Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 2007

Output Statement for the Department of Transport.

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates for Vote 32 — Transport, which was referred to the select committee by the Dáil on 22 February 2007. In line with the expanded budgetary process, an output statement has also been provided. Members will be aware that as part of the budgetary process, reforms initiated by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement 2005 this year see the publication by Departments of annual output statements for consideration by Oireachtas committees for the first time. This important initiative is intended to facilitate greater parliamentary involvement in the budget and Estimates process.

The clerk of the committee has circulated a draft timetable for consideration. I have no problem if members wish to deviate from that timetable.

I suggest we do what we did last time we had Estimates when we amalgamated them and commented as we went through.

That is true, but the procedure is that we must take it subhead by subhead for the question and answer session.

Can we raise the issues subhead by subhead or must we stop and allow time for a response on each subhead?

We can take them by subhead. For example, A1 to A8 is administration, B1 to B3 is roads, C1 to C3 is public transport, D1 to D5 is civil aviation, E1 to E3 is maritime transport. What I suggest is we should not tie ourselves to a particular time. If we find we reach something sooner, we should not wait if that is agreed.

I do not think there is a need for significant opening statements, apart from a statement from the Minister.

That is up to Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Shortall. On behalf of the select committee I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and his officials, Mr. Maurice Mullen, Assistant Secretary, Mr. Dan Commane, principal officer and Mr. Padraig McGogarty, accountant. Ms Anne Walsh, assistant principal and Ms Denise Keoghan from the Department are also in attendance. I invite the Minister, Deputy Cullen, to make his opening remarks.

If the Minister wishes to synopsise his speech, the members will have no objection.

If the Chairman wishes my speech to stand part of the full record of proceedings I have no problem.

I will synopsise the speech to the key points. The Estimates for 2007 is €2.266 billion which is a 21.6% increase on 2006. A further €305 million will be provided from the private sector in toll road PPP funding. This is a significant jump but very much in keeping with Transport 21. More than €700 million is being provided for public transport this year, the largest single-year expenditure ever. It begins to map out the change and balance between the roads infrastructure and investment in public transport throughout the country, a large element of which is planned for Dublin, our capital city and which we all want to see in place, whether one is from Dublin or from around the country or whether one is a regular visitor to the country.

We all want to see the roads programme in place and it is progressing exceptionally well. Work will commence on seven new projects this year, totalling 200 km of high quality national roads. Nine other projects will be completed and a further 12 projects will be under construction during the year. This amounts to more than €1.525 billion of the roads programme which is focused on completing the five major interurban motorways between the Border and the extension to Newry which is being built in co-operation with our Northern Ireland colleagues and is well under way to completion. With regard to the Galway, Limerick, Cork and Waterford motorways, 50% to 70% of those motorways are either under construction or completed so we are well on target to complete the five interurban motorways up to 2010 and as I set out in Transport 21.

The other major change has resulted from the national development plan. This has allowed us to move forward about €400 million which will be primarily focused on the Atlantic road corridor. The Ennis bypass has been opened and this has made a significant contribution to the west of Ireland. It is very important in the context of the developments at Shannon Airport and the key infrastructure for the populace in the area, particularly the Galway — Limerick access, to allow for the usage and development of the airport. Those in the region believed correctly that it was important to keep up the momentum by continuing, once the Ennis bypass was open, to complete the entire route to Galway. This Limerick — Galway section will be high quality motorway when completed. I am very pleased this was possible under the national development plan. Construction will begin next year and the process will continue until the entire route on that part of the Atlantic road corridor is completed as well as all the roads around Galway. This should be in line with the completion of all the major national motorways to which I have referred.

The M50 development is well under way. It will provide for a 50% increase in capacity and a free flow of traffic on the major interchanges which is significant. We are also moving to barrier-free tolling for which the tendering process has been completed. I met with the NRA recently when it outlined the timeframe and progress. The NRA is hoping to achieve a world record by completing the project in three years which would be well ahead of the best. The biggest project similar to the M50 is in Canada and it will take a year longer to complete.

The Minister is the master of spin.

I am only citing the experts. With regard to the usual interruption from Deputy Shortall——

I thought Deputy Shortall wanted to finish the meeting in a hurry.

I would take that as a compliment.

The advice from the best international deliverers of these projects is that it should be a four-year project but we are completing it in three years. All the best international companies tendered for the project and were incentivised on a timeframe to see if they could complete it any quicker but none came in under three years. I am very pleased the work is under way.

Traffic on the West Link will be freed up by the removal of the barrier tolling system. This will allow us to proceed with the barrier-free tolling regime. We have a binding contract with NTR but a very good deal has been negotiated by the NRA which will see NTR taken off the pitch from next year. It will receive a payment in lieu of its contract over the remaining term which is from 2008 to 2020. All the benefits of the increased capacity on the M50 will come to the State and not to NTR and this is a tremendous benefit for taxpayers. The resources coming in will clearly be of benefit and will prevent more moneys going unnecessarily to a company which had an excellent contract from its point of view. All the benefits of the upgrade and the increased capacity will accrue to the State.

The Dublin Port tunnel has opened, in spite of the naysayers who said this would be a disaster and a white elephant. They are all now jumping on board to tell us how tremendous it is. It has made a significant impact on Dublin, our capital city, in terms of the movement of traffic in and around the city centre. It has already had a direct impact on assisting public transport movement particularly from the north side of the city on the bus routes into the city centre. The quays have been freed up and the tunnel is functioning very well. The developments on the M50 mean that problems can arise from time to time but given the scale of the infrastructural development on the M50 it has been a case of so far, so good, on the project.

We have been very active on road safety. This year we launched the new Rules of the Road booklet which is an ambition of mine since I came into office. I am glad it has happened even though it is 12 years since the previous booklet was published. It has been recognised as one of the most comprehensive and modern in Europe and I congratulate the Road Safety Authority.

Without a blush; the Minister is unbelievable.

There is no need for blushes here.

The only unbelievable party around here which is so cynical about everything is the Labour Party.

It is 12 years late.

Every time I come to this committee the Deputy waffles on about things. I answer for what I do in this Department. Some day the Deputy might be lucky enough to have a Department and I hope she achieves one tenth of what I have achieved in the Department since I came in. Laughing and bluster does not achieve anything; decision-making and making a difference do.

I will not embarrass the Deputy by putting her party's record on transport before the committee during the time it was last in power. I hope it will be a long time before it sees office again.

With regard to the Road Safety Authority I am happy to point out that an extra €10 million was given in the Estimate this year and a tendering process is under way to continue a very substantial outsourcing of all the testing that has been so successful since we introduced it. More than 100,000 tests will also be outsourced. I wish to compliment the RSA on its efforts in that regard as the average waiting time has been halved. It is going in the right direction to achieve the outcome I set out at the end of the year for a more meaningful application and completion time for testing.

The essential major railway safety programme is continuing. More than €1 billion has already been spent which is unseen by the travelling public in many respects as it has been invested in track, the signalling system and the removal of many of the level crossings. This has allowed us to use the new rolling stock on the Cork — Dublin route and the first of the new 167 carriages for the other major interurban lines have arrived and will be rolled out, beginning on the Sligo route.

Obviously I am very pleased the other developments in Transport 21, including the Luas and metro, are all meeting the timeframes we set out. We expect to see excellent progress in those areas in the future. All the new buses for Dublin Bus have been introduced and Bus Éireann's are starting to arrive. Those new buses are assisting Dublin Bus and the public transport users in Dublin to get much more frequent and a wider range of services. I am happy that we are rolling out the new bus plans for Cork, Galway, Waterford and Limerick. These will provide important on-street services for the people living in those areas. I hope to complete the review on the Midleton rail line and sign the order to approve it shortly.

There is much more I could add. I am glad that Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann will introduce a 5% biodiesel blend into their fleets and I hope the blend will be 30% for their newer buses to be introduced. I have also given approval to Dublin Bus to evaluate one of the hybrid buses from Wrights in Ballymena, one of which is in operation in London. I expect such a bus to make a substantial contribution.

We recently announced the new programme for investment in regional airports under the Transport 21 capital investment programme. I urge all the regional airport authorities to complete their plans and to start to draw down the necessary resources to complete the major investment which will be of enormous benefit to the regions.

