I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and his officials. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Supplementary Estimate to Vote 32. A proposed timetable has been circulated to all members and it allows for an opening statement by the Minister and Opposition spokespersons, followed by an open discussion in the form of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Vote 32 — Transport (Supplementary).
This year, my Department requires a net technical Supplementary Estimate of €1,000. This has arisen because of a requirement to re-allocate funding within my Department's Vote. As the amounts being reallocated in some instances could be considered large in comparison to the original provision in the subheads, best practice in public financial procedures recommends that a technical Supplementary Estimate be sought. Where the transfer is not excessive relative to the original provision, virement is the mechanism used.
The gross requirement of the Supplementary Estimate is €116.463 million. This figure is offset by savings of €116.462 million, leaving a net requirement of €1,000. The additional funding is required for Aer Lingus IPO costs and road improvements. The savings arise in the areas of public service provision payments; the public transport investment programme; and
regional airports. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these items and explain the requirement to members.
The Aer Lingus flotation is a milestone event for the economy and for the company and its workers. The Government's overarching objective has always been to provide the company with access to new equity to enable it to compete effectively and fund the growth of its business. Through the IPO, the company now has new equity of the order of €500 million, which provides it with a unique opportunity to pursue its expansion-based business strategy.
To facilitate the Aer Lingus IPO, consultants were appointed, following a competitive tender process, to provide financial advice and assistance regarding the transaction. The total cost of these consultants amounted to €6,463,000.
In response to emerging expenditure trends during the year, which showed accelerated expenditure on the road improvement and maintenance programmes and under expenditure on the pubic transport investment and regional airports programmes, the Department sought to maximise the funding available in the transport Vote as a whole under the multi-annual capital budget framework by obtaining Department of Finance approval to vire moneys between the relevant programmes.
In late October 2006, €110 million was vired into the roads improvement and maintenance subhead, comprising €101.3 million from the public transport investment programme subhead and €8.7 million from the regional airports subhead. This additional funding of €110 million will allow more progress to be made on the major interurban motorway programme, that is, the major roads linking Dublin to Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford and the Border. Additional moneys were assigned to accelerate the construction work on certain schemes — the N8 Cashel to Mitchelstown scheme was able to move forward at a much faster construction rate than would have been possible without the additional funding. The dividend from this extra allocation will be earlier completions on certain schemes.
In addition, land acquisition was accelerated on a number of MIU projects. The additional expenditure on land acquisition this year reduces the amount of land payments required on projects in later years and should facilitate the projects associated with this land purchase because they will be in a better position to begin timely construction.
The accelerated spending in 2006 should mean that the overall benefits of the roads programme — congestion relief, shorter and more certain journey times, safer roads, etc. — will also be delivered at a quicker pace than heretofore. It should also facilitate the continuation of the recent welcome trend of road projects coming in on or ahead of time and within budget.
It is proposed to meet the cost of the Aer Lingus IPO from savings on the subvention to the CIE companies. A portion of this provision was not drawn down as it related to the subvention for additional buses which were not approved until late September and consequently will not enter service until 2007, although some of the additional buses for Dublin will enter into service in December. The funding for these additional buses was linked to the issue of market reform. This was dealt with in September when the Government approved my proposals for the regulation of the bus market in the greater Dublin area and agreed to replace the Road Transport Act 1932. I had hoped these proposals would have been approved earlier and that the new buses would have been fully in service this year. Unfortunately, this did not happen. As a consequence, the subvention needed arising from the purchase of the additional buses was not required. Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are now working to ensure the buses will be delivered and brought into service as quickly as possible.
The underspend on the public transport investment programme arose because a number of public transport projects such as the Luas extension to Cherrywood and the Docklands and the Iarnród Éireann Kildare project are still at the railway order stage. At the beginning of the year it was anticipated the order process would have been concluded and that construction would have commenced with a consequent drawdown of Exchequer funding. Unfortunately, the railway order processes have not proceeded at the expected rate and construction is unlikely to commence before 2007. In addition, the announcement of approval for the western railway corridor was delayed, while the rate of development of quality bus corridor programme has been slower than anticipated. This has resulted in an expected reduction of €101.3 million in the requirement under subhead C2.
To ensure the capital expenditure on regional airports was in compliance with mandatory EU guidelines published in December 2005, it was necessary to devise a new capital expenditure scheme. Following discussions with the European Commission, the new scheme was launched in June. Projects submitted by the airports under the new scheme, including a number of NDP projects which had previously been approved in principle, are being assessed and it is expected that allocations will be announced shortly. Accordingly, the level of expenditure originally anticipated for this year under the NDP did not materialise.
The Minister is right; the amount in the Supplementary Estimate is small but there has been a huge switch in expenditure. It is good that we have multi-annual budgeting and can switch between programmes and projects. There is a coincidence, however, between the overspend in one programme and the underspend in another. Nevertheless, it is welcome that it is possible.
