I have received apologies from the Chairman, Deputy Eoin Ryan and Deputy Breen. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Estimates for the Office of the Minister for Transport, Vote 32. I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, to the committee and his officials, Mr. John Fearon, assistant secretary, corporate management, Mr. Dan Commane, principal officer, finance division and Mr. Derek McConnon, assistant principal officer, finance division. A proposed timetable for today's meeting has been circulated to members. Is that timetable agreed? Agreed. I would appreciate if we could try to finish our business as quickly as possible. Members may be aware that we have another committee meeting at 12 p.m. I will ask the Minister to make his opening statement.
Vote 32 - Department of Transport (Revised).
I have circulated a script. Members of the committee should have it. With your permission I do not propose to read it in its entirety. I will refer to the main items in it. If members want me to go through it, I can do so.
I will start with investment in the national roads improvement programme. It is at an all-time high. The provision of €1.22 billion for 2004 will bring total Exchequer spending over the period 2000-04 to over €5 billion.
If the Minister will excuse me, is this the script, the briefing document?
It is the same document.
It is not, unless the Minister wants to keep us here all day.
How many pages are there? Is that 37?
There are 45 pages in the one I have.
That is just a summary. My apologies. We should be able to get that for the members, shortly. With the committee's permission I will go ahead and I can come back on particular aspects if members wish. I was pointing out that the national roads programme has an investment of €5 billion for the period 2000-04. Since 2000, approximately 37 major projects have been completed, involving approximately 260 km. of roadway. Work is currently underway on 17 projects while 17 more projects are at tender stage.
In 2003 we completed sections of the M1 to motorway standard, just south of Dundalk as well as seven other major projects, including the Kildare bypass, Glen of the Downs, Watergrasshill and Youghal bypasses. All of these projects have contributed substantially to journey timesavings. The Exchequer provision of €1.227 billion for 2004 will fund a number of projects. It will fund the expected completion this year of the Monasterevin, Ashford-Rathnew and Cashel bypasses as well as the commencement of work on up to 17 further projects. It will continue a substantial programme of road surface rehabilitation on the national primary and secondary networks. There will be further project planning and design, land and property acquisition, and site explorations, archaeological investigations and excavations, including the completion of statutory procedures for all of the remaining sections of the major inter-urban routes, Dublin to Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. These procedures are already completed for the M1, which is the Dublin-Border-Belfast route.
Investment by the National Roads Authority of over €17 million in road safety measures relates to the implementation of the forthcoming road safety strategy and the ongoing signage and lining programme. Spending on the retrofitting of crash barriers is now over €5 million in motorway-dual carriageway medians. Expenditure of €5 million on the planned metrication of speed limit signs will go ahead by the end of the year.
The multi-annual funding programme includes a facility to carry over allocations from one year to the next. That will facilitate better project planning and programming. To take the road programme as an example the main features include the development of a rolling five-year programme; total Exchequer investment of €7 billion over the period 2004-08 and the ability to carry over unspent Exchequer capital allocations from one year to the next, up to a maximum amount. This whole area of multi-annual funding consists of a formal agreement between the Department of Finance and the Department of Transport. It has given, and will give, a substantial boost.
Private finance obtained through toll-based public private partnership schemes, estimated to generate revenue of €1.15 billion over the period 2004-08, is not included and will be additional to the funding framework I have spoken about. Proposals to leverage additional private sector funding are also being considered as a means of accelerating the completion of the Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Galway routes in particular. Members will be aware that I have privatised those two routes with the National Roads Authority in conjunction with the Dublin-Belfast route.
As regards light rail, I am pleased to say that significant milestones for the Luas have now been achieved. All of the track for Tallaght and Sandyford has been laid and finishes to streetscapes, construction of stops and the installation of the power supply is underway. The Railway Procurement Agency programme projects commencement dates for passenger services from Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green at the end of June 2004 and the Tallaght to Connolly line at the end of August 2004. Construction work on the lines will finish approximately two months before these dates, allowing a period for trial running, testing, commissioning and staff training. Members will already have seen the Luas light railway carriages around the city, on the Sandyford line during its testing phase. Successful safety and engineering tests have taken place on both lines and that continues.
The Railway Procurement Agency is continuing to develop new light rail and metro infrastructure through a number of means including PPPs. It is also charged with introducing ticketing. The Government approved the development of a metro in January 2002 and requested the RPA to approach the project on a phased basis. That is being proceeded with.
As regards public transport investment in CIE, under the national development plan it is envisaged that €2.8 billion will be invested in the period 2000-06. The Estimates for 2004 provide for a capital allocation of €187.5 million for investment in the CIE group. This funding will be complemented by €100 million to be raised by CIE through borrowings. My Department is currently preparing the legislation necessary to extend the CIE limit. The bulk of the 2004 capital investment, as in previous years will go to the rail network; in particular, €57.31 million will be spent on the DART upgrade which commenced in 2003. This project is designed to increase train lengths on the DART system from the present maximum of six to eight carriages at rush times. Some 40 new DART carriages have been ordered for delivery in 2004.
Members will be aware that bus services in Dublin have increased significantly in both quantity and quality in the last five years and additional new buses have been made available to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The subvention to the CIE group is increasing by 6% in 2004. It currently stands at €260.229 million. All the CIE companies have seen growth in their passenger numbers since the start of the NDP. Bus Éireann has seen an increase, when school services are discounted, of just over 20%, while Dublin Bus passengers in the same period have grown by 12%. Passenger numbers have also increased on rail operations. The mainline has increased by 16%, while DART and other suburban numbers are up by 10%. The Railway Safety Bill is approaching Report Stage in the House, and there will be a chance to deal with that soon.
I directed the chief railway inspecting officer to carry out a statutory inquiry into the Cahir derailment. The report was published yesterday and it indicated that the derailment of the train was caused by a dynamic combination of a laden wagon and its interaction with the track features on the bridge. According to Iarnród Éireann the accident appears to arise from a set of unique circumstances to do with two axle wagons, which have rigid ride characteristics. Passenger trains have bogies rather than simple axle designs. Therefore the crucial finding was that this derailment would not have occurred to a passenger train on this route.
It is the policy of successive Ministers that all public transport operators, and in particular the State owned transport companies, should provide the highest possible degree of accessibility within the overall resources available to them. The position with the State owned companies is that they are required to take account of this policy when making investment decisions and when purchasing rolling stock.
The rural transport initiative launched in 2001 provides funding for 34 community organisations, following a nation-wide call for proposals. Some 2,500 new transport services are provided monthly on approximately 380 new rural routes. The free travel scheme of the Department of Social and Family Affairs was extended to the initiative in 2003. Approximately €6 million has been provided for the initiative in the two year period which ended in December 2003 and further funding of €3 million is to be provided in 2004. ADM has recently commissioned a review of this situation.
The Railway Procurement Agency has been mandated to carry out integrated ticketing. Smartcards are to be progressively rolled out on public transport services. A private bus operator has already launched a smartcard ticketing system on its service. Luas will do so by the end of the year and Dublin Bus will follow next year with a full integrated ticketing system in place in 2005. Expenditure in 2004 will complete the design phase two and begin phase three with the roll out of the project. The Dublin Transportation Office is to be supported by traffic management grants. The grants total €40 million in 2004 and attract co-funding of €13 million from their recipients. The priorities for 2004 for the grants are quality bus corridor roll-out and anti-congestion measures for the greater Dublin area. There are also other measures which include cycle routes, pedestrian routes, facilities for people with disability, computerised traffic signals and so on. In 2004 grants worth €27 million will be invested in QBC projects. Over the six years since initiation, some €91.8 million has been invested in bus priority infrastructure.
Exchequer funding for 2004 for road safety agencies under the aegis of the Department amount to €22,488,000. This consists of €17 million for the NRA, €2.9 million from the National Safety Council, and €2.3 million for the medical bureau of road safety. The area of road safety will be developed in the forthcoming strategy which will be published shortly. A significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries were recorded in 1998, 1999 and 2002.
