The Revised Estimates for the Department of Transport — Vote 32 — have been referred by the Dáil to this committee for consideration. On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and his officials. The clerk to the committee has circulated a draft timetable for consideration. Copies of the Minister's opening speech have been circulated also. Is the timetable agreed or would members prefer to be flexible?
Vote 32 — Transport (Revised).
After the opening statements it should be flexible.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
As copies of my opening statement have been circulated to members, I will synopsise it, if they are happy with this.
In considering the Estimates for 2005 it is worth noting that the transport programme will involve expenditure of more than €2 billion, covering major investments of €1.4 billion on roads, in excess of €727 million on public transport and €29 million on civil aviation. Investment in the development and maintenance of the national road network is being maintained at record levels. The total Exchequer capital provision this year is €1.415 billion, including a carryover of €42 million. In addition, €54 million is being provided for road maintenance. The beneficial impact of the Government's sustained commitment to the upgrading of the national road network is evident throughout the country. We want to maintain the roads which are crucial to the economic and social fabric of the country.
Since 2000 a total of 49 projects with a combined length of more than 340 km, including 186 km to motorway-dual carriageway standard, have been completed while work is under way on another 24 with a combined length of 230 km. A further 19 with a combined length of 330 km are at tender stage.
This year the NRA expects to complete eight projects, including the N4 Sligo relief road, the N6 Loughrea bypass, the M50 south-eastern motorway and the contract element of the Dublin Port tunnel, and start work on 19, including such projects as the N1 Dundalk-Border, the M3 Clonee-Kells and N6 Kinnegad-Athlone phase 1, the Arklow-Gorey bypass and the N25 Waterford city bypass, which I want to see started.
Improved project management, cost estimation and control arrangement have been put in place by the NRA in recent years. The greater use of more efficient fixed price lump sum design and build contracts has resulted in projects increasingly being delivered on time and within budget. In fact, most come in ahead of time. By strengthening cost estimation, control and procurement procedures, the NRA can ensure more accurate cost estimates from the earliest stages of a project and greater certainty in respect of outturn costs between tender and completion stages. Other improvements we have made include the appointment of a cost estimation specialist who reviews all projects; the benchmarking of tender and scheme outturn costs and the publication of a road works and design specification manual for roads and bridges.
The Road Traffic Act 2004 provided for the successful changeover to the metric system this year. A great deal of money has been spent on public transport in recent years. The allocation for 2005 represents an increase of approximately 10% on the 2004 outturn figure. However, it includes an amount of €13.6 million for the repayment of borrowings by CIE for capital purposes.
Total direct Exchequer subvention payments to CIE during 2000-04 amounted to more than €1 billion. Funding is provided to support socially necessary but commercially non-viable public transport services and fund interest charges on borrowings for DART. The subvention allocation to CIE for this year has been set at the 2004 level. Payment of the additional allocation is conditional on the operating companies complying with certain performance criteria set out in the memorandum of understanding being negotiated with each of the companies. The memoranda contain targets on service quantity and quality as well as detailed financial reporting requirements. Examples of the performance targets are: 90% of all inter-city services between Dublin and Cork and Dublin and Limerick will arrive at their final destination on time or up to and including ten minutes of schedule; 90% of all DART services due to arrive in Connolly Station in the morning peak will arrive on time or up to and including ten minutes of schedule with a commitment to work towards five minute reliability on completion of the DART upgrade works.
This year it is proposed that an independent audit will be carried out to measure certain performance criteria. Assuming compliance with these criteria, more than 66% or almost €180 million of the subvention will support the rail services with the balance being deployed in support of the extensive range of socially necessary urban and rural bus services provided by Bus Átha Cliath and Bus Éireann. Dublin Bus will receive €64.9 million and Bus Éireann, €25.199 million.
Since my appointment last year, I have met the management of Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and representatives of the private bus industry as well as the CIE unions and ICTU on modernising the regulatory framework governing public transport so as to replace the Road Transport Act 1932. It remains my intention to establish an independent national public transport regulatory body to procure socially necessary bus services, license commercial services and regulate fares. My Department is involved in ongoing discussions with the stakeholders and I am pleased to report we are making good progress.
CIE and Iarnród Éireann will bring an enormous amount of new rolling stock on stream this year. Some 67 intercity carriages to be used on the Dublin to Cork route will be in service by mid-2006. An order has been placed for 120 regional railcars which will be used on the Dublin to Ballina, Westport, Galway, Limerick, Tralee and Waterford lines. The outcome will be that rolling stock in Ireland will be the best in Europe by 2008, a dramatic turnaround in Iarnród Éireann.
We are all agreed there was under-investment in Iarnród Éireann for some time. However, there has been significant investment in the company in recent years. The public may not be aware of the level of investment given that much of the money was spent on the upgrading of the rail and signalling systems. Now that this has been done we can begin rolling out quality stock for public enjoyment. Its introduction will encourage more people to use public transport to a greater extent. The provision of a one hour service from Cork to Dublin will be an attractive feature of the new service. This service will be rolled out to other major urban centres and there will be departures every two hours all day long. The result will be a public transport system well able to deliver long distance services.
A new garage was opened at Harristown, north Dublin, in October 2004 to facilitate 240 buses. This was the first garage to be built by CIE in more than 30 years. Bus Éireann has purchased more than 390 new buses since the start of the national development plan, 65 of which are additional to the fleet. It will purchase a further 65 new buses from its own resources this year.
Everybody should be pleased with Luas operations and the number of passengers carried, currently more than 300,000 per week which is ahead of target. There is clear evidence of a modal shift to Luas which is attracting persons who formerly used their car as a means of transport. This is extremely important and what we set out to achieve. We are investing in public transport to encourage people to use it rather than the car.
On the rural transport initiative, I travelled the country using the rural transport system which has become a boon to people living in isolated parts of rural Ireland and is working extremely well in terms of the number of passengers carried. From my discussions with passengers I am aware it has totally changed the lives of the elderly, in particular, who were often isolated and unable to travel from their homes to surrounding towns. The facility has been welcomed. I have increased the allocation for the service this year and next with the service being made permanent from thereon. The rural transport initiative has a legitimate and important role to play in the delivery of public transport.
Access to public transport is an important issue for the Government and a sum of €10 million has been allocated to the CIE companies this year for such works. We are also working with local authorities which are availing of all opportunities to improve access for disabled people to buses, trains and so on. This will add to the increasing numbers choosing to use public transport.
I have stated my desire that the integrated ticketing issue be sorted out. The first phase was launched earlier this year. A great deal can be done through the use of such an arrangement. People will believe they have an integrated public transport system when there is a proper integrated ticketing system which ensures a smooth switch from buses to Luas or intercity trains. The system was piloted by a private operator and Luas and is working extremely well. The companies concerned are now engaged in discussions under the auspices the the Railway Procurement Agency which has been charged with delivery of an integrated ticketing system. It is my hope the system will be rolled out as soon as possible.
