I wish to ask about the Long Title of the Bill. Can I raise that now? I refer to page 9.
Dublin Transport Authority Bill 2008: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
We will deal with that when we come to it.
It is at the very end. I thought it was at the very beginning. I am sorry — I just want to get this right. The Long Title is dealt with at the end, not at the beginning. Do I raise my questions with regard to St. Stephen's Green, which is mentioned specifically in this, at the end?
Yes, at the end.
What page are we on?
Section 2 is the Short Title, on page 9.
On the Short Title——
Amendment No. 1——
At the top of page 9 is written "Bill entitled...". When do I talk about that?
At the end.
But we are on page 9 now. Do we discuss everything except this?
At the end we talk about section 1, which is the Long Title. Section 2 is at the bottom of page 9, and Deputy O'Dowd has put down amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 16 is related and thus amendments Nos. 1 and 16 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
" "Park and Ride" means a facility, located in close proximity to public passenger transport services, where those travelling by private vehicle can leave their vehicle at the facility in order to use public passenger transport services;".
The reason we put down this amendment was to include a definition of the term "park and ride" in the Bill. Our amendment was ruled out of order in the Seanad as it was deemed to be a charge on the Exchequer. We would like the definition of "park and ride" to be included in the Bill and we ask that the Department take on board this issue. It is not included in the Bill——
It was ruled out of order.
This one is not out of order because the provision is that a definition be included rather than that an action be carried out.
The Opposition Deputies obviously have a document stating what is in or out of order, but we do not. It would be useful if we could have the same document.
I received a letter this morning stating that it had been ruled out of order. That is the only thing that is not included.
The rest of us do not have that.
Yes.
I am referring to the green book.
I note that the Minister in his response to a parliamentary question yesterday indicated his support for park and ride facilities, particularly of the nature I pointed out. I understood the Minister was of the same view as me on this issue, namely, that park and ride is essential. People using private transport are parking in areas that are not officially sanctioned as park and ride facilities, in some cases parking dangerously near to junctions. Nevertheless, the principle of park and ride is very important and I urge that the Minister accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is offered.
I support my colleague. It is valuable to define the term in the Bill. The history of park and ride facilities, ever since I entered politics, has been that local authorities and the main transport organisations have gone out of their way to avoid taking responsibility in this regard. To define the term and ensure it is within the remit of the DTA to knock heads together and have such facilities put in place is a fundamental requirement for the working of the Bill. I strongly support the suggestion.
We have suffered a lot over this issue over the last number of years. No matter where one goes on the DART network, and on the mainline network in other areas of the country, one can see the problem again and again. It is unfair to commuters and to people who live in areas beside railway stations. I saw this on Station Road in Portmarnock yesterday morning when I was going around taking down "Yes" posters. People were parked up along the footpath in front of apartments, which is not acceptable. I support my colleague's amendment.
I support this amendment. Park and ride will be a fundamental part of the entire transport network in the future. I have no doubt that park and ride will feature as a central part of whatever blueprint the new organisation will bring into being. We discussed this at some length yesterday in the committee. It is important that park and ride facilities not only be placed strategically at interurban routes around the city, or any city, although we are speaking about Dublin in this context, but that they also be placed at other roads into the city, as mentioned by Deputy Kennedy yesterday. There is no way we can deal with the volumes of traffic descending on the city of Dublin unless there are proper park and ride facilities that are treated as a useful tool in the efficient running of the transport network in Dublin. That is why I support this amendment.
My views on park and ride facilities are well known. We need to have park and ride facilities on the outskirts of all of our cities to keep traffic from causing congestion. The definition in Deputy O'Dowd's amendment mentions "close proximity to public passenger transport services". I would broaden this out and say that where we do not have existing public transportation we should also provide park and ride facilities and introduce public transport, such as buses, to these locations. In Lissenhall, north of Swords, Fingal County Council is willing to provide a temporary park and ride facility. We should insist that Dublin Bus and other private operators provide a service from that location into the city. We need to amend the wording suggested by Deputy O'Dowd to take into account situations in which there is no existing public transport.
Absolutely.
The term "park and ride" is not specifically used in the Bill, but if members look further down in section 2, at the bottom of page 10, they will see that a definition is provided for "interchange facilities", which is as follows: "infrastructure or premises which facilitates transport users using different modes of transport, including but not limited to facilities that allows for the stopping, parking or standing of taxis, cycles, motor cycles, buses, trains and cars in order to facilitate users of one mode of transport transferring to another mode". Thus, the use of the broader term "interchange facilities" allows us to include all aspects of interchange, not just park and ride, which obviously has a specific meaning. Section 44(2)(iii) states that the authority will, in the normal course of events, secure the provision of interchange facilities such as park and ride through the appropriate public transport authority whether it be Iarnród Éireann, the RPA, Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann or a road authority.
In what section is that subsection?
Section 44 on pages 36 and 37. There is a provision in section 44(2)(b) for the authority to perform that function “where the Authority considers it more convenient, more expeditious, more effective or more economical” to do so. The specifics about park and ride facilities are dealt with. I agree with the Deputies that it is major point of concern. I am not satisfied that park and ride facilities are being rolled out at the level that they should be. Provision for those facilities is covered already in the Bill. If Deputy O’Dowd agrees to withdraw his amendment, I will undertake to include a definition of “park and ride” for Report Stage provided it would not have the knock-on effect of requiring a series of other amendments.
How stands the amendment?
I will withdraw the amendment with the option to table a similar amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are alternatives and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No: 2
In page 12, paragraph (b), line 40, after "Kildare," to insert "Drogheda and South Louth,".
This amendment relates to what is now the heart of the greater Dublin area. In terms of the definition of the greater Dublin area, the Dublin transport authority will cover the city of Dublin, south Dublin, Fingal, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Kildare. My party wants to also include Drogheda and south Louth followed by Wicklow and Meath.
A massive transformation in terms of growth, planning permissions and demand for services has taken place in south Louth. Such growth has been exacerbated by lack of planning and transport planning in east Meath, as the Minster is aware, which has resulted in the local population being up in arms in places such as Julianstown about thousands of vehicles per hour travelling through their tiny village. There is a demand for a new road, which hopefully will be built which would relieve the pressure there. That is the area on the south side of the River Boyne.
On the north side of the River Boyne, a similar picture is developing. I refer the Minister to the report published on the location for a new regional hospital in the north east. It specifically deals with demography, planning and development in the region. A map is included in that plan which specifically shows that in the areas north and south of Drogheda the same type of massive development will take place in next few years.
In terms of proposing that the DTA area should include the south side of Drogheda, I refer to the land use strategy, planning and such matters, which is a critical part of the Bill. Local development plans must dovetail with the plan of the DTA and how the transport plan fits in with all planning permissions. It puts an obligation on developers and local authorities to be fully versed on the content of the transport planning for the region. If the area south of the River Boyne is included under the DTA plan and the area north of the River Boyne is not included in it, serious planning and transport problems will arise north of the River Boyne in Drogheda.
I accept that the provision that such other areas as may be declared by order from time to time by the Minister would allow him to designate other areas. The development of Drogheda and south Louth is at such a critical stage now that we want to avoid the problems that arose in east Meath and that are currently being experienced in south Louth as a result of lack of planning, including transport planning. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take on board this amendment.
I have not proposed the inclusion of all of County Louth in the DTA area because the same problems do not exist to the same extent in other parts of the county. I ask the Minister to consider including in the DTA area the Drogheda and south Louth area and, by definition, the local electoral area. The implications of the growth of Dublin on the quality of people's lives are generally addressed by this Bill, but they will not be addressed in terms of south Louth if it is not included specifically in the DTA area.
Amendment No. 3 is in my name. I accept what my colleague, the public representative for Louth, has said in regard to the county. I think back to the days when I was a member of the Dublin Regional Authority when we used to liaise closely with mid-east Meath in particular, and Kildare and Wicklow, which have now become part of the greater Dublin area.
A number of studies were conducted from which we identified a major problem arising in south Louth in particular. Taking account of the big picture, as happens in some other areas, we thought it would have been appropriate for Louth to be included in the strategic planning for the two regional authorities concerned. I understand the Minister said during the debate on the Bill in the Seanad that it was a major problem that Louth, particularly Drogheda and the south Louth region, had been included in a different regional authority.
During the Meath by-election in the previous Dáil, it was striking how the Drogheda and east Meath area had become a region, not only in terms of transport plans but on a range of economic, developmental and planning issues. The recent revision of constituencies showed that development. It would create a difficulty if the many people, for example, who are in the Oireachtas who have travelled from the greater Drogheda and south Louth area were excluded from provisions under the DTA area. One might say those services originate and end within the DTA area and therefore this point is not significant. A point we all noted when we first saw the Bill was that the people and representatives of south Louth in particular, will not be included in the DTA area. I accept the point my colleague has made in this respect. I commend amendment No. 3 and I urge the Minister to reconsider the inclusion of these areas.
We dealt with this point during the debate in the Seanad and during the debate in the House. As Deputy O'Dowd said, there is a provision to extend the DTA area, if it is deemed necessary. Whatever about Deputy Broughan's proposal that all of Louth be taken into the greater Dublin area, I would not be in favour of slicing Drogheda in half in this regard.
The same argument can be made for the inclusion of Mullingar in the DTA area and Carlow because it is contiguous to Kildare. I accept that we have a huge commuting belt. I also accept the point the Deputies made in regard to Drogheda and south Louth generally. However, we are dealing with the greater Dublin area, as defined, which comprises two regional authorities, but they are regional authorities that have planning guidelines that pertain to the greater Dublin area. It would not be appropriate for us in this Bill to decide that County Louth or a part of it should become part of this area. I do not disagree with the notion that Louth should become part of the greater Dublin area, but it is not appropriate to approach consideration of it in a piecemeal way or for us to make such a decision.
It is a decision for the local and regional authorities concerned as to whether, instead of being part of the Border, midlands and western region, Louth should be incorporated into the greater Dublin area. That did not happen heretofore because it was considered more beneficial to the county to be included in the Border, midland and western region. However, if the local authorities change their view on this, that change can be implemented under the provisions of this Bill. Section 63 provides that the Minister may extend the Dublin transport authority's function with regard to integrated fares and public transport information. Under section 54, the Minister may designate bus and rail services originating or ending outside the greater Dublin area as being part of the greater Dublin area's transport system. There is sufficient flexibility in the Bill, therefore, to deal with the problems to which Deputy O'Dowd referred and the changes that have taken place.
We are looking at this in terms of ensuring coherence and joined-up thinking in the provision of transport services. However, if we look at it from the land use and planning point of view, it is important that the operational area of the proposed transport authority should coincide with the greater Dublin area as currently defined. That area is subject to one set of regional planning guidelines which cover the mid-east, incorporating Meath, Kildare and Wicklow, and the Dublin regional authority areas. Louth forms part of another regional authority, with its own set of planning guidelines. It is not a matter for me or for this committee but rather for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the local authorities concerned to consider whether there should be a realignment of those regional planning boundaries. I referred to the provision in section 3(c) to extend the geographical area of the greater Dublin area by order. However, in the interests of subsidiarity and local democracy, it would be better that this be done on the basis of a request from the local authority to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
There is nothing in this Bill to prevent local authorities in areas adjacent to the greater Dublin area from consulting the Dublin transport authority. On the contrary, the legislation facilitates such consultation. An example is the provision for the Dublin transport authority and the Dublin Transportation Office to offer services in regard to transport and transport planning to local authorities. That would be the best route for Louth and Drogheda. For this reason, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
I disagree entirely with the Minister. The developments taking place in east Meath are appalling. Builders have run riot there as a consequence of poor planning and development decisions. The Minister knows as well as I do that the services are appalling and disgraceful. According to this Bill, the development of the transport network in east Meath must have due regard to the planning decisions of the Dublin transport authority. Drogheda is situated just beyond the historical boundaries of the county of Meath. The population of County Louth is predicted to increase in the next ten to 15 years to some 90,000. Last week in Drogheda, a consortium of developers put forward an attractive development plan for the town, the Sienna plan for north Drogheda. Its population will increase to more than 15,000 in the next ten years.
It is not a question of boundaries but of transport strategy. Planning and development decisions in south Louth must be undertaken with the same rigour as in its neighbouring counties to the south and with the same emphasis on the transport needs of its commuter population. The Minister has not addressed this critical issue. It is all very well to say it is a matter for the local authority but it is we who devise the legislation. It is up to us to point out to the Minister that the executive authority rests with him in this matter. We decide what is or is not included in the remit of the Dublin transport authority.
The national spatial strategy must be revisited. Drogheda was expressly excluded as a growth centre. I understand there was a memo to Cabinet setting up Drogheda versus Dundalk. I have no difficulty with Dundalk's designation as a growth area but there is no denying that Drogheda was ignored in that strategy. I do not mean to beat a local drum here. My intention is to bring the Minister's attention to the massive development taking place north of the River Boyne, in Drogheda town and south Drogheda. The county council areas can be defined as Drogheda east and Drogheda west. The same growth is envisaged for this area as is predicted for east Meath. However, while the Minister accepts the argument in regard to east Meath, he refuses to accept the same argument for south Louth.
The report on the regional hospital offered an independent analysis of the significant growth pattern in the area. If the Minister says we must wait, the development plans will proceed without the necessary transport infrastructure and the people in the region will lose out. There is no correlation between Mullingar and Drogheda in terms of their respective proximity to Dublin in the context of the massive developments taking place in south Drogheda. One set of planning rules is in operation there and another in the north of the town. The people will not thank us for allowing builders to run riot while we neglect to provide adequate transport services. I will not withdraw the amendment and I ask the Minister to reconsider it. If we find we cannot agree on it, I will be obliged to put it to a vote.
Deputy O'Dowd has put the case well. There is also an argument to be made from the perspective of democratic procedure. Long before the Dublin transport authority was mooted, efforts were being made, via the Dublin and mid-east regional authorities, to achieve an integrated regional planning approach to transport. Through the regional authorities, councillors in the seven local authorities had a say in shaping integrated planning, including transport, for their areas. Under this Bill, however, the representatives of the Drogheda borough and of Louth County Council will be excluded.
A recent planning study undertaken by the Dublin Institute of Technology is interesting because it effectively rubbishes the decentralisation arguments. It makes the case that no matter what is done, there will be some degree of consolidation on the east coast and that we should focus on major growth centres outside the east coast such as Galway, Limerick and Cork. South Louth in particular, and perhaps the entire county, will be part of the development of the Dublin-Belfast corridor that occurs as the island integrates economically. The Minister oversaw integration efforts in the area of electricity supply in his last portfolio. This will be pronounced as the island integrates economically over forthcoming decades. There would be a democratic deficit in whatever arrangements we make with the board and the advisory board if we exclude Louth. From that point of view I support my colleague. We should try to include it.
The Minister referred to the Green Party Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I have studied his local government "gerrymandering" of some wards in this city and county. I am not sure that this should be left to Ministers with responsibility for the environment when they are trying to protect their party members' seats.
That is a totally irrelevant comment.
It is not the Minister's seat. That is why it is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a great deal of power.
Deputies should not cast aspersions. We established independent commissions to deal with electoral boundaries, local and national——
Local and national are different, as the Minister knows.
They are independent. The Deputy is casting a slur on whoever was on that commission; I cannot recall their names. They made their decisions and one of those decisions did not particularly suit me in my constituency but I am not casting aspersions on their political allegiances or otherwise. It is not fair. Many people gave up a great deal of their time to do that work in a relatively short period. However, that is another irrelevancy.
We will clearly not agree on this amendment. I do not disagree with the principles behind it but from a practical point of view, I am will not make that decision. With regard to democratic deficits, we would not act in a democratic manner if we unilaterally decided to move Drogheda, south Louth or all of Louth into the greater Dublin area.
With respect, that is not what we propose. We are talking about transport policy.
I listened carefully and members made different points. I am entitled to make mine. That is, in effect, what we would do. I accept Deputy O'Dowd's remarks on development, the need to control it and the need to ensure there is integrated transport. The local authorities in both Meath and Louth should ensure that however big a development or the town of Drogheda will be, the provision of proper transport should be central to the planning. The same should apply in every county in Ireland. I do not necessarily accept the argument that because Drogheda and Louth will not be in the GDA the local authorities will allow planning and development to take place that does not take account of the inhabitants. I accept that the record in the past has not been great, even in the greater Dublin area. However, that has changed. There is far greater emphasis at An Bord Pleanála on a proper transport system. I do not agree with the doomsday scenario the Deputy thinks might arise. Transport is now far more central to planning and development than it ever was previously.
If the local authorities in Louth decide they wish to move into the greater Dublin area to come under the aegis of the DTA and if they make such an application, if I am still in this office as Minister I will consider it very favourably. However, it should be done in a particular manner. We should not do it here.