Turning to Aer Lingus, 2003 was the second year of profitability for the company following the crisis in 2001, with the achievement of an operating profit of €83 million in 2003 compared to €73 million in 2002, despite the difficulties caused by the war in Iraq and the SARS scare. Aer Lingus is one of the few airlines making profit today. The company is continuing to press ahead with its programme of reducing costs and increasing revenues and putting the airline on a strong footing. I recently advised Cabinet colleagues of the current state of deliberations on the future of Aer Lingus. I advised them that I would revert to Government on specific options for the company in the near future. I have been looking at the report from the chairman.
The programme for Government includes a commitment that Shannon and Cork Airports will have greater autonomy and independence. Members will be aware of progress on that front. The financial information has been given to the trade unions in recent days following my commitment. The Department continues to provide a range of supports to the six regional airports in Donegal, Sligo, Knock, Galway, Kerry and Waterford. The level of assistance is being reviewed and some rationalisation will be required in the next year. Members will also be aware of the Department's use of the public service obligations to support regional airports.
The main difficulty I have with the estimate before the committee is that capital programmes failed to keep in line with the rates of inflation. There does not seem to be any real indication of reform of the capital budgets. In real terms, we are seeing cut backs in the capital budgets, rather than an expansion and a delivery on infrastructural projects. Take the roads programme as an example. The budget we are dealing with here is meaningless. It has no correlation with what is happening. We do not have the type of delivery we should have, we do not have the projects completed at anywhere near the estimates laid down at this committee, or that are produced by the NRA. There does not seem to be an overall policy from the Department as to how we will ensure that this happens. Projects seem to be on a stop-go basis. I am familiar with the motorway to the west, as is the Minister. The officials who deal with it seem to do so on a monthly basis, money is made available to appoint consultants to carry out one element of it and once the money dries up, the project is shelved again.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not address the criticisms by the ESRI. This is the first estimate we have since the mid-term review. I hoped that the Minister would come in and list procedures being put in place so that projects can be delivered on time and within budget. I hoped he would address the criticism of the Comptroller and Auditor General on accounting management within his own Department. The Comptroller and Auditor General was quite critical of the way budgets within the Department were being managed and supervised. It does not augur well for how the Department polices agencies such as the NRA and the RPA when it cannot keep its own accounts in order. I am aware there was a particular set of circumstances in 2002, but the Minister could at least have stated that he recognises these issues and has addressed them by putting in place mechanisms in place to ensure there is no repeat. Nothing seems to be happening in this regard and it is not addressed by the Minister in any way.
There is no point in the committee dealing with Estimates of significant projects unless we see some type of reform. In December 2003 the Minister instructed the National Roads Authority to speed up the delivery of motorways to the south and west and stated in media reports at the time that value for every cent of the €8 billion would be demanded. However, we are shown nothing of the detail of this. How are we to ensure this money is being properly spent by an unaccountable organisation, the NRA? This committee has to a certain extent brought the RPA to account regarding some of the figures which have been bandied about, but has not done so in the case of the NRA. The responsibility lies with the Minister.
With regard to the delivery of projects, the actions of the NRA mean the taxpayer must pay on the double for infrastructure projects already in place in that there is a proposal on the Minister's desk regarding a double tax in regard to the Jack Lynch tunnel. The NRA proposes tolls of the tunnel and other roads around the country for which we have already paid. The people are being asked to pay twice.
I had hoped the Minister would address the criticism laid at this door by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. Organisations under the control of the Minister for Transport - Irish Rail and the NRA - have ignored the BMW region. This has not been addressed despite the person in charge, the Minister for Transport, receiving criticism from his own Cabinet colleague.
A number of agencies have been before the committee to explain how money is accounted for. Major construction has taken place in regard to depots in County Louth and Portlaoise, which will be put into the books as BMW spend. However, the fact that there are depots in Drogheda or Portlaoise will not improve rail services in the west. Nonetheless, this seems to be the way in which the funds will be calculated. This means that the BMW spend will be deemed correct despite there being little impact in the west or in Border areas.
I am disappointed that there has been a significant cut in the maintenance allocation of the roads budget. As the Minister is aware, unless we dramatically increase the maintenance budget, we will have increased fatalities on our roads. The maintenance budget addressed the quality of the surface on our national primary roads. More importantly, it addresses the lack of quality on our national secondary roads and provides funding for winter maintenance. Despite this, it has been cut back.
The Minister spoke of the rural transport initiative which is a useful addition in both your constituency, Chairman, and my own, where it has brought huge benefits. However, it has also been cut back. There is no indication in regard to the reforms the Minister is bringing forward on public sector transport. There has been no allocation of funding for the new regulator although the legislation will be in place by the end of the year, if we are to believe the Minister. We still do not have a transparent system for considering how the subvention allocated within this budget is spent.
No financial incentives are built in to encourage commuters to buy multi-journey tickets and integrated ticketing is still long-fingered. It is unbelievable that a private operator can gets its act together in a number of months and provide an integrated system while the public sector has not done so. I had hoped that the Minister could at least announce today that the budgetary issues surrounding an integrated ticketing system, which is the major hold-up, had finally been resolved. There is no point talking about a computerised system unless this issue is addressed.
Significant revenue is being lost to State public transport companies due to the serious abuse of the travel pass yet no-one seems to give a damn about it. The Department of Social and Family Affairs pays a block grant to the transport companies, which do not care whether the pass is being abused. Somebody must take charge in this regard.
The Minister spoke about the need for reform and we hear this ad nauseum in regard to CIE or the regional airports in the context of the reviews of Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus. However, there does not seem to be a significant allocation for consultancy service - only €250,000 has been allocated for this - which does not indicate the major reform of which the Minister spoke. The Minister also referred to deregulation of the bus market and competition within the freight sector, none of which is indicated by the allocation of funds in the Estimates.
The rail safety legislation is more akin to the west Clare railway than to the Department taking a responsible attitude to the issue of safety. The RPA is investigating itself in regard to the derailment of Luas light rail trams and is not even prepared to investigate two fatalities which occurred on the Luas line. This is the organisation which spent up to €30 million demolishing the ramp at Connolly Station simply because it was in the light rail order, which does not provide huge encouragement.
It is costing young drivers €50 million in additional insurance premiums because they do not have the opportunity to get a driving test. The Minister has been talking about reform since he came into office but nothing has happened. The only message coming out of this process is that no-one seems to be taking responsibility for the money being wasted within the Department. No-one seems to be prioritising the critical infrastructure which needs to be delivered immediately. The reality of the Estimates before us is that the taxpayer is getting bad value for money.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. It is quite difficult to consider the Estimates when there is such a serious policy vacuum in the Department. Over the past 18 months, Opposition members have tried to draw the Minister out on various aspects of transport policy. However, it takes all of our time to keep abreast of the many press statements which come from his office. Therefore, we spend Question Time trying to find out exactly what are the Minister's intentions. There is very little follow-up to the press statements.
I realise the Minister is fond of headlines, as are we all, but it would be a help if he thought matters through more before issuing press statements. From time to time, he should make statements on departmental policy in the Dáil or at committee because it is difficult to know what the Minister intends. It often seems the Minister wakes up in the morning with an idea he thinks good; he then issues a press statement on it but spends the next few weeks back-tracking, qualifying the idea and saying it needs to be considered by one agency or another.
I had hoped that at this stage of his term of office, the Minister would have been in a position to set down clear policy in many different areas. Unfortunately, however, there is a vacuum in the policy area and we are still not sure where the Minister is going. The result is that the Minister has caused considerable uncertainty within the transport industry generally. From the point of view of industrial relations, there is unease and a great deal of trust has been lost because people do not know what is going to happen to their jobs or their companies.
I hope that, in the coming year, the Minister will devote some time to considering the direction he intends to take with the transport brief and to making this known to people. He should do so in a way which will take account of the existing position, which will respect the needs of those who should be consulted in respect of any change in transport services and, most importantly, which will show that he has learned from the experience in other countries. We in Ireland are not great at learning from other countries. In previous exchanges on this matter, the Minister has not been prepared to discuss the experience in other countries in terms of deregulation and major change in transport services. It is important that we learn from mistakes made elsewhere and attempt to follow best practice in other countries, particularly those which are similar in size to Ireland.