My staff have done a great deal of work in the aviation area. I am glad we have reached a clear direction based on the growth of Dublin Airport and Aer Lingus. The opportunities will be limited only by imagination in terms of what can be achieved. I urge those concerned, as I have done since the decisions were made, to get on with the job. It is up to those in charge to ensure the new pier or contact stands will be in place by 2007 and that the new terminal 2 will be in place by 2009. The new chief executives are of the highest quality. Any similar company in any country would be delighted to have them on board. I am confident they have the ability to deliver the high quality facilities needed on time and within budget.
I am awaiting the business plans on the break-up of the three main airports, Cork, Shannon and Dublin. I look forward to receiving them shortly. When full independence has been achieved, each airport will be in a position to develop and grow its own markets.
I recently announced the PSO contracting regime for the next three years for which a sum of €45 million has been provided from the Exchequer. The regional airports have an important role to play. They are economically significant in attracting foreign direct investment to the respective regions.
I have presented a broad outline of the Estimates and will be happy to take questions. The budget of €2 billion is significant and provides the capacity to deliver necessary infrastructure and provide for development.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. This is my second opportunity to discuss the Estimates for the Department of Transport and I am impressed with the brief presented to us. I congratulate whoever is responsible. Of necessity, Estimates are arcane but the briefs provided by other Departments are sometimes inexplicable.
The Minister claimed the budget was significant but for me it was a non-event. It amounted to a ticking over budget. On publication of the Estimates, the Minister had nothing to say about future transport expenditure levels. He devoted his entire speech to projects announced the previous year or to be announced in the following weeks. The only station worthy of mention was Spencer Dock in respect of which a small sum was allocated for design but this will not be spent this year because the location of the station has not yet been decided.
The Minister also indicated that a ten year plan would be announced within weeks. Shortly afterwards he held a press conference which, despite the great fanfare, amounted to a puff of smoke. In 2004 a five year envelope was announced, only to be scrapped this year in favour of a ten year programme. Seven months later we are still wondering about its content, the extent of the budget and projects timetable. In short, we do not have a transport plan.
There is neither an aviation nor a public transport plan. Recently announced decisions on aviation issues gave rise to more questions than answers. Since completion of the Luas there are no new projects in the pipeline. Platform for Change seems to have been abandoned while the roads programme is running behind. The road safety programme is failing to meet its targets on all fronts, from driver testing to the penalty points system. The transport system appears to be in disarray.
The only contribution made in the budget was to move the goalposts from a five year to a ten year plan which has not materialised. If cost overruns are taken into account, the figures represent meagre changes in capital spending and reflect the absence of political will and direction. Amazingly, there is a 1% reduction in spending. When inflation is factored in, this represents an effective decrease of 4% to 5%. Despite growth in population and employment levels and increased demand, less money is being spent on public transport. Under subhead C.1, public service payments to Dublin Bus have increased from €62 million to €63 million. This is, in effect, a reduction in support for national and bus services in Dublin when increased operating costs are taken into account.
There were minor increases in the allocations for rail services. I intend to address with the Minister the issue of the rail freight service, out of which Iarnród Éirean seems to be bowing. No attempt has been made to capitalise on the potential to carry freight in a growing economy.
I want to draw attention to the public service payments to Dublin Bus. The Minister claims he is committed to the new regulatory framework for the licensing of private bus operators. He is the third Minister I have heard say this, yet nothing has happened. I despair that action will ever be taken. The Minister says he is engaged in discussions with stakeholders. He told me in response to parliamentary questions that he would proceed once agreement was reach. A decision will never be made if he waits for agreement. He is also the third Minister to express anxiety at the introduction of an integrated ticketing system, yet little has happened. The Luas smartcard is effective but it does not amount to such a system. I wonder if we are any closer to it, despite the promises made by many Ministers.
Under subhead C.3, Dublin light rail, there is a significant reduction in expenditure. Since Luas was completed over one year ago, there are no new projects in the pipeline. An application may be made for a licence but this will depend on whether money is forthcoming from the private sector. While a lot of money has been invested, there have been no developments. Platform for Change and the network of Luas lines which formed the basis of the Government's re-election manifesto seem to have fallen by the wayside as no decisions have been made. At this stage the metro is the subject of an ongoing joke.
The allocation to the NRA was to increase by 12% this year. There have been extensive overruns in project costs. Recently I raised at this committee the overrun on the port tunnel — €250 million. The loss of this sum means that a lot of money is being soaked up. It represents a significant increase on the tender price.
Toll road projects being developed through public private partnerships were mentioned. Either this or last the National Development Finance Agency allocated €200 million for investment in public projects such as road building but is not yet involved in financing any project. While a number of projects can be justified on a cost benefit analysis, toll roads are among the few which yield financial returns. I wonder why the agency has not becomed involved in this type of investment. Are investigations ongoing? There is potential to release funds for other public projects which will not yield a financial return.
I question the format of Estimates meetings. By the time we hold our discussions the money has already been voted and most of it has been spent. It might serve better if we used these opportunities to set out policy and intentions in a forum in which the Minister can be questioned. There are few opportunities to do so and I regret that the Minister did not set out policy. It is difficult to understand his intentions in regard to general transport policy. Many decisions seem to be taken on the hoof in response to public opinion or an immediate issue.
It would be useful if a long-term policy was set out rather than merely a long-term programme. I hope the long awaited ten year public transport programme will be underpinned by a defined policy approach. Prior to announcing projects, the Minister should explain his general transport policy. To date, there has been a significant policy vacuum in his Department. The issues with which his predecessor was preoccupied ensured little policy work was done. I hope the Minister will make up for this and give us the benefit of his thinking before he announces his ten year plan. When does he intend to announce it? It seems always to be due in the coming month.
A breakdown of the Estimates indicates that 63% will go on roads and only 33% on public transport. The only policy reference in the Minister's opening comments was his observation that the policy we all espoused was the need to encourage people to move from private cars to public transport. There is no doubt we all ascribe to this policy. However, the Minister's actions do not correspond to this objective because the ratio between the amount spent on roads and on public transport is 2:1.
Much of what is being spent on public transport involves playing catch-up in terms of investment in infrastructure. This investment is welcome and we must acknowledge the progress made. However, there is still a long way to go. The Minister has trotted out all the figures in regard to investment in rail cars, tracks, new garage facilities for Dublin Bus and so on. However, the reality is that Dublin Bus has not received a single additional bus since 2001, despite the solemn commitments in this regard under the national development plan. The truth of the matter is borne out in ministerial replies to parliamentary questions.
Correct.
Replacement buses have been provided for those removed from the fleet due to age but not a single additional bus has been provided. There are no more buses serving commuters in the Dublin area today than there were in 2001.
If the Minister is committed to encouraging people to use public transport, why is he not vastly increasing the number of buses? The local authorities have done their part by providing bus lanes but they remain empty for large parts of the day because there are insufficient numbers of buses. Motorists considering making the switch from the private car to public transport are not encouraged by the long queues at bus stops every morning along the main arteries.
The Minister must give effect to what is supposedly our official policy of encouraging a shift from private to public transport. He must provide the extra capacity, particularly buses. We welcome the new initiatives in regard to the Luas and the additional DART facilities and capacity. However, the vast majority of those who avail of public transport in the greater Dublin area use buses. It is outrageous that not a single additional bus has been provided since 2001.
