's financial recovery in the period ahead.

In addition to PSO subvention, the Exchequer also makes a very substantial contribution to the companies' capital costs. Despite the constraints on the Exchequer, capital funding of more than €440 million has been provided to all three companies in the past two years and continued investment in the region of €170 million has been allocated for 2013. The objective of this investment is to get a better return from the existing public transport network through targeted improvements, better use of existing resources and the use of modern technology to make public transport more responsive and user-friendly.

I am conscious that I am addressing these questions at a time when Bus Éireann is engaged in critical negotiations with its staff. Management and staff in all of the CIE companies must continue to focus on cutting costs, which can help to address the serious financial position in which the CIE group finds itself.

In contrast to some of the rhetoric we have heard in recent days, it is important to remember that neither party opposite in its pre-budget submission proposed any changes to the level of subvention for public transport. Fianna Fáil’s pre-budget submission went further and proposed to reduce funding for the free travel programme by 5% in 2013. If this proposal had been implemented, it would have resulted in a further reduction in funding to CIE of more than €3 million and in particular would have cost Bus Éireann approximately €1.6 million. Given the party’s desire to represent constructive opposition, Deputy Dooley may wish to enlighten the House as to how he expected the CIE group, and Bus Éireann in particular, to bear the additional cost reduction he proposed.

I thank the Minister for his clarification and outline. The Minister was given an opportunity, through the questions posed by Deputy Ellis and me, to enlighten us as to what efforts he is making to examine the provision of an adequate and appropriate public transport service, but he has failed to do so. We are well aware of Fine Gael's position on this matter. In the past the Minister has expressed a desire to see a greater level of involvement from the private sector and perhaps he has a view on privatising the service. Under questioning from me in the past he indicated that while this may have been the Fine Gael position, he accepted the fact that he was in government with the Labour Party. I am delighted his colleague from that party is also present. Perhaps he will be able to enlighten us further as to the Labour Party's stance on the maintenance of an adequate and appropriate interconnected transport service.

May I conclude?

Will the Government put in place a strategic review of the entire transport network to ensure all regions of the State are adequately connected by way of a public transport service? The Minister is aware that private operators provide a level of inter-city service, but county towns are an integral part of our country and their bus services need to be maintained.

For clarification, how are we on time?

I thought because questions were being shared-----

Does the Government intend to conduct a strategic review of the transport network to ensure the appropriate level of subvention is provided to maintain a properly connected integrated transport service? I will deal with the political issues at another time when the Minister has time, and I will outline Fianna Fáil's position. The Minister must accept that when the fundamental facts change, as they have with regard to the reduction in the level of fare intake, the matter must be reviewed, and we will happily do so as part of the-----

The Deputy will have another chance to speak.

Lest there be any confusion, it is not Government policy to privatise any of the CIE companies; nor was it proposed to do so by my party in opposition. The issue of allowing more private licences for bus operators is a different one, but is not pertinent at present. It is something to be considered in due course.

I have no difficulty with doing a strategic review, but Deputy Dooley knows as well as I do that such things take many years. What we need to do now is to deal with the public transport system as we find it. We are engaging in reform of rural transport, led by the Minister of State, Deputy Kelly; reform of the taxi sector; capital investment in projects such as the Luas link-up; and investment in integrated ticketing and real time passenger information to improve the quality of public transport.

It is not all about subvention and it is important that people know the facts. Last year Bus Éireann's subvention was €36.882 million. In 2007, at the peak of the boom, when Deputy Dooley's party was in power, the subvention was €36.595 million. The subvention for Bus Éireann last year was higher than it was in 2007 when the economy was at its peak. We must bear in mind that since then the Government has been put under major pressure to reduce spending, and this must happen. There must be a mix of measures, including more efficient services, lower costs and, unfortunately, higher fares and a lower subvention.

For clarification, only one minute is allowed for supplementary questions.

I thank the Minister for his response. It is important to point out that the cut to the subsidy last year was approximately €5 million. The cost-cutting measures being sought in the company at present are to the value of approximately €5 million. Our subvention is one of the lowest in Europe and I do not understand what the Department has done in the negotiations with Dublin Bus.