The maritime section, which came under the auspices of the Department in the past 18 months, is now being bedded in and includes investment in the Irish Coast Guard, the maritime safety directorate, etc.

A budget of almost €2.8 billion is substantial and demonstrates the Government's approach to the area of transport on land, sea and air. Investments are unparalleled in the history of the State. Such investment is appropriate and will underpin the competitiveness of the economy, improve the quality of life of all our citizens and allow us to sustain what we have achieved under Fianna Fáil-led Governments in recent years. It will sustain and increase employment and ensure we remain one of the most dynamic economies in the world, which we have achieved in recent years.

I was just saying to my colleague here that I was glad we only got the synopsis.

Good news is hard to take.

I suspect the self-accolade could have continued all day. Have we decided to go through the entire Vote?

The Deputy has ten minutes to make her opening statement, as has Deputy Shortall.

I understood we were to amalgamate the opening statement with the questions.

We can do that if it is agreeable with Deputy Shortall. Does the Deputy want to start straight into questions and answers and forgo the opening statements?

We do not want to forgo the opening statements. We want to incorporate questions into the opening statement.

That is acceptable.

Does the Chairman want me to approach it section by section?

That would be most appropriate.

Will we cover subheads A1 to A8, inclusive as a group?

Basically, the Deputies want to move into the question and answer session.

As Ihave no issues with subhead A, I will move quickly to subhead B.

I have some items to raise under subhead A.

Let Deputy Olivia Mitchell put her questions and then Deputy Shortall can speak.

Are we not going to stick with subhead A?

I have no problem doing so if it is agreeable with Deputy Olivia Mitchell.

The only question I had on that section related to the transfer of the Road Safety Authority staff, which results in a significant reduction in the cost of running the Department. Why is the grant to the Road Safety Authority considerably in excess of the saving to the Department? There is a difference of approximately €14 million.

That reflects the total budget and not just the administration budget. The extra €10 million I got in the budget goes into that. What is reflected here is just the total figure. The reduction in the subhead reflects the movement in staff. The increase on the other side reflects the total budget for the RSA.

Does it represent a significant increase on what went before?

It is not increased staff. Other resources have been allocated, for example, for the outsourcing.

It includes the outsourcing of the testing.

The €10 million is included in it.

That is fine.

Under subhead A1 on salaries, I wish to ask the Minister about the adequacy of the legal advice available to the Department. In the past three years, the legislation the Minister has introduced has been quite problematic, starting with the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill which involved a complete change of direction and became the Road Safety Authority Bill. The Road Traffic Act 2006 needed to be amended as soon as it was passed. The Minister has made promises on other legislation which I had understood would be available before the end of last year. There is no sign of it yet.

When we discussed the Road Traffic Bill in the middle of last year, members raised a number of outstanding issues that needed to be addressed. On Committee Stage, the Minister gave a commitment that he would introduce a second Road Traffic Bill before the end of last year to deal with several issues raised, including the question of increasing the powers of local authorities to introduce parking schemes to deal with problems such as those associated with Croke Park and Lansdowne Road, and to allow residents-only parking in housing estates, etc. Where is that promised legislation? The Minister promised specifically to have it before the end of 2006.

On the long-promised Dublin transport authority, I am very mindful that 81% of the Department's budget is allocated to building infrastructure, which is welcome as we are playing catch-up on transport infrastructure. However, only a small proportion of the Department's budget is spent on the governance of transport, including taking an overview, planning, etc. For some time all parties have recognised the need for a Dublin transport authority. Approximately this time last year, the Minister promised that the legislation would be ready shortly. We are in the middle of March 2007 and there is still no sign of the Dublin transport authority Bill. Why has it been delayed? Is there any possibility of it being published or taken before the general election?

We also need an overseeing authority outside Dublin. Has the Minister any proposals to introduce overarching transport authorities to take the global view required in transport outside the Dublin area? I do not suggest we need one in every county or anything like that. Has the Minister given any consideration to how he might organise the governance of transport outside Dublin?

On promised legislation, I refer to the reform of the bus licensing system, for example. The Minister made a great play last year of his announcement that he would sanction the use of 100 additional buses by the private sector. There does not seem to be any prospect of the 100 buses being available this year.

That is not relevant to subhead A.

I am asking about the staff of the Department.

The Deputy was talking about buses, rather than staff.

I ask the Chairman to allow me to finish my point.

We agreed at the start that we would——

I am not asking about buses. Will the Chairman listen to me? The Minister announced last year that the private sector would benefit from an additional 100 buses. It is clear, as the Minister confirmed recently in response to a parliamentary question, that it will not be possible to make the buses available to the private sector until the bus licensing system has been reformed. Does the Minister have any plans to introduce legislation soon to reform the system? Are problems being caused by the lack of legal advice within the Department? Is that holding up the three major Bills that are needed, but are long overdue?

On subhead A7, which relates to consultancy services, the privatisation of Aer Lingus and the break-up of Aer Rianta have been the two major institutional changes made by the Minister since he took office. Does he have a global figure for the consultancy charges incurred by the Department of Transport and each of the semi-State agencies in those cases? Does the Minister have a figure for the cost to date of the Department's decentralisation plans?

I presume we are not sticking to what we agreed, which was to deal with——

No, that is definitely not——

That seems to have been blown out the window, even though I agreed to it.

I will carry on anyway. Like all Departments, the Department of Transport uses the services of the staff of the Office of the Attorney General, including the Attorney General himself. That system works extremely well. The Department recruited a legal adviser in December to add to the in-house expertise in that area. That was necessary in light of the volume of work being done. I think it will work very well.

I assume Deputy Shortall is aware that the Roads Bill 2007, which has been published, is being dealt with in the Seanad.

I was talking about the road traffic Bill the Minister promised.

Yes, it is already——

The Roads Bill 2007 relates to tolling. I read in the newspapers that the Minister proposes to include in that Bill a provision relating to residents' parking. The principal purpose of the Roads Bill 2007, as I understand it, is to provide for barrier-free tolling.

Yes. Is the Deputy suggesting that every Bill should deal with one issue and nothing else?

No. The Minister promised to introduce a road traffic Bill.

The Bill has been published and is being debated. It has finished Committee Stage in the Seanad.

All the things the Minister promised to include in the Bill have not been included in it.

I have published the Bill. When I spoke on Second Stage in the Seanad, I referred specifically to the issue of parking near major sporting facilities such as Croke Park, which has been mentioned by Deputy Shortall. I said I intended to introduce an amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage. There is nothing unusual in that. It is perhaps somewhat unusual that the Deputy does not seem to like the decisions I make when I try to get something done.

It is unusual that the provision was not included in the Bill.

I do not think the Minister interrupted Deputy Shortall.

I did not interrupt the Deputy. When she spoke, she gave the impression that she did not know where the legislation was or when it would be published. She did not seem to know the first thing about it. The Bill has been published and it has been debated in the Seanad. Committee Stage has been completed in that House and Report and Final Stages will be completed next week. That is the position with that Bill. I will publish the DTA Bill in the next couple of weeks. It will be brought to the Dáil in this session. I hope it will receive the support of the Opposition. We will debate the Bill and get the process under way. I have already appointed an interim chairman-designate of the DTA. He is also the new chairman of the RPA. I am delighted that he is very busy at present on all the issues relating to the DTA. On the reform of the bus licensing system, the reform of the 1932 Act has almost been completed. We need to address a number of technical issues relating to the legislation. I hope to publish the Bill as soon as possible. The DTA Bill will be published and debated in the Dáil and the Seanad in this session. All of those issues are being dealt with.

Is the Minister seriously saying the Bill will be brought to the House in the next two and a half weeks?

The Dáil can sit until July. The Deputy seems to know something I do not know. I know it might suit the Labour Party to have the election in the next two and a half weeks, but that will not happen. The election will be called when the Government has fulfilled the various elements of the programme for Government and its five-year term has been completed. That is what we will do. We will run to the scheduling of this Fianna Fáil-led Government, rather than that of the Labour Party and the rest of the Opposition.

We need to move on to subheads B1 to B3.