Will the Minister outline his position on subvention? Most of the additional expenditure on public transport has gone towards infrastructural improvements. Within the public transport spend, 79% is allocated for capital projects, leaving only 21% for day-to-day services. This is a very low figure in terms of the subvention the Department provides. Will the Minister set out his views on the role he sees for the Government in subventing public transport services? We are far behind every other European country in terms of the State financial supports provided for public transport. The average across Europe is 50% but the figure for Dublin Bus is approximately 25%. This figure has increased in the past ten years but we still have a significant amount of ground to make up to reach the European average.
Is it the Minister's intention and does he believe it is desirable or good public policy to try to match the average European subvention rate? All of us have visited European cities and been struck by their excellent public transport systems. We are always impressed and wonder why the same standard of service is not available in Dublin. The reason is that the Government is not providing the necessary funding. We are all aware that in most cases public transport services are not profitable. I ask the Minister to explain his thinking in this regard.
This committee questioned some of the Minister's senior officials about the regulatory system for public transport and the grey area in the granting of public transport licences. Is it the Minister's intention to start charging for such licences? It seems that by the time we will have the modern legislation we have been promised most of the routes will already have been given out to the private sector. Is this an intentional delay on the Minister's part? Why are no charges sought when licences are granted?
We all recognise that private operators are not interested in serving council estates on the outskirts of the city or suburbs. Neither are they particularly interested in running services where most of the passengers will have a free pass. They are only interested in routes such as the Stillorgan dual carriageway and the roads around Dublin Airport. These licences are valuable commodities and it seems incredible that no charges are sought for them. I am aware the legislation does not allow the Minister to make such charges. However, we have been promised modern legislation for the past seven or eight years but there is no sign of it. What is the Minister's intention in this regard? I am aware he has past experience of the private bus sector. It is important that he should indicate his intention.
I also wish to ask the Minister about the employment of consultants in his Department. The allocation for this purpose is constantly increasing. Does the Minister believe this is a good use of public funds or does he agree it makes more sense to build expertise within the Department? Those committee members who visited Madrid to see the metro were extremely impressed by the technical knowledge and expertise which individual senior public servants had built up and the pride they took in their involvement in public transport services. There was evidence of a real commitment to serving the public.
By contrast, one sometimes gets the impression from officials in the Department of Transport that the intention is to push items off the desks of the Minister and senior officials as quickly as possible. The objective seems to be to transfer issues to the private sector in order that others can make the decisions and consultants can be paid to advise on the matter in hand. Does the Minister agree it would be better to build and retain expertise within the public sector?
I presume the allocation for consultants does not cover the consultancies in respect of the future of Aer Lingus? Does the Minister intend to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate for this purpose because the increase of €240,000 will be insufficient? How does he intend to fund what will presumably be expensive private consultancy advice?
What are the Minister's plans for the Department's inspectorate, particularly in regard to road haulage. Most of us saw the recent "Prime Time" programme which exposed a scandalous situation with people driving far longer than they were supposed to, breaking speed limits, driving without haulage licences and so on. The small number of inspectors is completely inadequate. Does the Minister have any intentions in this regard? I do not see any provision in the Estimates for expanding the inspectorate.
I would like to ask about road safety. The penalty points system has been dogged by problems since its inception. We must bear in mind that the system was first promised in the 1998 road safety strategy but it was not until five years later that the Minister finally introduced it, something that happened without the necessary preparation and without putting in place the infrastructure required for a working system. At this point, public confidence in the system is extremely low. There was a promise of a new system whereby, if one broke the speed limit, there was a fair chance one would be caught in order that motorists would modify their driving behaviour. However, we very quickly reverted to the original levels of road fatalities and serious injuries because there was no confidence in the system. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General bore this out regarding the low number of prosecutions compared with the number of notices issued.
What will happen to put in place a proper computerised system? What has the Minister done with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? How and when does he intend to restore confidence in the system? Otherwise, launching the road safety strategy with all the fanfare will have been meaningless. The number of road deaths is steadily increasing. Public attitudes to speeding and drink driving must change radically. Let us not go through another charade, as we did with the Minister's predecessor who promised change that did not materialise, with the result that we returned to square one. When will the Minister take a serious initiative to tackle speeding and drink driving in order that we will have a system in place with a reasonable chance that one will be caught if one drinks and drives or breaks the speed limit? Ultimately, one must pay the price in penalty points and fines but such a system is not in place. People continue to drink and drive and break the speed limit. Does the Minister have any intention of announcing an initiative in the near future?
I would like to ask about airports, particularly Dublin Airport. The decision has finally been taken regarding the second terminal and the procedures are in place for a new runway. Will the Minister estimate the cost of the provision of the second terminal and the new runway? How does he propose to fund these major developments?
Regarding Aer Lingus, will the Minister clarify his intentions? I asked him about this matter in the Dáil, as well as tabling a parliamentary question. Will he confirm that the method he used to privatise part of the company will not involve the State taking money from Aer Lingus? His earlier reply was that he intended to privatise up to60%. The usual way of doing this is to sell it off, with the proceeds going into Government coffers. The Minister recently said it was not his intention to dispose of the 60%, or whatever the majority shareholding may be, by way of such a sale and that he was talking about issuing new shares. Will he confirm this for us since there is a great deal of interest in his intentions? For a company which needs capital, it would be outrageous to think the current main shareholder will be taking capital from the company. We need clarification.
I will have more detailed questions when we go through the subheads individually.
We shall now go through the subheads. Subhead A.1 covers salaries and wages. Are there any questions?
I will not comment on every subhead but I have two very brief questions on subheads A.5 and A.8.
Are there any questions on subheads A.1 to A.4, inclusive?
No.
We proceed to subhead A.5.
I am sorry, I meant to say page 5 rather than subhead A.5. It is subhead A.2. It is mentioned in the explanatory material that driver testing is covered by this subhead. It is a strange place in which to find it under the heading of departmental administration. Why is the figure down if we are setting up a driver testing authority? How will it ensure the driver testing system is improved if there is less money than under the current totally failed system? To be honest, the entire system should pay for itself. If it were properly organised, it would be self-financing. Perhaps it is not what I assume.
Subhead A.7 covers consultancy services bought in by the Department.
Are we taking every subhead together?
We are only dealing with the A subheads.
Are we dealing with all of them together?
Yes, if that is acceptable.
I shall not have questions on all of them. Subhead A.7 lists departmental moneys provided for consultancies. Given the decision to sell a portion of Aer Lingus, does the budget provide for the hiring of consultants to advise on the method of disposal? I assume it does not, since the decision was only made in the middle of this year. However, that begs the question of what the increase is for if it does not include provision for the Aer Lingus consultancy.
Are there any further questions on subheads A.1 to A.8, inclusive?
Subheads A.5 and A.6 show increases of 36% and 21%, respectively, for departmental administration. I wonder why there is such an increase if the Department has been in existence for three years. One might have thought it would have been fully set up by now. Is it fully on its feet at this stage and can we expect savings under this heading next year? They seem very substantial figures.