This highlights an issue I have mentioned before. It is great that the roads programme is being advanced and that money can be put into land acquisition, saving money in the future. While the roads programme is progressing, however, investment in public transport shows slippage just a year into Transport 21 and that will multiply. What is causing the delays? The joining of the two Luas lines, BX1, is one of the most deliverable projects relative to the metro but it appears it is on the backburner. In the new year another consultation process will take place. Therefore, it will be two years before the detailed design stage is reached, never mind putting a shovel in the ground.
Is there a need to put the foot back on the throttle of public transport projects such as the Cork commuter line, work on which was supposed to start last year but has yet to commence? It is worrying that major projects are slipping at such an early stage, before they even reach design phase. There are sensitive issues involved but there is a need for political will to push them rather than let them sit and negotiate in the hope problems will go away if we do not push too hard. We must keep the foot on the throttle.
The Minister mentioned that road projects could be accelerated with the acquisition of land in advance of it being needed, a welcome development. What does "accelerating" road projects mean? Is the project brought forward, proceeding earlier than it would otherwise, or has the contract been changed in some way to make it faster?
It is brought forward. We were able to do this because we had switched moneys over and started the programme earlier than we thought possible and kept up the pace.
Therefore, the project had started and key phases were provided for earlier?
Yes. I welcome the Deputy's comment. In a programme of this size and from my experience of talking to others internationally who are trying to reach where we are, the ability to move will become a common feature. There is no question that there will be a lot of switching as we move forward on a capital programme of this size and scale.
There is an issue with one household on the Cherrywood project. I reviewed the situation to see how we might resolve it. A judicial review has been sought by those involved. We must go through due process.
I was referring to the joining of the Luas lines.
The BX1 line project is frustrating but there are differing views among the planners in Dublin City Council, Dublin Bus, a competitor and the Railway Procurement Agency which wants to build the line. Dublin City Council's view is central on this issue because it is the planning authority. The route via Dawson Street and Trinity College is problematic because it is a busy bus corridor but can be accommodated. It is an excellent one and I hope the three statutory bodies will soon conclude their deliberations. The change in city manager also had an impact, with different views taken on the matter.
Dublin City Council has been talking about building the Macken Street bridge for years. If that had been done, the argument would not be taking place. It is time for this Minister, or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to start applying pressure. I would not like this to wander on for another year. It went to public consultation at the end of 2005 and we are heading into 2007 now and we still have no result.
Unfortunately we are subject to legal statutory processes in which the public and the local authorities are entitled to be involved. I urge them strongly to come to a conclusion. The funding is in place and there is a public demand to join the two Luas lines which will add between 7 and 8 million passenger journeys per annum. The Rail Procurement Agency, Dublin City Council and Dublin Bus are discussing some interesting alignments with the metro, rather than simply joining the two Luas lines. Now that the metro north route has been selected these positive developments could add greatly to the system in ways that did not appear in the original proposal.
It took me an hour and 20 minutes to come to work this morning and I live five miles from here. I was travelling at a rate of one mile per 16 minutes, or less than four miles an hour. I am lucky that I live only five miles away. Many people travel 25 or 30 miles or more into the centre of Dublin and are stuck in traffic for long parts of the day. It is not unusual for several thousand people to travel for over three hours per day, or 15 hours a week but that kind of lifestyle is not sustainable.
While the Minister is not entirely responsible for that, his Government's policies on housing are. An increasing number of people are getting up at 6 a.m., leaving children into care at 7 a.m. or 7.30 a.m. and return home at 8 p.m. That is no life. Through its housing policies and the absence of planning for land use and transport the Government is forcing people to live that kind of gruelling lifestyle with very little prospect of improvement in the short to medium term.
This Supplementary Estimate, which rejigs the spending, reflects the priorities of the Minister for Transport and is an indictment of the Minister's performance. Every morning there are queues at every bus stop in Dublin and the greater Dublin area and again in the evening in the city centre. Buses turn away many because there is not enough space or capacity in the system.
The Deputy should get on to her councillors to spend money on the bus lanes, etc. instead of giving out to me about it.
The Minister has known about this for a long time. I do not know if the Minister thinks he can ignore this serious problem because he does not live permanently in the Dublin area or because neither he nor his Minister of State is answerable to voters here. It is all very well to launch a grandiose plan worth €34 billion called Transport 21 but we will not see any major improvement around Dublin for the next eight to ten years. People need relief now because increasingly they are at the ends of their tethers——
What does the Deputy propose to do?
——trying to get in and out of work every day because of the Minister's utter failure to provide an adequate transport service. It is not much consolation to them to hear about glossy plans for eight to ten years' time when it seems that the Minister has no strategy for dealing with transport shortages in the short to medium term.
The Minister hopes to get some kind of bang out of Transport 21 just as he did with Platform for Change, but there is no reason to have any confidence——
We are dealing with a specific Estimate.
I know and that is what I am dealing with.