I asked the Minister about consultancy costs.

The total cost of the initial public offering was €18 million, which is pretty much in line with the standard cost of such a transaction. The Government's share was €6.3 million. Those figures are already a matter of public record.

Can the Minister give a figure for the consultancy costs in relation to the break-up of Aer Rianta?

I do not have a figure here. If I can get it for the Deputy, I will do so.

I thank the Minister.

I ask Deputy Mitchell to speak to subheads B1 to B3.

A great deal of money is being spent on road projects. The delivery by construction firms on the contracts for these projects is laudable. Many of them are being finished on time, etc. We need to assess the Estimate, however. Transport 21, which is the capital investment framework we are working from, as the Minister said, is very sparse in detail. It is difficult for Opposition Deputies and everyone else to use Transport 21 as a benchmark for performance because it does not give us anything to go by. It does not give us orders of priorities, start-up dates or costings. It gives us a mélange of information on a stand-alone basis. There is no way of judging whether we will get value for money.

I have several questions in response to the Minister's comments. Will any element of the Estimate serve to hasten the provision of service areas on our motorways? The provision of such facilities is a matter of significant importance in the interest of road safety. As the Road Safety Authority can explain——

The National Roads Authority explained at a recent meeting of the joint committee that it is in the process of providing service areas. That point was made after the Deputy left the meeting.

I understand the NRA considers itself to be in the process of providing these services, but it has been saying that for several years. Will they be available this year? No location is available at which the Road Safety Authority can check tachographs, for example, to ensure that heavy goods vehicles comply with the law. Figures supplied by the Garda suggest that such vehicles are not in compliance with the law in the vast majority of cases, thereby presenting a significant road safety risk. It is completely unacceptable that there is no place where vehicles can be tested. People on long journeys need a place where they can pull over. It is becoming problematic to get petrol, for example. I recently worked out that seven or eight petrol stations in my constituency have closed down. The need to ensure that service areas are available on our motorways is becoming an important issue within the transport system. The Minister will have to be much more proactive in ensuring that such facilities are delivered quickly. It is not good enough to say they will be rolled out over time, because they are needed now.

The Minister mentioned that many dual carriageways will be redesignated as motorways. Other than facilitating people to drive at 120 km/h, what will be the implications of that change? Will there be implications in terms of the constitutionality of deeming to be motorways, roads which were planned as dual carriageways, when they were the subject of public inquiry? If a farmer disposed of land in the belief that it would be used for a dual carriageway, but now finds that the road is to be a motorway, he or she might be concerned about access issues or development issues. Is the Department concerned that constitutional issues in this regard could lead to court cases? I am in favour of the redesignation because the standard of many of our dual carriageways is better than the standard of some motorways in other countries. While I do not oppose this change, I wonder whether it will have implications like those I have mentioned.

The Minister referred to barrier-free tolling. I am not sure of the capital costs associated with that. Is it in the region of €100 million? That is an enormous sum of money to create a bureaucracy to toll a single point on one road. The question should be asked whether it provides value for money or if there is a better way of collecting that money. This major project will take three years to install and create a significant annual bill. Perhaps the Minister can offer a better way of collecting that money.

It was also stated that barrier-free tolling represents wonderful benefits to the taxpayer. If I was the Minister, I would not say that out loud. Nothing relating to the M50 could be considered good value to the taxpayer. However necessary it may be, buying it out represents the least good value for taxpayers.

According to the Minister, the port tunnel is a wonderful success. I find it difficult to agree with that statement. I appreciate the tunnel has resulted in traffic improvements on the quays, which I hope will be capitalised on in terms of public transport provision. However, I see no sign of that yet. Benefits have also accrued to parts of the north inner city, but nobody has carried out any appraisal of whether the benefits are outweighed by the costs borne by people travelling on the M1, for instance, where there is a traffic jam at some times of the day from the portal of the tunnel as far as Balbriggan. I doubt whether people who use the M50 consider it good value for money.

The port tunnel cost almost €1 billion and has a significant capacity. A total of 12,500 vehicles use it daily but the capacity is a multiple of that. I accept it is not desirable for roads to reach capacity on the day they open, but where is it expected the growth will come from? There are no predictions of significant additional numbers of trucks going in and out of the port, especially as the port is currently at capacity. I do not know from where the additional use will come. Can one really say this offers value for money? For instance, not a single bus is using the tunnel.

In spite of the long period when the tunnel was under construction, it is still not fully open. It was closed today due to a single electrical fault. When I inquired about that, I was told we can expect electrical faults as there are 18,000 different electrical components involved. If one can expect faults, surely there should be a plan in place to deal with them? Not a single garda was available. Total gridlock resulted from a simple electrical fault. If one invests €1 billion in infrastructure, surely one has to make that extra investment in Garda traffic corps patrols to ensure total gridlock does not result when a fault occurs in the system?

Subhead B2 relates to road safety agencies. How does the Minister envisage the testing of heavy goods vehicles proceeding and what is his view of the existing system? Last week the media covered a story about road authorities in the UK. On testing 2,000 Irish HGVs, it was found that 55% of them had such significant technical faults they were prevented from continuing on their journeys. It is difficult to understand how that could arise given that we have a system in place that claims to be adequate and ensures proper testing. Will the Minister comment on the fact that in those tests, more than 50% of Irish trucks were deemed to be unsuitable for use? Does this not raise serious questions about the testing system we have in place? Where is the road safety strategy? I thought we would have it long before now. What is the reason for the delay and when is it likely to be published?

Subhead B1 refers to roads. The Minister made great play of the number of road projects under construction and how many of them are coming in ahead of schedule, etc. It is great to see decent roads being built, and built quickly, but I am concerned about the cost to the taxpayer of these roads. Has any study been commissioned or are figures available from the NRA on whether we are getting value for money in this regard? We all want to see roads finished as quickly as possible but I would like to hear the cost per kilometre.

Recent media reports indicated the NRA is paying more per kilometre for the tolled sections of motorways, where public private partnerships, PPPs, are involved, than those sections procured conventionally. Does the Minister have any information in this regard or comparative figures for projects procured in different ways? Apart from the initial cost of procurement with PPP projects, when one factors in that drivers will be paying tolls for 30 years, or 45 years in one case, one can well ask whether we are getting value for money. It is nice for the Minister to be able to cut the ribbon on these new sections of motorway but in the longer term, will we be paying through the nose for them for an extended period? Has the Minister carried out any studies or does he have any comparative figures on the costs associated with different methods of procurement?

I have questions on barrier-free tolling. The Minister stated it will be introduced in three years. The Department has had ten years notice that the port tunnel would open and spill out extra trucks on to the M50. It is difficult to understand why so little preparation was done for that. Why do we have to wait at least a year and a half after the opening of the port tunnel for barrier-free tolling to be in place? Surely the sensible thing would have been to plan ahead and have that system in place for the opening of the port tunnel?

The Minister referred to the port tunnel relieving the situation on the north side. I welcome the removal of the trucks from the north side of Dublin but am concerned about the kind of congestion created on the M50. Recently, I happened to be on the M50 at 6.30 a.m., and I saw buses which were leaving the depot to start serving Blanchardstown were caught up in the congestion. That is one of the problems. Nothing moves on the approach roads in the early morning or the evening time. It is all very well for the Minister to say he is doing this that and the other, but why was the barrier-free tolling system not in place when the port tunnel opened?

I would welcome a comment from the Minister on the incredible gridlock experienced through the north side of Dublin this morning. What appeared to be a minor computer problem took two and a half hours to fix, which resulted in congestion and delays of over an hour for most people travelling in that area. In a modern economy it is not acceptable for a minor fault to cause that level of distress and disturbance to so many. Has the Minister received any report from the port tunnel authorities on that incident and why it took so long to sort out the problem?

