The next item is the forthcoming EU Transport Council meeting. I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Gallagher, and apologise that we were forced to deal with other business before we could allow the Minister and Minister of State to appear before us. The fact that this business has been dealt with will probably shorten the Minister's stay. A brief presentation has been circulated to members. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.
EU Transport Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I thank the Chairman for his invitation to come before the committee to discuss the agenda for the next meeting of the EU Transport Council which takes place on Monday, 27 March. I value the opportunity to obtain the views of the committee in advance of the meeting. While there are 12 items shown on the latest draft agenda and more listed under the heading "any other business", the majority are not for decision. They are either communications or information notes from the Commission, the Presidency or member states. Although the agenda has not been finalised, there is sufficient certainty about the key items for our purposes today. The key items of interest to Ireland include the proposal on public passenger transport services, the driver licensing directive, road safety, the EU-US bilateral agreement, aviation security and sustainable development. If the Chairman wishes, I will set out the general position in respect of these items.
There will be a progress report and policy debate on public transport services. The proposed new regulations deal with the arrangements for the provision of subventions for public transport service providers. Broadly, the proposed regulations are based on the understanding that a public service obligation would apply in a case where a commercial transport operator would consider that a transport service was such that it would not be commercially viable without such subvention. In other words, from a business perspective, the service in question does not appear to be viable. The regulations will establish specific parameters for the award by transport authorities of direct award contracts for transport services that require subvention, as well as contracts resulting from open tendering processes.
Ireland has adopted a generally positive position on this proposal. However, we have raised a number of issues in respect of which changes to the draft regulations would facilitate the broadest possible acceptance of the proposal and better reflect the existence of the many differing models for the delivery of public transport throughout the EU. The Austrian Presidency will report on the progress made to date on the consideration of the proposed new regulations. The Presidency has placed a number of questions on the agenda for the Council meeting regarding the extent to which direct award contracts can be awarded, particularly in the case of urban heavy rail operations, the relationship that should exist between a transport authority and the recipient of a direct award contract and the continuation of existing contractual arrangements in the transport sector.
I have several concerns about the proposal as currently drafted. In particular, the proposal to restrict the facility for the grant of direct award contracts to local competent authorities does not suit smaller member states in which many public transport services are delivered on a national basis only. We also need a realistic approach to existing contractual arrangements that recognises the reality of existing contracts and the variety of approaches to the delivery of transport services in all 25 member states. The European Commission is aware of our concerns and the Presidency is reflecting on them.
The European Union agreed on a common driving licence format in 1991. This proposal is to recast Directive 91/439/EEC and bring it up to date. The directive proposes that member states will be required to issue driving licences in plastic card format with the option, as a security measure, of including a microchip that could store licence data. Adoption of the directive is a matter for co-decision between the Council and European Parliament. An earlier draft of the directive was passed by the Council in 2004. Since then, the Parliament has given its views and the Council, in its working group, has reached agreement on the majority of the issues raised by Parliament.
While Ireland has no outstanding reservations recorded against the Council proposal, there are some matters on which agreement has not been reached. These largely relate to whether existing licences must be replaced by card licences and the timing of the introduction of the new style licences. In some countries, people can hold their licences for long periods before being required to change them. For a number of countries, there are issues concerning the mechanism of changing tens of millions of licences that would not normally come up for renewal or, if they did, only every 20 or 30 years. However, this is not an issue for Ireland.
As the committee is aware, road safety is the transport theme of the Austrian Presidency. Under this item, the European Commission is presenting the main findings of its mid-term review of progress on implementing the EU road safety action programme, which dates from 2000 and aims to halve the number of people killed on EU roads, from 50,000 to 25,000, by 2010. The plan presents a range of general proposals on a broad range of subjects and concentrates on areas such as vehicle standards and road network infrastructure.
The review was published on 22 February and consists of an examination of the road safety progress in European countries since 2001. It is purely factual, giving statistics based on data provided by member states in respect of road fatalities that occurred during the period 2001 to 2004. It also includes a series of road safety country profiles for each member state. These profiles are based on material provided by member states which describes their national policies and main issues. The review classifies countries into four categories, namely, "better progress than previously", "limited progress", "no progress at all" and "deteriorated". Ireland is ranked among eight states that made limited progress towards reducing the numbers killed and seriously injured in crashes. Ireland, therefore, falls into in the second best category, showing a reduction of fatalities of 8% over the three-year period against an EU average reduction of 14% based on data for the period 2001 to 2004. The main road safety problems the review identified in Ireland relate to speeding and drink driving. While seat belt wearing has improved significantly, it remains an issue. The review noted that penalty points were introduced in October 2002 and that we have a dedicated road safety strategy.