I remain of the opinion that the Minister is not entirely committed to the area of public transport. This is probably the major issue within this area at present. There is a complete imbalance between spending on roads and that on public transport. There are strong lobbies seeking additional road building and there are many interests which stand to benefit greatly in that regard. Everyone wants good quality roads and we want the country to be modernised in order that it will be easy for people to travel from one part of the country to another. However, I am concerned about the standard of roads being provided by the NRA on the Minister's instructions. There are many roads which could be upgraded and the Minister is overdoing it in certain areas in terms of the scale of the motorways being put in place. It stands to reason that once a motorway is put in place, additional traffic will result.
At a certain point, the Minister will be obliged to decide what kind of balance he wishes to strike between public transport and road building. If we begin by giving priority to massive road building and the putting in place of motorways, it will encourage high levels of car ownership. This is not sustainable in the long-term, from both an environmental and a social point of view. If vast amounts of money are spent on motorways, there is little left for public transport services. I would have hoped that the Minister would have been braver and would have put in place good public transport infrastructure at the same time as commencing the road building programme. There is a case for putting in place such infrastructure prior to making a commitment to road building in order to change people's behaviour and their patterns of settlement. We know that public transport infrastructure has a major impact on decisions taken by developers in terms of where they will locate residential and commercial developments. It is that kind of lack of planning and foresight which has resulted in the country being completely unbalanced. As matters stand, there is a major degree of concentration and congestion on the east coast and the west coast is being denuded. It is difficult to encourage people to remain in the west because there is no infrastructure in place.
It is the Government's job to decide on long-term planning guidelines for the country and to make a commitment to put in place the infrastructure which will ensure that development takes place. It is naive to talk about waiting for development to take place before putting in place transport infrastructure. That is not the way it happens. Development will occur when the infrastructure has been put in place. That is why we need the kind of planning and vision to which I refer from the Government in terms of making a commitment to areas such as the west and putting in place the infrastructure to enable people to remain there and to encourage others to move there. That is particularly true in respect of job creation.
There has been no planning or vision of the type to which I refer to date. The Minister has given a nod in the direction of the western rail corridor in the form of another press statement. He visited the west recently and spoke about establishing a committee to consider this matter. However, there has been a long delay in appointing a chairman to the committee. While the Minister appears to be acting politically in terms of giving the nod to the Acting Chairman and others who want him to be seen to be doing something to the west, not a great deal has happened and there has not been a great deal committed in terms of funding. I agree with Deputy Naughten about the comments of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, which were an indictment of transport policy. We are aware that spending in the BMW region is not keeping pace with the commitments made.
I represent the Dublin region. However, I would like the Minister to make a strong commitment to the west in terms of investment in infrastructure. It is not in the interests of Dublin or the eastern seaboard to continue to overdevelop the region and add to its congestion problems. There is little quality of life for people who are trying to go about their business but who meet traffic congestion everywhere they go.
I wish to refer to the area of bus licensing. Some of the Minister's officials came before the committee recently, one of whom is the senior person in charge of public transport in the Department. It was difficult to glean from them any impression that they knew what is happening in this area or if a policy in respect of it exists. We are aware from the interest shown by private companies and multinational bus companies that there is money to be made in the Irish bus market if access to the right routes can be obtained. The Minister has signalled his intention to privatise, in some manner, certain routes in the Dublin area, in particular. People are waiting in the wings to obtain a share of the action on the good routes. However, I am sure they will not be too interested in many of the social routes that serve the outlying housing estates in the Dublin area which have a dire need for good quality public transport services. There routes that are very profitable and people are waiting to get a share of the action on these.
I am concerned by the fact that so many licences have already been granted, particularly those on routes serving the Dublin Airport and Galway. I refer to Citylink and other companies which were given licences for nothing. These licences are valuable commodities which are owned by taxpayers but which are being handed out to private enterprises at no cost. We were informed by the Minister's officials that there is no facility under current legislation for levying a charge for those licences and that the only charges which can be imposed relate to administration costs. The market is increasingly being deregulated by the back door. This is a grey area because there is no transparency about how licences are awarded or how decisions are taken. Licences are being granted and no charge is being levied in respect of them. We asked the officials if it is the intention, under the promised legislation, to introduce a system whereby licences would be valued at a certain amount and people would be obliged to pay that amount in order to be granted a licence. I was disappointed with the response I received because they did not know whether that is the intention. Will the Minister indicate if he intends, in the new legislation we are expecting to be published this year, to enable a market value to be attached to bus licences?
The Deputy's time is exhausted.
Will the Minister outline how tolling will develop in the future? Taxpayers are concerned about the fact that the two toll bridges have become cash cows for the companies that own them. They may have been built when the State did not have much money for infrastructure but a good risk was taken and they are generating cash bonanzas for the owners. Will the Minister maintain this pattern or will he safeguard the taxpayer's money and ensure the NTMA or another State agency will take responsibility for tolls in future so that the revenue returns to the Exchequer for re-investment?
I thank the Deputies. Deputy Naughten mentioned cuts in the capital budget for roads. That is not the case. The capital budget for roads has doubled since 2000 and there has not been a cut in this budget. The Deputy also referred to the western roads. I prioritised the three so-called economic spines - Dublin-Belfast, Dublin-Galway and Dublin-Cork - and, as a result, the NRA has stated the statutory procedures on the Dublin-Galway motorway will be completed by the end of this year. The authority has brought them forward by a few years. The statutory procedures on the Dublin-Cork motorway will also be completed by the end of this year and they have also been brought forward by a few years. The necessary changes and resources required for completion of the statutory procedures for both those motorways have been provided as a result of the policy change. The NRA said it should have them substantially completed by the end of 2007.
The Deputy referred to the budgetary and accounting issues raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Secretary General of the Department provided an explanation to the committee some time ago. As a result of the issues raised relating to budgets and accounting procedures, a range of measures have been implemented. A full-time accountant has been recruited by the Department and an additional accountant has been appointed on contract. A financial adviser has also been appointed. Extra resources have been allocated to staff training and a new accounts system is being implemented. The internal audit procedures of the Department have been strengthened. The Secretary General referred to these changes when he appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts recently. However, the Deputy was correct to raise this issue and the changes have been made.
The Deputy also referred to the Jack Lynch tunnel in Cork. The NRA has produced a report containing recommendations on how it might raise additional revenue. The report has not been published but it is an open secret that one of the recommendations is to toll the tunnel. I am not in favour of that and I will convey that to the authority.
Is the Minister not in favour of tolling the Jack Lynch tunnel or the tolling of existing roads?
I am not in favour of tolling the Jack Lynch tunnel, which was the issue raised by the Deputy.
I raised the issue of the tolling of existing roads, which have been paid for by the taxpayer, and I used the Jack Lynch tunnel as an example.
PricewaterhouseCoopers did a great deal of work with the NRA on these issues. I will bring the authority's report to Cabinet for discussion before I lay out future policy on tolling, to which I will refer again later.
Deputies Naughten and Shortall referred to the BMW region. Expenditure in this region was and still is under the required level. I am determined to close the gap this year. As a result of my request to the NRA, it has increased the budget for the region by 62%. That is the first step in closing the gap. When the M50 and port tunnel projects in Dublin, which eat up a disproportionate share of the roads budget, are completed, I intend to ask the authority to close the gap even further in this region.
I am glad to hear about Deputy Shortall's commitment to the west. I come from the region and know it well. I share her view that the east is overdeveloped. I am interested in the western rail corridor and in making sure projects in the BMW region are advanced. For example, the motorway between Shannon and Galway will be an important route servicing the region. The Sligo bypass, which I announced recently, is about to commence and that represents an important investment, as do the Ennis bypass and the Galway outer ring road. I have a list of other investments, which I will go through, if the Deputy wishes. The Monaghan bypass has been approved and work on the Loughrea bypass will commence shortly. Bypasses of Mullingar, Ballyshannon-Bundoran and Cavan will also commence in the near future. There is a long list of investments by the taxpayer in the west.