On the similarly themed questions from both Deputies on the roads programme and value for money, the system we use is open and transparent and the competitiveness in the marketplace is dictating the best value for money. We came out extremely well in a recent international benchmarking process carried out on the cost of new roads in Ireland compared to the UK and other countries. I was surprised the costs here were substantially cheaper than in the UK. Given the cost of land here I thought the costs in both countries might have been at least the same if not higher here. However, when the overall package is taken into consideration, we are doing exceptionally well. Unlike in other countries, we have probably developed the best pan-European construction industry in Europe. That is a European view. The smartness of the construction industry in Ireland, particularly of the major companies, was such that it realised the capacity of expenditure and initial difficulties with construction inflation were not sustainable from anybody's perspective. Therefore, the amalgamation of many of the different skills of European companies with those of Irish companies has worked exceptionally well. The international view was that we were getting very good value for money. We have very strict and much better contracting regimes in place and the shifting of the risk largely to the construction industry from the State certainly sharpened the approach of the sector. There are great incentives for the sector to ensure it delivers value for money. The development of the Naas dual carriageway, for instance, was the first case in which the construction industry was liable to huge penalties if it failed to keep two lanes open at all times in both directions. Moreover, if it had not delivered the project on time, it would have been subject to massive penalties.

We all acknowledge that the system has evolved into a far better one than the one that obtained heretofore. Clearly, the indications are such that value for money is very good by any measure, particularly by international measures and standards. The NRA has spoken about this in public recently.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell should note that dual carriageways in question are built to motorway standard and are therefore configured with the proper interchanges in terms of traffic flow. They are motorways and it was felt we should designate them accordingly. Some were designated as "motorway" and others as "motorways/high-quality dual carriageway". This was brought to my attention by the NRA because proper designation has implications for servicing and planning along the roads. We took advice from the Office of the Attorney General on the issue and I have addressed it in a Bill which is before the Seanad.

The Attorney General also advised that there should be a consultation process after the legislation is passed. I have no problem with this because public support and buy-in are good. The result will be fine because many people have been touch with me about differences in speed limits on two sections of what they perceive to be the same road. It is appropriate to correct this and designate the roads appropriately. I would not designate every dual carriageway but there is no question that the five interurban routes are motorways, and they will be designated as such. This is to achieve clarity and prevent the existence of long stretches of motorway with sections of high-quality dual carriageway in-between. There are no constitutional issues involved in doing this.

Are there issues with landowners?

No. That is my information and I am happy enough with it.

It took me a long time to understand all the issues involved in barrier-free tolling, including the financial and technical implications. Like many Deputies, I asked whether the barrier could be lifted within six months. I believed the matter was that simple but it is not. Having spoken to operators and seen many of the systems abroad, and having noted the time taken to test and put such systems in place, I realise the process is very complex. Some cutting-edge systems are now in place internationally and we therefore do not need to reinvent the wheel. This is one of the clear messages that I, on behalf of the Government, gave to the NRA. The cutting-edge systems are being considered for Ireland but much of the technical detail in terms of the link-up with the driver file and the programmes to be designed by the companies in question is very significant. This work is taking place.

It is pretty straightforward to erect the gantry itself and the camera technology will be at the cutting edge. Many systems with cameras require the driver to slow down to approximately 30 km/h or 40 km/h so photographs can be taken but the system to be installed here will enable drivers to pass by without having to do so. The testing and work in progress will be completed next year. The back-up office is very significant, given the many thousands of cars that pass through the tolling station each day. I hope the vast majority of cars using the new system will have the relevant tag but, if not, an invoice system can be used. Running the system is like running a major financial house and that is how it should be.

On comparative timeframes, one should consider the Golden Ears Bridge, Vancouver. The contract therefor was signed in January 2007. The time allowed for design, development, factory acceptance testing and construction of the gantry is from 2007 to 2009. Access to the gantry site will be in January 2009 and system installation and testing will also be in that year. Tolling will not begin until the end of 2009. Our contract is dated March 2007 and development, factory acceptance testing and construction of the gantry will take from March 2007 to November 2007. This is only allowing six months whereas 23 months are being allowed in Vancouver for an identical process. Access to the M50 site will be in November of this year and system installation and testing will run for six months from the end of December 2007 until June 2008. Tolling will begin in the middle of next year. The fastest and best comparable system being installed is the one in Vancouver and one can see from the figures how successful is our process. It is worth saying to ourselves that we can do things very well at times.

We have good companies and good people running good agencies and they are really up for the challenge. The NRA has always said a lot was being asked of it and it would prefer if it had more time to deliver the project. However, it has considered it in detail with the relevant market players and believes it can deliver.

I am not questioning the fact that it is quite complex to put such a system in place, as we know from the committee members' trip to Australia. We know it is very sophisticated technically and accept it will take longer than the average person might predict. However, are there not easier ways of collecting money? We are putting in place a huge, expensive system to collect a single toll on a single road.

An operator will always prefer barriers.

I am talking about alternatives to tolls.

Is the Deputy talking about complete alternatives to tolls?

The barriers must go. Why are we opting for barrier-free tolling when we could raise the money in some other way? It is so expensive to make the change and involves such a lengthy process.

The cost to the road user will not change significantly under a barrier-free tolling system. There will not be a significant jump in the cost of using the M50, except that arising from inflationary changes. We wanted to ensure this when entering the process.

There is an initial capital cost and an added running cost.

There is, but the position on the M50 has not been recognised. Maybe I have not made myself clear but will try to do so now. NTR had control not only of the toll bridge but also of a fair amount of road structure on either side of it. We had choices and it was quite clear we should either stick with NTR and give it responsibility for barrier-free tolling, thus raising all sorts of questions over the public procurement process, or choose an alternative approach. Why should a company that is doing and has done exceptionally well reap all the extra benefits, in purely financial terms, of moving to barrier-free tolling? We are to increase the capacity of the M50 by 50% and the substantial growth in traffic will clearly continue. By taking NTR off the pitch, I have ensured all that extra revenue will not go to——

The Minister is making our case. We know NTR must be taken off the pitch. My question is whether there is a cheaper way of raising money other than by introducing this expensive system that must be installed over three years. Have other options for raising the money been considered, such as raising it through the tax system or via road tax or increased VAT on petrol, for example? Was a decision simply made to impose tolling on this road? We all agree that the barriers must be lifted and NTR taken off the pitch. My question is whether this is the best way to raise money. Does it offer good value?

There is no doubt it offers good value for money. The money raised is being ring-fenced for direct re-investment into the €1 billion upgrade of the M50. Doing it this way means we can build in the west, south east, north west, midlands and elsewhere. Tolls have been established in Waterford, Limerick and the midlands to accelerate the programme and bring great added value to it. Depending entirely on the Exchequer would not allow us to implement the road development programme in full. More than 650 road projects are under my control, either in planning, design or construction. All are included in the NRA programme and are progressing at different levels.

Tolling would not be necessary if we had all the money in the world. On balance, however, it represents the best and fairest way of using the resources available to us. Almost every First World country employs the use of tolls to realise the resources to invest in road infrastructure. It is the right approach to take. It is strange that there were calls for this to happen for years but, since it has been done, I have been subject to much criticism. In fairness to the NRA, it got as good a deal as anybody could have secured.

How long does the Minister envisage continuing the tolling regime on the West Link?

NTR's contract, which includes a half-year next year and a half-year in 2020, will run out in that year. There is not a full year at either end. There is some confusion in this regard in terms of the figures being discussed. I will have to verify what is involved in the new contract on barrier-free tolling. It may run longer than that, perhaps until 2035.

Tolling regimes vary under the various programmes in different parts of the country. Some run longer because the traffic volume is not as high and it takes longer to secure a return. Traffic volumes must be balanced against delivery and the cost of putting the road infrastructure in place. Development can be more expensive in some places depending on the types of roads put in place.

The Minister mentioned studies that indicates Ireland's road construction record compares well with that of other jurisdictions. However, is it not the case that the cost of the tolls is not factored in over a 30-year period? Instead, these studies simply compare the initial construction costs of different road schemes in different countries.

If tolls were taken into consideration, our position would be even better. It tends to be forgotten that companies that engage in public private partnerships bear the significant responsibility of the maintenance costs for the lifetime of these programmes. Maintenance costs for motorways, for example, are huge. Under these programmes, these costs are increasingly borne by private sector partners rather than the taxpayer. It all balances out. The up-front cost, which runs to several hundred millions of euro in some cases, is also borne by the private partner.