Has the Minister been involved? Has he made a proper analysis of the cuts and the effects they will have on services? We have already seen some of those effects. In addition, Bus Éireann ticket prices have risen, which is defeating the purpose. The idea is to try to get more people to use Bus Éireann and thus increase passenger numbers in that service. The Minister, however, is deterring people from doing so. Is that his policy? He is driving a privatisation agenda instead of working on behalf of a service that is there for people, young and old, including the disabled. Is it all about profit? We cannot work everything on the basis that it will, and must, be profitable. The State has to take a hit in some way.

I remind the Deputy that while Sinn Féin's alternative budget did propose additional funding in a number of areas, it did not propose any additional funding for public transport. I can only conclude from that, therefore, that the Deputy supports the levels of subvention that the Government is currently giving to the CIE companies.

If a privatisation agenda is being pursued by this Government, we would not be trying to save these companies. There is no privatisation agenda here. We are trying to save these companies so that passengers can continue to rely on the services they provide and so people who work hard in those companies for modest wages can keep their jobs. We do not want these companies to fail. Even if one wanted the private sector to take over, it would not be possible; it does not have the capacity to do it. The Government's policy is to try to save these companies' services and jobs.

It is important to keep the subvention issue in context, so I will give two sets of figures. The subvention Bus Éireann will get this year is just over €34 million. It was €36.5 million in 2007 and €26.4 million in 2006 when the economy was roaring ahead. At the peak of the boom, the company was receiving a lower subvention that it does now.

The same applies to Dublin Bus. Its subvention last year was €74 million, but was only €69 million in 2006.

The Minister is making a big play of the fact that the subvention was lower when times were better. He also said that other Opposition parties did not allow for a greater level of subvention. When the fundamentals of the company's viability changed on the Minister's watch last year, he was required to reallocate €35 million from other areas of his Department. It is clear that, at the outset, the Minister did not know the group of companies was going to run into the difficulty it did at the end of 2012. Is the Minister suggesting that the Opposition should have a greater knowledge than he does? The facts changed during the course of last year with a reduction in usage and therefore a drop in fares' intake. Of course, the Minister had to look at what sort of service he wanted and he provided the appropriate funding at a later stage. I welcomed that at the time. However, I still believe that a strategic review is needed to decide what kind of national service he intends to have.

The Minister will also have to review the licensing issue. If he brings in more private services, they will have a greater impact on the ability of Bus Éireann to survive.

There are alternatives. There are people on higher pay in Bus Éireann and other companies, including the CEOs who are paid an awful amount. Something like €4 million extra is paid in fuel for Bus Éireann so what about the fuel rebate? We could look at those areas.

The chairman of Bus Éireann is sitting in Abu Dhabi and appears to be more dedicated to Etihad than to Bus Éireann. Does the Minister have an opinion on whether the chairman should be here in the middle of a crisis? Is he involved in the chairmanship of other boards? This is a farce. Some chairpersons are appointed to five or six different boards and are getting €15,000, €20,000 or €25,000. Was the Minister involved in this man's appointment? Does the Minister have an opinion as to why he has not taken the time to come here and deal with a very serious issue?

I really do not buy Deputy Dooley's point. His proposal to cut the free travel scheme and take another €3 million off CIE and over €1 million off Bus Éireann was made in December 2012, which was after the announcement that CIE was in serious financial trouble and required a bailout of €36 million. Therefore, even after the Deputy knew all that, and it had been in the newspapers - I know he reads the papers - he still proposed a further cut of €3 million in CIE and €1.5 million in Bus Éireann.

As regards Deputy Ellis's point, the fuel rebate is being reinstated in July, but it will only make a small difference. It will not make the big difference that people think it will.

We have to bear in mind that the money for a subvention comes from people's taxes. Taxes have gone up dramatically and people really cannot afford many more tax hikes. That is the truth of it. If the Deputy wants the subvention to go back up to record levels - even higher than in the boom - then one needs to have record taxes. People cannot afford very many more tax hikes, or fare hikes, imposed on them. That is what is happening. Taxpayers are paying higher taxes and passengers are paying higher fares. Cost savings are needed to mitigate that.