The national spatial strategy clearly acknowledged that there would be continued growth in the greater Dublin area. In fact, it stated that significant growth in the area was necessary from both a national and international point of view. That is what is happening. However, we must also emphasise the necessity for balance in that regard, not in head for head terms but whereby there would be attractive places outside the greater Dublin area that would attract people to live, work and set up businesses there.
I will not accept the amendment. It would not be fair to the local authorities concerned and would not be useful in the Bill at this time. However, there are provisions whereby that can change, and change quickly, if that is the strong desire of the local authorities.
What about a situation where the DART is being extended to Drogheda? Part of the infrastructural development would take place in Louth. It would be incredibly difficult to do that if south Louth is excluded. I would certainly support extending the DART there and perhaps having a supportive local network. Would that create problems?
With regard to the local government constituency revision, I do not wish to cast aspersions on any official. However, the Minister has a different role regarding the national constituencies, which are approved by the Oireachtas. He has a much stronger role with regard to local government.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I wish to clarify the Minister's response. There is a problem with it. Drogheda Borough Council could suggest that it come under the aegis of the DTA for the purposes of transport. The problem is that the county council, rather than the borough council, is the administrative authority for the other areas. Accountability and reporting up the line are very confused there. One cannot introduce a Bill that insists on planning regulation for development plans with regard to transport. The purpose of this Bill, and its strength, is that it will not be possible to get away with what has happened in the past in areas where the DTA will have authority. In other words, unless a development is integrated into the transport strategy it cannot and will not happen.
The Minister accepts that the area of south Louth and Drogheda has those problems but says he will exclude it from the Bill for technical reasons. He acknowledges there is a serious problem in the area. The only way he will deal with it, however, for the benefit of the people who will build their houses and live there, is by including it in the Bill. That is the reason I will press this amendment to a vote. It is critical.
It is not the only way.
I accept that.
The other way is where the local authority does the job it is supposed to do.
It is much slower. All of these developments will go ahead and will not have the transport infrastructure.
That should not happen. I accept the Deputy's point that we are, for the first time, trying to ensure there is this integration within the Dublin area.
That is the great strength of the Bill.
If I had a blank sheet to deal with local government reform, I would not bother with county boundaries. The time is long past for them.
Absolutely.
We should have city boundaries and metropolitan areas throughout the country. However, even if the Deputy and I agree on that, it is unlikely to be politically palatable——
I wish to make a further point. The great strength of the Bill is the long due strategy part. If this was a national transport authority rather than a DTA, we would not have this argument. If this was a Bill to provide for a national transport authority, south Louth would be included, as would Mullingar and elsewhere. That is the weakness. The Minister is dealing with the matter piecemeal and for that reason I will press this amendment to a vote. I accept and acknowledge the Minister's input and I am not seeking to score a point on this issue, but in terms of transport planning, if we were dealing with national transport planning we would all concur. That is the weakness. Does the Minister have a view on that?
I do not disagree with the Deputy's point. Because much of the work was done on this Bill — the DTA Bill — and the 1932 Act I intend to look at the national transport regulator. I certainly do not disagree with that.
With regard to what the Minister has just said, would section 3(c) cater for what Deputy O’Dowd is seeking, as it provides for such other areas as may be declared by ministerial directive? Does that not cater for the Deputy’s needs?
I accept that is a parking exercise. The Minister has outlined how he will do that if he gets the request but he may not get the request because there are political issues, as one can imagine, from other parts.
Democracy, as they say.
I know. It is not the truth of the issue. The issue is that now is the time to do it. This is the Bill.
On the issue of Deputy Broughan's question of the extension of the——
I was double checking that issue. There would be nothing to stop Drogheda Corporation from applying for inclusion in the greater Dublin area.
The problem is that the development is outside the historical boundaries.
Yes. It is outside the urban boundaries.
They are moving out. One is talking about 15,000 people living there over the next ten years.
Does the Minister wish to comment on Deputy Broughan's question? He made a comment in regard to the rail extension.
This Bill would not hinder that development. That decision would be made by Iarnród Éireann, the RPA or whatever that they wanted to extend the line or to make provision for a DART line. It would then be a matter to be handled by a railway order, etc. In the normal course of events, the local authorities would sign an agreement as to which one would take it, if necessary.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Perhaps I can be helpful. There are a number of votes I would like to call but I do not wish to delay the process unduly. Am I correct in saying that if I vote against this, one has to go through all of this again and then one accepts the totality of the pages or whatever? Is that the procedure?
We are at the end of section 3. The section will be put.
Yes. The section will be put, therefore, we can put a number of votes into it.
The Deputy can challenge it on a voice vote and challenge it on a vote on the section later.
Will the Chairman remind me? I will challenge it on a voice vote.
I suggest that where votes are called that perhaps they could be stacked together. If we defer approval of section 3——
Yes.
——we could have four or five votes in one rather than breaking.
I am happy with that.
The Chairman is the Government, we are the Opposition. We will call a vote as we wish.
I understand that, I will call a vote if necessary. I am trying to be helpful. I have made my point.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Feighan, Frank.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
Níl
- Brady, Áine.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McGrath, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 12, paragraph (b), line 40, after “Wicklow” to insert “, Louth”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 9, 45, 46, 48 and 68 are related to amendment No. 4 and they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 13, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister shall be fully and directly accountable to Dáil Éireann through all standard Dáil procedures for any such regulations.".
The amendment relates to the powers of the Minister to make regulations on all aspects of the Dublin transport authority. I want to ensure the Minister will be fully and directly accountable to Dáil Éireann through all standard Dáil procedures for such regulations. I referred previously to the operation of the Health Service Executive and other such bodies and the fact that there is a democratic deficit in terms of many State agencies. It is important that the Minister should be accountable to the Dáil in making all the regulations governing the DTA at various levels.
I also tabled an amendment on the full accountability of the Minister on the operations of the DTA. My aim is to ensure we will not be faced with the sheaf of papers I received in response to questions I asked of the Minister yesterday on the operation of the Dublin Port tunnel and on how the NRA is performing in regard to it. The questions were ruled out of order. Other Members also had questions ruled out of order left, right and centre. We do not ask questions as frequently about the Railway Procurement Agency but it appears that many bodies, especially those created in the past decade, are effectively not accountable to anybody.
The HSE is the most obvious and irritating case in point. It is totally dispiriting to interact with the so-called parliamentary affairs division of the HSE and that we have a Minister with responsibility for a major area who is not responsible to the House. I do not want to keep going on about the HSE but the situation pertaining to it is completely unacceptable, undemocratic and ludicrous and it must be changed. The same situation is emerging in areas like transport with the NRA. The amendment aims to ensure that under section 6 the Minister would be responsible for all of the regulations he makes.
Amendment No. 9 relates to the principal functions of the authority. The Minister can confer on the authority additional functions relating to transport from time to time if he or she considers that appropriate. The subject of this amendment is slightly different to the others.
Which one?
Amendment No. 9 relates to accountability to the Oireachtas while most of the other amendments refer to regulations. In amendment No. 9 I wish to add a new section 4 to the principal functions of the authority and the powers of the Minister in that regard. In section 11, subsection (4), I wish to "Secure the provision of full strategic policy and operational information for the Minister, the members of the Oireachtas and the Joint Oireachtas Committee." That is similar to what I said about the regulations except that it would be a function of the DTA to make all of that information available to the Oireachtas and the committee for invigilation. My aim is to try to ensure full ministerial accountability to the Members of Dáil Éireann for the DTA.
I am operating from three lists and it is quite awkward. We are switching subjects now. We have had this problem before with Bills. I question the wisdom of whoever in the Bills Office grouped the amendments. It is very difficult to jump from subject to subject. They refer to different aspects of the legislation.
Amendment No. 45 deals with ministerial guidelines. One of the most significant powers the Minister, and through the Minister, the Oireachtas has, is to issue guidelines to the authority. Occasionally we ask the Minister about the guidelines for other bodies. Section 42 is a general section and allows us to ask him about the interaction he has had with some of these bodies. Amendment No. 45 proposes that "The guidelines must be laid before and approved by each House of the Oireachtas." Section 27(3) requires that they be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and published in Iris Oifigiúil. In order to ensure the full accountability of the Oireachtas we should have some role in approving them. Perhaps this committee should also be involved in approving ministerial guidelines. This could be very significant in how DTA operates. For example, in the Minister’s previous portfolio we had similar discussions about CER. This morning we discussed price rises in the energy sector. Price rises in the transport sector would be a key area in which guidelines might need to be laid down and the Minister would need to respond to that.
Amendment No. 48 again relates to the accountability of the Minister and proposes to insert a new section before section 42. It follows on from section 41. The DTA will be accountable in some way to this committee and to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the Committee of Public Accounts in the areas of economy, efficiency, the regularity and propriety of transactions, the systems, procedures and practices employed, etc. The chief executive and chairman will appear before committees. This is the key amendment. Amendment No. 48 proposes to introduce a section stating:
The Minister is fully and directly accountable to Dáil Éireann through standard Dáil procedures including oral and written questions and all forms of debate for all policy, strategic decisions and financial accounts of the DTA.
This is how it should be for all the quangos and agencies that have been established. They should be responsible in strategic and policy terms to this House. The British Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, MP, discusses all aspects of strategic policy of agencies under her remit and reports to the Members of Parliament, not just to the select committee but also to the House of Commons on all aspects of how agencies perform. Every Deputy wants this to be very clear.
I am also a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as a Whip of the Labour Party. We have been talking to the Ceann Comhairle about reform of the procedures of the House. It would be possible to make a start by inserting this provision into the Bill. The Minister makes a start on a number of issues regarding how agencies would work. This would be a good template to lay down for any other agency we create. Since his election the Taoiseach has rightly said he wants fundamental reform of State bodies and agencies. We want consolidation, efficiency and full reporting to this House. Of all my amendments this one is key.
I was once a Government backbencher a long time ago, supporting a Government in committees, etc. I wanted my questions answered. If our colleagues in Fianna Fáil had a chance on the Order of Business they would be raising this very issue again and again. I give significant credit to Deputy Durkan who has consistently raised this matter day after day during this Dáil and the previous one. He has raised the matter umpteen times with the Ceann Comhairle, Ministers, etc. Being in Opposition is debilitating. Yesterday I did not want the Minister to tell me about the operational details of the NRA. I do not want to know that. However, I wanted him to address a great policy issue such as how are we utilising the infrastructure which, up to now, is the key piece of infrastructure we have spent money on, the port tunnel. It is ridiculous that Deputy O'Dowd and I must come up with all kinds of ruses to try to wangle him into speaking about a body, the chief executive of which is paid a salary of approximately €500,000. We resource the NRA very well and it should be accountable not just now and again or once a year to the committee but on a daily basis to ourselves when the Dáil is in session.
We have the same problem with Adjournment debates, etc. In order to ensure that this body does not become a HSE on wheels, first and foremost we must make it democratic by making the board as responsible as possible to local government and then by making the body as responsible as possible to us through the Minister. During Question Time, and without any nonsense, we should be allowed to ask the Minister about the DTA. As sure as night follows day early next year when the DTA is operational Deputy O'Dowd or I will table a simple question asking about the DTA and the Ceann Comhairle's office will try to shoot it down, which is unacceptable and undemocratic.
From the outset we need to ensure this body is accountable through oral and written questions and all forms of debate on policy, strategic decisions and financial accounts. I am not asking that this should include the operational performance of the DTA. I do not expect the Minister to answer questions in the House about the details of current plans and developments, etc. That would be ludicrous. However, he should be able to give us an overview of what he expects on a daily and weekly basis. That is the key amendment in that tranche of amendments. The DTA should be made fully accountable to all of us in this House, both Opposition and Government.
Amendment No. 68 is in the same spirit and proposes to insert in section 52(7)(a) the following: “The Minister shall be fully and directly accountable to Dáil Éireann through all standard Dáil procedures for any such directions issued to the Authority, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Irish Rail.” This relates to the section covering directions the Minister issues to the agency. Section 52(7) states:
(a) The Minister may, where he or she considers it appropriate in order to achieve the Government’s transport objectives or to ensure compliance with an act of an institution of the European Community, issue directions at his or her sole discretion to the Authority and, as appropriate, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or Irish Rail in relation to the provision of public passenger transport services to which this section relates.
(b) Where the Minister issues a direction under this subsection, the Authority and Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or Irish Rail, as appropriate, shall comply with that direction.
My amendment would provide that the Minister would be accountable through all the standard Dáil procedures, questions, debates, etc., for all directions he might issue to the authority, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or Irish Rail. There are two main pillars to this tranche of amendments, which try to make the body democratic and to ensure we will not have people very upset with it in two, three or four years' time. The first aspect is the construction of the board and the advisory council, and the second is the Minister's accountability to Dáil Éireann. The best way to achieve this is through amendment No. 48. However, amendments Nos. 4, 9, 45, 46 and 68 essentially make the same point. The Minister should tell us about procedures, guidelines, directives and major contacts he has with the DTA and we should have the opportunity to ask him about them. I do not understand why we do not operate like the House of Commons in this regard and why agencies are not accountable. At some stage we may need to consider having a different type of agency if we do not get accountability to this House.
I strongly support Deputy Broughan in his comments. Fine Gael yesterday voted against this Bill because of inadequate accountability in the legislation. People want transparency, openness and accountability. Deputy Broughan's amendments would make that a reality. Parliamentary questions, Adjournment debates, special notice questions and private notice questions are used when critical issues arise.
Nobody would wish or want this to happen again, but if, for example, there was a bus crash like the crash on Wellington Quay or in County Meath, and we put down a special notice question, private notice question or section 32 request, will it get through the rules in Dáil Éireann? Because so much money is spent on this, we want accountability for scandals that may arise, waste of money or lack of value for money. There could be a turf wars between Iarnród Éireann and the RPA. If we do not have accountability in the Dáil we have nothing. In his speech yesterday the Minister mentioned accountability and I am not sure if he spelled out fully how it will operate. I agree with the view that the HSE presents an appalling vista and that it cannot be brought to account in these Houses and we do not want the same to happen to the DTA. I will be happy to listen to what the Minister has to say and return with my colleague and reply.
I thank the Deputies for their contributions but I do not deem any of these amendments necessary because of the accountability that is already in the Bill. Once the Bill has been enacted, the Minister for Transport will be accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas for the DTA in accordance with the normal arrangements under Dáil and Seanad Standing Orders. Regarding Adjournment debates, special notice questions and private notice questions on matters that arise during a year, I recently answered special notice questions on a strike that took place in Iarnród Éireann. I have no direct responsibility in this matter; I do not employ or dismiss anybody in Iarnród Éireann; I do not conduct their industrial relations, but I was before the House answering questions and being accountable. The same type of approach will apply with the DTA. I will have to answer questions and respond in accordance with Dáil and Seanad Standing Orders. If Members of the House want to change those Standing Orders and reform the Dáil even more, it is open to them to do that.
Does that include Dáil questions on operational issues of the DTA?
Not on the day-to-day operations. Questions on those issues are ruled out. I do not know the fine line that is used. These decisions are made by the Bills office, questions office or whatever.
Is that true? Is it not the case that questions are referred to the Minister and the Department says which questions are ruled out? That has been my experience in 11 years in Opposition. Departments rule out questions.
I go through all my questions in advance and if I think a question is not directly under my responsibility I put a question mark on it, that is all. This has happened a dozen times in the past 12 or 15 months. As I said, I answered questions on a CIE strike.
That was only because the Ceann Comhairle allowed a private notice question. It was not because——
It was not because people were walking around railway stations.
The Minister has no discretion in that. The Ceann Comhairle has that discretion.
If I raise an issue about a question and the questions office says I am supposed to answer it because I have answered on the matter before——
The Minister would not answer a question on a key piece of infrastructure.
I did not rule that question out. The questions office ruled it out.
Questions are ruled out continually.
If Deputies have questions on the operation of the Dublin Port tunnel, I respectfully suggest they invite the chairman or chief executive of the NRA to this committee or another committee of the House.
We did that. We want to know what the Minister was doing. We want to know his views.
My views are irrelevant in the operational matters.
They are not irrelevant.
If Deputies want to find out what is going wrong or right in the operational matters of any agency, they should use this committee. That is their job.
We did that.
They did not.
We did. It is like yesterday's meeting with the RSA. We had the RSA in countless times but I could not get an answer from this Minister or the other Minister on whether they agreed with reducing the blood alcohol level to 0.5 mg/ml. As long as the Minister is Minister for Transport I am interested in his opinions.
The Deputy asked the question yesterday and he got an answer.
I did not.
The Deputy got an answer. It was mentioned on the news this morning. I was listening. He got an answer.
It was waffle.
The fact that the Deputy does not like the answer does not mean we are not accountable.
The key point is that the Minister is establishing a big agency that will be able to escape a close invigilation because of the awkward system. The Minister could put these guidelines into the Bill.