Regarding subhead A.7 which covers the cost of consultancies, will the Minister provide us with a list of the consultants employed? There is to be an incredible 38% increase in consultants' fees. It is impossible for us to know what the Minister is doing with this unless we are given the breakdown. I have already asked the Minister about Aer Lingus. Does the subhead give us a complete picture of all the consultancies or are there more who have been employed by the agencies which come under the auspices of the Department such as the NRA, the RPA and so on? Is it possible to get a figure for all the transport consultants being employed?
Subhead A.2 covers the actual travel and subsistence costs of driver testers. That is why the reference is included.
There is a computerisation process under way at the haulage section in Ballina which must be completed. I understand the moneys are required for this purpose.
On consultancies, I can give Deputy Shortall a breakdown, although I do not have it with me. It is an area we are monitoring very closely. Given the transport remit, there is no doubt the expertise required from time to time is significant and it is not necessarily at the level one would maintain permanently in a Department. One would not keep the people concerned since they specialise in one area. They will come and do a specific job but they will not work in the Civil Service, given their qualities and their potential earnings outside the public sector. The public servants are of the highest quality and I have excellent time for all of them but, for specific purposes such as the sale of Aer Lingus, which occur once every two or three decades, financial experts will not be retained by a Department. Equally, with regard to technical and other aspects of the Department's work, the most cost effective way is to bring in the expertise when and where it is required. This work is largely technical in nature and this practice is not peculiar to the public sector. This is common practice throughout the business world. There is hardly a company which does not employ a bunch of consultants to work on something every day.
In this country perhaps but not in other countries.
That is not my experience of multinationals or of domestic companies with foreign contracts.
Leaving aside Aer Lingus, is the Department engaged in staff development on issues such as road safety, road building, public transport and so on?
The staff is high quality. The NRA recently hired high quality people and will soon add to that number.
After getting things so wrong for many years, the authority is bringing in financial experts.
I am prepared to accept there have been difficulties and overruns but I do not accept comparisons between Estimates in 1989 and 1991 and the cost in 2005. That is nonsense and it is disingenuous. I do not say the Deputy has done this but it is an absolute nonsense. Such comparisons have no relevance and they are not even worth debating.
There is a significant gap in financial expertise within the NRA, which it is only beginning to close.
In the past number of years, significant expertise has been brought to bear within the authority but the quality and manner of contracting has rightly changed dramatically because we could not sustain high inflation, which was the largest contributory factor in the cost of projects. All projects are coming in ahead of schedule, with some coming in substantially ahead, and, with a number of exceptions, the tender costs are being met. The only cost against which a project can be measured is the tender price.
What about the port tunnel?
Dublin City Council, the NRA and others are in discussions with the contractor and there are issues. However, the contract price is €715 million.
The Minister is incorrect, it is €550 million.
I understand the contract price is €715 million.
The Minister is 100% wrong.
The final cost is expected to be higher and discussions are under way between the NRA and Dublin City Council.
Representatives of the NRA appeared before the committee. They stated the tender price was €400 million plus but if land costs were included, the price was €550 million while the current expected cost is €755 million.
In today's prices.
But the project is not even finished.
I expect it to finish this year.
They tendered for the length of the job. They did not seek to add 15% or 25% for inflation every year.
There are serious issues regarding the contractor and the operator and discussions are ongoing. I will not be ripped off on behalf of the taxpayer on this project and I have told them that.
We will move to subheads B.1 to B.4.
B.1 is the 12% block grant to the NRA. I referred to this in the context of overruns. Clearly, 12% is not being provided if such overruns are occurring. I also referred to the port tunnel. The National Development Finance Agency has funding for public private partnerships but it has not found projects worthy of its investment. Is anything being done to overcome the barriers preventing the NDFA investing in public projects?
Subheads B.3 and B.4 relate to the driver licensing and penalty points systems. Funding has been allocated to the changeover from paper to plastic driving licences, which is a worthy initiative. However, the funding does not begin to deal with the problems in the driving licensing system. Significant investment is needed. There is no point in issuing lovely plastic driving licences if the central records to which they refer are completely inadequate. Investment is needed in the national driver file. This may be more relevant to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but perhaps it should not be. The file is badly put together, inaccessible and it cannot be manipulated.
Subhead B.4 provides for payment to a private firm to convert to electronic data the manual data produced by the Garda for the purposes of penalty points. This information should be collected electronically. While the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government overlap on this issue, the system must be automated because it is at the heart of road safety and penalty points. Small investments have been made over the years but nobody ever gets it right. Perhaps, the Minister does not need to hire consultants to deal with this area, although they do not always get it right, as was the case with the PULSE system. The system needs to be addressed once and for all because it is not working and it is costing lives. The penalty points system has fallen into disrepute and so few offences are covered by it that it makes a farce of introducing legislation.
A sum of €1.4 billion is allocated to this year's road projects. What is the Minister doing to ensure value for money, given that it has not been achieved in recent years? In estimating the cost of a stretch of motorway that will be tolled, why is the estimate of a 30-year toll not included in the cost of the project, given that this is a cost to the taxpayer in a different guise? The initial cost of such major projects is hundreds of millions of euro but the cost of tolls for 30 years should be also included because the taxpayer will pay them for that period. Would that not be a more accurate way to calculate the cost of a project to the taxpayer?
The allocation for road signage and maintenance has increased slightly. The minimal amount required for the metric changeover has been provided in the context of road safety. Does the Minister accept more signage is needed, given what he is supposed to be trying to achieve through penalty points? There is significant lack of clarity regarding speed limits on various roads. Does the Minister intend to increase this funding to enable improved signage to be used?
The NRA costs the State €8.6 million annually, of which €6.25 million is expended on pay. This is an enormous amount, given the authority's expenditure on consultants. How many staff does the authority employ?
Under subhead B.2, what is the Department's justification for giving over €250,000 to the Irish Road Haulage Association, a private organisation? I have already asked whether it is intended to increase the number of inspectors. Does the Minister intend, as reported in today's newspapers, to change the NRA's policy about not providing service stations and rest areas on motorways, for hauliers in particular? This seems incredible. From driving on motorways on the Continent, we all know there are service areas every few kilometres where people can take a break, have a cup of coffee, refuel their cars and so on. This is a significant factor in terms of road safety. Inexplicably, the NRA has today said this is not its policy. What is the logic in this and what is the Minister's view?
Concerning subhead B.3, there is a 135% increase in licences in the Estimate. It has been two and a half years since the Minister's predecessor announced his intention to change to a credit card style driving licence. The law changed and we are now expected to carry licences with us, which is extremely difficult for men. In general, women have handbags into which they can put their licences.
Some men have handbags.
For a man, the norm is to carry all of his cards in a credit card-sized wallet. The change was promised two and a half years ago. When will we have the new form of driving licence?
On subhead B.4, there is a 74% decrease in this Estimate, specifically regarding the taxi hardship panel and related payments. The courts were of the view recently that taxi hardship panel payments discriminated against people who are under 55. Does the Minister intend to change this and revisit the payment scheme in order to compensate for past discrimination against under 55s? Will the Minister make payments available to them?
I must leave. The Vice Chairman shall take my place.
In response to Deputy Olivia Mitchell's several comments about nothing new happening, she obviously does not drive around the country much or converse with many of her colleagues because members of Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and others are knocking me down at road openings, sod turnings, etc. This is happening all over the country.