Will the Minister answer the question about the Bus Éireann chairman not being present in all of this?

I would be happy to.

We have to move on to the next question.

Can I get the Minister's answer on that point? I would like to know why the chairman has not come back in the middle of a crisis where people will lose €4,000 or €5,000 from their wages. That is what is being imposed on ordinary workers. As a matter of courtesy, we need to find out about the chairman.

Thank you, Deputy. We are now moving on to Question No. 4 because Deputy Donnelly, who has proposed Question No. 3, is not here.

For God's sake.

Transport Costs

Timmy Dooley

Question:

4. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the measures he can take to reduce costs for all modes of transport thereby improving Ireland's cost competitiveness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23305/13]

The Forfás Cost of doing Business in Ireland 2012 report identifies the key components in transport competitiveness as fuel costs, distance from markets, competition and efficiency in the provision of transport services. My Department has no direct control over many of these issues but keeps under close review costs arising from the services provided through our agencies.

Over 90% of Ireland’s trade moves by sea. All shipping companies servicing routes to and from Ireland are independent commercial companies that are market driven. The costs facing the shipping industry today are due in no small part to external global factors such as fuel costs and currency fluctuations. It is vital that their operations are supported by an appropriately planned efficient national port infrastructure. To this end, I recently launched the new National Ports Policy which sets the necessary policy framework to achieve this aim and provide for the sector's continued commercial development.

Furthermore, the Competition Authority is currently carrying out a review of the sector. Once this review has been completed and published, my Department is committed to responding to any recommendations made to us within six months.

As regards the airline market, Forfás recommends that we maintain competition in the airline sector. We are fortunate to have several strong and profitable airlines in Ireland. The Government has made clear that it plans to sell its shareholding in Aer Lingus but only at the right time, for the right price and under the right conditions. The position in this respect remains unchanged and subject to ongoing consideration within Government.

Roads are a key component of the transport infrastructure. The report points out that the cost of the internal movement of export goods in Ireland is the cheapest in the euro area. However, we are not resting on our laurels. A fuel rebate scheme for licensed operators and bus operators is being introduced in the second half of 2013 by the Department of Finance. In addition, a new online licensing system is due to go live this summer which will cut costs for hauliers by streamlining the processing of road transport operator licences. This new licensing system is expected to realise a saving of about €32 million per annum to the industry in reduced administrative costs.

On the road system itself, in the current economic circumstances the capital allocations to the NRA have been reduced significantly. For the moment, the primary focus for direct Exchequer spending is the maintenance of the existing network and this will continue to be the case for some years. The Government's stimulus package of July 2012 does envisage €1.4 billion in private investment being directed to infrastructure projects, including roads identified by Forfás, as a way of stimulating economic growth and creating employment.

My question is based on the Forfás report and the concerns raised therein. Much has been said about the capacity of our export sector to drive economic growth. We must be concerned when Forfás raises issues about competitiveness at the present time. The road haulage sector, in particular, argues that some issues of concern are still impacting on the sector's ability to provide a competitive service.

While the introduction of the fuel rebate is welcome, there is the issue of the way in which road tax in this State is applied to haulage companies. They have a view, which has been presented to the Government, that road tax should be applied to usage rather than levied on an annual basis. The issue of cabotage, and the external competition that the road haulage industry faces from trucking companies based outside the State, makes it more difficult for them, requiring them to deal with what they consider to be over-zealous competition and requiring them to charge higher rates. Obviously anything that could be done in this regard would be helpful in terms of making our exports more competitive.

Deputy Dooley raises two valid issues. Regarding motor tax on heavy goods vehicles, people who have trucks and lorries pay motor tax, and so they should. Heavy vehicles do much damage to roads, so it is appropriate that they contribute to the cost of them as everyone else does. The Irish Road Haulage Association has suggested we move to the model used in Britain, whereby one pays on a daily basis. The idea is that foreign licensed hauliers in Ireland would have to make a contribution to the cost of using our roads. There is an idea there that needs to be studied. There are issues with regard to tolls and administration costs. One interdepartmental group has already met to consider those proposals. If they add up they will be implemented, and if not they will not be. That will take some more work. The European law on cabotage needs to be changed. It means hauliers are carrying empty loads around Europe, which is inefficient, but we would need agreement on a European level to change those rules.