With respect, if any agency under my aegis, or anybody else's, escapes invigilation that is the committee's fault because it has the right to invite them here——
The Minister would not answer the question in the Dáil.
The Deputy has the right to invigilate any of the bodies under my aegis.
I am invigilating the Minister.
May I finish the amendments?
This is the point about the HSE. Deputy Harney——
I am not responsible for the HSE.
This is the same thing.
It is not the same thing.
The Minister is responsible for the NRA. Will he answer on the NRA?
I will answer on policy issues related to my responsibilities and the committee may invite the NRA here and ask it——
That is not what I want——
I know that is not what Deputy Broughan wants. Regarding amendments Nos. 4 and 68, under Dáil Standing Orders I am answerable to the Dáil regarding public affairs connected with the Department of Transport and bodies under the aegis of the Department as well as for matters of administration for which I am officially responsible in respect of Government policy. Section 7 provides that any regulation made by a Minister for Transport under the DTA Bill must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and that either House may annul it by resolution within 21 days after the date of the regulation. I have never seen the Opposition try to do this if it has strong feelings about regulations.
Regarding amendment No. 9 I have already indicated in earlier debates on the Bill that I am opposed to any attempt to micro-manage this or any other authority. That would be the effect of this amendment. When fully enacted the Bill will provide for the publication by the DTA of its draft transport strategy, which must be submitted to the Minister for approval. That is accountability. That is a direct ministerial responsibility for which I am accountable. The draft strategy will set out the DTA's strategic policy over 12 to 20 years. The process of developing that strategy will be transparent. It is laid out generally in the Act. I do not see what advantage would accrue by requiring the DTA to provide full strategic policy information to the Minister or the Oireachtas, but it will be available and is available. The consultation processes will be open to Members of the Oireachtas.
The purpose of establishing the DTA is to allow it to undertake the appropriate analysis and prepare proposals for approval by the Minister. I am satisfied that it would be inappropriate to insert a requirement for the DTA to provide operational information to the Minister or to the Oireachtas. The DTA should be allowed to get on with the job while remaining accountable for the decisions it makes. The DTA should not have somebody looking over its shoulder all the time. That might have the opposite effect to the one the Deputy wants. It would stifle and inhibit decision making and organisational leadership if it had to refer every decision back to the Minister. I accept that this is not Deputy Broughan's intent, but that would be the effect of the amendment proposed.
With regard to amendments Nos. 45 and 46, it is important that the Minister should be able to issue guidelines as and when he or she sees fit, having regard to Government policy and any other appropriate or relevant considerations. The proposed amendments would curtail the Minister's ability to act in a decisive or timely manner, which is not something the members should want.
In the case of amendment No. 48, I will be accountable in respect of the DTA in accordance with the normal arrangements. With specific regard to the DTA's accounts, section 32 provides that the DTA accounts must be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, while section 41 provides that the DTA's chief executive has to give evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts concerning those accounts and the general economy and efficiency of the authority in the use of its resources. This is the place where Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas can exercise their greatest scrutiny of the activities of the DTA. All of those measures, in addition to the other matters raised by the Deputies, such as Adjournment debates, special notice questions, private notice questions and so on, ensure there is accountability.
On the accountability to the Minister, who is accountable to the House, there are very few sections in the Bill in which the Minister is not mentioned. The Minister can prescribe matters to which the DTA must have regard when preparing a transport strategy and can inform the manner in which the strategy is prepared. In consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister adjudicates on a submission made to him or her by a regional authority in the greater Dublin area, that the strategy is not consistent with the regional planning guidelines. The Minister may approve the strategy with or without changes, and refuse to approve it or require its resubmission. That is just on the transport strategy itself, under section 12.
Under section 13, on the integrated implementation plan, the Minister may prescribe matters to which the DTA must have regard when preparing the plan, and may direct the form and manner in which the plan is prepared. In consultation with the Minister for Finance, he must provide the DTA with guidance on multi-annual funding arrangements for the purpose of preparing the implementation plan. He may approve the implementation plan with or without changes, refuse to approve it or require its resubmission. The Minister appoints the authority, fixes the remuneration and expenses, removes members of the authority in certain circumstances, determines the quorum for meetings and so on.
One can go down through the Bill. In every section, there is democratic control and accountability to the Minister. The Minister, in turn, is accountable to the Dáil
The Order of Business is under way.
I am happy to continue, if I may.
We might go back to our arrangement of 1.30 p.m. I call Deputy——
I have some questions for the Minister. There was reference to the draft transport strategy. I put down an amendment that the strategy would be put before the committee by the Minister but it is not in the Bill. While it is a different amendment to the one under discussion, I point out that there is no specific accountability from the Minister to the members with respect to the strategy.
What will change in respect of parliamentary questions we could ask at present? Perhaps the Minister's officials could advise us on this. If I ask a question about Dún Laoghaire railway station, I have a battle with the Department of Transport. First, I cannot ask the question and then it gets kicked back until I show where the question has been answered before. As Deputy Broughan said, we must find ways of paraphrasing words or using some sort of mechanism to get questions past this gate.
The key point concerns accountability, transparency and openness. Where is the accountability at present? If I put down a parliamentary question, as I did yesterday with regard to the Road Safety Authority, RSA, pass rates as between the private companies and the State, I am told it is out of order and is not a matter for the Oireachtas or the Minister. This is a critical issue that ought to be addressed.
Another point is that we sometimes ask excellent questions but the system does not help the situation by routing them forward. While I accept this is a side issue, the question to which I have just referred should have been sent to the RSA for direct reply by the RSA, which I suppose we could argue is one of the good things that happens with the HSE. If anything, when one asks a question of the Minister for Health and Children, she will forward it to HSE for direct reply to the individual. Perhaps that would help with regard to some of the democratic deficit that exists at present. Rather than ruling a question out of order, perhaps a more constructive way would be for the Minister to say he would forward it to the authority for appropriate reply. That does not officially commit the Minister to responsibility or accountability but he would assist the process.
The key question is what will change. For example, how accountable will Iarnród Éireann be? Such organisations come before the committees but the Chairman knows there are more committee meetings than days in the week. It is all very well for the Minister to say the committee should do this, that and the other but we do not have that time in this House.
The other question that arises in terms of accountability concerns freedom of information. There is a view that freedom of information is restricted in that these bodies can decide what is or is not important or not to be released. There are many issues with which the Minister has not dealt.
I concur. The fundamental amendment is No. 48, which would provide an opportunity for us to create a new basic structure for agencies, given the kind of problems we have had. We had a difficulty not just with the NRA but even with the RSA. We got into the habit of dealing directly with the RSA but in overall terms the Minister, with the Minister of State, is responsible for road safety. It has been a long-standing and major problem that we are unable to do our jobs in this regard. In any case, we sometimes do not get good answers to our questions, or get curt and uninformative responses on very important issues, or issues colleagues have asked us to raise. This is a problem with the structure, which is a matter for the Dáil.
The fact that a huge organisation within the Minister's remit is one on which he cannot report is ludicrous. I do not accept what the Minister is saying because I have had this experience all the way through, including with regard to other bodies in the last Dáil. For example, we have had the constant experience that we virtually cannot refer to semi-State bodies or ask a question about their performance. I referred to operational matters in one of the amendments and in amendment No. 68 I referred to directions.
With regard to accountability, there should be a generic section of the Bill which shows that in every aspect of how the DTA will operate in strategic policy and decision making, including its planning and so on, it will be answerable to all Members of the Oireachtas through the Minister. We are setting off on the wrong foot from day one with regard to this organisation. Will this be a battle? It will be left to some future Government to try to democratise all of these structures to make them accountable. There was an opportunity today not to go down the road we went down with regard to health. This is not acceptable. The first opportunity I have, I will try to change this and try to make the Minister actually accountable to this House.
We must consider how much business in the transport area the DTA will be involved in, including the major Transport 21 infrastructure, all of the traffic management and all of the strategic planning. A vast chunk of transport policy will be the direct responsibility of this authority. It is not acceptable to go down the same old road. Ministers and Governments have a vested interest in doing this. Their vested interest is the fact that they themselves will not be held responsible for bad policy development or bad decisions that may be taken down the line in regard to the structures. They can try to off-load the opprobrium on some unfortunate agency head rather than take political responsibility. The Minister has form in that regard from his previous portfolios. He should take this opportunity to change rather than vote us down because otherwise when we ask the same questions about DTA this time next year, they will be ruled out of order and we will be left in an undemocratic situation. He has an opportunity to think afresh. I assume he does not fear the responsibility of his portfolio or the hard decisions that have to be made on advancing metro and the interconnector.
Amendment No. 9 refers to operational matters. I may revise that amendment on Report Stage but strategic policy should remain the remit of this committee. In regard to amendments No. 45 and 46, I do not see why guidelines and ministerial directives should not be approved by this House. The Minister is either with us on democracy and accountability or he wants to create another "Wizard of Oz" organisation that cannot be contacted or directly addressed. Absence of reform could lead to a frustrating future for this Dáil.
I do not want to repeat what I previously stated. I will be accountable to the House on all the strategic directions and guidelines to which the Deputies referred. I do not disagree with the general point that Dáil reform is needed. More than 14 years ago, I did my best as Chief Whip to introduce reform. Members regularly speak about parliamentary questions but I believe the parliamentary question system is being scandalously abused by a minority of Deputies who could easily write letters or lift their telephone receivers and call the agencies concerned. If all Deputies decided to follow that route, they could claim democracy as their reason for doing so but they would bring the entire system into disrepute. I would support reform of the parliamentary question system but this must not proceed in one direction only.
I do not wish to be confrontational with Deputy O'Dowd. He put a parliamentary question to me on the pass rates for road tests. If the Deputy tells me the RSA will not respond to his query, I will take the matter up with the agency.
It was based on the Minister's commitment to make testing more efficient so that the backlog could be reduced before the date he gave.
On 30 June I will make an announcement on that.
As Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey is responsible to the Dáil but he did not answer my question. He claims parliamentary questions are being scandalously abused but I see a scandalous arrogance among the Taoiseach and Ministers. They treat the Opposition with total contempt.
I do not accept that.
The Minister's comments indicate his mind set after being in power for too long. He qualified his accusation on parliamentary questions by saying that the abuse is committed by a minority of Deputies. Democratic accountability begins and ends in this House.
I do not need a lecture from the Deputy.
I stand up for the right of Deputies to ask questions and the responsibility of the Minister to reply. One of the major conclusions that arose from the beef tribunal was that if the right questions were asked and answered in the Dáil, the abuses would never have occurred. Parliamentary questions are a bastion of democracy as far as I am concerned.
Provided the questions are genuine.
Yes, and they are.
Not all are genuine.
The Minister should answer the questions I put to him and I will mark him accordingly. His arrogance is appalling.
A former Taoiseach from the Deputy's party was the one who said if Deputies had asked the right question, they would have been given the right answer.
All members of this committee and most Deputies would put parliamentary questions having failed to get answers from officials. We are often slightly exasperated by the time we put our questions. Several weeks ago, I wrote to the head of a university on higher education policy. After making contact with the individual on several occasions, I realised I would have to raise the matter in the Dáil. The Minister will find that many Deputies behave similarly. As a hardworking Deputy, he will be aware that many questions on immigration have to be put to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform because significant problems exist in that area. Immigration is dealt with by a faceless bureau and we do not even know its director. Health services also give rise to difficulties.
We can investigate ways to reform parliamentary questions but Deputy O'Dowd and I are interested in issues such as the divergence in pass rates. I am delighted that the Minister has reduced the waiting list to eight to ten weeks but why can Cavan's pass rate not be repeated throughout the country? The failure rate appears unduly high in some centres. The job of the director of the RSA is to ensure the tests are administered but issues arise in regard to how that is done.
It is also his responsibility to ensure the tests are of a sufficient standard. He was asked the question and he gave the possible reasons for divergence. I have no reason to doubt his integrity in that area and I know the Deputies are not casting aspersions. That was the proper way to proceed. The RSA is directly responsible for ensuring that standards are maintained and it is the body that should answer on operational matters.
I made the commitment to reduce the waiting time and I will answer for it on 30 June. We can have a philosophical debate.
The operation of this is a profound matter.
I agree, which is why people should try to define more clearly what is and is not in order. I have seen the amount of work done by Departments to ensure the information is absolutely correct, particularly in respect of oral questions. There are two sides to the matter. Deputy O'Dowd is correct that it is an important part of democracy, so it should not be abused on either side.
It is not abused.
As the main Opposition spokespersons, Deputy O'Dowd and I have a responsibility to our parties in respect of transport. We are held accountable at meetings of our parliamentary parties with regard to all matters relating to transport. Questions are put to us in respect of drink driving limits, pass rates, and so on. We are, therefore, obliged to ask the Minister about a wide variety of matters. Otherwise, we would not be able to do our job.
There is frustration on all sides. The Minister responded in respect of this issue. Where a parliamentary question is tabled——
I wish to make an important point.
If the Deputy will be patient, I am trying to clarify the position. Where a parliamentary question is tabled and where the reply received indicates that a matter is the responsibility of the DTA or whatever, the Deputies have made a fair point to the effect that the Minister should be able to provide information in respect of said matter in any event.
I would go further. I submitted a number of freedom of information requests to the Department and, with one exception, all have been turned down. That is an appalling record. I raised the matter with the person responsible for making decisions in respect of these requests and it appears that the Department of Transport's default position is "say nothing, do nothing and given them nothing". FOI requests are being obstructed by the Department. I have made requests to obtain the briefing notes prepared for the Minister in respect of his annual meeting — usually held in October — with the Minister for Finance but these have all been refused. I was informed that I was not entitled to the information. I was then obliged to write cheques for €75 on each occasion. I pointed out that this is already custom and practice in other Departments. I am being frustrated in my attempts to obtain information and facts from the Department of Transport.
When I was my party's spokesperson on community, rural and Gaeltacht affairs, the relevant Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, told me that if I asked questions of him, he would obtain the facts for me. He was as good as his word. It is totally frustrating to deal with the Department of Transport because one continually comes up against a brick wall.
I have no hand, act or part in dealing with FOI requests.
I accept that.
The officials in my Department are obliged to interpret the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. There is an appeals system in place. The Deputy submits quite a number of requests to the Department and I did not realise that they were all being refused.
One of my requests was granted. I cannot recall if it related to this Bill.
Would it be possible to focus on the issue of parliamentary questions and the amendment under discussion?
I will withdraw the amendment and perhaps return to the matter on Report Stage.
I asked the Minister what changes will occur with regard to parliamentary questions tabled in respect of the bodies being subsumed by the DTA?
There will not be any changes. If a parliamentary question relates to policies for which I am answerable to the House, it will be answered. If it relates to an operational matter, it will be a matter for the companies directly concerned.
Is the Minister stating that there will be a change in the relationship or that there will be no change?
There will not be a change.
That clarifies the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 55 and 56 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 14, paragraph (b), line 21, after “users” to insert the following:
"including the upholding of the highest safety and professional standards by all operators involved in the provision of public transport services".
These amendments relate to some of the key elements of the DTA and the workers who will be involved in public transport. On Second Stage, I stated that public transport employees are among the most important workers in any economy. In the first instance they are involved in work which is safety-critical in nature. Each day they are responsible for the lives and well-being of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and must ensure that people get back and forth to work and school. Protection for these workers is a fundamental issue.
I wanted to bring forward a series of amendments to ensure that the salaries, working conditions, and so on, of the employees of Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Irish Rail and those in the workforce who are not covered by general award contracts but who rather are covered by the general public service contract will be protected to the greatest possible degree. I based the amendments on strong representations I continue to receive from my colleagues in the trade union movements.
The colleagues to whom I refer have some grave concerns regarding the operation of Regulation (EC) 1370/2007, which lies at the heart of the Dublin Transport Authority Bill. I accept that civil servants in the Department of Transport tried to create legislation which would have incorporated some of the best and most socially progressive elements of the regulation. However, people are concerned, particularly in respect of Article 12 of the regulation which states:
It is immaterial from the viewpoint of Community law whether public passenger transport services are operated by public or private undertakings. This Regulation is based on the principles of neutrality as regards the system of property ownership referred to in Article 295 of the Treaty, of the freedom of Member States to define services of general economic interest, referred to in Article 16 of the Treaty, and of subsidiarity and proportionality referred to in Article 5 of the Treaty.
The emphasis in this article appears to lean more towards promoting competition and the private ownership of transport services than in maintaining the standard of such services to the highest possible level. The relevant EU directive reiterates many of the matters to which the regulation refers and sets down many of the elements that are also included in the Dublin Transport Authority Bill. It is something of a shadow behind the legislation. The directive contains a number of elements which are not encompassed in the Bill but which could be used to improve it.