The Deputy is dealing with a global situation, not the Estimate.
I am dealing with that, if the Chairman will allow me to continue.
People want something now, this year, next year and for the next five to ten years. They will not wait around for Transport 21. The Minister had €100 million at his disposal this year which he could have spent on public transport but he has chosen not to do that and instead is transferring that money to the roads programme. For that money he could have purchased 330 buses this year which would have made a considerable difference to the lives of many thousands of people.
A great deal can be done in the short to medium term. In the past five years the Minister has increased the Dublin Bus fleet by 20 buses, when the economy was growing, more people were in employment, the population was growing and more people were travelling longer distances to work. The Minister's contribution to public transport was a mere 20 buses in the greater Dublin area. That is a pathetic performance.
That is utterly wrong.
It is not wrong.
It is the usual nonsense I must constantly listen to from the Deputy.
Will the Minister allow me to continue? I know he does not like listening to me.
I will not allow the Deputy to put incorrect information on the record. The Deputy is wrong.
The Minister does not like listening to this because it is embarrassing and an indictment of his pathetic performance in respect of bus services.
So much for the nonsense the Labour Party has to offer when it comes to public transport or any investment in transport.
In 2001 there were 1,000——
The first thing we must do is deal with the Estimate and the political spat should be left aside.
I am dealing with the Estimate and if the Minister would stop interrupting, I would be able to finish my contribution.
If the Deputy would listen to the Chair for two seconds, I might try to allow her to make her statement, but I want her to allow the Minister to give an uninterrupted reply. The Deputy is using up her own time by fighting with the Chair.
The Minister was interrupting.
Deputy Shortall has four minutes of her time slot left.
May I speak without interruption?
Yes.
Since 2001 the Minister has provided a mere 20 additional buses to Dublin Bus. That is why there is gridlock and why people spend so much time on the road every day. That performance is pathetic. The Minister had €100 million which he could have spent on buses. We could have had the orbital routes, which are so badly needed in the Dublin area, and enabled thousands of people to take the option of public transport instead of sitting in gridlock in their cars at significant social and financial expense to themselves.
The Minister chose not to do that. Instead, he got hung up on the question of opening up the bus market. Now there is a fudge proposal on that with no indication of when there will be legislation to provide a regulator. The likelihood is that we will spend a considerable amount of the transport budget on expensive regulation. There is no proposal on the table for licensing laws. They will not be presented until late 2007 when the 1932 Act will be updated. That is a very poor performance in respect of public transport.
The Deputy has one minute left.
Thank you. There has been no progress on park and ride facilities although it makes eminent sense and we have talked about it for 20 years.
The Deputy and her colleagues should get off their backsides and stop bloody well coming in here and talking through their hats as usual.
Would the Minister please allow the Deputy to speak?
I will be looking for two minutes at the end of this interruption.
The Deputy will get 30 seconds.
I am looking for two minutes.
The Deputy only has 30 seconds left.
Well then I will heckle the Minister.
I do not mind giving anyone time.
The Deputy's job is to chair this meeting fairly, not to protect the Minister.
I do my job fairly and do not protect anyone. Deputy Shortall's job as a spokesperson is not to hassle everyone.
Does the Minister realise that less than 50% of the length of the existing QBCs has any bus priority? We are told the Blanchardstown route, for example, is a QBC but less than 30% of it has any bus priority. The Estimates reflect the Minister's skewed priorities for which the public is paying the price in a serious deterioration in quality of life.
In subhead C2, the public transport investment programme, there was a reduction of €101.3 million. That is a substantial amount of money which I assume was to be invested in rail projects but, for whatever reason, could not be spent this year.
The delay in the Cherrywood rail project makes up for the bulk of the reduction.
On a point of order, how do we intend to proceed? We have a timetable. Are we going to follow it?
We have to stick to that timetable. It was arranged there would be an opening statement, then a questions and answers session.
I am asking whether we are going through it section by section or having a general question session.
It was agreed that it would be a general session. That was circulated and the Deputy agreed to it.
I am only asking. The Chairman does not have to jump down my throat.
Why is the Cherrywood project behind time? Some of that funding was intended for the western rail corridor for which we have been waiting 20 years. When it was finally announced, we were under the impression all guns were to be blazing for the project. If money was made available for it, why was it not matched with the procedure on the ground?
Since 1997, 995 new buses have been given to Dublin Bus. Of that, 186 buses were additional. For Deputy Shortall's information, the NDP for 2000 to 2006 forecasted 275 new buses for Dublin Bus but it came to 213. It forecasted 500 replacement buses which actually came to 517. That is a total of 730 as against a forecast of 775. Additional to that is an extra 100 buses. More has been given than was budgeted for or forecasted under the NDP. Those figures demolish the Labour Party's and Deputy Shortall's constant harping on about policy being made up on the hoof. I reject her argument on investment in public transport in Dublin. She and the Labour Party will never offer a viable public transport model because they are incapable of coming up with an original thought on investment in public transport or the roads programme.