However, the Deputy is correct that pressure must be maintained to ensure infrastructure is built up in the region. I fully intend to do so. The first step is to get the projects I outlined moving and to close the gap in terms of funding.
A number of projects outside the BMW region are beneficial to it, although a number of commentators argue otherwise. For example, the Kilcock-Kinnegad bypass, which is part of the Dublin-Galway motorway, is probably as important to the people of Galway and Mayo as a project in Galway or Mayo. A sum of €117 million was invested in Hueston Station in recent years specifically to prevent delays to trains from the west caused by commuter trains from Kildare. The Dublin-Galway service can, therefore, adhere to its schedule and travelling time for the public has been reduced. Investment in the region is important and it is increasing.
One extra service has been provided on the line. The last person who tried to defend this to the committee was reprimanded. A commitment was given that a set amount would be spent within the BMW region. While there is investment in the region, a number of projects service other parts of the country and not the region.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to conclude.
I acknowledge that but the priority is investment in the BMW region. I referred to the projects being undertaken, the 62% increase in funding and our commitment to maintain funding. However, the Kilcock-Kinnegad bypass is not in the BMW region but it is a critical to Galway.
The depot has nothing to do with the BMW region.
For example, the M50 is a national road. Many people from my part of Galway value the investment in the M50 because it allows them to get in and out of Dublin to do their business more quickly. It is not as black and white as ring fencing the BMW region with investment. While that must be done, national projects must be undertaken and they benefit the west as well as the east. I assure the Deputy I am not letting the west down in this job.
Deputy Shortall took me to task about press statements and I will not go into that in detail. She also challenged me on not having clear policies. The policies I am pursuing are crystal clear in every area. The problem is a number of people do not like the policies. That is different but I accept they are entitled not to like them. What I am doing is crystal clear. The Deputy is fully aware of what I am doing in regard to airports and it is disingenuous of her to say that she wished she knew what I was doing in this regard.
The Minister commissioned experts who advised him against what he is doing but he has still gone ahead.
The Deputy does not like what I am doing and I understand that.
The Minister has not provided a rationale for it and if the service improved that would be fine.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to conclude.
We are supposed to have a discussion.
Not yet.
A discussion is scheduled.
The Minister is replying to the queries raised.
I will leave this matter except to say that the policies I am pursuing, in aviation, railways, buses, deregulation and road safety are known far and wide. While I accept that some people do not like what I am doing, I do not accept that there is a lack of clarity. People know what I am trying to do even if they do not like it.
That is the rationale. That is the problem.
The Deputy did not say that. She said I had no clear policies. I have clear policies but she does not like them.
The Minister's mission is to improve transport services. He does not have clear policies with which to do so.
I do. Deregulation——
He has a hang-up about bodies in public ownership and wants to privatise transport companies with no rationale.
Let us be honest. I am not privatising any public sector transport company. I ask the Deputy to name one I am privatising.
The bus service.
I am not. Dublin Bus will continue. I am not privatising Dublin Bus.
Not all together, but he is talking about starting with 25% of routes——
The Deputy and I will never agree to opening the Dublin bus market.
That is what he is talking about, it is privatising the bus service.
The Berlin Wall is down.
He should be honest enough to admit that what he is doing is privatisation. I do not have an ideological problem with that——
I am glad to hear that.
——but it is up to the Minister to prove to us that what he is doing will improve transport services, and he has not provided that evidence.
I do not know if the Deputy wants a debate on deregulation, but I am happy to have it. We will never agree. It is my intention to open the Dublin bus market, which she opposes, and that is fine.
What is the Minister's intention in doing that?
It has been shown in aviation, telecommunications and broadcasting that when the market is opened, the market grows.
Those are different.
How?
People are dependent on public transport
People are dependent on broadcasting.
People have a choice with air travel but they are absolutely dependent on public transport, which must compete with the private car.
I do not agree.
That is the context.
Ido not agree that public transport is different from broadcasting, aviation, telecommunications or any other economic competition. If one opens a market and lets some flair into it, the market grows. Look at the expressway service; it is virtually the only part of Bus Éireann which is making money and it is fully open to the private sector. The figures I gave earlier——
Those are easy routes.
Letterkenny-Galway is not an easy route to work up. Private and public operators are in this and they are growing the market steadily. The Deputy and I are never going to agree on this but my policies are clear. They are crystal clear.
Not from a transport perspective. They may be from a political perspective.
They are crystal clear. Deputy Shortall asked about tolling, a matter which rests by statute with the National Roads Authority. That is a matter of legislation. I have made my views known to the NRA, saying that a small number of strategic tolls is all the country can take. The country cannot take a plethora of tolls. I told the NRA I oppose that totally. I favour a set number, probably in single figures, of strategic tolls which reimburse investors. The State will receive a good surplus from them. The State gets a good surplus from the West Link and we are looking to securitise that, as doing so would release €200 million to invest in the motorways.
That compares to the amount the national toll roads company is getting——
Deputy Shortall, there is a procedure for raising questions. One goes through the Chair.
This is a time for general discussion.
It still works the same way.
When I took up this office I was very sceptical about tolling and I held up the procedure until I was satisfied about having a small number of tolls. We are not going to pepper the country with them. We will have eight or nine of them in strategic locations. Those will reimburse investors but more importantly, once they reach a certain level of traffic any money raised above that level will revert to the State. The new contracts for the Kilcock by-pass are very tough and they are very good for the State in terms of getting back surpluses. The total amount in taxpayers' money going to motorways and roads in the next five years is €8.6 billion and the NRA is trying to raise another €2 billion. I have strongly queried whether it is worth doing so and raising eight or nine tolls. I took a lot of advice from experts as to whether we should abandon the €2 billion and the tolls and spend the €8.6 billion. That would be politically easier for me. However, after much analysis, we consider that raising the €2 billion would give the programmes a huge boost, as €2 billion over five years is a lot of money. The price to pay for that is eight or nine toll stations but in my view that is the way to proceed.
Deputies asked me about bus licensing. Officials who have come before the committee have pointed out applications for bus licences are dealt with under the Transport Act 1932 and departmental guidelines which are currently under review. On the transparency of the application process, confirming that licences are freely available and public documents and decisions being freely available, the Department does not allow operators holding licenses for services which are not being operated or which have not commenced to prevent the issuing of a licence to another operator for the same or similar services.
Deputies raised a good point when asking why we do not charge for the routes which are now given out. We do not charge Bus Éireann or Dublin Bus either, so it is a level playing field whether one is a public or private operator, though an administration fee is charged. In the new regulatory system I envisage licences being contested, and if a subsidy is needed, that subsidy will also be contested, so that the lowest one will go to the winner. If they are profitable they will have to pay the regulator a licence fee. Again, that will be part of the bidding process and the contest will be centred on the tendering process in terms of whoever offers the best option, providing quality, safety and services are right. In the absence of a regulatory system we could not start charging now just in the private sector. The right way forward is to get the regulatory legislative framework in place and to take it from there. That is the best I can offer.
I have a question on an issue which impacts on us all no matter our opinion of the buses. The issue of grandfather rights was flagged here at the committee, which is something that can only be proven in a court of law. However, whether a private or State company, a situation could arise where routes generating income will have competitors. Someone tendering for a franchise of routes does not have the cash to subvent other less profit-making routes. Irish taxpayers will have to foot the bill because it will mean an increased subvention. Some mechanism must be put in place quickly to ensure that in 12 months or two years, when the legislation is introduced, the valuable routes are not already gone for absolutely nothing and one is left with just the unprofitable routes. These grandfather rights could have huge implications down the road.
I have asked the Department to look closely at this matter. Obviously it must be dealt with in the legislation. I have asked the Department to ensure that in the meantime no rights are established and that the licences issued reflect this fact. The Deputy raised the issue with me yesterday also. I will ask the Department to ensure that the licences issued deal with the matter of grandfather rights. I would prefer the legislation to begin with a clean sheet. We must ensure that rights won in the preceding 18 months or two years, if extra lucrative, are not gone forever. We must look at the wording of the licences in individual cases.