That does not mean the Minister can stop making decisions.
The transformation in the road network is quite astonishing. No one can dispute this.
I am not disputing it. I am saying that no new decisions are being made.
When one announces a five-year rolling plan, that is exactly what it is.
The Minister scrapped the plan in favour of one we have not yet seen.
I did not. When the Deputy said that I had scrapped it, I meant to say that I have not scrapped anything. A five-year plan is in place, of which there is no doubt. Everyone is working hammer and thongs on this plan. The Government decided in the budget that we should extend the plan to a ten year timeframe at least. By doing this and by putting financial resources of such scale into that timeframe, one can do much more within the ten years because one does not need to act sequentially. Many projects can be done in parallel. They may not all go into construction at the same time but, by doing this, one brings absolute certainty to the market in terms of designing, planning, construction companies and the NRA, which now knows that the money will be made available during the lifetime of a programme. For example, the NRA and contractors need no longer wait on these issues in the hopes they will get money from next year's budget. The picture is now much clearer.
The delivery of projects has been upscaled vastly throughout the country because the money is available. I am strongly of the view that, given the scale of planning involved in infrastructure and the costs of some of the very large projects, a greater timeframe is required. Everyone, including the Government, realises and accepts this. At every function I have attended where contractors and large construction companies have spoken, they, like the chief executive of the NRA, have alluded to this requirement. It allows everyone to plan in a better way. One of the benefits of this is that better value for money is obtained. The latter provides an answer to one of the questions asked.
Under the system in place everyone is clear on what will happen and when it will happen. They also are aware of the broad outline of the finances that are in place and whether these have been invested, in Dublin or elsewhere, in public transport, motorways, non-national roads, road maintenance, etc. Unlike before, we do not get to the end of one year and everyone holds their breath to see what will happen in the next year. We have outlined a substantial programme of investment in public transport and road building that we will continue to roll out.
There are many PPP projects, of which those concerning roads are probably the most successful. The current programme has ten national road improvement schemes based on PPPs. I have listed them umpteen times but I will do so again. They are the Kilcock-Kinnegad route, the Waterford bypass, the Limerick southern ring road, the Dundalk western bypass, the Clonee-Kells scheme, the Galway-Ballinasloe scheme, the second West Link bridge, the Portlaoise-Cullahill scheme, the Rathcormac-Fermoy bypass and the M50 upgrade. The list goes on.
I disagree with Deputy Shortall when she says that one can take the construction cost of a motorway built under a PPP and then add to it motorists' costs due to tolling as if it is an additional capital cost, which it is not. It is a customer's payment for a service and is the same as paying one's ESB, gas or insurance bills.
What service is provided?
The service is a super-efficient highway that people can use.
That is a capital cost.
It is but motorists are not constrained. They use the motorway by choice. They are not obliged to use it because there is an alternative route.
That is not the point.
It is the point.
From an individual motorist's point of view, he or she may or may not have a choice.
It is a choice.
From an overall policy point of view, we must include the costs of the tolls over a 30-year period because these are the real costs to the taxpayers.
They are not the real costs.
The cost is the initial investment plus the 30 years of tolling.
The cost is only to the person——
This money is coming out of taxpayers' pockets.
That is like saying we should include the costs incurred by Aer Lingus's passengers over the next 30 years.
The Deputy has made her point.
No, it is entirely different. That is the cost of running a service, which is not what constitutes a toll road.
We can now provide a fabulous motorway network — it was once deficient — and a road infrastructure system that will be second to none. We were behind the eight ball in terms of achieving this. Irish Governments over the past ten or 20 years did not do this either because they did not have the money or for other reasons. We are now catching up. We rightly decided to bring in private sector interests to work with the public sector in order to accelerate the programme, as we knew we could get a far bigger, quicker and effective programme than would otherwise have been the case.
Does the Minister accept that motorists, who are taxpayers, are paying through the nose for these projects and lining the private developers' pockets?
I do not accept that.
That is the net effect. It is disingenuous not to include the 30 years of tolling.
It is not disingenuous.
The Deputy has had the opportunity to make her point. We have ordered our business so that Opposition spokesperson can make a point and the Minister can then respond so that, within reason, we can have an element of interaction.
If every taxpayer in the country was forced to use these facilities, there might be some legitimacy in the Deputy's argument. However, they are not forced.
They are still paying whether they are forced to or not.
They are not. People use the motorway by choice and the benefit — to state the converse of the Deputy's argument — is that it is more cost effective because vehicles will burn less petrol by travelling on motorways. This will be particularly true when the entire network is complete. People will not have to drive on the small, narrow roads they have used heretofore and they will get from A to B quicker and on time. The costs to individuals and businesses will be reduced when they pay the toll and this reduction will be enhanced when all of the motorways are complete. I accept that this is not the case at present because we are only rolling out the programme. When the network is complete, however, it will be far more cost effective and it will mean money in the pockets of individuals and businesses. That is why foreign direct investors and indigenous industries tell us that we need these roads ——
The toll is another tax.
I do not accept the Deputy's argument on that issue. The total number of staff employed by the NRA is 89.
Which means that 89 staff are paid a total of €6.25 million.
On the question of road haulage, the objectives of the investment were to assist in the professionalisation of the industry and to raise the standards substantially. In conjunction with the Irish Road Haulage Association, we put in place programmes for development and training, which are having an effect. It is not an enormous amount of money but it is important. It was clear that standards were not improving and it was a good initiative, from the State's point of view, to work with the association to raise safety standards and, hopefully, to get a payback on the roads in terms of drivers being more efficient and professional.
Has the Minister achieved those objectives? A recent "Prime Time" programme would indicate that he has not.
The road haulage industry is more professional now that it was a number of years ago.
Does the Minister accept the figures revealed on "Prime Time" with regard to the number of haulage companies that are breaking the law on speeding and the number of hours driven?
I agree with the Deputy that those figures are frightening and unacceptable.
What is the Minister doing about it?
My Department is doing a good deal about it. The national safety programmes that have been put in place have heightened people's awareness. Over 300,000 people are now on the penalty points roster. One cannot say that people are not being caught, because they are——
Is the inspectorate adequate?
The Deputy asked me a question and if she will refrain from interrupting, I will answer her.
I must inform Deputy Shortall that I am giving members some latitude but we agreed the manner in which business would be conducted at the beginning of this meeting. It was agree, for example, that there would be contributions from Opposition spokespersons and replies from the Minister. I ask that, within reason, we adhere to that arrangement.
Extra road haulage inspectors will be employed this year to deal with problems in that area. I do not have the exact figure in my possession but the inspectors will be dispersed throughout the country.
How many inspectors are there at present?
I will provide the Deputy with that figure in a moment.
The number of drivers who received penalty points was 232,000, as of the end of April 2005, and 15 have passed the 12 point threshold. However, I agree with Deputy Shortall that there are problems and I am not trying to say that the situation is satisfactory. We need to roll out more penalty points. I wish the systems required by the Garda Síochána were in place because I want to progress and add to the penalty point list. However, there is no point in doing that until a proper computer system is in place to process the system. We have dealt with this issue in the Dáil and everyone is agreed on that point.