Amendment No. 5 proposes to include the phrase "including the upholding of the highest safety and professional standards by all operators involved in the provision of public transport services" immediately after that of "the provision of a well-functioning, attractive, integrated and safe public transport system for all users". The highest safety and professional standards would have to be the hallmark of a good public transport system. We have had the disappointment and tragedy of recent years, which my colleague has referred to a number times. There were, for example, tragedies at Kentstown and Wellington Quay. The English authorities report that half of our HGVs, for example, did not operate to the highest standards when they were stopped on UK roads. It is important to include this amendment No. 5, both for the protection of commuters and also for staff and drivers.
Amendment No. 6 is a major attempt to improve the Bill by linking it with some of the elements of EU Regulation 1370. On page 14, between lines 28 and 29, I wish to add a new paragraph for the general objectives of the authority. It would read:
(g) establish social and qualitative criteria to maintain and raise quality standards for public service obligations with regard to minimal working conditions, passenger rights, the needs of persons with reduced mobility, environmental protection, the security of passengers and employees as well as collective agreement obligations, and other rules and agreements concerning workplaces and social protection at the place where service is provided; In order to ensure transparent and comparable terms of competition between operators and to avert the risk of social dumping,...
At this stage there is a printing error and instead of "competent authorities" the paragraph should continue:
the Dublin Transportation Authority should be free to impose specific social and service quality standards with due regard to recital 17 of Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 of 23 October 2007,
That is a direct quote from the preamble to Regulation 1370. The DTA would be required, as a fundamental objective, to maintain and raise quality standards in regard to working conditions, passenger rights and their security in regard to people with reduced mobility. In particular, it deals with collective agreement obligations and all other rules and agreements, ensuring transparent and comparable terms of competition between all operators, no matter what type of contract they have. It also averts the risk of social dumping.
The Minister has probably noted it is a transposition of section 17 of the preamble to Regulation 1370. A new paragraph (h) would also be added, stating, “maintain the highest standard of working conditions including fair and reasonable salaries for all transport workers including those established by collective agreement obligations.” Originally, paragraphs (g) and (h) were two separate amendments as the latter refers in particular to the public transport workers. One element I was anxious to include was a role for the Labour Court. That part of paragraph (h) reads:
The Minister shall request every two years that the Labour Court undertakes a review of conditions of employment in the public transport sector and sets out its recommendations for the appropriate minimum conditions of employment for the sector which will be accepted by the Minister and laid as an order before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Following 21 days this order will take affect and the DTA will make arrangements to adjust the terms of their contracts with public transport operators to give effect to the order.
These amendments represent an attempt to legislate for a very grave concern among transport workers and, first and foremost, those who have been in existing public service contracts and who work for our State agencies carrying out public transport duties, and also for all public transport workers. We should try to protect them and give them the benefit directly in our legislation of the positive elements of Regulation 1370 with regard to workers' rights. These would be transposed directly into the Bill. That is the genesis of why we want to proceed with this.
The Minister will recall I mentioned the British experience and all the discussions which led to Regulation 1370 at the European Council and European Commission, which tended to refer to what happened in the United Kingdom. When there was widespread privatisation in the UK after 1987, there were three or four cases of what was termed a "semi-monopoly" developing in the London region and elsewhere. It was the view of the House of Commons transport committee that the key area where companies competed was in the cutting of transport staff. In many cases there was a race to the bottom and the salaries of transport staff were decimated.
This was seen as the key element of trying to make savings. It was all based on taking costs out of staff salaries, even the reasonable salaries required for the serious work of being responsible for the safety of vast numbers of commuters. People are very fearful the Minister is now setting in train anything that could lead to a race to the bottom in the public transport area, which could create very difficult conditions for the future. This could either be in terms of working conditions and the amounts of time people will drive or the general treatment of staff in terms of salaries and conditions.
I am asking the Minister to transpose a positive part of Regulation No. 1370 into Irish law in this Bill and give a role to the Labour Court to protect working conditions, standards and wages of all staff in the public transport area of the DTA. If we were trying to create a national regulator I would attempt to extend this nationally.
I will briefly turn to amendments Nos. 55 and 56. Amendment No. 55 is in the name of the Minister.
The Deputy may first deal with amendment No. 56.
I will finish on amendment No. 56. It relates to section 48 on page 41, dealing with public service transport service contracts. The elements of the service contract are referred to, including passenger revenue, etc. The amendment would place in subsection (3), between lines 4 and 5, paragraphs (p) and (q), to again attempt to protect the rights of public transport workers. The public service contracts will include all elements of service standards, performance obligations and so on.
The new paragraph (p) reads:
the obligation on the public transport operator to comply with all employment legislation is specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Law Compliance Act 2008 and any instruments specified in Part II of Schedule 1 of the said Act, and employment regulation Orders and registered employment agreements within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 2004, and
Paragraph (q) reads:
the public transport operator shall be required to grant work staff previously taken on to provide services, the rights to which they would have been entitled if there had been a transfer within the meaning of Directive 2001/23/EC together with all pension rights and entitlements of the said staff with the previous public transport operator.
The first additional aspect, paragraph (p), is an attempt to incorporate into the legislation the protection of all the work forces in the public transport arena. In particular it looks to ensure the Employment Law Compliance Act 2008 will apply to them. Employment regulation orders under all of the Industrial Relations Acts to 2004 should be laid down.
I understand the Employment Law Compliance Bill will soon be enacted and should ensure staff employed by an existing public service operator will also have the right to transfer, under the transfer of undertakings directive, together with the right to the preservation of their pension rights and entitlements, which would otherwise not have been protected by the directive. This refers particularly to the paragraph (q) of the amendment which relates to staff who might be transferred from CIE to the DTA. They carry out key traffic and transport infrastructural work on behalf of CIE and might be transferred in the future. This part of the amendment could refer to all of the companies which will be party to a direct award contract. If some of their staff are transferred to the DTA, the amendment would ensure all of their existing pension rights and entitlements would be preserved under the transfer of undertakings directive.
In the Minister's previous portfolio we had a number of debates about postmen and postwomen. This is similar. In the 1960s and 1970s a group of civil servants became staff of semi-State companies and were finally threatened with being made staff of privatised entities. Their rights were eroded. In the last Dáil we had several debates about postal workers. Service accumulated as civil servants did not seem to give them preservation rights under the transfer of undertakings directive. That is the reason I tabled the amendment. I wish to protect public servants, particularly those in the CIE group of companies, who may at some stage work for the Dublin transport authority.
The key point of the amendments, to which I hope the Minister responds, is that we should attempt to protect the rights, salaries and the reasonable standard of living of public transport workers. As I said, this applies not only to old semi-State bodies but across the entire territory. Public transport workers should have the highest possible standard of protection under law and the positive elements of EU Regulation 1370/2007, as it applies to the conditions of staff, should be applied to them directly through the Bill.
This is a fundamental issue for the people I represent and all public transport workers. I hope the Minister is inclined to accept the amendments.
I can be specific in my response to the Deputy's general point on the right to reasonable wages and conditions of employment, with which I strongly agree. I have no argument with the Deputy in this regard and strongly believe these rights must be protected, as they are in the Bill and several of the directives to which he referred. I have no difficulty with the principle he espouses but I do have difficulties with the manner in which, through his amendments, he proposes to go about applying it.
The directives in place apply to all workers. Therefore, there is no need to specify them in the legislation. Public transport operators are subject to the relevant requirements of employment law and EU legislation. Therefore, the directives mentioned by the Deputy have effect.
Arising from Towards 2016, the ten year framework social partnership agreement, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is preparing legislation to give effect to a range of measures to enhance employment rights and the level of compliance. These measures, including the Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008 mentioned by the Deputy, will apply to transport workers, as they apply to everyone else. The Employment Law Compliance Bill will overhaul the State's employment rights framework, while a proposed employment law consolidation Bill will simplify and codify employment law which spans 60 years and needs to be brought together.
As part of the Towards 2016 partnership talks under way, pay, the workplace, employment rights and compliance issues are being discussed. That is the appropriate body to set the overall framework for public and private employment in the State. A national position on these issues has yet to be determined. As such, it would be premature and inappropriate to make provision for them in the Bill. They are traditionally determined at a central level, rather than on a sectoral basis. I accept that, as the Deputy says, the outcome of the talks will have to be dealt with and fully considered by the transport sector.
Regarding the reference in amendment No. 6 to recital 17 of Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and road, the regulation will directly apply to member states, including Ireland, when it comes into force on 3 December 2009. Article 4 of the new regulation provides for mandatory content in public service contracts. Paragraph 5, while recognising that collective agreements between social partners may be in place in individual member states, provides for the protection of the rights of workers through the inclusion of appropriate provisions in the tender documents and public service contracts. Paragraph 6 also provides for the inclusion of national quality standards in tender documents and public service contracts. All of the protections to which the Deputy referred will be applied through the directive. Several sections of the Bill, particularly sections 48 to 53, show that it is designed to meet the requirements of the directive.
I understand the reasoning behind the amendments proposed by the Deputy which he has articulated very well. I indicated that I would consider the matter. For that reason I have tabled amendment No. 55 to section 48 which requires that public transport service contracts contain "requirements relating to compliance with applicable law in relation to pay and terms and conditions of employment". I suggest to the Deputy that this proposal addresses his concern which we share. The amendment allows for a change in circumstances and changes that may arise in employment law as a result of Towards 2016. The wording is suitably general to include all the applicable laws relating to pay and terms and conditions. The Deputy spoke about his colleagues in the trade union movement and others. He asked about the compliance of prospective public transport operators with other general quality thresholds. I have had discussions with the unions on this matter.
On foot of my concerns about the certification of transport operators, I am proposing a further amendment to section 48(3) of the Bill which will require those who hold contracts relating to public bus passenger services to hold the appropriate national or international road passenger transport operators licence. The effect of the amendment will be to oblige the Dublin transport authority to make provision, in its public transport service contracts, for requirements relating to the holding of the relevant operators' licence. Road passenger transport operators' licences are granted every five years. The application criteria cover a range of issues such as professional competence, good repute and sound financial standing. The amendment will go some way to meet the Deputy's concerns.
What amendment is that?
It is covered in amendment No. 55 which will amend section 48.
It is on page 8 of the list of amendments.
The provision is outlined at the end of the amendment. I propose to include in the Bill "a requirement where appropriate that the operator holds an operator's licence (within the meaning of section 2(9) of the Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006)". I am trying to ensure those who obtain licences and employ people are of good standing and repute. They should have professional competence and sound financial standing. Section 48(3)(l) and (n) already provide that a public transport services contract shall set out “accessibility standards” and “emission standards for pollutants and noise”. Section 52(5) which requires the authority to conduct a review of “any direct award contract entered into under this section which relates to the provision of public bus passenger services” or subsequent direct award contracts in respect of such services specifies that it must “invite and consider submissions from the holder of the direct award contract in question and from any other interested parties, including users of the public bus passenger services that are the subject of the contract”. If operators are not meeting the standards set out, people will have an opportunity to bring this to the attention of the authorities. I have considered the Deputy’s suggestions in this regard. However, I am unable to accept amendments that would subvert the ongoing national talks. I have tried, within such constraints, to ensure the relevant sections of Regulation 1370/2007 are dealt with and have been quite successful in that regard. I have tried to make it clear, in the context of all public transport services, that certain standards are in place and must be respected. I ask the Deputy to accept amendment No. 55 in my name.
Section 10 is the only section that refers to the need for a "safe public transport system". I am making a different point in amendment No. 5. I am keen to provide for "the highest safety and professional standards". The system of self-regulation in place in the HGV sector has not worked. It is important that we set an overall target to which public transport operators can aspire. One might ask how that will be measured. It is obvious that the best qualities of any given operator will have to be aspired to by all operators. That is what I am saying in my amendment. It is a genuine additional point that the Minister could have included in the general objectives of the Bill.
Amendment No. 6 relates to the rights and conditions of workers. I accept the points the Minister has made in that regard. I welcome the introduction of the provisions outlined in amendment No. 55 and note the point the Minister is making in that case. Much of the Bill involves the transposition of many of the elements of Regulation 1370/2007 into Irish law. The representatives of workers will ask why the Minister is not ensuring the most fundamental elements of the preamble to the regulation, as it relates to the protection of transport workers' rights and conditions, are not also being transposed. Section 17 of the preamble to Regulation 1370/2007 sets out the position clearly and cogently. I do not think it could be put any better. We should include that clause in the Bill. Why have we dealt with all these matters without explicitly trying to protect those who bring the public from A to B? Drivers and other ancillary staff are the most important people, after commuters.
The Minister spoke about national agreements and negotiations. I am striving to ensure workers get what they deserve, regardless of what is happening at national level. Given the current state of the economy, it is unclear whether the national partnership process will continue. In the light of the incredible price increases we are beginning to see, for example, workers would be foolish to tie themselves to low wage increases at national level. Many will express strong views on this matter in the coming months. The role of the Labour Court in protecting the conditions of employment of workers should be mentioned in the Bill. It is possible to refer to the professionals in the field — drivers, in this case — in legislation outside the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Such a reference should be included in the Bill. I will be pressing that issue. I welcome amendment No. 55 and thank the Minister for making the proposal.
I was specifically asked by those I consulted to call for an appropriate reference to be included in legislation. I appreciate that all Deputies consulted widely on the Bill. A great deal of work has gone into the Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008 also. The Minister could argue that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coughlan, should approach the matter from another perspective. I do not see why we cannot consider the matter in this way. Therefore, I will be pressing amendment No. 56.
I agree with the Minister's view. I also agree with much of what Deputy Broughan has said, not only about the entitlement of transport workers to the transfer of the right to security of employment, but also about pensions. This legislation does not provide for a no-strike clause as part of the conditions of employment of key transport workers, which is an important matter. The recent unofficial strike in Cork, which discommoded hundreds of thousands of people, was absolutely and totally unacceptable in a modern economy. I stress that the vast majority of transport workers were not involved in the strike. Some of them were, however. In a modern economy, we need to ensure that legislation is in place to protect transport consumers — those who use transport services — in the event of wildcat or unofficial strikes.
I welcome the Minister's amendment, which relates to pay and conditions of employment. The amendment will insert two new subsections 48(3)(n) and 48(3)(o) in the Bill. I take it that the existing subsections 48(3)(n) and 48(3)(o) will be renumbered. That is not specifically mentioned. I do not know whether it will be necessary to do that. One could interpret the amendment as replacing the existing subsections 48(3)(n) and 48(3)(o) with revised provisions and ignoring the existing clauses which relate to pollution and noise, etc.
It will be amended. I do not really want to go back over this issue. Deputy Broughan has reiterated the points he made earlier. I responded fully to them. I do not want to delay the committee further. I have dealt with the points which were made.
Does the Minister have any concerns in this regard? The Joint Committee on Transport had a wide-ranging discussion on foot of a presentation that was made by representatives of private bus operators. Some information became available during that discussion.
I appreciate that is often difficult to maintain a small business. Some members of the committee were concerned about the stability and conditions of employment of the staff of private transport companies. I know people who work for a private transport company in my constituency who were working on a particular route when it was decided to stop running services on the route in question. I am concerned about the day-to-day lives of people who work on public transport routes. As I listened to the members of the delegation that attended the joint committee meeting, I became concerned about matters like the size of the workforce by comparison with the size of the fleet.
Does the Minister share the concerns I have outlined? I assume that, like me, he is keen to ensure that the highest conceivable standards prevail. Most public transport operators aspire to ensuring that their workers enjoy the best standards of wages and conditions. When it comes to delivering it on the ground, the reality may be different. I do not know if the Minister read the transcript of the committee debate in question. Along with the Chairman and other members of the committee, I discussed at length the points the officials in question were genuinely making with them outside the committee room after the meeting. Does the Minister accept that this is a fundamental aspect of the Bill?
I disagree with my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, on the last comment he made. Anyone who understands collective bargaining and basic trade union rights will be aware that workers have the right to withdraw their labour in certain circumstances. That is a fundamental tenet of democracy. I think that right was specified in the Lisbon treaty's Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is being discussed in the Dáil at the moment. I do not share Deputy O'Dowd's perspective on the matter.
I agree that wildcat strikes are deplorable and should not be encouraged. Any worker in this room who agrees with the concept of trade unionism at all will agree that a group of workers, having negotiated to the fullest extent to try to work something out but seen those negotiations fail, has the fundamental right to withdraw its labour if it does not accept what is happening. Deputy O'Dowd is aware that the dispute he mentioned dates back to 2000, when management failed to implement an agreement. That is my understanding of the matter, based on what I was told when Private Notice Questions on it were taken in the House.