The Presidency's objective is to reach agreement on a general approach to the aviation security dossier at the Transport Council. This is a proposal to replace the existing aviation security Regulation 2320/2002 with a new regulation that will simplify, harmonise, clarify and enhance the levels of civil aviation security across the European Union. The proposed new regulation will lay down basic principles of what must be done in order to safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference while the technical and procedural measures on how this is to be achieved will be developed in committee. A new text was considered necessary arising from Commission inspections and problems identified by member states in the daily application of the previous regulation. Ireland can support the new text and considers it a significant improvement on the existing regulation in terms of how it will be implemented. The text as it now stands is broadly supported by the member states.
The Commission will give information on the EU-US agreement, the text of which was finalised at the EU-US negotiations that concluded in Washington on 18 November 2005. The Council will receive information from the Commission on the latest position regarding the US moves on ownership and control. It is unlikely that there will be any substantive discussion of the draft agreement itself, as the text received unanimous support at the Transport Council in December 2005.
In its presentation at the Council, the Commission is likely to re-emphasise for member states the benefits of the draft agreement but it will also recognise that member states will not be in a position to make a final decision on this issue until the outcome of moves by the US on liberalising its ownership and control rules becomes known. Ireland strongly supports the agreement because it contains a suitable transitional arrangement for Shannon Airport, as previously announced, and will provide substantial benefits to Irish airlines, airports, tourism, business links and the economy in general.
Sustainable development seeks to balance economic, social and environmental considerations in policy formulation and development. Sustainable development is enshrined in the EU treaty as an overarching objective of the European Union. I will conclude on that point and answer any questions that members might wish to pose.
On microchips in driving licences, could the registration of all convictions on each licence within the EU be made mandatory? People who have been disqualified in one member state can currently apply to another member state for a full licence.
In technological terms, there would not be an issue in doing so and I would support it from an Irish perspective because it would be helpful in harmonising the European approach to penalty points. I am on the record here and in the European Council as making the point that the ultimate solution must be a harmonised approach across the European Union. As the committee is aware, Ireland has been trying to make progress on a bilateral basis with the United Kingdom and, in particular, Northern Ireland, where agreement has been reached on the recognition of serious offences for penalty points. The Chairman's point is essentially correct because using the microchip process is one of the ways through which this situation can be resolved.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. He referred to the regulation of bus and rail public transport services. Last week, he announced that he will renege on the promise to put out for public tender 25% of existing routes to try to increase the number of buses on the streets of Dublin and meet the significant demand that has put more cars on our streets, adding to congestion, numbers of traffic accidents and the stress and misery suffered by everyone in the city. It has been reported that, instead of25%, the Minister will only guarantee 15% of new routes. Basically, he promised Dublin Bus that what it has it may hold. I have no difficulty with Dublin Bus doing so, except that it is squatting on routes and using single vehicles on them. Other operators cannot provide services on such routes. The Minister is frowning at me as though I am a lunatic.
I was not frowning at the Deputy. I was thinking about something else triggered by one of the points made.
Will the Minister listen what I have to say instead?
On routes throughout the capital, Dublin Bus puts on one bus and then states it has that route. It does not provide a service. Everyone on the route owns one or two cars because no one can depend on one bus in the morning and another in the evening. I object to squatting on routes and the Minister will set that system in stone if he continues with his proposal.
I cannot understand why Dublin Bus has a problem with deregulation. There is enough business for everyone. The number of buses in Dublin could be doubled and would still not be adequate. This does not threaten Dublin Bus. It is in the business, has expertise and operates historic routes. It knows the business inside out and would be well able to compete and expand in a deregulated market.
While the Minister is the shareholder for CIE, he also represents the public interest. Stating that 15% of new routes will be put out to tender is rubbish and holds no prospects in terms of relief to the public. Billions will be spent on rail under Transport 21 but that will be in the long term. In the meantime, generations will grow up, grow old and die and never see these facilities. Buses can be provided relatively quickly to give some relief to Dublin.
We are being brought kicking and screaming to rail freight deregulation by Europe. However, there is nothing left to deregulate. We heard earlier that Iarnród Éireann lost the contract to transport Guinness. I know how difficult it is for rail freight, relative to road freight, to be economical. However, with every day that passes, petrol prices increase, our roads become more congested and rail freight becomes increasingly viable. To lose the capacity for rail freight in the long term is absolute folly.