The new traffic corps has been rolled out by the Garda Síochána and I want to see that brought up to full strength as soon as possible. It is frustrating for me because there are constitutional issues involved. I wish that was not the case. The most litigious area is related to the Road Traffic Acts. People go to the courts every week on the basis of those Acts. It is a constant problem. People will not behave correctly on the roads and Deputies are correct when they say that the entire problem stems from driver behaviour. People will either observe the law or they will not.
I was sitting in a car the other day, which was stopped because of roadworks. My car was approximately 27 vehicles from the front and I observed 12 vehicles going through a red light, which completely astonished me.
The Minister could do something about that if he so wished.
What can a Minister do about that? That is simply breaking the law and it involves blatant disregard for vehicles that may be travelling in the opposite direction.
The Minister is responsible for enforcing the law.
Drivers know that the law is not being enforced and that they are quite safe in breaking it.
I want to see the law enforced. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that we must have gardaí lined up at every set of roadworks throughout the country.
If there was one garda present, it might change the culture.
The Deputy should not bring the nanny State to a point where we have to mind people all over the place.
The Minister is trying every trick in the book. He is responsible for enforcing the law.
Yes, but people have a personal obligation. There were children——
The Minister has consistently failed to enforce the law regarding road safety.
The law will be enforced.
It is the Minister's responsibility. There is no point in him saying that he agrees with Deputy Olivia Mitchell and me. He is in Government, he is the Minister and he should be doing something about this problem.
I am not going to absolve people who break the law. There were children cycling——
The Minister should stop recounting this bleeding heart stuff.
I did not interrupt the Deputy at any stage but she has been rowing with me for the past 25 minutes. Every time I have opened my mouth, she has tried to attack me. I would appreciate the opportunity to answer the question.
I have said this twice and I will say it now for the last time. Deputy Shortall is out of order. We agreed the manner in which we would organise our business. The Deputy had an opportunity to put her questions, with plenty of time allowed. She should take time to pose her questions and then I will call on the Minister to respond. The Minister will respond and then, within reason, I will allow her to interject. However, I will stop and call this meeting to a conclusion immediately if she continues with her current behaviour.
With respect, this bleeding heart stuff will get us nowhere. The Minister is supposed to be responsible——
I am asking Deputy Shortall to stop now. I will ask the Minister to conclude on this point and we will move on to subhead C. I do not want any more interruptions.
I have to interrupt because my question about the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, was not answered. People find tolling unpalatable but it might be more acceptable to them if the money raised was going towards pensions. Why is the Minister not considering getting the agency involved in funding toll roads?
I understand that discussions are taking place but it is up to the NDFA to decide where to invest funds for future pensions. It is not for the Government to interfere with that.
It is a Government agency that has money and is seeking projects that will generate more money. We all know that tolls make money. Why are there no projects coming forward in which the agency can invest?
There are many projects.
Last year, the agency put aside €200 million for investment in public, private projects but it invested nothing. Why did that happen? We all know that tolls are the perfect long-term investment, which is exactly the kind of option a pension fund requires. It needs to invest in projects that have a steady, long-term payback and there is nothing more guaranteed in that regard than a toll road. However, only a limited number of toll roads will make money. The toll roads programme is being rolled out to the benefit of the private sector. Why not allow the State, and the pension fund in particular, to benefit from the toll roads programme?
The Deputy's point has been made. I ask the Minister to conclude the discussions on subhead B.
Discussions are taking place on that issue. I have no objections to the NDFA investing in roads but that is a matter for the agency, which, as the Deputy knows, is independent in its function. I would welcome investment in the roads programme if the agency chose to do so.
In response to Deputy Shortall's earlier question, the number of staff inspectors is nine and an additional six will be appointed this year.
That concludes our deliberations on subhead B. We now move to subhead C.
I have already referred to the abysmal level of public service subvention for public transport so I will not repeat the point.
As regards subhead C.2, the Minister mentioned that he is committed to a new regulatory framework. I have lost count of the number of Ministers who have referred to a new regulatory framework. At present, we have the worst of all possible worlds. There is no private sector involvement in providing bus services in Dublin, there is no competition and there are not enough buses. Neither the private nor the public sector has been given the buses that were promised under the national development plan.
It has been asserted that CIE must be broken up before we can have competition. Is such a break-up essential or is that just a red herring? It appears that the legislation to break up the company will never materialise and if we cannot have competition until CIE is broken up, then we will never have it. The situation in Dublin and in all other cities grows worse by the day as a result of the failure to make a decision on this matter.
The Dublin Transportation Office is allocated €40 million under subhead C.6. I do not know if the Minister has signed the order appointing local authority members to the advisory committee of the DTO yet. This is the most undemocratic body in the State. I cannot obtain any information about what it is doing. Parliamentary questions in respect of it are not answered. However, it is at least influencing very important decisions and it will spend €40 million this year.
I totally support the concept of a transportation office for Dublin but it cannot be an independent kingdom. Until recently, there were no local authority members on the board of the authority so we have no idea what it is doing. The Minister will not answer questions about it. We were told, when the Government reshuffle occurred, that the Minister for State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely, would have responsibility for Dublin traffic but he appears to be responsible for nothing. No question is ever answered by way of a reply to a parliamentary question about the Dublin Transportation Office or any major decisions that are being made.
These are national issues, even though they may come under the remit of Dublin City Council or the Dublin Transportation Office. For example, we have invested money in cycle lanes but during the period of that investment, the number of people cycling has decreased. Why has this issue not been revisited or is consideration being given to it?
We consider an Estimate each year and say that a figure has increased or decreased but the purpose of an investment and the use of a project, once it is actually delivered, are never investigated. We have all these cycle lanes taking up valuable road space and there are fewer cyclists. We must decide what we are going to do with regard to cycling. Do we want to encourage people to cycle and is it realistic to expect that we are going to do so? Should we continue this investment or change the nature of it?
Similarly, there are bus lanes being built all over Dublin. There are several such lanes in my constituency in which a bus has never travelled. There has been enormous investment in bus lanes in Dublin since the project commenced but the number of buses has not increased. However, we are building bus lanes that have no buses to fill them. Existing bus lanes have been filled with buses that have been taken off other routes. In order to feed these bus-hungry lanes, other areas are being deprived of services.
Dublin Corporation and the NRA are building the port tunnel. Regardless of the overrun and the total cost — this may ultimately amount to €1 billion — the tunnel may prove to be very good value. However, I do not know if the latter will prove to be the case. No decision has yet been made in respect of the management of the tunnel. Will HGVs be obliged to use the tunnel or will only those HGVs that can fit into it be obliged to so, while bigger vehicles will be allowed to use streets? It seems bizarre that we will allow heavier, less desirable trucks on to the streets and charge the others to use the tunnel.
It is critical that investment of this nature be used efficiently and effectively. However, nobody seems to be accountable or answerable. I cannot obtain an answer from the Minister or the Minister for State, Deputy Callely. Nobody is making information about decisions of that nature available. Where are such decisions being made or are they being made? If an enormous capital investment is made, surely its management becomes a national issue and those responsible should be answerable to us. My difficulty is that I do not know who is making many of these decisions. I would like the Minister to comment on that.