Are there any studies showing comparative figures?

The NRA has put those figures into the public domain.

We have not seen them.

The Deputy should get in contact with the NRA. I understand its representatives were questioned by members at a meeting of the committee.

A delegation from the NRA gave a presentation to this committee 12 months ago on direct contracting vis-à-vis public private partnerships.

The delegates did not provide comparative figures.

They did.

No, they did not.

The contract, which is valued at €113 million, is a fixed service contract that includes the design, construction and operation of the system for eight years.

Is the Minister saying the tolls will be lifted in 2020?

I am not. To ensure we retain the best value for money arrangement, NTR may have to compete for the contract once more. It was important to ensure the NRA did not give somebody carte blanche in the operation of the new system on the M50 for the next 30 years. The contract must remain competitive and we must never again end up in the situation we did recently, rightly or wrongly. It is sometimes forgotten that in 1987, after the Labour Party and Fine Gael had been in office for five years, the country was bankrupt.

The Minister does not mention who signed the contracts and what became of them subsequently.

I accept that Liam Kavanagh and Pádraig Flynn were the two principals. I berate neither of them.

That is not true. The Minister knows perfectly well it was Pádraig Flynn and George Redmond.

Pádraig Flynn signed the contract. I am not trying to make a point of this.

The Minister started off by making a point.

Pádraig Flynn and Liam Kavanagh did a good job at the time. Everyone thought they were mad to take such a risk.

To clarify, does the figure of €113 million represent the initial cost? Is there also an annual cost?

That is the set-up cost. NTR will also receive its fee. The port tunnel, which was built for a specific purpose, is working well. I have always maintained that we will only get the best out of individual projects when all the road infrastructure and public transport developments are completed. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, we could have taken a different approach ten years ago. The reality, however, is that we did not have all the money in the world. We tried our best, as various Governments did, even through Labour and Fine Gael's time in office in the mid-1990s, to manage a process as well as possible in a given set of circumstances and with limited resources.

In a perfect world, the M50 would have been fully built with three lanes before the port tunnel was constructed. We have the tunnel now, however, and I would hate to imagine where we might be in the future without it. It is sometimes forgotten that the tunnel and other road infrastructure developments will give value for decades to come. It is not about the value today or next week, as is presented by some. These projects will bring value for many decades. I spoke recently to the head of the entire public transport network in Canada. Deeply frustrated at being often asked this question about value for money, his response is that nobody ever asked how much the pyramids cost.

That answer is not good enough.

He was demonstrating the point that these types of infrastructure projects will have value for generations to come. It is legitimate to ensure one delivers the best value for money in the given circumstances.

That is the point we are making.

We are doing that. In addition, however, the additional value in social and economic terms for future generations is immeasurable.

Does the Minister accept that 12,500 vehicles per day is a pathetic amount of capacity to be using considering the overall capacity of the tunnel? What is the plan to ensure we receive value for money? Not a single bus goes through the tunnel. When will buses be allowed to use it? The capacity of the tunnel is a huge multiple of what is currently being accommodated.

I can understand the Deputy shifting the goalposts. She spent the previous 12 months berating me that this disaster, as she called it——

It has been a disaster.

The Deputy described it as a disastrous project — disastrous this, disastrous that.

It came in at twice the original projected cost.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell should allow the Minister to reply.

It is the same as the Fine Gael approach to the Luas. The party predicted it would be disastrous, would never work and so on.

The Minister is rewriting history. My party never said the Luas would be a disaster. It was Fine Gael that initiated the Luas project.

We are not discussing the Luas.

I am happy to take politics out of this discussion if the Deputy agrees to do so.

I am talking about value for money and that is a legitimate question to ask. What is the plan for the port tunnel? Will it ever provide any additional relief? Given that some £1 billion has been spent on it, we are entitled to know whether we are getting value for money.

It did not cost £1 billion.

It will end up costing in excess of that given the cost to maintain it.

The Deputy is incorrect. It has cost €750 million. A figure of £1 billion equates to some €1.4 billion euro.

I beg the Minister's pardon. Nevertheless, €1 billion---

It cost €750 million.

The Deputy is adding €250 million to the cost.

It has the same capacity as the M50 and yet the use is only a fraction of that. What was the plan for it? Were alternatives considered? Was there a reappraisal of the spending when it was decided to drop the south-eastern——

Deputy Mitchell——

When are the buses going to go into it? When will it be properly managed? When will it be fully open?

Deputy Mitchell's questions——

I am entitled to ask questions about value for money which we are not getting.

Of course the Deputy is entitled to do so.

I am giving the answers but the Deputy does not like them.

I am not interrupting the Deputy to tell her that she cannot ask questions but she is making speeches and not allowing the Minister to reply.

I am making speeches? Has the Chairman not heard the Minister?

The Minister wants to reply to the Deputy's question regarding the port tunnel. The Deputy started to say it cost €1 billion when in fact it cost €700 million. When the Minister replied to that the Deputy tried——-

There are outstanding claims yet to be met.

If Deputy Mitchell had read the Estimates and the various subheads before she came in here she would understand what is going on. She is trying to change the agenda.

The Chairman should not patronise me. I understand this much better than many people. The tunnel is not yielding value for money.

We now move on to subhead C.

I asked the Minister to make a short statement on what happened this morning. Has he received any information from the port tunnel about the computer glitch?

No and I am not happy that it took so long to correct what I understand was an electrical signalling fault. I received a preliminary report to that effect but have not received any further detailed report since coming into this committee meeting.

I hope the Minister is pursuing the matter because it is not acceptable that commuters from the north side of the city had to put up with that.

I agree that it is unacceptable but the tunnel is in an early phase and testing is continuing. The capacity of, and access to, that tunnel will improve significantly as we roll out the system but we need to get it right first.

We now move to subheads C1 to C3, public transport.

I will start with subhead C1 which deals with subventions. I raise this issue every year. The overall amount of the subsidy is pathetic relative to the amount we should spend on public transport in Dublin if we had any hope of solving our congestion problems. The sum of €330 million is a great deal of money and is being paid almost exclusively to one protected monopoly.

State monopolies can be good but they are nevertheless subject to all the difficulties, inefficiencies and potential abuses that beset monopolies in the private sector. It is incumbent on any Government maintaining and subsidising such a monopoly to demand the most exacting standards for transparency and accountability. We are not achieving that standard.

It is also incumbent on Government to ensure that such a company does not exercise its monopoly power to thwart public policy or subvert the public interest, which is not happening. The public sector gets licences, for want of a better word, to operate new routes the private sector does not if the public sector is using that route. There is complete abuse of the system whereby the monopoly company, whether Bus Éireann or Dublin Bus, applies for licences for services for which it does not have the buses and so thwart the private sector's applications. It is reprehensible that the Minister has not taken a stand on this because it is happening all around the country. I can cite chapter and verse.

It is incumbent on the Government most of all to ensure performance criteria are established and targets met and any subsidy paid must be related to performance. I say this every year. The subsidy must be structured in such a way that it depends on attracting additional passenger numbers. That is completely lacking in the current regime under which €330 million will be handed over with no performance-related criteria apart from going through the motions of pretending that there are targets to be met. We do not know the cost of any bus route in Dublin or anywhere else, which make profits or losses, or what subsidies are required. The previous year's subsidy is repeated and maybe after a couple of years it is increased based on no criteria whatsoever.

Within the public company there seems to be no accountability or appraisal of why the subsidy goes to one place rather than another. Every DART passenger receives a subsidy of over €6, the subsidy on the trains is higher but buses have a pathetically low subsidy. There is no public accountability. The company would get the same subsidy if its buses carried ten passengers as if they carried 10 million. We do not know whether we are getting value for money. This committee examines this matter but no accountability is demanded of this company that receives €330 million in public money. Neither I nor the Minister know how it is being spent, why it is being spent in certain ways and if there are better ways of doing it.

Subhead C2 deals with the public transport investment programme which I am pleased to see is increased this year. There was virtually no activity last year in delivering any of the major projects in Dublin. The Luas was to be extended to Cherrywood, and the Kildare and Cork commuter services were to go ahead. Some have now started.