Not alone was Iarnród Éireann allowed to erode freight services, it was also permitted to dismantle the infrastructure so that no one else could enter the market, even though private sector interests are supposed to be able to do so. Examples of this are selling wagons and scrapping oil tanks, pocket wagons and the cement silos in Cork. The loss of the Guinness contract means that 1.3 million kegs will be transported by road.
I know the Minister has been informed by Iarnród Éireann that rail freight is not viable. However, he must make every effort to ensure that these services are provided and that Iarnród Éireann makes some effort to compete. I do not believe that Iarnród Éireann had any interest in retaining the Guinness contract. The Minister allowed it to lose that business and only 1% of freight now moves by rail. Iarnród Éireann initially got out of single container traffic, then it ceased all container traffic and is now abandoning bulk goods. It just wants to get out of the business, which is catastrophic when rail freight is increasing in all other parts of Europe. While it is difficult for rail freight, relative to road freight, to be economically viable, that situation will change over time. Will the Minister ensure the rest of the rail freight infrastructure is not dismantled.
The Minister stated that timing is not an issue in respect of driving licences. I hope that is so because I want to see the new licences introduced as quickly as possible. We went to tender in 2003 and then withdrew from the process. Perhaps that was before the Minister's time. I regret that this happened because the microchip licence is essential for effective roadside enforcement of penalty points. If we want roadside enforcement by the Garda Síochána, information about a licence and its owner must be available to gardaí on the spot. Will the Minister move quickly on that matter?
I presume the statistics the Minister quoted on road safety are those produced by EuroRAP. The review is purely factual, giving statistics provided by member states and containing profiles based on material from member states that describes their national policies and main issues. One of our main issues is licences. To obtain a licence, one must pass a test. What will the Minister do in light of the finding by the arbitration council that 40,000 tests cannot be outsourced? If that is a condition of partnership, it is extremely short-sighted from everybody's point of view. Will that clause be renegotiated in the partnership talks? Effectively, it prevents Government from dealing with a crisis. I do not believe that, in agreeing to that clause, either side intended that the Government would trade away its right to negotiate and deal with a crisis situation. It must be examined.
From September, professional drivers in the EU, such as those who drive buses, trucks and public service vehicles, will be required to possess some form of harmonised initial qualification and meet a certain training standard. What has been done to ensure that Ireland meets this deadline? Will the new authority have a role to play in the harmonisation process? Are we in any way prepared for it? I could raise many other issues but we would be here all day if we discussed them.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. Deputy Olivia Mitchell raised the matter of the buses promised to Dublin Bus, which does not have enough vehicles for the new quality bus corridors that have been opened. The Minister owes Dublin Bus 160 buses under the national development plan. They are due to be handed over before the end of the year. There has been no sign of them for the past few years.
The Deputy——
May I finish?
No, the Deputy may not do so. The matter before the committee relates to the forthcoming European Transport Council. As Dublin Bus is not on the agenda, it is not relevant.
I wonder whether it will get the buses to which I refer before the end of the year.
The Minister discussed the subsidisation of services. I am confused about the EU's attitude to rail freight and its subsidisation. It has a position on public service obligation in public transport. Has the Council of Ministers taken a position on rail freight subsidies? We discussed these difficulties previously with the Minister. The costs do not stack up for Iarnród Éireann to operate widespread rail freight. Now that the market is open, there is no sign of anyone entering to compete. Does the EU have a view on the fact that so many EU states operate subsidies, usually through the tax system, so that industry is incentivised to use rail as opposed to road freight. Has it been discussed?
The Minister stated that there are no objections to the credit card-type driving licence. Some time has passed since those licences were promised. I recall the introduction, when Deputy Brennan was Minister, of the requirement to carry driving licences on one's person. It is difficult for people to do so because the document has an awkward shape and does not easily fit into a wallet or purse. We were promised that the credit card-type plastic driving licence would be introduced in the near future. Has any progress been made on that? I understand the Minister is not under great time pressures in respect of the EU but, in terms of convenience and facilitating the public in meeting the requirement to carry the licence, can we expect the introduction of the new type in the near future?
I note the Minister's remark that the Austrian Presidency is making road safety a priority. The newsletter of the European Transport Safety Council, which does a good job in gathering statistics, reported an informal meeting between the council and Ministers. Did the Minister attend that meeting?
No, it was attended by the Minister of State.