Under EU competition law, will it be possible to decide that, if licensed, X, Y or Z can only operate on a specific route?
Yes, it will. We are operating under the 1932 Act.
Is it not superseded by EU legislation?
No. EU legislation is still at discussion stage in terms of bus markets. There is a landmark case which is being studied by the Commission. When a bus operator applies for a licence, we are able to designate the route and ensure it sticks to that route.
I strongly advise the Minister to obtain legal advice on this issue as quickly as possible. None of us want to see the Department doling out routes that end up generating income for companies. Perhaps technical legislation should be put through the House to address the issue while the issue of how deregulation and so on should be dealt with is being debated with the unions. While competition within the bus sector was flagged almost two years ago, the Department has handed out more than 130 licences. There could be huge financial implications for the State in this regard which cannot be allowed to arise.
I will take legal advice and come back to the Deputy on the issue. It is timely that he has emphasised the matter to us. I doubt if many of the 130 licences are extraordinarily lucrative.
Companies would not be seeking them if they were not lucrative.
After two years in business, a number of companies which started up in recent years were running at a loss involving millions of euro.
It is linked.
I do not want to discuss particular companies. I am aware that after two or three years in operation some of these companies were not slow about telling us that they were losing heavily. I am certain that a fair chunk of the 130 licences would not make much money at auction. That is the point I would like to reach as soon as possible. In the meantime, I will get legal advice and revert to the Deputy on it.
What is the Minister's current thinking on the Dublin Bus market? He was talking about franchising out a bundle of routes, or 25%, in a sector of the city, which would include profit-making and heavily loss-making routes. Is this still his intention? He appeared to indicate in a recent statement that he might be moving towards the view that he should franchise out new routes rather than existing routes. Has he made up his mind on what will happen to the buses?
From 12 May we will have five days of fairly intensive discussions with the unions, which I hope will bring to finality the whole issue. There will be five consecutive days of intensive discussions by and large about precisely the question raised by the Deputy. I have said publicly on a number of occasions that I believe franchising is the correct model. It has worked in many countries and cities. There has been a number of studies, which I laid out in previous parliamentary questions. I also said that, if the unions can demonstrate there is another way of opening up the market, I will study it as long as it leads to genuine market opening to new entrants. If it leads to this and there is a better way of doing it, I will be happy to look at it.
In regard to the famous 25%, I also said that I am looking at the bus market in Dublin in its broadest context, that is, the overall market, not just a core market in the city centre. I am looking at the greater Dublin area and a growing market which probably has grown by between 5% and 8% per annum. If we double the number of bus lanes, to which I am committed, it should further attract people to buses. If we can get the M50 and the Dublin Port tunnel open and the Luas up and running, it should attract people more and more to public transport. In that respect, the 25% can be applied to the broader Dublin area. I also indicated that I would like to see both a genuine core market and new market, a mixture of both markets. I have suggested looking at the market as a whole, in other words, not just the core and outer market, but the whole thing as one market.
I indicated this to the unions and I believe there is scope for some discussion. I believe I have moved on these issues to the extent that allows for these five days of discussions. The only thing I am not convinced about is a retreat on opening up the market to new entrants. As far as I am concerned, this is not negotiable. We can talk about the methodology, whatever else we can do, how we do it, what the market is and what are the percentages.
There are two aspects to this matter. The implication is that there is considerable fat to be cut from Dublin Bus. The evidence does not suggest that is the case. It appears to have reduced its costs as much as it can. Other than the idea of opening up the market——
Is opening up the bus market a daft idea? The Deputy appears to think it is a daft idea.
No. I am asking about the Minister's rationale for the idea. Other than having the view that, irrespective of the outcome, he wants to open up the market, what is his basis for thinking it will improve services, given that the costs in Dublin Bus are currently so low? The Minister speaks as if the market is completely closed at present. Is he aware of the counts the city council carries out on an annual basis? It did a count a few months ago of all the vehicles crossing the canals. It indicated that of the buses that crossed the canals, 20% were private buses. A considerable private market currently exists. The 20% accounts for part of the target of 25%.
As there will be five days of discussions, I do not want to go into too much detail on the matter. However, Dublin Bus has done a really good job, particularly in the past four or five years. It is blessed with top class management and it has a very committed workforce. It provides a first class service, which I acknowledge and admire.
I am totally convinced that in any semi-open market situation it will thrive because it is good, in the same way that Bus Éireann has thrived and Aer Lingus has thrived against Ryanair because it is good and knows what it is doing. Good operators with professional management who put the customer first will thrive in the delivery of any public service because the public will decide to stay with those operators. It is against that backdrop that I am entering these talks with as open a mind as possible. I have told the unions we will listen very carefully and talk through the issues. I believe we are beginning to get somewhere.
There appears to be very little infrastructural investment in Northern Ireland, apart from the Dublin to Belfast road on the eastern side. Are moves being made to improve the road from Dublin to Derry and the road from Sligo to Enniskillen and on to the M1? It appears that the west will suffer because little action is being taken to put necessary infrastructure in place outside our jurisdiction.
I have had discussions with my opposite numbers in the United Kingdom about that issue. I impressed on them the need to make those investments. I take your point, Chairman. I am not satisfied that the same priority is being attached to investment in the road network in Northern Ireland as we are attaching to it here. We are playing catch-up after many years of under-investment in the road system. This year we will invest approximately €300 million in improving road access to and within the BMW region. That will deal with roads such as the Monaghan bypass, the Sligo inner relief road, the Dundalk western bypass, the Ballyshannon-Bundoran bypass, the Cavan bypass and the road from Mountain Top to Illustrim in Donegal. The National Roads Authority is making those investments and I will maintain pressure on the authority to do so.
In reviewing the NRA plans on the five inter-urban routes, I was concerned about the fact that the Dublin to Derry road was not one of the inter-urban roads. I have asked the authority to give me its thoughts on that subject. The inter-urban projects are the roads from Dublin to Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Belfast. This is a need to see what we can do with regard to the Dublin to Derry road. I have asked the authority to consider that point.
What about Dublin to Sligo?
When one looks at the map of the five inter-urban routes, it is clear that the section of the country served by the Dublin to Derry and Dublin to Sligo roads is not covered. I have asked the NRA to look at that aspect.
The main traffic road from the west to Larne, which is used by many businesses in the west, is the N16. That has been given a low priority by the NRA. The CEO of the NRA has given a commitment that work on the N16 will be brought forward by a couple of years. That area of the west is lost because its natural outlet was through Larne and problems are being created for industries which seek to locate in that area. Will the Minister ask the NRA to prioritise this project further, despite what the authority has told us? If this road is left behind, the region will also be left behind. Roscommon and Mayo are dependent on that road but it is not being given the priority it needs.
Iarnród Éireann has promised to upgrade the carriages on trains running on the Dublin to Sligo railway line. This upgrade is needed immediately and not in two or three years time, as has been suggested. The line now has welded rail and an efficient rail system with decent carriages would help to alleviate the pressure on road traffic.
I will bring that to the attention of Iarnród Éireann. I will also pass on the Acting Chairman's comments about the NRA.
We have approximately ten minutes remaining. Deputy Shortall and Deputy Naughten may have a couple of minutes each.
We have not dealt with the Vote yet.
We can go through it subhead by subhead.
We will not go through it in ten minutes.
It was agreed that we would have a general discussion for 45 minutes, which we have had.
The normal procedure is that the select committee goes through the Vote subhead by subhead.
Very well. We will go through it subhead by subhead. We will begin with subheads A1 to A7.
Subhead A2 deals with travel and subsistence. A major element of this expenditure is on driver testing but there is a decrease in the allocation for this year. Young people are paying an additional €50 million in insurance premiums this year because they cannot get driving tests. Many people cannot get jobs because they are waiting for driving tests. Nevertheless, there is a decrease in expenditure on driver testing for the current year.