I urge the Minister to accept the thrust of these amendments. Perhaps he will ascertain whether this section of the Bill can be strengthened on Report Stage. I ask him to ensure that the positive elements of Regulation 1370/2007 are transposed into law on the Dublin transport authority's establishment day.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I will withdraw it in anticipation of the Report Stage debate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 14, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(g) establish social and qualitative criteria to maintain and raise quality standards for public service obligations with regard to minimal working conditions, passenger rights, the needs of persons with reduced mobility, environmental protection, the security of passengers and employees as well as collective agreement obligations, and other rules and agreements concerning workplaces and social protection at the place where service is provided; In order to ensure transparent and comparable terms of competition between operators and to avert the risk of social dumping, competent authorities should be free to impose specific social and service quality standards with due regard to recital 17 of Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 of 23 October 2007,
(h) maintain the highest standard of working conditions including fair and reasonable salaries for all transport workers including those established by collective agreement obligations. The Minister shall request every two years that the Labour Court undertakes a review of conditions of employment in the public transport sector and sets out its recommendations for the appropriate minimum conditions of employment for the sector which will be accepted by the Minister and laid as an order before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Following 21 days this order will take affect and the DTA will make arrangements to adjust the terms of their contracts with public transport operators to give effect to the order.”.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
Níl
- Brady, Áine.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McGrath, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 14, subsection (1)(c), line 33, after “fares” to insert the following:
"within the framework of Ministerial Directives under section 26 below".
Section 11 sets out the principal functions of the Dublin transport authority. Deputies are keen to ensure all the major functions we want the authority to have are covered in this section. I am concerned about the manner in which section 11(1)(c) merely states the authority will “regulate public transport fares”. I propose that the authority be required to do so “within the framework of Ministerial Directives under section 26”. That section which we discussed in the context of another amendment allows the Minister to issue a directive.
When I was drawing up this amendment, I reflected on my experience in the last Dáil as the Labour Party's spokesman on communications, marine and natural resources. I was marking the Minister in that portfolio too. Ministers should be accountable for fares policy. Before the establishment of the Commission for Energy Regulation, the Minister had to bite the bullet by sanctioning increases in energy charges and other changes to fares policy. After that responsibility had been given to the commission, we were told in the late summer of each year that it was considering what to do with energy prices. I was interested to hear Mr. David Murphy talking this morning about the need for an increase of 30% in electricity prices as a result of the creation of an all-island market. It was suggested companies operating in the North were looking for similar increases. I find that astonishing in the light of the debates we had when we were considering the relevant legislation.
I propose that the Minister for Transport have fundamental responsibility for fares strategy. We need to be positive as we try to secure a modal shift. I hope the Chairman is still working on his report on buses, etc. My party has always believed setting reasonable fare levels is an important way of getting people to switch to public transport. My colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, has raised some interesting points in the recent past about rail fares and will probably do so again. During the last general election campaign, Deputy Shortall proposed flat Dublin Bus fares of €1 and 50 cent for the entire Dublin region. Perhaps the Chairman will focus on marketing in his forthcoming report. Pricing policy is critical. Many have mentioned the significant impact of the increase in oil prices on public and private transport operators, including Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. We should not provide for the establishment of a totally unaccountable regulator which can impose fares with no regard for transport users on low incomes. The point I am making is particularly relevant to public transport. Until recently, most people on low incomes, younger people, children, students and older people often had to depend totally on public transport.
The issue of fares is significant. The Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources of the last Dáil had a bad experience in respect of energy pricing. The clerk to this committee went through all of that with us. I do not want the same thing to emerge in the case of transport pricing.
I remember discussing this issue years ago with a colleague who used to set prices for the DART and do general pricing work. He was a great man. Perhaps I should mention his name, Mr. Tony Dermody, a person who served Dublin Bus and CIE. He started as a bus conductor and went all the way to management level, but tragically died a few years ago. He and economists like him believed the pricing tool is a key tool for people framing public transport policy. I would like to see the Minister and the Oireachtas retain some role in that regard. I do not want a situation where people can come out with price whammies in the public transport area. I would like to see the Minister use his power in a positive way.
We had a similar discussion on the bus report and the public transport report. Pricing is a significant issue. It is certainly a factor in the aviation area. Mr. O'Leary would say it plays a significant role. The same is true for surface transport. I will allow my colleague talk about rail transport because he made good points in that regard when Irish Rail was before the committee. I would like the Minister to have a role in this area and urge him not to pass it all off to what could become a hated regulator in the future.
A key issue is the Minister's power within the greater Dublin area to consent to an increase in rail fares. Outside that area, in a place such as Drogheda, the Minister has no such powers. Iarnród Éireann is, therefore, a law unto itself and there is increasing disparity between the existing fare structure per kilometre travelled, over which the Minister has statutory powers of consent, and the structure outside that. The problem is that there is not a uniform price per kilometre travelled. Depending on where one goes, it can cost as little as 18 cent per kilometre or can cost as much as 36 cent or 40 cent. This applies nationally, but I presume the powers we are discussing apply solely to fares within the DTA area.
Is the Minister aware that a serious anomaly has arisen in his constituency? Laytown, which is currently outside the DTA area, will now be included in it and fares for people travelling from Laytown to Dublin with Iarnród Éireann will be reduced as a result. However, fares for people travelling from that wonderful place called Drogheda, eight or nine miles further up the track, will not be included in this fare deal. This situation applies across the board. The Minister currently has a sign-off power on some fares, which offers some check on increases. Transferring that power to a regulator has a plus side in that it removes politics from the equation, but it could result in fare increases that would not be proportionate.
There is a question regarding the credibility of Iarnród Éireann and its fare structure, which is neither transparent nor accountable. I welcome the introduction of a regulator, because that is better than having Iarnród Éireann solely in charge. However, the Minister loses certain powers. What are his views in that regard?
Section 26 of the Bill provides that the Minister may give written policy directions to the DTA regarding any of its functions under the Bill. That is clear and unambiguous in the Bill. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to make a separate reference to this power in section 11 or anywhere else in the Bill. The danger in making specific reference to it in other sections of the Bill is that this could create uncertainty about the purpose and extent of section 26. The power of the Minister to direct the DTA with regard to fares is in section 26 of the Bill.
On the point made by Deputy O'Dowd, section 63 provides that the Minister may extend the DTA's functions with regard to integrated ticketing, fares and public transport information to areas or public transport outside of the greater Dublin area.
I take it that means it can extend the DTA's functions outside the greater Dublin area.
Yes, in the same way as some routes can be designated as DTA routes.
What section is that?
Section 63.
If the Minister put that provision into effect, could it deal with the problem on the same basis?
Yes.
Under what conditions may the Minister exercise that power?
I can exercise it under any conditions. There is no limit to it.
Will the Minister exercise it on the northern line?
I will consider everything very carefully, but it is an area where ministerial control and accountability still exist. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary and on that basis I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendmentNo. 8:
In page 15, subsection (1), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(f) provide and issue licenses under the Road Transport Act 1932 for public transport operators operating within the GDA.”.
The Minister is well versed on my arguments in this regard. This is an important power and a cause of some controversy. We have debated the issue a number of times. I would like to hear the Minister's response.
We have had this discussion on a number of occasions. This legislation puts in place the Dublin transport authority. The programme for Government includes a commitment to improve bus services under Transport 21 by reforming the Road Transport Act 1932, which is essentially what we are doing with this Bill. It is my intention that the proposals for a new bus licensing regime should be addressed in a new public transport regulation Bill which will be presented for approval to Government following the passage of this Bill.
I have not gone into the precise detail of those proposals, but I can confirm that the Bill will deal with the replacement of the Road Transport Act 1932 and of the Transport Act 1958, which applies to CIE and Bus Éireann. It will be designed in a manner consistent with the EU PSO regulations, as this Bill is. That is something we must do because those regulations come into force in December 2009. It is envisaged that the new licensing structure will apply in respect of all commercial bus services, including those provided by Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath and that the powers to grant licences in the greater Dublin area will be given to the Dublin transport authority. The Bill will also encompass provisions relating to the subvented bus market outside of the greater Dublin area, which must also be consistent with the EU PSO regulation relating to contracts and direct contracts etc.
I intend, as soon the current Bill is on the Statute Book, to move quickly to deal with the public transport Bill.
The Minister is saying that this will happen, but not yet. There are serious problems with the current system and they will continue. The Minister is missing a golden opportunity with the current Bill to address the issue. I accept the view that anybody breaking the law should not be doing so, but people who do not have licences currently are running efficient, effective and successful transport operations. This is an opportunity for the Minister to correct that situation.
They should not be operating illegally.
I accept that. It is a key point if we want to open the market to competition. There are also issues with regard to the 41X bus route, about which we all received letters recently. I do not know if the issue has been sorted out.
It has.
I thank the Deputy. The key point is we should have a level playing field. If people see a gap, we should let them at it. We should open up enough for them to compete, but should not have two carriers covering the same route. It is important to let companies in where there is a gap in the market.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 16, subsection (5), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"(j) specific measures to ensure direct lines of ministerial and DTA responsibility, a transparent scoping process, a public information campaign and a comprehensive traffic management plan for the major construction works for Metro North, the Dublin Rail Interconnector and the Luas link up in Dublin,
(k) a comprehensive departmental drink and drug testing policy for all safety critical transport workers in public and private transport companies in the GDA,
(l) a comprehensive departmental psychological testing policy for all safety critical transport workers in public and private transport companies in the GDA,”.
These proposals were originally made in a series of amendments relating to elements of the transport strategy, including the guidelines and references the new DTA should take on board. They relate to what the authority should have regard to in subsection (5). Paragraph (j) seeks to insert specific measures to ensure direct lines of ministerial and DTA responsibility, a transparent scoping process, a public information campaign and a comprehensive traffic management plan for the major construction works for metro north, the Dublin rail interconnector and Luas link-up in Dublin. We discussed the big dig at Question Time in the Dáil and at the Joint Committee on Transport. This is a serious development in infrastructural terms and it is only right that the legislation should refer to the strategy to be used, even the first strategy prepared. There should be some references in the legislation to the major traffic management issues that will arise while the works are taking place.
Yesterday my colleague asked about metro north. I hope there will not be further slippage with the project. In that regard, I hope the train has left the station and that the project is on track, with the first tenders placed and us heading towards the preferred bidder. The Fingal county manager has done much work to try to ensure the greatest possible benefits along the metro corridor. Therefore, it is critical there is no slippage. The same applies to the interconnector which is critical in helping Dublin to have a first class public transport system. The extension of the Luas lines will also help to achieve this. These projects are happening in close proximity to each other and will, therefore, have a profound impact. The issue was considered when the report from the committee was discussed. There should be some references to the projects in the Bill. We could have brought forward legislation on the big dig project alone, as it is so significant. In the past there were one-off developments for which we passed legislation. There are grave concerns about the project which I have discussed with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and other business interests. There is concern that it will be mishandled.
The Minister said in the Dáil that he was making Mr. John Tierney, Dublin city manager, responsible for the project. However, according to the legislation, the DTA will have a significant role to play in traffic management. Local councillors are concerned about this. We should refer to the big dig in the legislation because it is such an important project to manage. I hope, despite the current economic difficulties, that we will have the bottle to keep the projects going. We should not back down on them when the pressure rises in December. We should remember we have a large development fund which we should use to fund infrastructural development, particularly now when some construction projects are heading down the tubes.
Paragraph (k) arises from a number of issues in the past nine or ten months and in it I seek a comprehensive departmental drink and drug testing policy for all safety critical transport workers in public and private transport companies in the GDA. Some of the responses given on this question were not satisfactory. There seems to be lethargy in ensuring strong drink and drug testing policies are in place. The Minister mentioned the responses received from some operators. Drink and drug testing policies are essential for safety critical transport workers. Given some of the incidents that have occurred in the past year or two, we should ensure this proposal is included in the legislation. It should form part of a core authority strategy.
Paragraph (l) suggests the inclusion of a psychological testing policy. This has been a topical issue recently following some appalling events, one of which is before the courts. Such a policy is essential to protect driver standards. The position of public transport driver is an important one in the community and it is critical that those doing the job are assessed to the highest standards. The public transport sector does a good job in this regard and has done so for decades. That is the reason people were so astonished by the Wellington Quay incident. They considered such incidents did not happen with Bus Átha Cliath or Bus Éireann. Generally, they do not. People are concerned that only those of the highest standard and quality should drive public transport vehicles.
The Bill offers an opportunity to include paragraphs (k) and (l) in legislation to ensure the DTA would take account of their provisions. The Bill should also include some provisions relating to the big dig, on which we may end up having to bring forward a specific Bill. Has the Minister considered this or will he recommend specific regulations to deal with the issue? The dig will have a major effect on the mid-east region, the greater Dublin area and Dublin city centre. I tabled three separate amendments, but they were amalgamated in dealing with the principal functions of the authority.
The Deputy mentioned the possible disruption of traffic in the city when the various elements of Transport 21, for example, the interconnector, Luas and metro north, are being provided for. Sections 64(3) and 65(3)(b)(i) deal with these issues. It is important that somebody be in charge and have responsibility. Section 64, in particular, provides that a traffic management plan shall:
(b) identify the actions to be taken to--
(i) ameliorate the impact on the movement of persons, goods and vehicles arising from construction works and other works in relation to the provision of transport infrastructure and utility works, whether carried out by the road authority or a third party, and
(ii) provide and maintain accessible routes for people with disabilities during any such works.
Therefore, the proposal made by the Deputy is well catered for in the Bill. The DTA will have that responsibility. As I said, local authorities are directly responsible, but step-in provisions included in the Bill allow the DTA to step in if the authorities are not doing their job properly.
The DTA is not being given a direct role or function with regard to the issue of public safety and a safe public transport system because other bodies perform that role. The DTA must exercise its functions within the existing legislative framework in respect of road and rail safety, namely, under the Road Traffic Acts, the Railway Safety Act and the Health and Safety Act, which Act was brought into play in one of the incidents to which the Deputy referred.
With regard to paragraph (k), the existing legislation dealing with road and rail safety adequately covers the substantive issue referred to. It is neither necessary nor desirable that special provisions be included in the DTA Bill, although I agree that there should be testing regimes for drink and drugs in all public transport companies. Public safety requires testing should take place, just as any driver is now subject to random drink testing. In that regard, section 8 of the Railway Safety Act requires rail companies to draw up a code of conduct for safety critical workers with regard to drugs and alcohol and sampling procedures. Veolia, as operator of Luas, has a code of conduct in place, which the Railway Safety Commission has accepted. Iarnród Éireann is implementing its draft code of conduct, pending clarification of some outstanding issues with the Railway Safety Commission. With any service, it is illegal to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs. Breaches are a matter for the Garda.
I am in favour of a system of random testing of all drivers. Nobody should have a difficulty with this, whether a trade union or otherwise. It is in the interests of the public and public transport workers that this provision should be in place, but the Bill is not the place to provide for it. It is catered for in other legislation and guidelines.
What about psychological assessments?
A number of companies conduct such assessments. Dublin Bus conducts a comprehensive pre-employment medical examination of all employees. Bus Éireann conducts psychometric testing as part of its selection process, as well as a stringent pre-employment medical examination.
What about private operators?
I have no direct knowledge of what they do, except for Veolia, as outlined. I am not aware of the practices of private companies or coach operators, but they are subject to the same laws as everybody else.
What is the law?
The law is that if a driver is caught drinking and driving——
No, I mean with regard to psychological testing.
I do not think there is any provision in law for it.
Are there lower drink limits for drivers of public service vehicles?
Not currently, but there is a recommendation that the limit should be lower.
It should be 0.2 mg.
Yes.
That is critical. I have discussed the matter with Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann personnel and they apply stringent checks on staff who are happy with this because the tests provide credibility for the service. We need to reduce the limit for those driving buses, trains, taxis and HGVs. We must do this as soon as possible to ensure we have safe roads. When people carry passengers for hire, it is important that they observe safety standards.
With regard to drug testing, did the Minister say laws are already in place or that they will be made?
If a garda forms the opinion that a person is driving erratically and that this is due to either drink or drugs, he or she has the power to pull that person over. Currently, there is no agreed roadside drug testing system available, but if a person is brought into a Garda station and a blood sample taken, a test can be done to establish whether he or she is under the influence of drugs. There is an additional provision which provides for random testing with regard to drink.
With regard to public service vehicles, are new laws being introduced to provide for drug testing or are laws already in place in other legislation?
Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act operates currently. There is no problem with regard to drink testing. Because of the provisions relating to random breath testing a garda no longer has to form the opinion that a person may be driving under the influence of drink. However, under the legislation, a garda must form the opinion that a person is driving under the influence of drugs and must have some evidence to support it.
Last week I heard that training was being introduced for gardaí to help them identify drivers who may be under the influence of drugs and instruct them in how to administer a standard test.
Yes. The flaw in the legislation relates to where gardaí stop people randomly and breathalyse them, but discover they have no drink taken. They may suspect the person has taken drugs, but cannot arrest him or her in the circumstances because they had not formed this opinion before stopping him or her.