Public transport in Dublin has been greatly transformed. I will give an example to Deputy Shortall. Some 26 million passengers will use Luas this year. The Luas project was rubbished from start to finish by the Labour Party. The party seems to be somehow unable to get over the fact that Luas has delivered. The Government is committed to investment in public transport in Dublin and across the State. Everyone can see on a daily basis the transformation of our transport network on a scale that is unprecedented in the modern world. I say that with confidence having visited many other countries investing in public transport infrastructure.
It takes longer to get through Dublin city today than it did two years ago.
I have some information on park-and-ride facilities for Deputy Shortall which she might give to Labour Party councillors. In 2006, I provided €5 million for park-and-ride facilities for the greater Dublin area. Does Deputy Shortall know how much of that the councils drew down? Not €1. Thanks to people in the Labour Party, who are in control of councils in the greater Dublin area, not €1 was deemed necessary for park-and-ride facilities. The Deputy should not come into the committee to shout at me on my ability to deliver in Dublin. There is an abject failure by the local authority system in the greater Dublin area to draw down €1 for park-and-ride facilities. We will deal with the facts as opposed to the usual nonsense Deputy Shortall puts out.
I accept there are delays in the Cherrywood project. There are statutory processes involved in which the public and the various bodies are entitled to partake. A judicial review has been called by one individual. I am not criticising the individual concerned as I understand the issue and examined it when I was approving the railway order. We hope the review will be completed in due course. It will not affect the completion dates for that project.
Work on the western rail corridor has begun. There were some issues with regard to local authorities, particularly with better land-use planning. Iarnród Éireann has engaged the various parties required to complete the project. It took a bit more time than was originally envisaged.
I hope the Minister is not blaming the county councils for that delay.
I am not blaming them. I am acknowledging a range of players must be involved in getting a rail project right. The Government is committed to the western rail corridor. In the past 25 years no transport Minister, including Opposition ones, committed to the western rail corridor. I did because I believe in strengthening the regions. I have constantly said that investment in Dublin is not just for the people of Dublin but benefits the whole of the country. We should all be proud of this country.
I want to make it clear to the Minister that his is not the only party that wanted to build the western rail corridor.
No, but I am the only Minister who has provided the commitment and money to do it.
The Minister is in situ.
I am very pleased that those involved in the campaign for the western rail corridor have acknowledged the commitment I made.
It took the Government a long time to do it.
Deputy Connaughton, order please.
For the benefit of some Deputies who do not appear to understand the scale of capital infrastructure whether in the private or the public sector, I reiterate that we brought to Government with the Minister for Finance a much more imaginative way of maximising in every year, the use of the money provided, in spite of some shortcomings that arise due to different processes that are statutorily based and which impact on ability to deliver projects. However, if any Deputy suggests that I simply should have handed the money back and not sought to use it, that is a different argument to which I do not subscribe. My job and that of the Government is simple; it is about delivery and I will continue to deliver.
Who suggested that the Minister should send it back?
I was not referring to the Deputy.
I am glad he was not.
I refer to the point the Minister made on park and ride. About two weeks ago the public representatives, including Deputy Shortall, had a meeting with the manager of Dublin City Council. With regard to park and ride, particularly as regards the north side of Dublin where sites are available, I asked the person in charge what sites had been located. He said none had been located and he did not know of any that were available. I asked whether he was aware that there was funding available from the Government and he said that was the first he had heard of it. Then he said it was a matter for Iarnród Éireann and had nothing to do with local authorities. I was amazed when the local authority official told the meeting which was well-attended, and included Members of the Oireachtas, that he was not aware funding was available. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, too, informed us that there was 100% funding available, which has not been utilised. It begs the question as to whether the information is being communicated properly. Why do they not know? I am amazed that local authorities are not aware of this and it concurs with what the Minister has just indicated.
They were contacted and are fully aware of this.
I just want to make the Minister aware of the reply we got. Deputy Shortall was sitting beside me when I asked the question.
I know that, and it is very disappointing.
As regards the transfer of €110 million, I see it is being allocated for urban routes. Is that correct?
The NRA used it in purchasing a good deal of land in advance of some of the projects. That obviously brings about savings as we go forward. It was able to commence some sections in advance. In particular, the Cashel to Mitchelstown section commenced ahead of schedule because we shifted money to do that.
The figure is €110 million. Would it not have been an option to bring forward some of the major road programmes that are necessary and urgent, such as the N24, the Tipperary town bypass and the Carrick-on-Suir town bypass? As the Minister well knows, that route is a key to both social and economic development right across the south of the country, particularly through south Tipperary into Waterford.
It is a route to which I am very committed.