I am worried that the joining up of the two Luas lines seems to have gone off the boil or been dropped. Where is the Dublin transportation authority that was promised to drive all these projects? It was to knock heads together and ensure that projects went ahead. There is no bridge being built over the Liffey and there is a row with Dublin Bus over who owns the road space, and whether the buses or Luas are entitled to it. There is not enough road space and if the transport authority had been in place those bridges would have been built long ago. I am not even going to discuss integrated ticketing because it is such a pathetic story. A further €9 million is being spent this year, and the €12 million that was spent is dead. When will we see something for that €9 million? The overall budget is €42 million and God knows whether we will ever see anything in return for that.

The Minister's figures for park and ride have gone from €12 million to €1 million. His excuse is that the money was not drawn down. Is he surprised? Why would anybody draw down money for a park and ride system when all he or she can provide is the park? The Minister has command of the ride. Nobody can get business, not Dublin Bus, not Bus Éireann and the private sector will never get buses because the Taoiseach has decided not to rock any union boats between now and an election so there will be no Dublin transport authority or private buses. There is no point providing a park and ride site if there is to be only parking and no buses.

The transport authority would be essential to drive and co-ordinate that kind of business. It has been promised for years but there is no sign of it. What does the Minister expect in terms of draw down this year for the park and ride scheme? South Dublin County Council had several sites in mind and assured me it had applied for bus licences to service these sites but I have not heard whether it has received these licences. Is it the case that it will not get them now given the small sum allocated?

Under subhead C1, the public service provision payments amount to €327 million. This is a tiny payment compared with those made in other EU member states. The current level of subvention to Dublin Bus is 26%, the lowest of 25 major European cities comparable to Dublin. Most of these cities have subventions of 50% to 70%. We know there is a large undersupply of public transport. The public transport companies cannot afford to meet the demand that exists, but the level of subvention from central government is the lowest in Europe. In addition, the entire subvention for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann is being eaten up by the cost of congestion.

What are the Minister's views on State funding of public transport? It cannot be done on the cheap, yet Ireland's subvention stands at 26%. I know progress has been made to get the figure to 26%. Does the Minister intend to get the subvention figure closer to the European average? We are only fooling ourselves if we pretend we can provide a modern transport public system without a commitment from the Government to fund it adequately.

Regarding funding for Transport 21, my concern and that of the travelling public is that the one project that needs an early go-ahead is the Dublin rail interconnector. That is the single project that will deliver the greatest return, allowing for a fourfold increase in the rail capacity in the greater Dublin area. Why has it been put to the end of the Transport 21 timetable? It will be 2015, at best, when it comes on stream. It should have been frontloaded. With the new rail station opened at Spencer Dock, is it the Minister's intention that Iarnród Éireann would start using the Phoenix Park tunnel? The company has said that once the Spencer Dock station was open, it would enable it to open the Phoenix Park tunnel to commuter services on the Kildare-Newbridge line.

The metro north project is a major part of Transport 21, and one of particular concern to me as a north side Dublin Deputy. The proposal, as it stands, is to bring the metro overground from Glasnevin on to Ballymun. A high speed train service will run through the Ballymun estate in which much public and private moneys have been spent on regeneration. There is no local support for such a service. People are demanding it is kept underground in a cut-and-cover tunnel. The Rail Procurement Agency, however, claims it cannot run it as such through Ballymun within the existing financial envelope the Minister provided. There is a large amount of investment in the metro north project but it will be downgraded if it is run overground. It will not only destroy Ballymun's regeneration but cause havoc to traffic movements on Dublin's north side. The area has more than enough problems with the West Link bridge and the Dublin Port tunnel. If the Minister insists it is run through Ballymun, the system will never reach its capacity of a high speed train every 90 seconds. Is the Minister prepared to review this?

Under subhead C3, will the Minister indicate the future of the Dublin Transportation Office? Is it his intention that it will be subsumed into the new Dublin transportation authority?

There are significant monitoring and auditing units in the Department of Transport, which spend much time ensuring value for money on capital projects. They also ensure memoranda of understanding in the development of the bus companies are in place.

The Deputies may have a different opinion but I believe Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann have done a bloody great job in recent years. They have done it on maximising the resources available to them. Some claim more money should go to subsidising public transport. The alternative is to let the private sector run it on tight public service obligation contracts, keeping the cost to the public purse as minimal as possible.

Having examined this over the years and going by international experience, I believe there is a roll-back in the public sector delivery of the public transport model. The UK's deregulation of the rail networks has been an abject failure. It will move to make its rail companies public because the network has fallen apart. The private sector cherry-picked the best networks and drove the costs of public transport subsidies through the roof. Overall it has been a bad experience for the UK. That is not to say there is not room for a mix of private and public sector companies in the delivery of public transport.

There is more private sector involvement on the long-haul express routes. There are archaic licensing conditions under the 1932 Act which we are all agreed is out of date and needs to be updated.

It has been out of date for the past ten years.

It is an issue with which most parties have not been able to grapple. I have decided to tackle it.

It took the Minister a long time to come full circle.

Deputy Shortall should allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

He has come a long way from his days in the Progressive Democrats.

No history lessons are needed. Allow the Minister to reply.

This is revisionism.

The Minister is rewriting history.

I thought we were all politicians.

The Deputies ask me questions and then do not like the answers I give them.

The Minister is innocent, of course.

I am not. The Deputy's remarks were unfair to the staff of Dublin Bus, Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann.

I want a large subsidy for public transport.

The Deputy was highly critical of giving money.

I said that we wanted value for money.

The Deputy does not believe that we are securing value for money.

The point is that I do not know whether we are getting it because the Minister does not know either, and he will never know until he introduces competition. He has picked the UK, yet it is the only example where such competition has failed.

Deputy Mitchell——

This is the catch-cry.

If the Minister looks at Europe and London, he will see that regulated competition has delivered a far better system.

The Deputy is not allowing the Minister to reply.

(Interruptions).

If the Minister is promising more such success, we are not filled with faith.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell is talking to herself without realising it, since her microphone was switched off for approximately five minutes. She should at least allow the Minister to reply. If she has supplementary questions, we will take them afterwards. Let us not get into any argy-bargy. We are trying to pass an Estimate.

I will not do so, but I would like the Minister to answer the questions put to him.

The Deputy has no patience and she is not allowing the Minister to reply. Perhaps she might now do so and if she has supplementary questions, we will take them.

In another context, Deputy Shortall takes the quite legitimate view that one should invest greater subsidies in public transport. However, the issue is not whether one invests more or less but that one secures the best value for what one invests. That is what we are striving to achieve. I agree that the DTA can bring a great deal of value to that as we proceed with investment in the public transport system. The DTA legislation, which will be published shortly and the legislation to reform the 1932 Act will allow for private sector involvement in the delivery of public transport by bus in this country. That is the right route to take, and the mix of the two will deliver the best outcomes.

I do not believe what Deputy Shortall said. I am not sure of the measurement that we use or the context of that measurement if other countries carry 60% or 70% of the cost, while we cover only 26%. One must examine how things are run. Ireland has a very centralised, subsidised system, whereas most bus companies in European cities are run in a very different manner by local authorities, being under their control.

They are still State subsidised.

There is no point in our comparing apples with oranges. We must compare like with like on this issue. So far, all the measurements indicate we are securing very good value for money. If anything, judging from what Deputy Shortall had to say, we are not investing enough, meaning that we must be getting tremendous value for money in what is being delivered.

The Deputy can rest assured that the issue of the Luas lines has not been dropped because it is crucial and I set out to achieve something. The RPA has had serious discussions with Dublin City Council, and there are clearly major problems regarding its view on managing traffic in Dublin. The agency has also had discussions with the bus companies, particularly Dublin Bus. I would have liked to have seen the issue resolved before now. They are in discussions, and I have asked all sides to reach a conclusion on the issue because the travelling public wishes to see the two Luas lines joined. We know that simply joining them will automatically generate an additional 6 million or 7 million passenger journeys a year. The consequence of their being joined is that, when we extend the network out of O'Connell Street to Lucan and other areas, we will have the full benefit of those lines too.