Can they search the car?
Yes, they can.
Training courses are being introduced for gardaí to help them identify at the roadside people who may be under the influence of drugs by getting them to walk the line or tip their nose.
Under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, gardaí must form the opinion in advance. That was the problem with regard to drink driver testing originally.
Is that changing?
We will try to change it if we can, if we can find a reliable roadside testing system.
This is not relevant to the section with which we are dealing. We must move on. Is the amendment being pressed?
No, but I want to return to the previous point. The Minister glided over the psychological aspect.
I did not. I answered the Deputy. I am not aware of any psychometric testing procedures employed by the private sector.
Perhaps that is a reason to include such a provision in this section.
Perhaps we should.
That is my point.
We are not including any provision of this nature in the section but are saying the existing law applies. The matter may be for consideration on another day if we think this kind of testing should be introduced for drivers in the private sector. Frankly, I am not sure.
In Kentstown and in a number of other issues it seems that nobody is taking responsibility for major accidents. One will recall that a tug of war developed. The Health and Safety Authority got itself involved from the point of view of the workers and, I presume, the students, the users of public infrastructure, and a tug of war appeared to develop between local authorities and the HSA.
The Minister was probably contacted by some of the same people who contacted me about certain roads which were deficient. The point I am making is that there appears to be a gap in regard to who will be responsible for these issues. Perhaps the DTA should take responsibility. I applaud the HSA for getting involved in those areas. It is a convoluted way to impose safety standards. The Minister might say that he will put this in a new road safety Bill or whatever. Perhaps we could deal with it here today and make it a function of the DTA.
No, it is better left to the safety agencies which were specifically set up for that purpose and that the DTA should come under their remit rather than have, as we have had, rows about who is and who is not responsible and whether the HSA should be involved and whether it is within its remit. I do not want another agency in place that seems to have a safety remit. I would prefer the onus——
The Minister has already given it a remit. He referred to safe public transport. He refused to accept another amendment. The word "safe" is used a couple of times.
Safe within the context of——
Then the DTA can—-
No, it is not. It is up to the safety agencies. We do not want 25 different agencies going around and nobody taking responsibility for the safety issue. If it is a health and safety issue, the HSA will be responsible; if it is road safety issue, the RSA will be responsible and the DTA should be subject to those authorities. I do not want more turf wars on an issue such as safety.
Is the Minister saying that he has to amend the RSA Act and give it powers in this regard?
Yes, if that was the route we decided to take under the transport Acts.
In regard to paragraph (j), will the Minister issue any regulations or legislation in connection with the big dig?
No, because that is a matter for the local authority in the area to manage traffic on the basis of what will or will not happen. I will not be issuing regulations. This legislation is sufficiently strong to allow the DTA, if necessary, to issue regulations and so on.
Under the provisions of section 64, the authority will prepare and adopt a strategic traffic management plan for the GDA to identify the actions needed to secure, in the view of the authority, optimum movement of goods, persons and vehicles. The areas to which the authority shall have regard are set out in the section. They include Transport 21 and capital investment, the Department of Transport's sectoral plan, and demographic, economic and social trends in the GDA. A traffic management plan shall in particular identify the actions to be taken to ameliorate the impact on the movement of persons, goods and vehicles. The DTA has the overall responsibility to ensure that happens but the local authority is the body responsible for traffic management in the area. If the local authority is not doing its job and does not have a sufficient traffic management plan, the DTA can say to the local authority that it is not doing its job, traffic is in chaos, and that it is taking over.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 16, lines 16 to 25, to delete subsections (8) and (9) and substitute the following:
"(8) The Authority shall-
(a) in the course of preparing a transport strategy, and
(b) after publishing a preliminary draft of the strategy,
consult with and consider the views of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the regional authorities within the GDA, the NRA, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, the Grangegorman Development Agency, local authorities, local communities, transport users, public transport operators, port and airport authorities or companies and other interested parties in the GDA and shall invite and consider written public submissions.
(9) The Authority shall, after completing the consultation required under subsection (8), submit a draft of its transport strategy to the Minister for his or her approval.”.
This amendment is to revise the text of subsections (8) and (9) of section 12 in order to make it clear that the DTA is required to engage in public consultations, not only at the outset of the process of preparing a transport strategy, but also once it has published a preliminary draft of that strategy. Only after the completion of these two rounds of public consultation will the DTA submit a draft transport strategy to the Minister for approval.
The amendment to subsection (8) also inserts specific reference to the NRA in the list of bodies and organisations that must be consulted during the preparation of and following the publication of the preliminary draft of the transport strategy. Those amendments arise from discussions on Second Stage and in the Seanad.
Why did not the Minister do this in the Seanad? The Minister is deleting the original subsections (8) and (9) and substituting new subsections (8) and (9). Is that the position?
We are making it clearer that there is a two-stage process. It was implied but the new subsections make it very clear that it has to be a two-stage process.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 are related to amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are technical alternatives. It is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 12 to 15, inclusive, together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 16, subsection (10), line 26, to delete "Before" and substitute "When".
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 15 amend subsections (10) to (12) of section 12 which relate to the preparation of a transport strategy by the authority. The amendment to subsection (10) simply provides that the draft transport strategy shall be sent to the regional authorities at the same time as it is sent to the Minister. That is what that amendment means. It is in response to a request to have this as democratic, open and transparent as possible. Deputy Broughan made those points during the course of the Second Stage debate.
The amendment to subsection (11), which is a technical amendment, replaces the word "submission" with "notice", simply for the sake of consistency of language in the section.
The amendment to subsection (12) provides that the Minister may only exercise his powers to approve, reject or modify the DTA's transport strategy once the four-week period allowed for the regional authorities to consider the transport strategy and decide whether or not it is consistent with the regional planning guidelines has elapsed. Again, it is to clarify the position that the Minister cannot sign off on this before the regional authorities have a chance to express their view.
In respect of Deputy O'Dowd's amendment, I do not accept that the role of the Minister with regard to the approval of the authority's transport strategy should also be subject to approval by an Oireachtas committee. It is the Minister who has political responsibility for the DTA and, therefore, the Minister should be responsible for approving the strategy. Accordingly, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment. There is nothing that excludes this committee at the time the consultation is taking place from getting a copy of the strategy and making its views known. Perhaps on Report Stage we can consider making that explicit if it would meet Deputy O'Dowd's concerns. At the end of the day, people are seeking political accountability and that is being provided. I have the political responsibility to approve the strategy, not this committee. It is an Executive function.
Deputy O'Dowd's amendment No. 14 reads:
In page 16, lines 48 and 49 and in page 17, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsection (12) and substitute the following:
"(12) The Minister may, in relation to a draft transport strategy submitted to him or her-
(a) approve the draft,
(b) approve it with modifications,
(c) instruct that it be resubmitted to him or her in a modified form for approval, or
(d) refuse to approve it.
In all cases the Minister shall present the draft transport strategy to a Committee of the Oireachtas for approval.".
I am indicating that I will consider making it explicit. As things stand there is nothing to stop this committee when the draft is put on public display from having a look at it, talking to people about it and making its views known. There is nothing explicit, however, to say that can be done. I will try to include a provision for Report Stage that will indicate that this may be done specifically. Deputies can make their views known also and I will consider those.
I cannot speak for Deputy O'Dowd but that would be valuable because it would at least bring the committee into the centre of negotiations.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 16, subsection (11), line 39, to delete "submission" and substitute "notice".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14.
In page 16, lines 48 and 49 and in page 17, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsection (12) and substitute the following:
"(12) The Minister may, in relation to a draft transport strategy submitted to him or her-
(a) approve the draft,
(b) approve it with modifications,
(c) instruct that it be resubmitted to him or her in a modified form for approval, or
(d) refuse to approve it.
In all cases the Minister shall present the draft transport strategy to a Committee of the Oireachtas for approval.".
I will withdraw the amendment and revisit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 16, subsection (12), line 48, to delete "The" and substitute the following:
"Following the expiry of the period of 4 weeks referred to in subsection (10), the”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendment No. 16 in the name of Deputy O'Dowd has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 17, subsection (2)(b), line 32, after “infrastructure” to insert the following:
"including identifying suitable locations for park and ride facilities, with specified target timelines for delivery".
We all thought Deputy O'Dowd made a good point earlier in this respect. The Minister said reference to it is included in some of the other terminology in the Bill but a reference to park and ride specifically would be welcome.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 is in the name of Deputy Broughan, amendment No. 93 is related and it can be discussed with amendment No. 17 by agreement.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 18, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following subsections:
"(10) The Authority shall establish clear and transparent transitional and scoping arrangements for assuming full responsibility for the management of Transport 21 and its National Development Plan successors in the GDA.
(11) As soon as practicable approve the dissolution of the Commission on Taxi Regulation and fully incorporate it into the DTA.
(12) As soon as practicable after the delivery and opening of Metro North fully incorporate the Railway Procurement Agency into the DTA.".
Amendment No. 17, relating to the implementation of the strategy, would be inserted at the end of the section dealing with the integrated implementation plan on page 18 of the Bill. Three issues arose in the debates in the Seanad and in the Dáil. The first issue relates to responsibility for delivery of Transport 21 and whatever comes after it. Interestingly, we spoke yesterday in the Dáil about the orbital route, of which all sides in the House are supportive, with the exception of the green part of the Government. The orbital route is an example of a development that will be part of the next stage following Transport 21.
I would like it made clear in the legislation that Transport 21 would be part of the key responsibility of the Dublin transport authority and that the concerns expressed about slippage and so on and worrying rumours about metro north, to which people referred yesterday, which I hope have no credence or basis, would therefore be an impossibility. In the proposed subsection (10), I seek to ensure there would be a smooth transfer of management of Transport 21 to the DTA and that there would be no further slippage in any of the key elements of the DTA, whether it be metro north or any other element.
The proposed subsections (11) and (12) relate to the other discussions we had. I am not sure of the position in that regard because I only saw the Minister's final amendments on the Commission on Taxi Regulation just before I attended this meeting at 9.30 a.m. I presume we will proceed with incorporating the taxi regulator. As members are aware, the key issue that emerged on the last occasion she was before the committee is that she is a national regulator. The commission is a national body and we had discussions on that. It would seem invidious not to have the taxi regulation aspect included as part of the major regulatory authority. There is a precedent in the case of the Central Bank, and possibly one or two other areas, where there is a financial regulator, the financial ombudsman and so on. A series of regulators are in place in the finance area under the remit, ultimately, of the governor of the Central Bank.
Transport regulation within the DTA and its area of operation should include everything. We have had major debates about taxis over the years, including the meeting which the Chairman called. This committee has had a number of meetings on taxis with the concerns of taxi workers about the escalation in the number of taxis licensed, standard of service and so on. The regulator advised the committee she was working on these issues, but taxis are a critical part of a public transport network and I wonder about concerns in that regard. The Minister of State said on Second Stage that this would happen and I now wonder if it will be the case.
I recall a major debate we had about the Railway Procurement Agency. When the DTA was in its gestation it was the determination of the then Minister, Deputy Brennan, and his successor the then Minister, Deputy Cullen, to abolish the RPA and bring it completely within DTA. He made that case but concerns arose in regard to the RPA which, like the National Roads Authority, has had a fairly good track record in delivering the infrastructure reasonably on time or even before deadline. With the skills set it had and its recent history, it was logical for it to be included within the DTA. The Minister told us on Second Stage that he had carefully considered the matter and thought that in order to make sure the big projects kept moving, we would not upset the RPA, on the premise that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I accepted his argument on Second Stage because I want those big projects to go ahead. Regardless of what happens, we should continue to proceed with that key infrastructure.
Having considered it, the whole concept of the DTA is that there should be a master agency, which we have all wanted for so long, procuring public transport services within this key area of our country. I thought it might be logical for the RPA to come within the remit the DTA. The situation currently is that DTA will ask the RPA to procure a service beyond what is provided for under Transport 21 and so on. I believe I am correct about that. It is a messy situation and I thought a suitable way to proceed would be that as soon as metro north is open — I hope Deputy Kennedy and I will still be Members of this House and be present on the pleasant day when one of the main stations in Swords or the central station in St. Stephen's Green is open — the RPA would be devolved into the remit of the DTA. That would be logical at that stage.
I accept what the Minister told us on Second Stage and we have heard what is happening on the tendering front. In regard to metro north, I hope the train has left the station in terms of the project and that the Minister will not listen to any of the nay sayers and doom merchants who want us to abandon those types of projects. In ten to 15 years those people will still be on the sidelines complaining. They will ask why we did not act and will tell us to look at the example of Porto or Madrid and say we should have done what was done there. We are now doing it and I applaud the Minister for that. I ask him to keep up the good work.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
I want to hear the Minister's response.
I wish to make a brief comment. I apologise for being absent. I had arranged something before we changed the timetable. It is critical that the DTA runs the show and everybody concerned dovetails into it. We have had turf wars between the RPA and Iarnród Éireann which delayed significant development at Broadstone for an undue length of time. The RPA ought to be subsumed into the DTA. I would support any such move. It does not make sense to keep it separate. It could move lock, stock and barrel and work within the overall structure. The key problem is that there are turf wars. When there are conflicts between agencies — they occur now and will in the future — the DTA must be able to make the final decision.
On the latter point, there is another side to the argument. If the RPA was part of the DTA and a dispute arose between, for example, the RPA and Iarnród Éireann, it would be a recipe for disaster. If the DTA were to rule in favour of the RPA, God knows what would happen. The RPA would be seen to be part of the DTA and both would be seen to be ganging up, as it were, on Iarnród Éireann. One could end up with even worse turf wars.
I will put it a different way. I presume these agencies will be represented on the board.
No, not necessarily. I am trying to avoid vested interests. I am aware of the point the Deputy is making. There are two issues in this regard. The DTA will be the regulator; it will be the operator of last resort. One of the issues with the RPA being subsumed is that it would immediately compromise the DTA which would become an operator and a regulator at the same time. That is where there is a difficulty. That is not to say, however, that at some time in the future — the Deputy's point tried to capture this — it would not be subsumed or that other agencies would not be subsumed also. There would then be a totally integrated public transport system. The Deputy has tabled a helpful and constructive amendment but I do not believe it would be helpful in this context to include it in the Bill, as it would result in people looking over their shoulders, wondering what we would do. I do not want that distraction.
There must be one authoritative and definitive decision maker.
That is why there is solely the DTA body with step-in rights. It means that if there is an argument——
The Minister is really protecting the RPA. He is allowing it to operate. Where there is conflict, one of the problems is getting agencies to consent——
Undoubtedly, there have been turf wars which have delayed some projects. The DTA is independent and will have the power. That is my view. In five or ten years it might be opportune to review the matter and take a different route. I would not be averse to this.
As regards the other amendments tabled by Deputy Broughan, I am not accepting them simply because what he is seeking is already provided for in the Bill, although perhaps not as explicitly. Section 13(10) sets out transitional arrangements to apply pending the preparation of the authority's first transport strategy. The section provides that the DTA must, as soon as possible after its establishment, prepare an integrated implementation plan for infrastructural investment, the integration of public transport infrastructure and services and the procurement of public transport services over the following six year period. In effect, the DTA will assume full responsibility for the roll-out of Transport 21, which is what the Deputy is seeking in the amendment. The DTA cannot simply devise a new implementation plan with no reference to what is already in place. Again, the Minister has powers in that regard.
With regard to the preparation of the transport strategy, the DTO has commenced work on developing the new transport strategy for the GDA for the period up to 2030. It is expected that the new strategy will be prepared by early 2010. It will provide the basis for the DTA's first transport strategy following the enactment of the Bill. The DTA is required to have regard to Transport 21 or any subsequent capital investment framework.
With regard to the Deputy's second amendment, he has made the point that the taxi regulator is a national regulator. I have looked at the issue again and accept the point that it is a national body. We have examined the legislation relating to the taxi regulator. A significant redrafting of sections of the DTA Bill would be required and on that basis I am not going ahead with subsuming the taxi regulator into the DTA. I am proposing an alternative approach. This arose in the context of seeking administrative efficiencies and so forth. Amendment No. 93 provides for an amendment to section 76 involving the insertion of a new subsection to require the DTA and the commission to consult each other with a view to identifying administrative efficiencies in the performance of their respective functions. The wider, more fundamental issue will be pursued in the context of the public transport Bill. I accept the valid point made by the Deputy——
On Second Stage the Minister appeared to say he would do this. We considered including a reference to the Commission for Taxi Regulation in the Bill by way of an amendment but it was about ten pages long; therefore, I can understand the difficulty with such major surgery. However, it still means that taxis will be kept apart a little.
Yes.