Incidental expenses come under subhead A3. Will the Minister give a breakdown of the cost of supplements, such as that in a recent edition of The Sunday Tribune which is run on a quarterly basis? How much of the expenditure under subhead A3 is associated with communications of that type?
Subhead A7 also deals with consultancy services. What happens when consultants get things wrong? We are paying a premium for expertise, whether in the area of road or rail, and on many occasions consultants have got it completely wrong. There appears to be no clawback in this regard. If we are paying a premium price for a service we should get that service. A clawback mechanism should come into effect if wrong information is provided. There should be an incentive to ensure that the proper information is given in the first place.
The overall cost of travel and subsistence for 2004 is down on 2003. This is the result of better management of the driver testing system. Extra management resources have been put in place and management is tighter and better. As a result, travel and subsistence expenses are being better managed. I do not have the particular figures for driver testing taken separately from the travel and subsistence costs of the Department in general, including international travel. The reduction is brought about by better management of the system.
Incidental expenses are down by 49%. This subhead provides for a wide range of administration costs including cleaning, security, staff training and development, advertising, publications, conferences, education fees and legal costs. I can give the Deputy a broad breakdown of those if he wishes.
Does the Minister have a breakdown of the cost of publications such as that included in The Sunday Tribune and similar supplements in other national broadsheet newspapers?
Substantial contributions towards such supplements usually come from the agencies concerned. Some funds for the supplement mentioned by Deputy Naughten would have come from the NRA, the RPA and other agencies. Incidental and advertising expenditure for 2003 was €109,000. Much of our advertising is technical, particularly in terms of aviation.
Perhaps the Minister could furnish Deputy Shortall and I with the figures on broadsheet publications from the agencies and the Department.
Yes.
On subhead A2, would it not have more sense to re-invest those savings in the driving test service by way of the provision of additional testers?
I am seeking to fill the eight vacancies and to establish a bonus scheme. Currently, approximately 4,000 tests per week are being carried out and that is putting a great strain on the system. In structural terms, we hope to establish the driver testing and standards authority as soon as possible. The Cabinet has agreed the heads of a Bill. I will shortly seek to have that Bill enacted so that the new State agency, comprising a board, chief executive and chairperson, can get down to the business of managing the driver testing system in a more structured way. It is hoped that agency will make a substantial difference in this area.
What is the position regarding subhead A7?
The Deputy will note a proposed drop of 11%. I encountered problems with some consultants last year as a result of which they were not paid full fees. I was not satisfied with what we received.
The Minister is not replying to the question I asked. What happens when they are wrong?
Consultancy services are, by and large, advice.
Expert advice.
Yes, but if at the end of the day the advice given is wrong, it then becomes a legal matter.
Perhaps, to make it easier, I could give the Minister an example. Consultants were appointed to draw up plans for the M4 resulting in the M4 being flooded because the lie of the road was lower than the canal which ran alongside it. There were major cost implications involved. One could spend years trying to pursue the consultants in court in that regard and probably would not win. Surely a contract should include a mechanism or clawback in that regard.
That relates to an NRA payment. The Deputy is correct, but I am assuming that, when the NRA hired the professional engineers, surveyors, architects and structural engineers, the contract was clear in terms of them being open to being sued if they got it wrong. I presume they would defend themselves. I do not know the details of the case mentioned by the Deputy but I presume the consultants involved would defend themselves. At the end of the day, the matter would be one for the courts. I presume the contract allows redress if a technical consultant, in the example given by the Deputy, gets it wrong.
That is an area of the NRA for which the Minister is not directly accountable to this committee. What is the position as regards consultants employed within the Minister's Department who blatantly get things wrong?
I have sympathy with the Deputy's point. However, there is a problem in trying to implement something like that. Most departmental consultants would be employed in the advisory area providing legal, accountancy, economic and strategic advice. It is then my responsibility in terms of whether I take that advice. In the case of the strategic rail review, I declined elements of the advice offered. The consultants provide the advice and it is then up to the Minister and Government of the day to accept or reject it. However, I am not sure whether one should or should not accept advice for which one is paying. I do not believe one can prove whether it is right or wrong to do so.
The strategic rail review is an ideal example where basic mathematics was not included. The western rail corridor runs from Sligo to Cork. There were blatant inaccuracies in that report. Did the consultants receive the full contracted value in that regard? Were they paid the full amount?
One has to take a view as regards proportionality in this regard. One is speaking of a massive document and, if it contains technical errors, we will negotiate reductions or lesser fees and will seek to have the errors corrected immediately. One must be careful about what one says in regard to reports presented by consultants because they have already been paid for and handed over and I presume they would wish to protect their professional names. We took the view that the errors were proportionally not material and did not, therefore, have a difficulty with them.
I accept many of the errors were minor. However, the report made strong recommendations as regards the western rail corridor on the basis of information which was completely inappropriate to the assessment that should have taken place.
I do not have the report with me and I am operating from memory, but I recall it commenced by indicating that it did not provide any serious assessment of the western rail corridor because it did not regard it prima facie as a priority. In that regard, their comments were fairly perfunctory and superficial. The consultants pointed out that they did not examine that area in any great detail.
We will now deal with subhead B.
I have two questions for the Minister. What is the road haulage development programme? Subhead B4 relates to other roads related services, the breakdown of which is vehicle testing, medical bureau of road safety and other issues. How is the 9% reduction achieved?
On subhead B2 and the road haulage development plan, a strategic development plan for the Irish Road Haulage Association has been put in place for which Government funding totalling €500,000 over five years to 2004 has been provided. A provision of €100,000 was made available during 2000 to assist the Irish Road Haulage Association with the development of its organisation and for advisory and research support services for the road haulage sector generally. Similar funding was made available for the period 2001 to 2004 for approved eligible purposes only and with strict limits, giving a total allocation of €500,000 over the five year period. There are also procedures in terms of draw down, provided the Department is satisfied as regards documentation. The funding is made on the basis of claims submitted by the association in respect of development initiatives undertaken.
The road haulage industry is a lucrative one. Why is the State subventing it?
Agreement was made to provide €500,000 over a five year period to develop the industry.
When was that agreement made?
It was made in 2000. At the end of 2000, the Irish Road Haulage Association, as members of the task force on the road haulage industry chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, sought to have an additional €100,000 per annum in development funding. However, the task force was of the view that any additional funding could only be granted if the IRHA made a compelling case. As a compromise, the task force, in its report and programme of action for the road haulage industry, allocated an additional €100,000. This amount was made available for 2001 by being specified in the 2001 budget. It is a €500,000 five-year development plan through the Irish Road Haulage Association for the industry.
The Deputy also raised the matter of subhead B4 and asked about the 9% saving. This is a cash flow saving related to a timing issue on the taxi hardship funds. However, I believe we will not realise those savings but will pay the full amount.
Are there savings from the taxi hardship fund?
It is a timing issue related to when we pay the money. However, there will be no savings on the scheme as it will pay out the full amount indicated in the Dáil.
I have a number questions about subhead B. The Minister corrected me earlier with regard to the overall spend for the roads budget in 2004. Will he clarify the figures for me as my calculations are obviously skewed?
It is stated under subhead B that the increase of 4.9% in the 2004 allocation is in line with inflation. The percentage increase is 5% so it is approximately the rate of inflation or looks similar to me. The Estimate for 2003 was €1.27 million while the outturn was €1.23 million. Will the Minister explain the underspend? If we compare the Estimate for 2003 to the one for 2004 and consider them in conjunction with the inflation rate of 4.9% mentioned in the Minister's report, it appears there was an underspend.
The Minister spoke about investment of €17 million in road safety and mentioned the retro fitting of crash barriers at over €5 million, planned metrication at €5 million and retro fitting of lay-bys for Garda observation platforms at €1 million. Will he outline whether that comes from construction and improvement, maintenance and management or administration expenses under the subhead?