Mr. Barry was before the committee last week and told us that route will not be constructed before 2015. That is a long time away. The Tipperary town bypass is crucially important for west Tipperary. I suggested to Mr. Barry that if funds become available, as they have, it might be possible to start some of those key projects. Deputy Connaughton talked about the M16 and M17 as well. I am really asking what commitment there is for those N24 routes. Will we have to wait until 2015 and 2016, as Mr. Barry told us last week?
The €110 million transferred would not even buy the land to do the route. The costs of purchasing land and the statutory processes do not allow that type of money to make a difference in terms of a significant road project. I am well aware of the N24, and I am anxious to speed up that process. I have been looking at it, as has the NRA, in terms of getting as much done in terms of the design, the completion of planning and the CPO process, which are quite lengthy and involved processes. However, the N24 — which I agree is a key route — effectively from Limerick to Rosslare is provided for in Transport 21 and it will be delivered. There is no question about that.
It will be 2015, however.
The Deputy might let me finish, because his area is benefiting as much as every other region throughout the country from what is happening at the moment.
I acknowledge last week to Mr. Barry, as I do now, that the N8 programme and the Cahir bypass were crucial and I welcome that work. However, the N24 is a very important route.
I am just making the point to the Deputy that we want to complete the five major inter-urban routes as quickly as possible, which I believe to be the right decision. The pace at which we were doing those projects was too slow. I would like to do more. My budget for roads this year and next is more than €1.5 billion. An extra €500 million will come in through PPPs, bringing it to more than €2 billion. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the local authorities will certainly spend up to €1 billion on roads as well. That is unprecedented spending, and while I agree that we cannot solve all the problems overnight, we certainly need to move at a pace that will ensure we get through this entire problem and resolve the issues raised here this morning. I acknowledge the importance of the N24, which has advanced a good deal. I hope to see further advancement of the N24 next year as it passes through the relevant processes.
An opportunity is being lost. No one expects the N24 to be built tomorrow, obviously, but there was an opportunity to bring the project into the current phase so that at least it could commence.
It is on standby——
It will be after 2010.
It is a standby project in the period 2007-10. That is as soon as I can do it.
Mr. Barry told us there was no question of it starting before 2010. It is not even a priority after that. I am asking the Minister to look at it again and see whether it is at all possible to bring that project even into the final phases, up to 2010.
We shall await the roads programme for next year, and I believe the Deputy might be happy.
Can that be taken as a commitment?
The Deputy can take it at face value. I believe he will be happy when he sees the roads programme for next year.
I want to come back to the issue of the number of buses. The Minister has been doing his usual trick of spinning the number, including replacement buses. I am talking about the number of buses in the fleet. It is standard practice that buses are replaced after a number of years with more modern vehicles. The important figure for commuters is the actual number of buses in the fleet at any time. The figures, as provided by the Minister in replies to parliamentary questions, show that at the end of 2001 the Dublin Bus fleet was 1,062. That figure was static throughout 2002-04. At the end of 2005 it rose by 20 to 1,082 and it remains at the figure at the end of 2006. I repeat the assertion I made 20 minutes ago to the effect that between 2001 and 2006 the Dublin Bus fleet grew by a mere 20 buses. That, by any standard, is a serious indictment of Deputy Cullen's performance as Minister for Transport.
Regardless of how the figures are added, it is 213 additional buses.
May I finish my contribution? That is the situation, a mere 20 buses in the past five years. I am concerned about the comment on this briefing document. I do not know who wrote it, but it outlines the reason the underspend is linked to the issue of market reform. The Minister has been speaking about that issue for the past three years and his predecessor spoke about it for two years. It states here that it was hoped these proposals would have been approved earlier and that the new buses would have been fully in service this year. It also states that as this did not happen, the provision of these additional buses was not required. I do not know who wrote this nonsense that the provision of additional buses was not required. The Minister should try telling that to any of the thousands of people standing in the cold and rain, waiting for buses that do not come.
The Deputy should read what I said in plain English. The Deputy did not quote me as saying that the buses were not required. I said that because of what happened, the provision for the buses was not required. Can she read the plain English? She is a past masterat being disingenuous.
I think if the Minister and Deputy Shortall took things a little easier, they might get their points across.
The Minister stated that over the course of the national development plan, the Government promised 275 buses to Dublin Bus. These buses were to be delivered before the end of 2006. Only 93 of those were delivered.
It was 213.
This leaves a balance of 182 buses which were not delivered until the promise of the 20 buses was made as well as some vague promise of 100 buses next year. The Minister delayed providing those extra buses throughout the year.
We are in a questions and answers session, not in a session of statements.
I think we need to get a blackboard in here.
I know Deputy Brady does not like hearing about it because his constituents are very angry. He should put his time into getting the Minister to deliver for his constituents.
Deputy Shortall is not being helpful to the Chair, to the Minister or to other committee members. We are now in a questions and answers session. Deputy Brady and Deputy Connaughton have intimated that they would like to ask questions, but Deputy Shortall is making statements instead of putting questions. It has been agreed that this session would be for questions and answers.