The section under subhead C.1 highlights the lack of attention paid to public transport. Only 14% of the overall transport budget is devoted to day to day public transport services. This is quite an indictment in the context of our supposed official policy of encouraging the use of public transport.
A total of €180 million is being provided in rail subsidies. Will the Minister indicate the breakdown between passenger and rail freight services? It seems that there is no existing policy with regard to rail freight services. This is unlike the position in many other European countries, which provide subsidies and incentives for companies to use such services. Does any of that €180 million apply to rail freight? What is the Minister's policy with regard to the promotion of rail freight? Is he considering a system of subsidies?
Regarding the subvention of the public bus companies, there is a 1.6% increase for Dublin Bus, which represents a very significant decrease in the subvention level, and 4.6% for Bus Éireann, which also represents a decrease in the subvention level. Will the Minister explain why he is reducing the investment in these services and what the term "unitary payments" means? These payments account for €14 million.
Under subhead C.2, the increase in public transport investment shows expenditure on public transport safety and development. Could the Minister explain the nature of that development? Will he provide a breakdown of the €27 million allocated to public transport projects?
Under subhead C.5, I wish to ask the Minister about the RPA, with which this committee has had many dealings over the years. Given that the two LUAS lines are now running, one has to ask why we are spending €12 million on the RPA? What is it doing to justify this allocation? As far as I am aware, the only thing the RPA does or has been requested to do is to introduce integrated ticketing, which is long awaited. Why is it taking five years to introduce integrated ticketing? That is quite extraordinary. Integrated ticketing has been standard practice for many years in every other European city. Why should it take us five years to introduce this most basic aspect of public transport services? What is the RPA doing with the €12 million it receives every year?
The Minister, without any interruption or barracking.
I thank Deputies for their questions. Deputy Shortall referred on a number of occasions to what she sees as the disparity between the total budget and what is spent on public transport and roads. Part of the reason for this is because of the huge amount of spending we are making on roads. We accepted that there was a major need for huge investment in the road infrastructure. Given that this massive investment, particularly in respect of major inter-urban roads, has been put in place, the proportion of what is being spent is high but this does not mean, in the context of 5% of total GDP being spent on transport infrastructure, that it is low by comparison. People must look at the overall spend in a European context if they are going to use these figures. Other European countries have the road networks, so they are clearly not making the same level of investment as us.
That is not to say that we have got it right. In the past, there was a huge underspend in public transport. There was hardly any investment in it for decades. We had to make an investment of the order of that which has been put in place before we could deliver the rolling stock. Practically every rail in the country has been taken up and new rails put down and the signalling system has been changed, at a cost of over €1 billion, in recent years.
The Government is determined to bring public transport very much back into the mainstream and the public transport budget has increased enormously in recent years in terms of investment. I see this issue in two ways. I have said publicly and, I believe, in the Dáil that the solution to Dublin's transport problems is not more roads. The solution definitely lies in public transport. The system of public transport — be it DART, intercity rail, LUAS extensions or possibly a metro — will be multi-modal. These issues are on the table and we have almost finalised our approach. Massive investment in Dublin and throughout the country will be required. I will enunciate the position for the Deputy in terms of a programme as well as a policy. I think she knows my views on that. I have already placed those views on the public record in the Dáil and I have reiterated them here and at other fora.
Regarding the breakdown of the figures, €94 million is being allocated for rail safety, €63 million is being allocated in respect of rolling stock, €1.1 million is being allocated for stations and over €60 million is being allocated for major upgrades. The latter are still ongoing. There is a further €23 million for other projects in that sphere.
Is there a subsidy on rail freight?
There is no subsidy on freight, as far as I am aware. We allocate the money to CIE but there is no subsidy on freight.
Has the Minister any intentions in that regard?
I was of the view that rail is a substantive method of delivering freight throughout the country. I am becoming less convinced of that the more I learn about the delivery of rail freight. Rail freight appears to work when there are great distances to travel but it does not work as well over short distances because of cost, both to the customer and others.
I attended a meeting on rail freight recently with representatives of business and of the haulage sector. It is a matter of public record that one of the key people from Norfolk Line, one of the major shipping lines, had persuaded Iarnród Éireann to put on a number of trains from the west to Waterford port. It is coincidental that I am from Waterford; that had nothing to do with it. At the meeting, he thanked Iarnród Éireann for putting the investment and trains in place but said, sadly, that none of his customers would use it. The reason appears to be that the cost to the customer of getting a container from the company yard, on to a train and then removing it from the train to the delivery point is colossal. It is cheaper to get a lorry to collect the container from the yard and deliver it. The representatives said it is a serious issue. The cost of delivering freight over short distances, as is the case generally in Ireland, is substantial.
That is not my final view on the rail system being used for freight. I would dearly like to see it used more but due to its cost, even when it is provided at a fair rate, the customer does not seem to want it. It involves too much movement. There is movement of goods from the company site to the rail site, there are often storage issues at the rail site while waiting for the train and when the train delivers the goods, there is the problem of getting them from that point on to a lorry and out again. These movements add huge costs. At a fraction of that cost, a lorry can collect the goods and deliver them to their destination. That is preferable to having four or five movements of the goods by using rail freight.
Rail freight is cost effective in Europe because the distances involved are so vast. The volumes are probably far higher too. I have discussed this with Iarnród Éireann. I am anxious to get more freight on to rail but the experience of the company I mentioned had a huge impact on me. This was a company that approached Iarnród Éireann and the latter did everything it wanted by putting on the extra manpower and trains but the customers did not want it.
There is a rumour that CIE is getting out of maritime container freight as well as internal rail freight. If that is true, it would be catastrophic. The Minister is correct that the handling costs of trains are much greater than the cost of road haulage. They are often only justified if the freight is being carried over greater distances. However, there is less handling and greater distances involved with maritime containers. It is true that road freight is probably cheaper to the customer but is it cheaper overall? There are external matters involved, such as environmental matters, the cost of road maintenance and the cost of road accidents, a large number of which are caused by HGVs. Can a case not be made for a subsidy for rail freight?
That is a valid question. It is probably the question Deputy Shortall wished to ask. I have given a response on the narrow cost but other issues are involved. It would be helpful to have an economic analysis conducted in a wider context, which deals with the matters raised by the Deputy. There is no doubt that, in environmental terms, we have a major problem. I am familiar with this after serving as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The growth in road traffic is contributing greatly, in terms of air pollution, to our problems under the Kyoto Protocol. There are other issues involved.
I cannot tell Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann or Dublin Bus to be as efficient and cost effective as possible and run their businesses well and, on the other hand, effectively tell them to subsidise business. That is unless there is a public policy to do it. However, I do not see why businesses that make vast profits should not pay the cost of moving their goods. There are some contradictions in the system. It depends on the objective one wishes to achieve. I would like rail to be used more for freight but I am not sure how to achieve that.
This is an important issue. Iarnród Éireann is put to the pin of its collar to maintain rail freight services. The problem is that there has been no analysis of this. The Minister spoke about the narrow cost to the operator but there are external costs, the biggest of which is probably road accidents. There are also environmental, social and road maintenance costs. We are spending vast amounts of money subsidising road freight by pursuing the motorway programme so strongly. Is it not time an analysis was conducted which took account of the actual cost?