I accept that the matter of taxation is under review, which will be helpful. On cabotage, I would have hoped that with Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Deputy Varadkar would have made greater advances in that area. Trucks are traversing Europe without loads and that leads to inefficiencies in the service. There is a view among road haulage associations that the cabotage rules are not enforced to the same extent in this country as they are in other countries, thereby putting Irish road hauliers at a significant disadvantage. Anything the Minister can do in the remaining weeks of our Presidency would be helpful in moving that issue on.

Bus Éireann Services

Stephen Donnelly

Question:

3. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide an update on Bus Éireann's application to the National Transport Authority to reverse changes to the number two Wexford-Dublin route that serves Arklow, including the details of the changes requested in the application; the initial rationale for these changes; the reason they are now being reversed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23297/13]

This question is about an Expressway commercial bus service. This is a commercial decision for Bus Éireann, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, and not one in which I have any role. However, I contacted the National Transport Authority for clarification, and the position is as follows.

The NTA is responsible for securing the provision of public passenger transport services through public service contracts, where services cannot be provided on a commercial basis, and the licensing of public bus services, which are operated on a commercial basis. Bus Éireann’s Expressway route 2 is licensed by the NTA and the company has been granted amendments to the licence for this route. There is nothing to prevent Bus Éireann or any other licensed operator from applying to the NTA to amend the times or routes of these licensed services. Such applications are considered in accordance with the arrangements set out in the NTA’s guidelines for the licensing of public bus passenger services. There is no legislative framework for refusing an amendment where the NTA considers that there would be no impact either on any other commercial service or on any subsidised service by granting it. Accordingly, Bus Éireann’s decision to amend the timetable and the points served on this route is entirely a commercial matter for the operator. I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.

I thank the Minister of State for the update. I would not normally use a priority question for something like a single bus route. The reason I am bringing it up is that it is an issue for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, and for the Minister of State, Deputy Kelly. This is not just a question about a commercial route; it is issue of access to health care. The No. 2 bus goes to St. Vincent's University Hospital, which is the closest hospital for many people in the area for a wide range of health care issues. Last September, for commercial reasons, Bus Éireann decided to stop at St. Vincent's once a day, once going up and once going back. This caused a huge level of concern and panic in Arklow and on the route.

I have been engaged with the chief executive of Bus Éireann on this issue and he has gone as far as he can. Bus Éireann has responded to representations from me, other public representatives and the public, but he has gone as far as he can for the reason that has been given here - that this is a commercial route and is, therefore, nothing to do with the Minister and the Department. This is a case in which a subsidy is required. Many people are heavily dependent on this one bus route for job and health care reasons. I appreciate the Minister cannot give any commitment to subsidise the route now, but I ask that he acknowledge that this is not simply a commercial decision for Bus Éireann and that he undertake now to go back and look at whether there is a case - I strongly believe there is - for a subsidy.

I am glad to see Deputy Donnelly is interested in constituency issues. No doubt that is noted.

We thought he was above that. He keeps telling us he is anyway.

That mistake will never be made in Deputy Ring's case. There is no doubt about that.

It is amazing how it brings Deputy Donnelly down to the standard.

Deputy Donnelly is beginning to follow Deputy Ring's way of doing business. I did take the time to examine the changes that have taken place on this route. Decisions were made in early 2012 and some of them were amended on a number of occasions in May, August and September. Bus Éireann is even examining the introduction of new bus stops along the route and is engaging with local authorities on this. I know Deputy Donnelly is using it as an example of an issue. There is a distinction between commercial operation and PSO operation, and that is a pendulum that needs to be examined. In the overall scheme of things, the issue of PSO routes will have to be examined into the future and as part of that everything will be reassessed. Bus Éireann has made some changes on the route that deal positively with the issues the Deputy and many other public representatives had. It is monitoring it again. It has been pushed as far as it can be for the time being, but in the broader scheme of things it is a route that could be examined as part of a re-analysis of PSO routes.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. As I said, I would not normally bring this up on the floor of the Dáil, but it is a very serious issue. It is a serious health care issue for many people in Arklow and along the route. They are not asking for the introduction of new stops - just the re-opening of stops that were removed about halfway up the N11. I appreciate the Minister of State's recognition that this could be examined as part of a broad PSO review. I ask for a slightly stronger commitment: that the Minister ask his officials to examine this specific route as a matter of urgency. This is a major issue for the people of Arklow. There are many concerned citizens. This is their only way of getting to St. Vincent's University Hospital, so it is an urgent issue. I ask the Minister of State to have his officials look specifically at this case.