I notice there is a cut in funding for national road maintenance which, when inflation is taken into account, will be significant and will have an impact on surface dressing and restoration on national secondary roads. The Chairman knows that many of these roads around the country are completely inadequate to meet the volumes of traffic for which they cater currently. Road maintenance is particularly important for road safety. This issue arises under subhead B1.
Subhead B3 deals with the matter of vehicle licensing expenses. When will we see the introduction of the new licence? Many people around the country hold frayed licences. The reason for my concern is that where people lose their licence and seek a replacement or duplicate licence, the local authority often has no record of the first issue of the licence. The Minister has said this is an issue for the local authority. However, it is the Minister who sets the regulations in the matter. What mechanism is in place to ensure a record is kept of licences issued to people who pass their driving tests and are issued with licences? Currently, when a licence is lost and people go back to their local authority, it often has no record of the licence being issued. This has major implications. Will the Minister elaborate on the situation because the problem has fallen on deaf ears to date?
Under subhead B4 which relates to vehicle testing, a provision of €750,000 is made for supervision. Is this an increase on last year's allocation? If not, it is unacceptable. Serious reports, both internal and external, have been made regarding the national car test. It appears there is no proper supervision at present. Allegations have been made that equipment is not properly calibrated and that this is the reason many vehicles fail the lights test. In some cases cars seem to fail due to petty bureaucracy, for example, the registration plate letters might be a millimetre or two out in regard to adequate size. The allegation has also been made that there are quota systems in place for pass and fail rates. These allegations place significant question marks over the NCT. The mid-term review is due this year and it is important we get concise information on the matter before the contract is renewed for a further five-year term. When exactly will that mid-term review take place?
There is a number of questions there. There has been an increase in spending on roads of 4.7%, from 1.3%. The Deputy asked about the shortfall. The outturn is €1.23 million as opposed to €1.27 million in the budget. This is a result of a profile timing issue. The figure of €1.27 million provides for the calendar year. The spend could be a few months or weeks earlier or later. It is a timing issue. The figures do not mean the money does not get spent but indicate the timing of the spending.
Therefore, year on year, it is not a 5% increase based on the 2003 Estimates compared to the 2004 Estimates.
The Estimates are always presented as the outturn versus the Estimate. That is standard. The envelope will make an enormous difference. It is €8 billion over the period 2004 to 2008 and, of that, €6.8 billion comes from the Exchequer and €1.15 billion is PPP funding. I do not have time to go through it all. However, it is clear that spending on roads has doubled in the past three and a half to four years. The figures are all available here if the Deputy wants them. In 2000 we spent €600 million on motorways, but now we are spending double that, which is significant. If we add in the PPP funding to this year's allocation, the 4.7% would increase substantially. Approximately €150 million of PPP funding was included this year. There was much less last year and the 4.7% figure is a substantial increase.
On the issue of licences, I have asked the Department to bring forward a smart card licence in the shape of a credit card. It is working on that and I hope there will be some progress in the coming months. It is a big job to ensure the smart card is not just a piece of plastic, but that it will be smart, contain useful information and, perhaps, help us back up the penalty points system and other road safety measures.
I am not sure which of the many aspects of the NCT the Deputy is concerned about. The test fee is €48.40 and the retest costs €27.20.
The issue I want the Minister to explain concerns the provision of €750,000 for the cost of supervision. How does that compare to last year's figure?
I am advised that it is the same as last year.
Has the penny not dropped in the Department? Serious questions have been raised about the NCT and its transparency, yet not an extra cent has been provided for supervision. These issues must be addressed. The mid-term review of the contract will take place this year. There is no point in rubber-stamping the review until these questions have been answered. If there is any truth at all to the reports in the media, the allocation of €750,000 is completely inadequate.
I do not accept that more money must be expended to achieve better supervision. The sum of €750,000 is substantial. The intensity of the supervision is not necessarily reflected by doubling that sum.
The Minister is missing the point. The Department did not issue a statement stating that it had supervised this and it is not true that there is a quota in place or that the equipment is not calibrated on a daily or regular basis. If that is the case, it does not seem to come through.
We can have a full debate on the NCT if the Deputy wishes. The Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, has responsibility for this area. I am satisfied that the level of supervision and the funding expended on supervision is the appropriate amount. The involvement of company personnel is often cited to question the independence of the appeals procedure and as the national car test service is the single car test provider, this may sometimes play a part in promoting the perception. Despite the very low number of persons who have grievances with the company, the Department and the service are agreed that an independent appeals mechanism should be put in place which will fair and cost effective to all concerned. The format of that scheme is now being developed between the Department and the national car test service. There are issues with the NCT.
I accept what the Minister said but he and the Minister for State must be the only two individuals in the country who are satisfied with the level of supervision currently in place.
Both the Minister of State and I acknowledge there are issues concerning the NCT and the appeals system will help in that regard. The Minister of State is dealing with those issues. Neither of us is fully satisfied with the current position of the national car test service.
Does the Minister believe that competition might help iron out those issues?
I have not considered it in this connection.
It is about the only area where it has not been considered by the Minister.
The Deputy should not tempt me.
It is a serious issue and serious allegations have been made. No one seems to care that allegations have been made. The company could generate additional income on repeat tests. There does not seem to be an investigation within the Department. The Minister seems to be happy with the level of supervision when no one else in the country believes that the supervision is adequate. Are these allegations to remain unchallenged?
Supervision is not the issue; it is about the contract the Department has with the company, the mechanisms being applied and whether the charges and rules and regulations which are in force are the right regulations. I have no issue with the quality of the supervision of the existing rules and regulations. The appeals system will help substantially. The Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, is examining the rules and regulations closely to see how they can be tightened. I acknowledge there are issues which he and I are seeking to address, along the lines mentioned by the Deputy.
The committee must now discuss subhead C.
I would like answers to my questions on subhead B first.
Which questions?
I will repeat them.
I prefer to deal with them one at a time.
I do not mind. I refer to subhead B1. The Minister mentioned an allocation of €17 million for road safety, €5 million for retro-fitting of crash barriers, €5 million for planned metrication and €1 million for retro-fitting of lay-bys. Will the Minister explain how this is funded under subhead B1? Is it coming under the heading construction and improvement, maintenance and management or under administration?
It is supposed to be dealt with under construction and improvement of national roads, from the allocation of €1.2 million. A small amount will be allocated from maintenance and management of national roads.
In reality, there is even less money available for the roads in the current year.
I do not think there is a single person on the island of Ireland——
I do not dispute that fact.
——who would agree with the Deputy that the roads budget is less.
If one looks at figures, it is less.
No.
Less money is allocated for the maintenance of the road surface in 2004 than in 2003.
The figure for maintenance is €52.628 million.
The Minister is not listening to my question. The maintenance budget for the resurfacing of roads is down compared to the 2003 budget.
Under the road maintenance subhead, the outturn last year was €53.4 million. The estimate for 2004 is €52.6 million. That is a small decrease of €1 million.
There are some other allocations out of that amount.
Does the Deputy mean the new retro-fitting?
The Minister referred to €28 million.
To which allocation is the Deputy referring?
Some €70 million for road safety and €5 million for retro-fitting.
They also came out last year. The Deputy should compare like with like. Those are similar items.
That is not the case. Metrication did not happen last year and that is €5 million.
There would have been some retro-fitting and some barriers.
Garda lay-bys would not have been included.
There were some lay-bys.
Was there €1 million worth?
Some of the metrication funds might be in 2005.
The Minister is not answering my question. What is the difference in the amount of money available for what is termed maintenance, that is, resurfacing of national primary and national secondary roads?
It is a decrease of 1.5%.
I disagree. There is more than a decrease of 1.5% because out of that must be taken the money for retro-fitting and metrication, yet metrication was not included in last year's budget; it was not expended.
All the metrication is not necessary in the 2004 budget and some might go forward to 2005.
If it is half, €2.5 million, which is in question, that still brings it down.
If the Deputy's point is that there is a small dip in the maintenance figure, I accept it.
It is more than a small dip.
It is 1.5% or perhaps 2%.
Yes, 2% on top of inflation.