The regulator appeared to be moving in a positive way on standards and a number of other areas, but there are the other concerns which the Chairman mentioned at the start of our discussions regarding working conditions for drivers and so forth. There will be concerns that down the line the DTA might have very strong views on the taxi network. It may well be an issue we will have to revisit.
Yes, I believe it will be. Even if it is a national regulator, the relationship between the DTA and the taxi regulator in the greater Dublin area will have to be teased out.
Did the Minister say the public transport Bill will be ready in December?
At the end of the year, if possible. We will work to introduce it as quickly as possible.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 13 agreed to.
We will deal with the amendments to section 14 after lunch. They deal with governance issues, that is, the board and the advisory board, which we wish to make as democratic as possible.
Okay, we will leave them until after lunch.
I am suggesting a figure of 13 as a means of ensuring the majority of the board will be elected.
We will deal with section 14 after lunch. I suggest we suspend until 2.30 p.m.
What are the Chairman's plans for later in the day?
I suggest we sit late. I am anxious that we get as much as possible of the Bill dealt with today. I expect the committee to sit until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m.
When are we taking a break for tea?
We can decide as we progress.
We have a Private Members' debate and a couple of other things.
It is up to the committee. I am flexible. It is a question of whether we want to finish tomorrow and if we are able to do so. Does the committee want to go on late tomorrow?
We will get a lot of it done today anyway whatever happens.
My principal points may be dealt with today but I do not wish to prolong the debate. There are key issues but it depends on what the Minister says.
That is incentivising it.
We will resume at 9.30 a.m. but I am anxious to get as much out of the way today as possible so that we can have an early finish tomorrow.
I propose we sit until 12.30 a.m. tonight.
That is a good idea.
We shall suspend until 2.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
SECTION 14.
We will resume on section 14. Amendment No. 18 has been ruled out of order.
I have to go to a Whips meeting about Dáil sittings at 5 p.m. Can we adjourn for 15 minutes?
Is it agreed to adjourn for 15 minutes at 5 p.m? Agreed.
I thank the Chairman.
I call Deputy Fergus O'Dowd to move amendment No. 19.
What happened to amendment No. 18?
Amendment No. 18 has been ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue. It seeks to increase membership of the authority from nine to 30 members with all the associated costs in relation to remuneration and expenses which are provided for under subsection (3). The amendment must, therefore, be ruled out of order on the grounds that it has the potential to raise a charge on the Revenue.
I was trying to devise a formula whereby the majority of the board would either be directly elected or elected by the members of the two regional authorities and would, therefore, be public representatives. This goes to the heart of democracy and accountability. That is the only reason I wanted to extend the number.
I do not understand how this works because it is possible that other amendments, which will be accepted, will have implications down the line. It can be a handy way to rule out of order something with which one does not agree..
I am not ruling it out of order.
Who is? It is some strange power who is not answerable to anybody.
A fundamental of legislation is that it cannot involve a potential charge on Revenue.
The legislation is a charge on Revenue. How much will this cost? That is a relevant point. We have been discussing this Bill for four hours.
Members of the Opposition cannot impose a charge on the Revenue whereas members of the Government can do so.
Will the Minister consider imposing a charge to make the board democratic? I will come back to it at later stages.
I am advised the amendment cannot be discussed when it has been ruled out of order. We will move on.
I will come back to the principle, which is that the board should be democratically elected or selected.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
The Deputy will have to table the amendment in another way. Amendments Nos. 20 to 27, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 29 to 32, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are technical alternatives. Amendments Nos. 19 to 27, inclusive, amendments Nos. 29 to 32, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 24 and 25 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 18, subsection (1), between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(a) 5 members shall be appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister, and
(b) 4 shall be appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister, the Minister having regard to the advice of the Joint Oireachtas Committee.”.
The amendment provides for having due regard to the Oireachtas and asks the Minister to consult the committee on who it believes should be a member of the board. It provides for having regard to the views of the committee without necessarily having to accept them. I suppose a better way of putting it would be to say the Minister should consult the committee.
Amendment No. 30 provides for public hearings and that when the chairman and ordinary members are appointed, the committee would hold a hearing in order that it could ask them about their experience. The amendment also states: "on the election of the person who is directly elected to the position of Mayor of Dublin, or such other comparable position, that person ..... shall be the Chairperson of the Authority". I have not seen any recommendations that commuters or users should be directly represented on the authority. It is very important that consumer interests are represented on the authority. There should be a method by which we could select somebody or by which somebody could be nominated to represent consumer interests because the users of the system are the consumers. Costs, as they increase, will affect them directly and they should have a voice on the authority.
Fine Gael proposes increased accountability and that is why we voted on Second Stage. This is a key issue in regard to accountability.
I have a number of difficulties with the proposed amendments to the section.
I have not spoken yet.
I am sorry.
We have a lot of amendments. I wanted to make the authority democratic. It is not democratic and that is the fundamental point. If it goes ahead as it is, it will just be another quango, which is what a couple of people felt it was the first time it was produced. We will have another faceless bureaucracy implementing transport policy. It does not have to be like that.
In terms of examples abroad, the Mayor of London is the leader of Transport for London and there is some sort of fundamental democratic control. We can also go further afield. The Metropolitan Council is a regional government for approximately 1.5 million people for a number of counties and 25 small cities in the Portland, Oregon, area including Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington. In fact, it is reminiscent of what we are doing. The Chairman of the previous communications committee, of which I was a member, visited all of that territory to look at the roll-out of broadband. They were fairly good at rolling out broadband as well, a bit better than us. They seem to be much better in transport as well. For example, the metropolitan area has an elected president and councillors elected through the districts. One of the key functions of this organisation is responsibility for the region's transportation system, which is called TriMet, and the MAX light rail system. It has a remit for an area with a population approximately the size of the one in Ireland of concern to us and it is completely elected by the people.
My first instinct would be that the governing majority on the DTA should be elected by universal suffrage. One of my amendments makes precisely that point. As a first development in providing for a democratic system, I argue in amendment No. 28, which the Chairman has left out of this group, that "the 7 ordinary members shall be elected at the 2009 local elections for the City of Dublin and the counties of South Dublin, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal, Wicklow, Meath, Kildare and Louth by the electors of those counties voting as one seven member constituency" — I was going to provide for an additional number of members, but an absolute majority in any event. In other words, we would have an election to lead the DTA.
The Minister used to pride himself on seeking to make innovative developments. Why could there not be an election? Why could we not ask everyone? The local authority wards were announced yesterday and we are looking at how they impact on our constituencies. Why, in addition to ticking preferences one, two and three for the Howth-Malahide Ward or the Donaghmede Ward in my constituency, for example, could one not elect the Dublin transport authority? If the Minister really wanted democratic control, that would be the first way to go. I am sure there will be a time in the future when bodies such as the transport authority, or a regional authority, will be elected by the people. That is why I tabled amendment No. 28. We need to break with the——
Amendment No. 28 is not in this group.
It is a central one in this tranche for me. That is why I changed all the others. First and foremost, I wanted a democratic election for the leadership of this body.
My alternative is amendment No. 29, which is part of the group. If we could not achieve the objective of amendment No. 28, I want there to be a majority from the Dublin Regional Authority and the Mid-East Regional Authority, in other words, that there would be four members from each of them, including, at least in the interim stage, the Chairman, so that a majority would be elected councillors and it would be responsible.
There are precedents, and not just in America or Europe, for this type of structure. For example, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, to which the Minister referred, is extremely powerful and can grant planning permission and give the final word on planning which Dublin City Council has no authority to change. As I understand it, the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is representative of the community and of locally elected councillors from all parties. A professional board — it is a little like the advisory board here, but in reverse — then formulates policy for the Dublin docklands area and, finally, the elected people make a decision on it. That was my fall-back position in amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 20 relates to a slightly different subject. My party has always taken the view that, because of company law and good corporate governance, the chief executive should not be a member of the authority. The members of the authority should make policy and be fundamentally responsible. The CEO should report to it but should not take part in creating fundamental policy. My Labour Party colleagues in the Seanad, Senator Ryan and others, put the same point to the Minister. From a good corporate governance point of view, amendment No. 20 provides that the chief should not be a member of the authority.
The same would apply to other senior managers being members of the authority. I wonder if those in the Department who drafted the Bill read the Companies Acts. To a large extent, as we have seen in the Kentstown experience, boards have a corporate responsibility. In the future we may have to follow company law and we should start here.
Amendment No. 21 is similar to an amendment by my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, who put the matter more cogently. Where the Bill states that the chairperson and ordinary members shall be appointed by the Minister, my amendment inserts "and approved by the Joint Oireachtas Committee". My amendment goes a little further than the Minister in that at least we should have a role in their appointment. We should have hearings. They all should be brought in here and we should have an input into the decision-making. That is the least that should happen, that the representatives of the people would get a say and that the joint Oireachtas committee would have a role.
The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, the Minister responsible for Deputy Dempsey's former portfolio, has created a precedent in this regard with the Broadcasting Bill 2008 where the Oireachtas committee will have hearings on a number of the members of the board he appointed. Our colleagues in the Seanad are dealing with it at present. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, will probably be interested in that — he always liked to follow the good ideas of the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, when he was in Opposition. He has an opportunity today to support the Labour Party and Fine Gael amendments and to give this committee, and the Chairman, a role so that we have the final say.
Some of these amendments follow from my assertion that there should be a normal democratic approach. Amendment No. 22, which states "In page 18, subsection (2), lines 39 to 41, to delete paragraph (a).”, is a repeat of the earlier one.
Amendment No. 23, which is as a result of the changes I was trying to make, states:
In page 18, subsection (2)(b), line 44, after “office” to insert the following:
"and 7 Local Authority representatives from the GDA as ordinary members until the election of the 7 directly elected DTA Board members".
This provides that if it was an election, the Minister would appoint seven councillors from the two regional authorities in the interim.
The grouping of amendments is what makes this so difficult. I do not know who laid this down. We would be better to take them one by one.
Amendment No. 24 involves the deletion of paragraphs (c) and (d). In order to make a democratic majority, I tried to reduce the provision at section 14 (2)(c) to “2 ordinary members, from the holders of the position of 2 senior management posts”. As already stated, there are questions as to whether these people should be allowed to serve on the board. The amendment seeks that there should be only one ordinary member from senior management. Paragraph (d) refers to “the chairperson and 5 ordinary members, from persons who in the opinion of the Minister have wide experience in relation to transport, industrial, commercial, financial, land use planning or environmental matters, the organisation of workers or administration”. In the interests of ensuring a democratic majority, I am seeking to reduce this to three ordinary members and I am also setting out that one member be nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is critical that workers be directly represented. Despite what the Minister said in respect of the advisory council, I would like provision to be made under this section.
Amendment No. 25 reads:
In page 19, subsection (2)(d), line 5, to delete “from” and substitute the following:
"one of whom shall be an elected member of a local authority in the GDA nominated by local authorities in the GDA acting jointly, and the others being".
My party tabled this amendment in the Seanad but it has been overtaken by the other amendments tabled in my name. The purpose of amendment No. 25 is to try to ensure that there should be some direct representation from the local authorities in the mid-east area and from the Dublin Regional Authority. The Minister indicated either here or in the Seanad that this matter is being considered.
Amendment No. 26 reads:
In page 19, subsection (2)(d), line 9, after “administration” to insert the following:
"and with due regard to the need to represent public transport authorities".
This amendment was suggested to me in order to enable the public transport authorities to be directly and adequately represented and to ensure that expertise from those authorities will be directly available to the board.
Amendment No. 27 is similar to that tabled by Deputy O'Dowd. It states:
In page 19, subsection (2), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(e) the chairperson of the DTA shall automatically revert to the directly elected Mayor of Dublin once that office has been established by statute,”.
Dublin is due to have its first directly-elected mayor in 2011. There are those who believe there should be seven mayors. If Dublin is to emulate urban areas in other jurisdictions, perhaps there should be only one person in charge. I cannot see the Minister's party agreeing to a directly-elected mayor for Dublin. When I served on the local authority in Dublin it was often stated that the creation of strong local authorities would never come to pass because if a person became leader of Dublin or, for example, the province of Leinster, he or she would immediately become second only to the Taoiseach if his or her office held any kind of serious power. In many other countries, however, this is exactly the case.
The former leader of our sister party in Italy lost the most recent Italian election to Mr. Berlusconi. The individual in question previously served as Mayor of Rome. In Germany, the tendency is to have governors of the various states. I do not know whether the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has gone on a solo run in respect of this matter and is hoping that it will be possible to have a directly-elected mayor. I would like there to be mayors with strong powers in Cork, Dublin, Galway and, perhaps, the midlands. However, I am not sure whether Fianna Fáil will ever agree to regional government or whether the position of a directly-elected mayor for Dublin will ever be created.
I am sure the campaign to elect such a mayor would be exciting.
He or she might do what Ken Livingstone did in London. That might not be a good development from the Deputy's point of view.
What does the Chairman mean by that? What did Ken Livingstone do?
He left the British Labour Party.
Mr. Livingstone ran the show quite well. It is stated that the leader of the Conservative Party in Britain has employed a highly qualified individual to act as a minder for the new Mayor of London who, apparently, must be protected every minute of every day. We will see what happens. Ken Livingstone could well return. If a directly-elected mayor with strong powers is ever elected in Dublin, we want him or her to act as chairperson of the DTA.
Amendment No. 29 represents my fall-back position. I had the honour to serve on the Dublin Regional Authority and to meet our colleagues from Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. I do not know whether the Minister, in a previous capacity, started the ball rolling on this matter but we were working towards merging the Dublin Regional Authority and the Mid-East Regional Authority. It was our strategy to have a super-authority. We did not just want a transport authority; it was our intention to create a super-authority for mid-Leinster. We were working towards creating an authority such as that to which I refer.
I feel a personal obligation to my former colleagues on the two regional authorities, many of whom serve with great distinction, in respect of this matter. They do not have much power but they have carried out some interesting work and research and compiled a number of reports in respect of the two regions concerned. These authorities try to work together in order to have matters dealt with. The director of the Dublin Regional Authority came forward with some great material in respect of integrated planning. A great deal of the material relating to integrated transport planning emanated from the two authorities. In that context, I would like a significant number of their members to be appointed to the board.
Amendment No. 31 suggests the insertion of the following subsection.
"(4) The Chair of the DTA shall automatically revert to the directly elected Mayor of Dublin once that office has been established by statute.".
Again, this would ensure that a directly-elected mayor of Dublin would become chairperson of the authority. As a result of my attempts to have the membership of the board increased to 13, amendment No. 32 suggests that seven rather than five members would be needed to constitute a quorum.
I am seeking that this body will be democratic. It should not be the case that in the future people will be able to state that it is not possible to get through to the board of the authority. I do not wish to rake over the coals with regard to the HSE. However, when the health boards were in existence — I accept that there were pluses and minuses in respect of them — there was at least local representation and important local developments sometimes occurred. I was never a member of a health board but I know from discussing matters with colleagues that important steps were taken and that local representation was valuable. Professional staff appreciated that fact. Such representation is lacking at present. There is a representative tier and Professor Drumm comes to address Members on occasion. However, this is not exactly the same as being a member of a board as of right.
I would like the election to which I referred earlier to be held as soon as possible — I would also like a general election to be held. Failing the holding of the former, I would like an election to be held in respect of the majority of the board of the Dublin transport authority. As an alternative, I would like the Minister to appoint our colleagues on the seven authorities — the four in Dublin and those in Meath, Louth and Wicklow — as members of the board as of right.
The board should be democratic. If the Minister accepts the approach I am advocating, he might be obliged to revert to a model similar to that which obtains in the Dublin Docklands Authority. The professional group could then work with the chief executive to develop policy. Those who would have served on the advisory board should be charged with running the show in a democratic fashion. This relates to what I said earlier regarding the Minister reporting to the Dáil. The Minister would report in as full a manner as possible to us and elected local representatives would be involved with the board from the outset.
The chambers of commerce wrote to members indicating that they are seeking representation on the board. Will the Minister take the opportunity to outline his views on the possibility of a representative from the business community serving on the board?
I do not necessarily agree with Deputy Broughan that there must be a majority of elected members on any body to ensure that it is democratic. However, that is a philosophical argument in which we can engage at a later date.
Deputy Broughan and I will have to agree to disagree with regard to appointments to the authority. His party has always taken an ideological position on this matter. I suppose he can accuse me of taking an ideologically opposite position in respect of it. I am of the view that it is proper for the chief executive of any organisation to be an active member. In light of the wide range of activities in which the DTA will be involved, it will be helpful to have other members of the senior management team on the authority. The purpose is to ensure there are clear lines of communication from the authority into the operational area of the DTA and vice versa.