I have supported all the claims and business cases submitted to me by Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus. I would not like Deputy Shortall to think that I am somehow refusing them what they have asked for, since they have received it on the basis of their own business plans.

Dublin Bus asked for 427 buses and the Minister gave it 100.

The Deputy has decided to discount the fact that we have increased the capacity of Dublin Bus by 40% in recent years, which was what it wanted.

So that solved all the congestion problems.

There has been a massive improvement, not to mention the quality of the buses and security systems for the travelling public, which have also made a great difference. The DTO's future is clearly to be absorbed into the DTA. I have made that perfectly clear, and the staff know the agency will be absorbed, so there is no problem in that respect.

Deputy Shortall has made her views known on metro north and the issue at Ballymun. The RPA has been having extensive discussions with local elected representatives and groups to come to a resolution. I know that the preferred option is cut and cover, and my colleagues seem to wish the same thing. I happen to think that they are all wrong, although it is neither here nor there. The on-street system looks fabulous and has proven the best option in other countries. I would certainly prefer to have a first-class, world-beating system delivered in that way.

An overground system is much safer and more secure than a cut and cover system, but I am not ruling it out. I am waiting instead for the RPA to produce a solution after the discussions and recommendations. However, I am well aware that it is not merely the Deputy's view and that a consensus has emerged in Ballymun that people do not want an overground system. That is the people's choice, and I respect that. The debate became very distorted, but that is the current situation and we want to find a resolution to allow us to go to tender. I said publicly and the RPA stated that we would reach the tendering process on metro north for a preliminary weeding out this year, and I want to meet that deadline.

The only outstanding issue is to resolve this, which I hope we can do in the next few weeks. Once a decision has been taken that I hope everyone will favour, we can move on. However, I understand the issue and locals' strongly held view as expressed by the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, Deputy Carey and others.

What about the interconnector under the Phoenix Park?

The Deputy will be aware that we must electrify the route from Kildare to Dublin, and that has now begun in the form of the four-tracking process. We must get electrified trains through that system, since we cannot bring diesel trains through the interconnector. We must work our way in from outlying areas. The scheduling of everything that Iarnród Éireann and we wanted, which we married with the plans of the RPA and other developments in Dublin, is laid out in Transport 21. Iarnród Éireann has done a fantastic job in delivering the new station. No one would have believed the project would already be open, having been started only last year. That is part of the programme it wishes to roll out.

The Phoenix Park tunnel has been presented as a sort of Holy Grail. I recently went down there and rode in a train through it. The tunnel is very narrow and is used constantly by Iarnród Éireann to move rolling stock. However, it does not represent a solution for Dublin. If capacity and usage can be improved, I would urge Iarnród Éireann to do that given the new station now open in the docklands. However, I understand regarding its connectivity and operation that it will not afford the great increase in capacity that has been suggested. I am not sure whether the new station will allow Iarnród Éireann to do much with it.

Are there cost implications of bringing it into use in conjunction with Spencer Dock station, and have there been any proposals in that regard?

I cannot answer the question, and I do not wish to speculate. Nothing has landed on my desk. I have gone down the tunnel in a train, and it functions every day. Iarnród Éireann uses it daily for significant movements of rolling stock throughout the system. It provides a very beneficial additional stream by allowing traffic to be removed, thus reducing the burden on the system. I have not received any specific proposal regarding work on the Phoenix Park tunnel, but that is not to say Iarnród Éireann does not have such plans in its budgets. I do not know the answer at present.

I have received communications from Iarnród Éireann stating many reasons it could not, should not and would not ever open the Phoenix Park tunnel. I was surprised to read in the newspaper that the chairman of CIE, Mr. John Lynch, had written to the head of the HSE to say that not alone would the opening of the Phoenix Park tunnel to service the children's hospital in the Mater be investigated, but a special station would be opened to service the hospital. I found this somewhat strange.

I want to emphasise this point about the Phoenix Park tunnel which I have raised a number of times. I know CIE has its heart set on the interconnector, but this is years away as yet. If a metro through Dublin is to be built enormous portions of that area just north of the Liffey will have to be dug up. Surely it makes sense to take all the traffic that currently comes from Heuston station and let it go into the Phoenix Park tunnel, thus avoiding the congestion that will be created. If the Minister plans to manage that project that will be an absolutely crucial element that could be availed of.

I am not an engineering expert, no more than the Deputy. I went into the tunnel because many people, including the Deputy, have been saying it is a fantastic facility. However, when one looks at its configuration, size and scale there is very little room and traffic would therefore be very slow in getting through. As it is today, it does not provide an engineering solution in terms of the Heuston and Connolly stations, given the volumes that exist. Neither does it provide a solution in terms of the volume of commuter as well as intercity traffic. When everything is reconfigured to bring it into the mix, there is very little added value in terms of the numbers of people getting into stations, which is the reason for doing this in the first place. We opted for the interconnector precisely for that reason.

The tunnel as it exists — or even an expanded tunnel in the same location — ultimately gives very little, even with a great deal of investment. What is really needed is to reconfigure the entire system to bring an entirely different perspective to the network. That is why the interconnector is crucial, and I agree with both Deputies in that regard. It is not just crucial to Iarnród Éireann. It will be crucial to the whole movement of people in terms of the metro, Luas connectivity and the interconnector. When all the routes are electrified, we will be able to bring what are effectively all the electrified DART systems from the north side through the city into St. Stephen's Green and out. There can be a continuous flow in both directions. The huge amount of work involved and the cost involved of the foretracking which has now started in Kildare is significant in terms of the value of the interconnector and Iarnród Éireann's programme was to roll it out that way.

I want to go back for a moment to the whole question of metro north and its design. The Minister has disagreed with the local people there who said they wanted it kept underground. It is important to appreciate the distinction between metro and Luas. This is not Luas, it is a metro, and if it is to run up the centre of Ballymun's main street it will effectively sever the area because there will be high protective walls on both sides.

That is the first I have heard of it and it is news to me.

That is true. One cannot have a high-speed train running through a highly residential area.

They do it in other cities without a problem.

They do with trams, but not a high-speed train.

No, that is not true.

That is the design we are told we will have to have if it is on the surface. There will have to be high protective walls so that even pedestrians cannot cross.

Yes, it would have to be a segregated system, no doubt.

How are pedestrians or traffic to cross the road then? There are major difficulties. The RPA is now telling the public that it cannot look at the option of putting it underground as a cut and cover tunnel because the funding envelope the Minister has provided will not allow it. The RPA recognises that what local people want is a cut and cover tunnel, but the funding will not allow that.

I have not had a final or definitive proposal from the RPA as to what it wants to do.

Has the Minister not indicated the size of the financial envelope?

Allow the Minister to reply.

From my perspective the RPA must produce the best system and the best value for money. It does not agree that that there would be any benefits by the cut and cover system, with the huge additional costs. The Deputy may disagree with the RPA viewpoint on this — I will not argue that with her. From my perspective it has certainly provided for contingencies in the sense that traffic and everything configures. We have the experience at the Red Cow roundabout and everyone said that Luas would bring the world to an end, traffic would fall into the ground, etc. None of this happened. It now works without any bother, giving one some degree of confidence that with a significantly lesser scale of traffic metro north will function well overground. There will be little or no impact on the movement of metro north coming in from Swords to the city centre by having it overground there — almost none. I have to accept that as a statement of fact.

On the other side of the argument, however, I accept the view locally is that people would prefer to see this system underground as opposed to overground, and I respect that.

The RPA is saying it cannot recommend that because of the constraints.

The RPA is saying it is bad value for money.

The agency is saying the constraints the Minister has placed on it will not allow it to recommend that it be put underground.

I never gave the RPA a particular budget for Ballymun, if that is what the Deputy is asking me about. I never said it had a certain amount of money to spend there. I want to be clear about the position here, not disingenuous. The RPA, with all its experts, was asked to design a system from the centre of Dublin to Swords, to get the best value for money and to marry that with the best delivery time and the best system. Its view is that it is utterly unnecessary to incur an enormous extra cost in going underground at Ballymun. That is the point the RPA is making publicly, and it has made me aware of that. I am equally aware of the other side of the equation, the public view.