The Minister misled the committee. It is important to get the record straight.
I did not. The Deputy cannot make such a statement.
That has to be withdrawn. The Minister made his statement. If the figures do not agree, I am not responsible for that but the Deputy cannot accuse anybody of misleading the committee. The figures the Minister cited came from his Department. If they do not tally with the Deputy's figures, I cannot do anything about that. The Deputy can put down a parliamentary question and get the exact figure.
I am quoting from the answers to parliamentary questions when I am using these figures.
If that is the case, you should put down the question again and ask whether you were mislead the first time. I call on Deputy Connaughton.
I have questions to ask. I have a right to correct the record if the Minister misleads us.
It is Deputy Connaughton's turn to ask questions.
I am quoting from figures the Minister gave in replies to parliamentary questions.
I call on Deputy Connaughton and then I will allow Deputy Shortall back in.
No. This is my first round of questions.
It is the Deputy's third round of questions.
It is my first round and I want to be allowed to finish.
If the Deputy has a direct question, she may ask it, but that is it.
I want to ask the Minister about the underspend on public transport. He stated that the Kildare route project has been delayed. Can he explain why he has not signed the railway order?
I signed it.
May I finish please?
I was just trying to be helpful. It is just signed.
Why does he state that it is unlikely to begin before 2007?
I state that because today is 6 December 2006, Jesus Christ Almighty.
May I finish without that kind of abusive comment?
There was no abuse.
I heard it. I am not sure if the Chairman did.
The Deputy may continue.
Can the Minister explain why the western rail corridor is delayed? The Minister also stated that the rate of development of the quality bus corridor programme has been slower than anticipated. Why is that? What action is he taking to ensure the quality bus corridors are completed?
Will I get another round of questions or will I ask them all now?
I call Deputy Connaughton. Deputy Shortall said she had two questions and she has put two.
I said that I had three questions on public transport.
Other Deputies are entitled to their chance. We have a time constraint, so I am calling Deputy Connaughton.
Everybody should be allowed to ask all their questions.
I do not dispute that, but everybody is entitled to get a fair run of questions. It is now Deputy Connaughton's turn.
I have a question on the rural transport initiative, for which I have great time. Why does it take so long to expand it around the country? I understand all about the pilot project and so on, but if I was in the Minister's shoes, I would be very dissatisfied with the expansion of it. Everybody understands that it is working very well and it is of great use to people that have no bus routes and are too old to drive a car. Some of the Leader groups have tried to expand this across County Galway. Why has it taken so long? Why has it not been rolled out across rural Ireland much quicker? There is no shortage of funding but there is a shortage in service.
I am glad the Deputy mentioned the rural transport initiative because I have given a great commitment to that project. I have been in this Department for two years and not three, as Deputy Shortall intimated. We cannot count when we do not know the difference between two and three. When I came into the Department, the budget for the rural transport initiative was €3 million. Next year it will be €9 million, so this has nothing to do with a lack of funding. I met the different groups and they are very happy with the resources given to them. They want me to mainstream the project, which I have since done and it will be mainstreamed from next year. The pilot phase is now over.
It is a matter for each group to look at the needs in their own local areas and expand them if necessary. There are extra resources available to do that. I do not want to comment on any specific area, but I note that where there is a good relationship between those running the rural transport initiative and the local authority, the administrative costs are very low. Therefore, almost all of the money provided is being used to provide the services. However, there are some areas where the administrative costs are extraordinarily high by comparison and this is because they have been set up on an independent basis with headquarters and offices and so on. The groups need a good working relationship with the local authority, which should provide the offices to manage the scheme. This clearly results in a greater delivery of services because most of the resources will go into the rural transport initiative.
Following discussions with the rural transport representative groups, I can say that there is nothing I have not done that I have been asked to do. They feel I have done much more than expected. I hope they will use the resources wisely next year. The budget was €5.1 million for 2006, which will be raised to €9 million next year. That is a major increase in the budget. The resources are available for a capacity expansion next year. Perhaps the rural transport initiative groups will consider this and make submissions for increased capacity and services. I agree that the initiative has transformed the lives of people who were housebound in isolated rural areas and did not have access to the transport facilities they needed to get into town.
As I am not in a position to question the Minister's answer, I will take it in good faith. However, wherever he is getting his information, one part of north County Galway is not likely to have the benefit of the rural transport initiative for the next two or three years. That cannot be right.
No. I am very surprised to hear that. Given the increase in resources, almost doubling the budget——
But from a very low level, as the Minister knows. One does not get much value for €1 million nowadays.
If one talks to those involved, the number using the rural transport initiative is significant, although I do not have the figures in front of me. We must put the matter in context. It provides services where none was available. It is very much a door-to-door service, an extraordinary contribution to the quality of people's lives, as acknowledged by them. I will check on the situation in north County Galway and try to find the information for the Deputy. If there is a particular issue of which I am not aware — perhaps there is — I will come back to him on it.