Where this has been considered in Europe, governments have provided tax incentives to operators to use rail rather than road freight because of the huge external cost to the state. The Minister must take a broad view of this. There is a job to be done on this in terms of making the calculation and seeing the extent to which the taxpayer is already subsidising private hauliers by building these big expensive roads.
We must be careful in this area. At one level the Deputy's comments have merit but it will be an interesting when a Government decides to subsidise the private sector in moving its freight. Notwithstanding the merits of the issues——
It is already doing that.
——most of the motorways will be tolled so businesses will pay for moving their freight on them. Many of the new bypasses of the large cities, such as Waterford and Limerick, will also be tolled. There is already tolling in place on some roads. A balance must be struck but I am loath to take the option of effectively subsidising the private sector to move its goods.
Most other EU states do it.
Not necessarily. I accept that there is some subsidy but the volumes involved are vastly different from the volumes carried in this country and they are carried over great distances. There is inter-country carriage of goods across the Continent. It is a vastly different context and concept from what happens here.
Will the Minister conduct the analysis?
I have had a number of discussions on this subject. The analysis presented to me in those discussions does not paint the picture I would like to see in terms of the ability of rail freight to deliver, unless one pays an exorbitant cost or subsidises it. When one should begin to take exorbitant amounts of money from the Exchequer to subsidise private companies to deliver freight as opposed to putting that money into health and education is a serious question.
It might be a better investment than penalties under Kyoto.
We will move to subheads D.1 to D.5.
I asked a question about the RPA.
I have had numerous meetings with the RPA. It is one of the organisations with which I have been heavily engaged. It is working at present on a roll-out programme for the Luas. It is a real test when private sector people tell me how wonderful facilities are and how much they want to invest in them. I wish they would come to a conclusion about some of the possible extensions of the Luas line. I am not seeking all the cost from the private sector. Even 50% of the cost or a fair share of investment would secure that roll out. I have urged that these negotiations be brought to a conclusion so that we can proceed and put more facilities in place.
It also has substantial planning in place and has been working on a number of other projects which I hope will feature in the ten-year envelope.
That does not sound like €12 million worth this year. It is an extraordinary figure.
There should be no more interruptions on this matter.
I am talking about integrated ticketing.
I indicated to the Deputy I was not allowing any more questions.
l already asked about integrated ticketing. I did not receive an answer.
I indicated to the Deputy I was not allowing any more interruptions because she abused the latitude she was given.
The Minister is prepared to answer.
That is the end of the matter. We are moving on to——
What about integrated ticketing?
The Deputy is out of order. She abused the latitude she was given earlier. I am not allowing it any longer.
The Minister is prepared to reply.
We move to subheads D.1 to D.5. I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
I accept that I left the meeting for two minutes but none of my questions under subhead C were answered or even mentioned.
I cannot legislate for the answers given.
I did not get any answers.
I am in the hands of the Chair. I have tried to answer the questions. I think all Deputies——
I did not get any answers at all.
I cannot legislate for the content of what the Minister says.
My point is he did not say anything.
I answered all the questions.
We have spent 20 to 25 minutes on this subhead alone.
That was to answer Deputy Shortall's questions. There seems to be no point in my asking questions.
To what question does the Deputy refer? I am not trying to avoid her question.
I am sorry. The Minister has been in dialogue with Deputy Shortall since 2.30 p.m. I am leaving now.
We move on to the next subhead. I must inform Deputy Shortall that this is what happens when she abuses the privilege she has been given, when she is unruly and disorderly and when she barracks others. She is completely disorderly in this committee, not just on this occasion but on a regular basis. She abuses guests and those invited to come before the committee. That is why the committee descends into being probably the most disorderly committee in the Oireachtas. I will leave it at that.
The Vice Chairman will not run me out of this committee.
I will not run the Deputy out. She is entitled to ask her questions.
Fianna Fáil does not own the Dáil committees.
We organise our business-——
Fianna Fáil does not own the Dáil committees. The rest of us are entitled to ask questions.
We do not own the committees but we organise them by rules. The Deputy regularly abuses the rules. It will not happen any longer. She is entitled to ask a question on subhead D.1 to D.5.
On subhead D.3, overflights of foreign aircraft have cost the State €4 million in the current year. People sometimes talk about this figure as if it is an income foregone. It is not. It is a real cost to the Irish Aviation Authority, which recoups that cost from the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport's budget is, therefore, reduced by €4 million every year because we are paying for foreign, mainly American, military flights over this country. What is the justification for this? Does the Minister intend to continue with the current policy of subsidising the US military effort?
It is part of an international agreement and the Government and I have no difficulty with it. It is a service we provide, as a country, and we are happy to do so. As part of that agreement, Irish administered airspace covers 135,000 square miles, 32,000 square miles of which comprise sovereign airspace.
Under a Eurocontrol multilateral agreement, to which Ireland is a party, various categories of flights — flights under visual flight rules, flights performed by small aircraft, flights performed for the transport of heads of state and search and rescue flights — are exempt from paying en route charges. In the case of other categories — military flights, training flights, flights performed to test air navigation equipment and circular flights — the State has the option to exempt such flights from payment of the en route charge. In common with most Eurocontrol member states, Ireland exempts all such flights, including military flights of member states of Eurocontrol, the United States and Canada from payment of the en route charge.
This agreement has applied since Ireland joined the Eurocontrol en route charging system in the early 1970s. As a result of it, IAA costs in regard to military flights are met from the Department’s Vote. That has been the case under all Governments, including Governments in which the Deputy’s party served.
There was not the same level of activity. Why are we not doing what other neutral counties do in terms of billing the US?
The Minister has replied.
What was the Deputy's question?
Other neutral countries, for example, Finland and Austria, bill the US for overflights. Why does Ireland not do the same?
From information received from Eurocontrol, it is understood that Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Moldova do not at present grant exempted status to US military flights. However, my Department understands that invoices issued for the above by these states to the US authorities in respect of military flights have never been paid. They can issue bills but they will not be paid. Effectively, they are part of an international agreement. They may issue bills for the optics within their own markets but they do not pursue the charges.
We move on to subheads E.1 to E.4.
Under subhead E.2, the Estimate provides for a €78 million spend on the assumption that the National Standards Association of Ireland, NSAI, will formally assume responsibility for monitoring and approval of tachograph workshops from mid-2005. Is it still expected that this date will be met? Will the NSAI take over full responsibility or will some responsibility remain with the inspectors of the Department? If there is any delay, what does the Minister expect will happen with any savings which accrue to the Department?
I understand that the target date will be met.
So the takeover will occur in July or August.
So I am told.
Are there any further questions? If not, that concludes the select committee's consideration of the revised Estimate for Vote 32 — Transport — for the year ending 31 December 2005. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting and for dealing with the issues. I regret the fact Deputy Olivia Mitchell had to leave but it does not surprise me.
It did not surprise anybody in the room
I did my best to try to deal with the questions
To be fair, the Minister did that.
I am in a minority of one against the Fianna Fáil Party.