The discussion centred on road safety. The council tried to persuade Ministers that action on road safety can pay electoral dividends. It made the point that the public expects leadership from Ministers on this issue and that there would be political rewards for those who took a leading role in promoting life saving technologies. The newsletter states:
There is no doubt that improving road safety is good for re-election. This, at least, is ETSC's message to European transport Ministers and especially to the one Minister who, in Bregenz, expressed his fear of not being re-elected if he follows our recommendation to bring down the BAC-limit in his country from 0.8 to 0.5 and introduce random breath testing.
What Minister expressed those extraordinary fears? Presumably it was either a Minister from Ireland or one from the UK.
It was not us.
I wonder what the Minister's views are on that. Does he agree that it is modern and responsible to provide leadership on road safety or does he have concerns about the implications for re-election? When can we expect action by the Garda on drink driving, given the recent clarification of their powers by the Attorney General? Has the Minister instructed the Garda to operate according to the law as it stands? Why have we not seen action, despite the high rate of fatalities?
I thank the Minister for attending. I would like the issue of subsidies to public providers of transport services to be clarified. I often drive along the Dublin to Cork road and I am amused by the increased level of service provided on that route by Bus Éireann and Aircoach. Is the ridiculously low fare offered by Bus Éireann being subsidised to compete with private operators on that and other routes? If a private operator is willing to charge a low fare on the Dublin to Cork route, I do not understand why a subsidy is needed from the taxpayer.
Would any purpose be served by imposing a public service obligation on our railways, which have been upgraded in recent years? I do not know how many millions were spent on raising the height of bridges to accommodate rail freight, even though it is no longer necessary to do so. There appears to be no long-term vision.
On the issue of aviation security, the Minister's first two sentences were a mouthful but do they have any relevance to the proposed relocation of air control from Dublin to London or the control of airlines across Europe? If not, will he describe ongoing events in that regard?
I will try to respond to all of the issues raised. Deputy Olivia Mitchell falsely alleged that I made certain announcements in recent weeks.
The Minister was quoted in newspapers.
What newspapers may quote me as doing or saying bears no resemblance to the reality of my life. I wonder who this person is that they regularly quote.
Therefore, the Minister does not accept that no routes should be released.
I have not agreed anything. We have been engaging seriously with the private and public bus companies. I agree that the only solution will involve a regulator who is able to license the market. I made it clear to public and private sector companies that the current system will need to be changed and I think they accepted that. In fairness to the public companies, they accept the need to open the market. Nobody disputes that.
On a general point, the EU Council is examining the issue of local areas which are competent to license buses. We do not have such a system and it would not be realistic to divide responsibility among the 40-odd local authorities. That is not only true for Ireland but also for many other countries. We have a competent centralised system which operates well and that has to be part of the future.
Dublin Bus has a high international standing as a good public service transport company. The company has transformed itself in recent years and is not in a bad state. I do not doubt it could be better or more efficient but we are not starting from a bad position. It is important that we keep that in mind. It was originally proposed to remove 25% of the company's existing market but a range of other options could also be explored. The customer and I want greater capacity in the market, delivered in a cost effective way, and a professional and well run service. The argument may be made that the capacity for that exists on both sides.
The Minister claims that a range of options can be explored but nine years have already passed.
I will bring this to a conclusion shortly. If we do not resolve this issue, Brussels will decide it for us. We should be realistic for the future. We expect that the PSO regimes covering the air services market will be similarly applied to the wider public transport market, including buses and rail freight. We need clear transparency on public service contracts, the cost and the purpose the money will serve. There can be no cross-subsidisation between commercial services and publicly funded services which need a public service obligation contract to be delivered because they are not commercially viable. All this must be done. The status quo is not acceptable and will not continue. We need value for money and transparency, which will benefit everybody.
I agree that Dublin Bus has nothing to fear from anybody and should see the opportunities in the marketplace. We are planning on 60% growth in the bus market in Dublin, which is phenomenal. It is not 15% growth. I want to ensure the next tranche of growth is exclusively available to the private sector to give it a foothold in the market. I do not want predatory pricing or abuse of a dominant position. I want to remove those possibilities.
The Minister needs a regulator to do that.
I do.
That will be costly.
Having a Department, some officials and a Minister responsible for licensing the system is not a good situation and is not one we would like to continue. We should bring that to a conclusion. My officials and I are devoting much time to resolving that issue quickly.