I have no problem engaging with the officials and asking them to re-examine it. That is not an issue. A number of stops have been put in recently and they are looking at rejigging the stops. They are engaging with the local authorities on that. Maybe I will forward the information to Deputy Donnelly; he might not have all that detail. This is one of many routes that can be examined. We might look at a pilot scheme on a number of these to produce a timeframe for examining the whole PSO side of things with Bus Éireann. We will not be engaging directly with Bus Éireann on this issue at the moment. As the Deputy knows, it is tied up with other business, but we will do it in the future.

By the end of the week will be grand.

I thank the Deputy for his confidence. I appreciate that.

Dublin Bus Services

Mick Wallace

Question:

5. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on whether Dublin Bus is adequately maintaining its fleet in order to cope with passenger demand; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22956/13]

This question is about the Dublin Bus fleet. Following the establishment of the National Transport Authority, NTA, in December 2009, the implementation and development of infrastructure projects in the greater Dublin area such as the replacement and refurbishment of PSO buses, comes under the remit of the NTA. I am not aware there is any problem regarding the capacity of Dublin Bus to cope with passenger demand, nor have the NTA advised me of any issue in this regard.

In keeping with priorities for transport infrastructure funding outlined in the capital framework to 2016, funding is provided via the NTA to Dublin Bus to facilitate a rolling programme of bus replacement and refurbishment in order to ensure the age profile of the PSO fleet is maintained at a safe and reliable level and to allow Dublin Bus to respond to passenger demand. This year the funding provided to the NTA will facilitate the purchase of 80 new buses by Dublin Bus, which are expected to be ready for delivery in the latter half of 2013. A similar number of new buses for PSO routes were funded in 2012 and I understand all of these have now entered into service.

I tabled a question relating to road safety, which obviously comes within the Department's remit, but it was disqualified. I sent a letter regarding the determination of penalty points to the Minister about a month ago and was disappointed that I did not receive a reply. I am concerned about the level of interest in the issue. We have not seen the report but I presume the Minister of State has seen it. I would like to ask him a few questions about it. Did he find the determination policy used by gardaí was within the limits set down by the relevant legislation? Does the report deal with the failure to offer protection to whistleblowers? Is the Minister of State concerned that whistleblowers were not interviewed even once by the people investigating the issue? In general, is the Minister of State happy with the report?

Fair play to Deputy Wallace but I cannot see how this relates in any way to the question. This is a matter-----

It relates to the question I submitted.

In fairness, that is not the question I received. This is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality. I have not read the report yet; it is being published at 3.30 p.m.

It concerns road safety.

I have not read the report on the penalty points issue. As I understand it, it is being published at 3.30 p.m. and the Minister will be dealing with it from there.

The Deputy has one minute, on the question posed.

Obviously I would not like to see the bus fleet in Dublin undermined in any manner but I am aware that the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, has read the report and I would like to know if he is happy with it. He is already on record today as commenting on the report.

The Minister of State to reply.

That was not the question asked.

That was the question submitted. Is this a silencing policy, whereby Deputies submit questions only to-----

That was not the question asked.

All of us submitted valid questions and they were all disqualified.

I did not disallow the question.

The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, is usually pretty prompt within his remit.

He has no problem talking to RTE but he cannot answer a question here.

I do not decide the questions or the order in which they are put.

I am not attacking the Minister of State.

Neither can I answer on another Minister's behalf.

The Minister is present. He can answer for himself.

I have not read the report which is only being published at 3.30 p.m. today.

(Interruptions).

Thank you. We are out of time and are moving to the next question.

Top
Share