In a general sense there is the purest misnomer abroad that a metro is underground and something else is overground. The world has moved on dramatically from that old-fashioned way of looking at light rail systems. Modern systems are a mixture of many different elements because the proper technology is available. The highly efficient and successful modern systems comprise a mixture of overground and underground.

It is not an issue of overground and underground. What defines the metro is that it is an uninterrupted route—

Correct.

—that runs continuously. If a system has the capacity to run trains every 90 seconds in either direction, one is then talking about 45 second intervals, and therefore one cannot have traffic crossing that, either pedestrian or anything else.

I accept that is the Deputy's view, but the RPA says this is nonsense and not the case. It has done all the modelling, etc. and found that running it overground will have no effect. There will not be any more trains coming through, whether the metro is underground or overground. The same amount of trains will be travelling at the same level of speed — and with the same effort.

I should like to cite the RPA directly, to the effect that it is not able to recommend a cut and cover underground system within the financial envelope that the Minister has provided. It is tailoring the project to meet the financial envelope the Minister has provided.

It would be irresponsible of me if all these programmes had unlimited budgets.

No one is suggesting it should be unlimited.

I want to be clear on this because I do not want to be misquoted. There is not a specific figure put by me in Transport 21 for Ballymun. It is clear, in the terms of delivery of the entire metro north, that what the RPA is being charged with is the delivery of a first-class system that embraces all the highest qualities involved but gets the best value for money. In its original planning, and currently, part of the metro goes overground and part goes underground. We have hit a block in Ballymun, where the strongly held view is that the project should be cut and cover and underground. That has a cost implication. It is substantially more expensive to put that system underground than overground in Ballymun, and the RPA is articulating that point.

This is a decision which will be with us for another 100 years and there are other costs involved in terms of safety, segregation of the community, chaos to local traffic movements, as well as destroying the environment.

I have been very calm on this issue. I will not get into a row with the Deputy about it. I await the final report. I made it perfectly clear that I understand the issues. My two colleagues have spoken to me about the view——

The Minister is dictating the nature of the final report.

I am not the engineer. I am accused of things being gold-plated and so on. I am simply saying that from an engineering point of view and in an efficient system, there will be no difference between it being overground and underground. The difference is a substantial increased cost to put it underground. These are the facts, as opposed to all the other things that have been said about it. We have not come to any conclusion on the issue as I speak.

We are running way behind time. We will now move on to subheads D1 to D5, inclusive, which relate to civil aviation. Does anybody have any queries?

Does this heading include anything about the break-up of the old Aer Rianta, the DTA and the separation of the State airports? I was pleased this morning to hear that we are edging towards a solution in Shannon. However, the problem in Cork persists. It has been said that company law strictures apply in this case and that unless the company has distributable assets equal to the value of the assets it is disposing of, it cannot do so. That rule is to protect shareholders because one cannot sell an asset when one owes money to someone else. If these company law rules apply in this case, how is it that a company like the DAA, which has net debts, can dispose of Cork Airport and yet retain €100 million debt? If it can retain €100 million, why can it not retain it all? Can it legally retain the debt? Do these provisions of company law actually apply? I think I may have caught the Minister out.

Not at all. The Deputy should go on with her analysis. It is a very complex issue.

It is complex. Is there any chance that we could get the report that determined that the Cork Airport Authority could carry the €100 million and that the DAA would hold onto €120 million? Will the Minister publish that report? It does not make sense that the authority must have distributable assets to dispose of Cork Airport when we know that it does not have any. How can Cork Airport be disposed of and some of the debt retained?

This is a very complex issue about which someone should have informed the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan. The fact remains that people were promised that Cork Airport would start with a clean balance sheet. Either the Minister has welshed on his word or else he did not know what he was talking about. Which is it?

I am glad that both Deputies understand it is a complex issue. It is not easy when we get into distributable reserves, assets and the break-up of a company, be it a public or private company. When I came into office, I met the Cork board and I was asked if there was any possibility to facilitate its move to independence much more quickly than was originally anticipated under the State Airports Act. I said I would look into it but that I did not know the answer in the first instance. I knew, as was correctly set out by my predecessor, that the distributable reserves to do that had to be in place. In other words, the cash value of the asset had to be held in reserves by the Dublin Airport Authority to do it. Since the Cork board wanted to move ahead of schedule to become independent, I promised to look at that.

I informed the board members that I thought what they were doing was the right decision. I said that if I was in their position, I would like to be master of my own destiny. This was a very significant asset with a new terminal, which is effectively a new airport. I thought I could facilitate that. We then entered a process on how that could be done. If the CAA was to move ahead of the original timeframe, it would have to do so on the basis that one of the distributable reserves would not be available in the short term to Dublin Airport to separate Cork. To do it, there would be some cost involved.

On the one hand, what could Dublin Airport bear by losing a very significant asset that was part of its overall bond and loan structure on the financial markets? On the other hand, what debt could Cork Airport realistically bear, taking into the account the value of the asset, the investment profile of the company, its plans for the next few years and its passenger charging regime? I have had just about every expert that one could find to look at this, including Aviation Economics in the UK, which arranged for the Cork board to make a presentation on the facts. Out of that exercise, it became clear that if we wanted to move ahead of schedule and balance the needs of Cork Airport with the loss of a significant asset to Dublin Airport, the figure of €100 million seemed to be fair.

To answer my question, is the €100 million that has been left with Cork Airport merely prudent accounting rather than a legal accounting requirement of a State company?

No. To separate out Cork Airport, which is conservatively valued at €220 million, Dublin Airport Authority must have €220 million in cash reserves.

Yes, I know.

We have not seen the final accounts from Dublin Airport but based on the work done over the past six months and on what Cork Airport could bear, there may well be figures available to Dublin Airport to distribute a lesser figure. Is the Deputy with me?

At the moment, the airport has a net debt of €320 million according to its annual report.

I have not seen the final accounts. There are obviously things that have occurred in the past 12 months which changed the overall balance sheet. Clearly, the Dublin Airport Authority will cash in many of its assets because it has such a big task to develop Dublin Airport. I was trying to make a point on whether it would be possible this year for the Dublin Airport Authority to have the cash reserves for all the debt. It clearly is not possible. It is possible to achieve €100 million, with cash reserves of €120 million.

It would need to be a miraculous turnabout.

We will wait until the accounts are published.

Why did the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, not establish that four years ago?

Please, Deputy. I have been trying to reach out here. The position of the then Minister, Deputy Brennan, and my position are utterly consistent. It was not I or the Government who put a debt on Cork Airport, which wants to move much quicker than was originally anticipated. While I was not Minister for Transport at the time, Deputy Shortall may well have been spokesperson on transport and participated in those debates. It was made perfectly clear that this was possible—

It was not.

—that Shannon Airport would be first and that when the distributable reserves were available, Cork Airport would be distributed out. My position is completely consistent with that. The Deputy may ask what has changed. It is very simple. Cork Airport wants to move faster than was originally anticipated. That is legitimate.

What has changed is that somebody let the Minister know he cannot play Monopoly with a company and move things around like Monopoly money, which is what the then Minister, Deputy Brennan, was trying to do.

If the Deputy reads the 2004 statement by the then Minister for Transport—

He did not know what he was talking about.

He set out clearly to the House that to move ahead, a finance lease arrangement would have to be put in place by Cork Airport. He set out all the facts with regard to distributable reserves and so on. That is how we got into—

The mess we are in.

—this debate, which became a debate about a debt, which has confused the issue. It is about the ability of the Dublin Airport Authority to have distributable reserves in cash terms to the value of the asset—

It is about stroke politics that went wrong. The Minister will pay a price at the election.

The Minister's party.

We move on to subheads E1 to E3, maritime transport.

If I have any regret in all of this, it is that I moved to facilitate them in the first place. I should have left well enough alone. It is the thanks one gets for trying to be helpful.

Has Deputy Shortall questions with regard to maritime transport? No. We move to subheads F1 and F2, miscellaneous, and subhead G, appropriations-in-aid. Are there any queries? No. Are there any concluding remarks?

I thank the Minister and his officials for bearing with us for the afternoon.

Once again, I thank the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and his officials for attending the meeting and assisting our consideration of the Estimates.

Top
Share