Rail freight is a thorny subject. CIE-Iarnród Éireann must operate on a commercial mandate. It competed for the Guinness business with a range of service providers, road and rail, and the difference in cost between road and rail freight to Diageo is huge. There is not even a debate to be had. When Iarnród Éireann contracted to provide the customers of a major private sector shipping company with a customised freight delivery rail service, the customers, all private sector companies, would not use it because even with a dedicated service in place they found it too expensive. It is a problem. I agree with the principle that we would like to see more rail freight in the system but international evidence is clear that rail freight is successful over long distances and Ireland is too small to benefit.
That is a good argument for Ireland as an island to be allowed special status for subsidies.
It operates in a different way. To respond to Deputy Shortall's comment, there is no EU position on rail freight subsidy. The issue will come into the mix but nothing has been tabled.
Is there any difficulty with the states that provide a subsidy?
No, it is a matter for each country.
We should save our rail freight.
We have invested substantially in the rail system so the rail network is in better shape than ever. We have spent almost €1 billion bringing it up to speed on safety and security issues. A rail system is in place that could take all options on board. I have no doubt we will see some private sector companies enter the market. It will be an interesting test of whether the private sector believes rail freight can compete with road haulage. I have an open mind on the debate but all the evidence indicates one conclusion, and even the private sector companies have said this. One of the major shipping companies successfully operates rail freight in other countries privately but in its analysis, the scale of Ireland does not make rail freight viable here unless there were horrendous subsidies. I am not sure we will have taxpayers funding private companies to move their freight.
The day may come when we would be delighted to do so as our roads become more congested with heavy trucks. Freight is to double in five years.
The debate needs maturity. Although I can think of environmental reasons and the costs entailed that may spill into the argument, I am stating the current situation. If Deputy Shortall is asking me whether the State should fund private sector companies to move their goods and services around the country, I am not in that space and have no proposals to go into it.
Is there not a need to calculate the cost to the State of wear and tear, congestion, what is likely to happen on the West Link owing to the Dublin Port tunnel and accident costs as well as the environmental costs? The Minister needs to do the sums on the respective costs between rail and road freight. Why do most other European countries have an incentive system to get people to use rail freight? Why not commission a cost benefit analysis of that?
The subsidies are for rail sidings for parking the facilities, not for moving freight.
Has there been a cost benefit analysis?
I do not know if this is relevant.
Ireland spends, and will continue to spend, billions of euro on putting a road and motorway network in place over the coming years. It would be wrong to ask the taxpayer, who is funding our road network, to subsidise a rail system too. We must see how these things pan out. I am not minded to do that.
We are ready to move on driving licences but await European agreement. There is no point in being ahead of the game on this issue. We need an agreement on the licence and what it should be able to do. This issue must be fought out at European level, where there are fundamental differences. The larger countries say the cost of moving to the new system is so prohibitive that they are concerned about doing it, and if they do, some of them will bring only new licences issued after a certain date under the new system. The large countries that issue a licence only every 20 or 30 years would have difficulty funding the retrofitting of the old licences. Some 30 million or 40 million old licences might need be taken into the new system. That argument runs. It would be worth it from a road safety viewpoint alone because it would harmonise the information on road penalty points and people who have broken the law and been prosecuted. If that information could be managed it would be a wonderful system. The only way to achieve the sort of road safety levels we want at a European level is through a harmonised system across Europe. That would be the most beneficial system.
Does that mean we will not move ahead ourselves in the absence of agreement?
I will see what happens at the Council on Monday. I do not want to spend a great deal of money putting a system in place and then have the Opposition slaughter me asking why I did that when Europe agrees to a new system with which my system is not compatible. It is a balance and a judgement call.
It is no secret that I am unhappy about what has happened with driver testing. This is not a good situation for people who want to do their driving test. It is more than 12 months since my proposal and I regret that since then I have been dragged around in that every effort has been made to prevent me from doing what is clearly required. There is no question of bringing new driver testers into the existing system because it cannot cope with anything extra. Our solution is good and fair: a fixed number of tests over a fixed period to help us resolve the backlog.
The backlog creates the knock-on effect of large numbers of unqualified drivers on the road and excessive dependence on provisional licences, which is not good for road safety and is what has prompted me to radically change the licensing system. I will not accept the status quo, which cannot deliver tests to young drivers. The backlog stands at over 50 weeks in some parts of the country. It is not acceptable, in a modern economy, to wait more than a year for a driving test. I will have further meetings with the unions and others involved and I hope we will achieve a positive outcome. The focus must be on the customer and on delivering a good service, and that will have a hugely beneficial effect on road safety.
The Minister was asked about partnership talks.