The maintenance programme is laid out where it is needed. Up to recently it was done on a mileage basis, on the length of the road. It is now being more effectively targeted. Despite that dip from €53.4 million to €52.6 million, it is still a substantial sum of money. It is better targeted and better managed. I am assured by the NRA that it is being applied where it is necessary. The dip must be seen in tandem with the substantial increase in the roads construction programme.
From the public purse?
From the NRA purse, which is the public purse.
The 5% increase is based on the 2003 outturn. The Minister stated in the document that an increase of €4.9 million is in line with inflation, which is 0.1% of an increase. The Minister is taking €17 million out of that for road safety. Some of that was included last year. The Minister is taking some of the retro-fitting money which would not have been included last year. My point is there is not a significant increase. There is no point in the Minister coming before this committee and correcting me when I make a statement and then being unable to back it up.
It is clear that last year €1,230,409 was expended on motorways, dual carriageways and national roads. Next year it is planned to spend €1.288 million, which is €57 million of a difference, an increase of 5%. That is an increase.
I disagree.
Does that conclude the discussion on subhead B?
No.
There is a problem of which the Deputy is aware. It was agreed that the meeting would finish at 11 a.m. It is now almost 11.30 a.m.
We are here to deal with the Estimate. It is standard practice to go through each subhead of the Vote individually. Vice Chairman, if you wish to follow a different procedure, I have no difficulty. However, that was my understanding when I came here this morning. I have gone through the subheads and have questions, which deserve to be answered.
At the outset the Deputy agreed the time schedule.
Yes, but you did not apply that schedule.
Rather than allowing the Deputy the liberty to make comments about the Minister's statement, which I thought was only fair, I could have taken each subhead individually. Perhaps we should have done it that way. However, I gave leniency to allow the Deputy to comment on various elements of it before going through the subheads, which we are now doing. The Deputy is going back over items he raised in his previous contribution.
I am seeking answers. It would be worthwhile for the Vice Chairman to look at the standard procedures for dealing with Estimates. It has always been the practice for the Minister and the spokespersons to make an initial statement and then discuss the subheads individually.
Yes.
That did not happen this morning. That was what had been agreed initially.
The Deputy agreed to a general discussion on the Vote from 10 a.m. until 10.45 a.m.
Yes, subhead by subhead.
The Deputy did not mention subheads, but a general discussion of the Vote.
That has been the standard procedure. It was not pointed out to me this morning that we would not discuss subheads individually.
Are there any other questions on subhead B?
Perhaps the Minister could answer the question on the records regarding licences, which is an issue.
The Minister has already answered.
He has not. He answered the question about the licences, but not about the records regarding them.
I would have to check that for the Deputy as the local authorities hold the licence records.
For once, I have to agree with Deputy Naughten that records are lost in every county.
There is no mechanism.
People who, ten or 15 years ago, held licences, which they did not renew, have discovered there is no record of them having held a licence.
May I make a suggestion? There is a mechanism whereby gardaí can certify that a passport has been lost. It might be possible to initiate a similar mechanism for licences to get over that difficulty. Perhaps the Minister could come back to us on that matter.
It is a fairly general principle that if the fault lies with the authorities, the benefit of the doubt must go to the individual. However, it is necessary to establish that the fault is with the authorities.
That will need to be examined later. There are implications for people's insurance because they cannot produce a driving licence, despite having held one.
The authorities have washed their hands of it.
It would be necessary to establish that they had a licence.
However, they cannot do that without having the physical licence. There is no other mechanism.
The local authorities basically destroyed the records.
I do not doubt the genuineness of most people in this area. However, I have also come across a few tall tales.
While I accept that, they are losing out as a result. They need to go through a fairly rigorous regime now compared to that which applied when most of them got licences in the first place.
We can return to this matter.
We will now discuss subhead C.
Subhead C1 relates to an increase of 6% in public service provision payments to CIE, which is only just above inflation. The debate on public transport in recent years has been dominated by the issue of ownership. Is it still the Minister's policy to achieve a modal shift among the public? While that is what I understand the official policy to be, in practice it is quite different. The rate of increase in car ownership shows that policy has been very unsuccessful in recent years. This has knock-on effects on housing estates with three or four cars outside many houses. The principal knock-on effect is our roads, particularly those in our cities, becoming congested, which causes huge difficulty for those trying to go about their daily business of going to work or shopping. Huge additional costs associated with traffic congestion are incurred by businesses trying to operate in cities.
The policy has not been successful primarily because priority has been given to road building over the provision of public transport. Moving from the private car to public transport is a very difficult change for people to make. For anybody driving into Dublin city any morning, even though they might be stuck in traffic, looking out at the long queues at the bus stops would not encourage them to leave their cars behind. Do we not have a serious problem with lack of capacity in the Dublin area in particular? Why has the public service provision increased by only 6%? This is probably the most disappointing aspect of these Estimates.
The most disappointing aspect of the performance of the Department of Transport in recent years is the failure to attract sufficient people to switch from private cars to public transport due to insufficient capacity in the system. In light of this, it is ludicrous to float the idea of congestion charges, etc. There is huge congestion in public transport. While I accept that some action is being taken on trains, people are being packed in like sardines. There is massive under capacity on the DART service and the same is true of the bus service. Therefore, it does not make sense to only increase that provision by 6%.
It is an indictment of the performance of the Minister of Transport that he has not given any serious priority to expanding the capacity of public transport. As a result we now have major congestion in all our major cities, leading to a major reduction in the quality of life for people trying to go about their daily business.
I endorse what Deputy Shortall said about subhead C1. Should I go on to the other subheads?
We should take all the subheads together and let the Minister reply. As the Deputy is aware, we have another meeting starting at 12 noon.
I did not schedule these meetings.
The committee agreed to it.
I was not present when the committee agreed it.
Neither was I.
Under subhead C1, the estimate for 2003 was €12.7 million and the outturn was €7 million. Will the Minister explain the €5 million shortfall? These are critical elements relating to public transport accessibility and the rural transport initiative. I ask the Minister to furnish us with a breakdown of the allocations under the different headings under subhead C2. The explanation in the report before us is not as detailed as the ones we received in previous years.
Will the Minister elaborate on the reduction in rural transport between 2003 and 2004? There has been a significant cutback and curtailment in rural transport services. I again wish to flag the issue of smart cards. It is amazing that Morton's can get these operational but the public sector cannot. Has the issue of the distribution of funds among the State public transport companies been resolved?
Under subhead C3, will the Minister explain the significant shortfall of almost €4.5 million on the 2003 outturn compared to the Estimate? What is the mobilisation cost of the light rail system as budgeted for 2004? How does this compare to the Estimate for 2003?
Under subhead C4, there is a differential between the outturn and the 2004 Estimate. Will the Minister elaborate on that point? Under the same subhead, there is mention of property acquisition for the light rail system. Has the process of property acquisition not been completed now that Luas is running? Why was there an overrun, dealt with under subhead C5, of €41 million in the outturn for 2003 compared to the Estimate? What impact will the €100 million, which has been raised by borrowing through CIE, have in the context of the abolition of the holding company and the establishment of the three new independent companies which replace it?
The 2003 Estimate for the railway safety commission was €2.194 million. Naturally, that was not drawn down. Under subhead C6, there is a shortfall in the Estimate for 2004. Is that due to the curtailment of the commission or are there other reasons? Why is there a shortfall despite the fact that the commission's establishment will take place a year later? If anything, the Estimate should have increased rather than decreased.
Subhead C8 covers the integrated land use and transport framework plans. When will legislation be introduced to back that up? The plans have been promised by Government and they are critically important.
I have an official engagement in Ashbourne at 12.30 p.m. I must ask for a recess at some stage.
Do you want to adjourn now?
I counted eight questions. I can deal with all of them but each requires a few minutes to address. We have yet to cover the civil aviation and miscellaneous subheads. I would prefer to adjourn now although I am in the hands of the committee. We have been at this for two hours.
It would make more sense to adjourn now. Is there a particular time which suits the Minister?
We will have to arrange a time later.
We will start the next meeting with consideration of subhead C.