The NDP forecast for the period 2000 to 2006 was that we would buy 275 new buses for Dublin Bus. The figure achieved is 213. We stated we would have 500 replacement buses. The figure achieved is 517. Therefore, the total forecast was 775. The actual total is 730. I have agreed on a figure of 100 additional buses, which will put us ahead of the NDP forecast.
There is a point that Deputy Shortall constantly wants to ignore, namely, many of the vehicles that were replaced in Dublin were small, single-decker buses. Dublin Bus has cleverly increased the capacity enormously, for which I congratulate it. The size of the replacement buses is substantially greater than the buses they replaced. As a consequence, the capacity of the fleet has expanded by over 30%, an important factor when considering what the bus market can deliver and the number of passengers being carried.
There are 11 quality bus corridors, QBCs, in operation in the greater Dublin area, with a total length of 139 km. There is also a further 20 km of non-QBC corridors which are treated as bus priority measures. We will work with Dublin Bus and the local authorities in trying to expand them. I agree generally with the comments made. My view is that the bus will continue to be the major workhorse in the public transport sector. Even under Transport 21, with the additionality and transformation that will take place in Dublin and throughout the country, the number of passengers using buses will increase substantially. Within Transport 21 I have allocated €500 million for the purchase of buses. I have no doubt the bus is a central part of the mix in the modes of public transport used. Transport 21 acknowledges this.
I reiterate my concern that the local authorities, in spite of my providing substantial funds for park and ride facilities, have not drawn down even €1 this year. This is extremely disappointing. I urge councillors, in particular, to question their officials and include this as a priority in their systems for delivery.
I have signed the order on the Kildare route. I am happy to tell the Deputy concerned that the enabling works have begun and that work is also under way on the western rail corridor. With regard to my difficulties this year, the Deputy should be aware that I had to discuss the issues in the context of market reform with the trade unions and the bus companies in the private and public sectors. I came to a satisfactory conclusion which paved the way for a satisfactory outcome from everybody's perspective but it took time. I did not sit on the fence on the issue. I engaged heavily and directly with all of the stakeholders involved. I acknowledged the concerns and views they wanted to express before we reached a satisfactory outcome. It is a consultative process. I do not sit and rule without consultation. I have consulted widely. We achieved a very good outcome which, in Dublin and throughout the country, paves the way for a substantial benefit for those at the heart of the process, the customers and users of public transport.
In March the Minister stated we would see the legislation on the Dublin transport authority in a matter of weeks. Nine months later, there is no sign of it. When does he expect to have it published?
As the Deputy knows, a report was prepared on the issue by an establishment team led by Professor Margaret O'Mahony. The team did an excellent job on the report which I have published. As a general comment, my sense of the views is that everybody supports the Dublin transport authority as long as it does not affect them. That is the difficulty.
When can we expect the Bill to be published?
I am engaged in discussions. As an example, I had a two-hour meeting yesterday with congress and the various union representatives with regard to their views on the DTA. Meetings are taking place with management of Iarnród Éireann, the RPA and the private sector. I want a satisfactory conclusion to these discussions. Fundamental issues have been raised in some respects.
Some aspects of the DTA proposal as proposed in Professor O'Mahony's report have met with universal satisfaction, while other issues have not been greeted well. That does not surprise me. When one moves to establish a new body, there are consequential effects for existing powers and legal bases elsewhere. I want to bring this process to a satisfactory conclusion. It would be easy for me to go ahead with the legislation, as much of the work is effectively complete. However, I would like to achieve, as far as is possible, consensus with all of the stakeholders involved. I have been heavily engaged in trying to achieve this in recent weeks, as have my officials. I would like to think I could publish the legislation on the basis of an agreed way forward. That is the position.
It strikes me that the Minister has under-estimated the complexity of what he is proposing to do——
No.
——given that in March he said he would publish the legislation in a matter of weeks.
I did not say that. I said I would have the report. The legislation is ready. People get mixed up between two pieces of legislation. They should understand that one element deals with reform of the 1932 Act; that the second deals with the Dublin transport authority, while the third, which we discussed earlier in the year, involves the setting up of a separate regulatory public commission to deal with the market. My view is that we do not need two new bodies in Dublin and that the regulatory reform Bill, as originally proposed, should be subsumed into the DTA and form part of that broader remit. It is the more sensible approach, although that is not necessarily everybody's view.
The report is a very good one. It is only right and fair that I have allowed time for the various stakeholders to engage. I hope it will be understood that this is not about the companies involved but about the customer. A fundamental aspect of the DTA is that it will provide for the most comprehensive modern, integrated transport system which Transport 21 achieves on the capital side in terms of the various modes of transport which will and do integrate. I would like to see a more harmonious relationship between the various stakeholders who should recognise that their priority must be the service to customers rather than the exclusive protection of their respective modes of public transport. That is not easy to achieve. I respect the right of individual companies and stakeholders to seek to maximise their own position, but that is not necessarily in the best interests of the public.