The Deputy is correct that neither side expected the sentence in Sustaining Progress to be interpreted in the way it has been. It will have to be revisited.
Some of the points raised on driver training will be submitted to the RSA. We are confident that we will meet the 2008 deadline for the new systems and training requirements for road haulage drivers, etc.
I have dealt with the issues Deputy Shortall raised, namely, the bus market, the EU position on rail freight subsidy, the introduction of the driving licence smart card and road safety. My view on drink driving is clear and I have put it trenchantly on numerous occasions. If somebody takes a drink, even half a glass of wine, they should not drive. A person should not put himself or herself at risk. We must tackle the issue, though it is not only an Irish phenomenon. My priorities are drink driving, speeding and the wearing of seat belts, which has improved substantially but which is still not at a satisfactory level, particularly in the case of back seat passengers. The compliance rate for the latter stands at approximately 46%, which is totally unacceptable. I would not allow anybody to sit in the back or front of my car without obliging them to put on a safety belt. I will not even turn on the engine, though I have rows with my children when they ask me to give lifts to their friends. Where once I could put four in the back of the car, I cannot do so now. If there are only three safety belts, I can only take three passengers and I must make other arrangements — such as making second journeys — in respect of others.
What about enforcement of drink driving rules?
The Deputy made the point for me. I do not have the power of enforcement because it does not come under the control of my Department. It is a matter for the Garda and, therefore, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
What about the high level group that was supposed to deal with it?
I have no legal power to deal with it but I hope, as chairman of the committee, that I have a moral authority. I have made my position absolutely clear. I do not know if the Deputy is aware of higher visibility road checks, which have caused a number of traffic jams in Waterford in the past couple of weeks. A couple of colleagues from different parties have told me that they noticed a higher number of random road checks, a development we need to sustain.
I agree with the Minister but has he noticed that gardaí are checking tax and insurance and not speaking to drivers?
I cannot answer that. I do not drink so I will never be caught drinking and driving but I know that people have been alerted to the increased Garda activity and do not risk taking a drink when they are out because the chances are that they will be stopped.
The chances are that they will not be stopped.
I have pleaded with the Garda Síochána to be as vigilant and robust as possible and use all its resources to catch people drinking and driving. The response of the Garda has been positive and the new traffic corps is a key element in creating, at a minimum, the perception among people that if they break the law, they will be caught. I answered the question on cross-subsidisation of services.
There is no connection between the aviation security proposal and proposals to reform the European air traffic control system. I appreciate the point Senator Morrissey made about a more harmonised and centralised European approach to aviation but the proposal is not related to that. The proposal to reform European air traffic control is at a very early stage and no discussions are pending on particular locations or centres at present. It is a major debate and hopefully the outcome will be better for Europe.
I also asked about cross-subsidisation.
Bus Éireann has confirmed to me in writing that there is no cross-subsidisation between services that are commercially provided and subsidised, non-viable services. I agree that transparency is required in respect of this issue. The public, like the EU, demands transparency.
If that is what Bus Éireann states, then an investigation is required because it does not take a mathematician to realise that, at current levels, the bus service cannot compete with Aircoach and make a profit. It must be subsidised.
The question is whether State money is used to subvent CIE, specifically in respect of services that are non-commercial. The written reply I received stated that there is no cross-subsidisation between PSO services and commercial services, though the company may be using the weight of commercial services, some of which are very profitable, to run loss leaders on other services. That is not peculiar to the bus industry; for example, it also happens in the airline industry. The Senator's essential point is correct and, as I made very clear, we must appoint a regulator. That will be demanded by the EU.
Prior to the Minister joining the meeting, a request was made that he come before us to discuss the privatisation of Aer Lingus.
It was agreed that the committee would write to the Minister, not that the request would be put to him today.
The Chairman should invite him to make a submission.
The normal protocol requires that the committee secretariat write to the Minister and ask him to reply. That procedure will apply in this case. I do not expect the Minister to reply today.
Will the Chairman be inviting him to attend on 6 April?
No. I said we would inquire in writing, as agreed earlier in the meeting, if he would like to make a submission.
We should use this opportunity to relay the request from the committee that he attend.
I will not allow Deputy Shortall to abuse her privilege.
The Chairman should not talk to me about abusing privilege in light of his performance today.
I thank Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Gallagher, for their attendance and their contributions, which have left the joint committee better informed on proposed EU legislation and policies in the transport area.
The joint committee went into private session at 5.19 p.m. and adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 5 April 2006.