Apart from the Dublin Transport Authority Bill that has been promised, what are the Minister's proposals in regard to reforming the 1932 Act?
That Bill is being drafted.
When does the Minister expect it to be published?
As soon as it is available from the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.
I understood the legislative programme indicated it would be ready in late 2007.
It will be published as soon as it is ready.
Is that the timeframe the Minister envisages?
I hope to publish the Bill sooner than late 2007.
Subhead D4 deals with the additional requirement of €6.4 million to meet expenses associated with the flotation of Aer Lingus. One wonders whether this money could have been better spent. Are further bills expected in this regard? What is the total estimated cost to the Exchequer of the flotation? Has the Minister a figure for the estimated cost to Aer Lingus?
It is stated under this subhead: "In addition, some costs have arisen in connection with the Ryanair bid for Aer Lingus, which obviously were not anticipated". This seems strange. It was the Government's decision to float the company but it seems not to have anticipated the possibility of a takeover bid. Will the Minister explain the extent of these costs and how they arose?
I am pleased to do so. The figure provided under subhead D4 should cover the total cost to the Government of the initial public offering, IPO, process. I do not have the final figure but I am confident in predicting it will not be more than some €6 million. It was not the case that nobody considered the possibility of a takeover bid, but it was certainly not considered likely.
There is always a strong possibility of a takeover bid when a company is floated.
The possibility of many such events always exists in a free market. I do not deny that.
It can hardly have been a surprise to the Minister.
It was a complete surprise to most experts in the marketplace, who deal with these issues on a daily basis. It happened and we were obliged to deal with it. Costs arise because we must deal with the takeover panel and the competition authorities — it is not clear where the jurisdiction will lie in this regard. An enormous level of expertise is required. The Department considered it important to retain some of those experts who are accustomed to compiling the technical data for such cases. I do not have a figure for the costs associated with the takeover bid.
Does the Minister have a figure for Aer Lingus's costs?
I do not. That is a matter for Aer Lingus.
It is a matter for the taxpayer.
I have outlined the full cost of the flotation to the taxpayer. I am sure the cost to Aer Lingus will be made public in due course. The company will pay some 72% of the total costs. Assuming the figure of €6 million represents the Government's share of approximately 28%, one can easily work out an estimate of Aer Lingus's costs.
It was an expensive project.
The cost is normal given the scale of IPOs in general.
It could turn out to be even more expensive for the public if Ryanair gets its way.
We will wait and see what happens
I wish to return to subhead D2, which deals with regional airports. The Minister is aware that regional airports are extremely important to the areas they serve.
Deputy Connaughton is talking to the right man. Deputy Wilkinson and I have a particular interest in regional airports.
Let us move on to the fundamental issue. Most of the regional airports are expanding and require a significant level of investment. Will the Minister explain how the €8.7 million underspend under this subhead came about? I understand it is related to the additional time needed to comply with new EU guidelines. Why were the airports not ready to avail of this funding? Given that they have been starved of cash for years, it is remarkable that they were not in a position to utilise this €8.7 million.
There is a simple explanation. In December 2005, the EU Commission changed the guidelines in regard to State support for airports. This led to some difficulties in deploying the additional €100 million we received from the Minister for Finance to put in place a substantial new capital programme for the regional airports. In addition, issues arise out of the PSO scheme. In light of the new EU rules, the Government was obliged to seek clearance for an entirely new scheme in respect of the extra funding allocated for the airports under Transport 21. This took time to achieve. As soon as we attained that clearance, we sought submissions from the regional airports under the new grant scheme. I hope to announce details of the scheme shortly.
What is the specific purpose of these grants?
The new grants scheme will facilitate the capital development of the airports. Under the new guidelines, which include different criteria, changes are required in the PSO regime, including in regard to what used to be known as marketing grants. The Deputy is correct that the capital grants scheme is an extremely important package and I was pleased to include it in Transport 21. The regional airports have already responded enthusiastically, including the one in the Deputy's area.
It will be a generous grants scheme, under which the State will be allowed to allocate substantial funding. The regional authorities will raise the balance, which will be relatively small. The airport authorities are not upset about this delay because they recognise the significant gain that will arise from the funding available.
Is the Minister saying the regional airports are satisfied with the arrangement?
They are satisfied with the new scheme because it will allow the State to invest a substantial amount of capital expenditure. No such funding was available last year.
It is the first time I ever heard of any body or group being pleased not to receive €8.7 million.
That amount will be divided among them.
It is a remarkable type of happiness.
One must consider that a regional airport that previously had the prospect of receiving €1 million or €1.5 million from a national budget of €8.7 million might wish to hold off for a new scheme that could allocate it as much as €20 million. That answers the Deputy's question.
We will return to this issue in due course.
On behalf of the select committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance. I also thank the members.