It has become standard practice in recent years that, at a minimum, the chief executive of the organisation sits on the managing board, in this case the authority. Often a number of senior directors of an organisation have ex officio seats on the board. That is an arrangement that encourages the development of a shared vision and view on key strategic issues for an organisation with a major strategic role, such as that of the DTA. I said earlier that I would give further thought to the proposals, but I have not thought through the full implications yet or decided what changes I might make, if any, in the composition of the board.
I am opposed to the imposition of a requirement on the Minister for Transport to appoint certain people to the new authority or to list specific organisations that might have a right to nominate people. I accept the point made by Deputy Kennedy that the Dublin Chamber of Commerce made a submission on this issue. ICTU also made a submission, as did a variety of individuals and organisations. I will consider carefully how best their views may be accommodated, but I do not intend to accommodate them on the basis that people or organisations have a right as a representative of a specific organisation to sit on the board.
The reason for this is no reflection on any individual, but over the past 20 years in politics, 13 or 14 of which have been as Minister, I have seen too many cases where people nominated by bodies or organisations forgot that as a member of the board they were no longer representatives of that organisation per se. In such cases one ends up with a situation far worse than that with which one started out and finds that everybody on the authority thinks he or she is there to represent the individual organisation that nominated them, rather than the strategic viewpoint or good of the organisation they are there to serve. That is the underlying reason for my negativity towards the idea of individual representatives on the board.
I accept, however, the general point that people need an assurance that business, consumer, trade union and community interests will be accommodated. I undertake to try to rebalance some issues on Report Stage to meet those criteria. I do not want to mislead members of the committee and, therefore, reiterate that I have no intention of appointing a representative of such and such a business organisation or union who might then feel he or she represented that organisation on the DTA. That would be a recipe for disaster.
With regard to ministerial appointments to boards, a Minister should be confident that those he appoints to the board know exactly what they are supposed to do on it and that they understand the Minister's views in that regard. I as Minister for Transport must answer to the Oireachtas for the operation of the board. I am prepared to do that if I appoint the members and have confidence in them. However, I could not, nor do I intend to, allow a situation where everybody else would have the right to nominate people to the authority and I would have to live with the consequences afterwards.
I do not intend to go down the route of letting individual organisations nominate or appoint people on to the board or of letting this committee vet appointments I want to make. That approach does not have a place in the system we operate in Ireland. It may have a place in the US system, which has a totally different method of government. I am not prepared to take that route and do not want anybody to think I have any intention of going that way.
We can all make specific requests and express our genuinely held beliefs with regard to how best to move forward on this issue and can suggest having a majority of local authority members etc. on strategic bodies such as this authority. This is what the advisory body is about. It is concerned with making the decision as democratic as possible and allowing maximum input from those sources to the shaping of a strategic vision. That is the reason the process has been set out as it has and why I am prepared to consider the weighting relating to the various members.
We are all aware it can take years to have a specific issue, such as quality bus corridors, dealt with when the majority of people on a board are elected representatives for a local small area and do not see the broader transport policy picture. If we take that route with this body, I will end up in here answering questions ad infinitum about why such and such is not done.
If the Minister takes that attitude, we will never have real local government.
I have to deal with the local government we have currently.
We do not actually have local government, just guys who have no power whatsoever.
I do not disagree with the Deputy, but I will argue with the Deputy until the cows come home about real democratic local government. I put the legislation in place that allowed for directly elected mayors for Dublin and everywhere else. I have strong views about local government, but I must deal with here and now, not with what might be. Similarly, with regard to the Deputy's proposal that the mayor of Dublin, when and if elected, should be chairman of the board, I cannot put that into the Bill. I must provide for the authority on the basis of what exists. I have no problem with the proposition being put forward that if we have a directly elected mayor of Dublin, as we intend in accordance with the programme for Government, he should lead the board of the DTA, but that is a decision that will have to be made by Government at a later stage, when we arrive at that situation.
The Minister is putting the cart before the horse.
I am not, I am dealing with transport.
I have given examples of what I mean. Take our national Government for example, basically the Civil Service runs the show and the Minister comes in and tweaks a few things here and there. The machine runs 98% or 99% automatically. We have the democratic tier at the top, but ultimately the Government may have to intervene, and we understand that. I sit in this room as part of the PAC and understand we have a different relationship with our civil servants than the board of a company might have with some of its officers. This position is different. I have given examples such as the Dublin docklands. I do not see why the advisory professional body could not become the key body. There should be some form of democratic control. It will happen sooner or later and 21st century politics might as well start now. The twin city of the Dublin city area is San José, a relationship begun by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. Its transport authority is a 12-member board with two managers. San José is situated in Santa Clara County in north California. The authority's board also has two Santa Clara supervisors. San José has its own urban area and it is about the same size as Dublin, a population of about 1.2 million. The authority's board has five City of San José council members and five elected from the other cities and counties all over Santa Clara. There are many examples, even though the Minister may say that is a different system. I am asking the Minister to do something innovative. It would be outrageous if there is no elected representative on the board. That would be unbelievable. We should finish this meeting without——
Deputy Michael Kennedy took the Chair.
I have removed the section, which is standard, which specifically excluded local authority members from sitting on the authority. Another good example is the City of San Francisco which has a mayor and eight other councilmen. Nine people run the City of San Francisco and I ask how democratic is that. We are talking about totally different systems.
They stand for election.
No. The mayor appoints the various heads of authorities in San Francisco. We are talking about two totally different systems. I am interested in a transportation authority that will deliver major transport infrastructure into this city and to the greater Dublin area generally. I want it to have power. People, both elected and otherwise, will have an input into the strategic vision but once that strategic vision is decided, then the role of those elected people with a mixture of other people, is to make sure that this authority delivers. Where we run into difficulties much of the time is when we have the vision, the plan. When we try to implement the plan, which has been passed by the locally elected members and, admittedly, prepared by county managers, everybody is enthusiastic but then the first task is to ensure we have four bus lanes and it takes ten years to get 12 bus lanes into the city of Dublin.
That has all changed.
It took 12 years. It may be changing but we do not have the time to wait.
There are some local representatives in all parties with a lot of courage and bravery.
Some of them, but unfortunately they are not the majority. I do not want this Dublin transport authority to end up the same way. I have removed the stipulated ban on a local authority member being on the authority. I spoke about any vested interest being on the board. My record on the appointment of various boards shows I have never hesitated to put a local public representative on any board. I am not going to put a list in the legislation to tie my hands or the hands of any subsequent Minister for Transport. I am prepared to consider this matter of the advisory council or body before Report Stage.
I agree with what Deputy Broughan said about the regional authorities on a number of counts. They have tried to co-operate with each other and work together. They have produced good regional planning guidelines and a number of reports. They are doing excellent work but that is strategic work. What is also needed is a body that will be able to implement the strategy, for the greater good rather than allowing individuals or small groups who may have legitimate concerns but do not necessarily see the bigger picture. I will not allow it to happen in this Bill.
I do not know if the Minister understands the point I am making in my amendment No. 30. We are not interfering with the Minister's right to nominate but they should come before the committee so that we could ask about their experience, their life experience or their professional interest or knowledge regarding their position on this board. I do not regard this as negative but rather as a positive that the nominees, who would in fact comprise the board, should come before the committee. There would be accountability from the Minister in that process. It could protect the Minister or any Minister in some respects as there may be pressure to have individuals on the board — political or other pressure. However, if part of the process means they come before this committee, this would prevent such pressure winning out as is the case in other jurisdictions.
The chief executive will be a member of the board and also two senior managers. Could this cause a problem with regard to corporate governance, in that three people who are members of the authority are employees of the authority? There could be issues if, for instance, one of them happened to be in charge of human resources and a strike happened. The membership of such persons would not necessarily be the most helpful.
I respect the Minister's commitment to look again at these issues. He may have referred to consumer interests with regard to the people. We do not want party hacks on the authority or people who are just mouthpieces for somebody else or people representing vested interests. I accept that the Minister wants a dynamic board that is driven by the energy they can create in working together but the checks and balances include the lord mayor of Dublin. I am unclear as to what the Minister said. He said he has withdrawn the bar so there is no barrier to them getting that job but he also said that the Government will decide when the times comes. However, this is the Government's time and it is the Minister's proposal. Our proposal — I am sure Deputy Broughan is also proposing it — is that when that person is elected as a directly-elected mayor, he or she then holds the chairmanship of the authority.
My point is I cannot legally anticipate further legislation so I cannot write it into this legislation.
However, the Minister can give a commitment here that it will happen.
I said that I personally have no difficulty with the concept but that the Government will have to make that decision at the appropriate time. As far as I can recall, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, is very keen for that as well. This is a personal position adopted by both of us but I cannot anticipate it in this legislation.
In order to be helpful to the Deputy, when I have appointed the board of the authority there is nothing that I know of to stop this committee calling me in and asking me for my reasons for the appointments and asking me to explain their qualifications. I have no difficulty having a reference to this in the legislation. However, I will not go down the route of this committee holding hearings on people I want to appoint. I do not believe that would be fair.
Is the Minister talking about after the appointment?
Yes.
We propose that they appear before the committee after the Minister has appointed them.
I would not get anybody to sit on a board if they thought they would be grilled in here. With all due respect, people around this table can change. It would be possible for a member of the committee to try to make a name for himself or herself by having a go at someone. That is the difficulty I have.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 20 was already discussed with amendment No. 19.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 18, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The chief executive of the Authority may attend at meetings of the Authority and speak but shall not be a member of the Authority.".
The Minister should ask the Attorney General to reconsider this matter. Agencies like the DTA must be regarded under normal corporate governance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 18, subsection (2)(b), line 44, after “office” to insert the following:
"and 7 Local Authority representatives from the GDA as ordinary members until the election of the 7 directly elected DTA Board members".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 19, subsection (2), lines 1 to 9, to delete paragraphs (c) and (d) and substitute the following:
"(c) 1 ordinary member, from the holder of the position of senior management post in the Authority to be specified by the chairperson with the consent of the Manager for as long as he or she will continue to hold that post, and
(d) the chairperson and 3 ordinary members, from persons who in the opinion of the Minister have wide experience in relation to transport, industrial, commercial, financial, land use planning or environmental matters, the organisation of administration and including one member proposed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 19, subsection (2), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(e) the chairperson of the DTA shall automatically revert to the directly elected Mayor of Dublin once that office has been established by statute,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 19, subsection (2), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(e) the Chairperson and 7 ordinary members shall be elected by the Dublin Regional Authority and the Mid-East Regional Authority with 4 members each being nominated by each of the authorities involved.”.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
Níl
- Brady, Áine.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- McGrath, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 19, subsection (2), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(e) the proposed Chairperson and Ordinary Members shall go before an oral hearing at the Joint Oireachtas Committee for Transport to allow that Committee to direct questions to the proposed Members as to their competence for that office having regard to their experience and/or qualifications,
(f) on the election of the person who is directly elected to the position of Mayor of Dublin, or such other comparable position, that person, and their successors, shall be the Chairperson of the Authority for such period as they hold the office of Mayor,
(g) in relation to section 14(2)(d) at least one ordinary member must be representative of national consumer or commuter groups”.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
Níl
- Brady, Áine.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- McGrath, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 20, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The Chair of the DTA shall automatically revert to the directly elected Mayor of Dublin once that office has been established by statute.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 20, subsection (2), line 27, to delete "5" and substitute "7".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 33 has been ruled out of order as it involved a potential charge on the Revenue.
The reason I sought to change the figure is that the 13 members of the advisory council will include at least four senior officials. I wanted to expand the size of the council to enhance democratic and local involvement.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are technical alternatives and amendments Nos. 38 to 43, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No 34:
In page 21, subsection (4), lines 14 to 19, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:
"(a) one manager of a local authority within the GDA,
(b) 2 members of local authorities within the GDA in addition to the 4 members referred to in paragraph (d),”.
These amendments relate to the advisory council, which will be an important element of the Dublin transport authority. I would have preferred to have made the advisory council the professional management team of a democratic transport authority. However, as I have not achieved that objective, I seek to change the council's membership by increasing the number of elected representatives and commuter representatives — the consumers of transport services.
The advisory council will include the manager of Dublin City Council or a nominated officer who will probably be the director of traffic, two county council managers, for example, the Meath or south Dublin county managers, and a member of the Garda Síochána who will, I presume, be drawn from the traffic corps. This leaves two members drawn from the Dublin Regional Authority, two members of the Mid-East Regional Authority and four members appointed from prescribed organisations. Concerns were expressed about the degree to which the prescribed organisations, as defined in the section, are representative.
The advisory council is clearly an important body. In amendment No. 34 I seek to change the composition of the council by having only one manager of a local authority in the greater Dublin area appointed and, instead, have two additional members of local authorities in the greater Dublin area appointed. This would increase the number of elected representatives on the 13 member council from four to six. I outlined the reasons I sought to make this critical change when I attempted, through an earlier amendment, to increase the number of elected representatives on the council to eight out of a total membership of 15 or 16.
The Minister's approach suggests the role of the advisory council will be to act as a sounding board for diverse transport interests and stakeholders, including commuters. As elected representatives who have all been councillors, we understand that local elected representatives learn from constituents about problems with streets, footpaths, roundabouts and so forth. The purpose of amendment No. 34 is to reduce management representation and increase by two the number of elected representatives on the council. The additional members could be drawn from any of the local authorities in the greater Dublin area, for example, South Dublin County Council, Fingal County Council or Meath County Council.
On amendment No. 38, I understand the national partnership process has a social partnership transportation council with which the Minister has interacted. This council has done some good work in bringing all sides of the transport equation together. The Minister indicated he does not want to be drawn on the appointments he will make from the prescribed organisations. The amendment proposes to specify that two of the members appointed from among such organisations would be drawn from the social partners. One of them could be appointed from the trade union movement and the other from business. Individuals active in the commercial arena and trade union movement have taken a profound interest in transport, as shown by their contributions to various debates on the issue.
Amendment No. 42 relates to the subsequent section which lists the functions of the advisory council. In addition to shadowing the functions of the board, the council will make recommendations to the authority. I felt it would be key to establish a statutory commuter panel, with adequate representation by cyclists and pedestrians, at authority and council level and also to the monitor the impact of Dublin transport authority policy on commuters in the greater Dublin area. I was given examples of good public transport democratic structures in other jurisdictions, especially London TravelWatch which is a statutory commuter body that represents the interests of commuters at the highest level. It is imperative commuters in particular be considered.
We are trying to achieve the pedestrian switch. The Minister referred to a target under his cycling strategy of having 10% of commuters cycling. We are all pedestrians at one stage or another. We have an opportunity, by way of Deputy O'Dowd's suggestion or mine, to put commuters at the heart of policy. The Minister obviously has been dealing with the Dublin cycling campaigners but I am not sure if he has encountered strong representatives of pedestrians. Perhaps the Chairman and I could establish a strong pedestrian body to represent walkers in urban areas. Amendment No. 42 proposes a system along the lines of London TravelWatch.
Amendment No. 39 deals with the Dublin transport authority advisory council. It is very important it have representatives of different groups, including the private sector. This is not mentioned specifically although there are provisions that might lead to that interpretation. It is very important there be private sector involvement and that its expertise and knowledge be employed. Specific reference should be made to the private sector. The trade unions would be welcome. We spoke about national consumer groups and it is very important they be represented also. They would have a broader interest to reflect.
Amendment No. 43 alludes to the transparency of the advisory group and proposes it meet in public. One needs a sounding board for opinion and the proceedings of the council should be in public to facilitate reporting. It is very important it be able to meet in public.
I listened to the previous debate and to what the Deputies said on the advisory council. The reason representation on the body will be as tight as proposed is because I do not necessarily want a huge talking shop; I want people who will be focused. I accept the point being made by both Deputies to the effect that we could be, perhaps, a little more generous in our approach regarding the advisory council.
I strongly believe one should not appoint members who believe they are representing a specific point of view. In some cases, an advisory body comprised of members who represent a specific point of view is not desirable. Deputy O'Dowd referred to consumers and Deputy Broughan referred to cyclists. I am not stating the latter would necessarily be the ones who would seek appointment. Both Deputies made a valid point on the need to have the council as representative as possible in the broadest sense.
I will introduce an amendment to section 17 on Report Stage that will increase the representation of public representatives and be a little more prescriptive on providing for representation by business interests, trade unions, the community and voluntary sector, and broader consumer interests. There is a reasonable balance of representation at present and I do not necessarily want to upset it too much. It will not be easy to include representatives of people with disabilities without the number of members becoming too great, but we will try. I obviously refer to transport users also. I hope the amendment I propose will find favour with Deputies.
I am prepared to accept the thrust of amendment No. 43 in the name of Deputy O'Dowd in respect of the publication of recommendations made by the advisory council. I intend to introduce an amendment to this effect on Report Stage.
I do not want to put the advisory council into a position in which it will have to meet. I would prefer if it ordered its own business in this regard. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents it from meeting in public should it so desire. As public representatives all know, there are times when more business can be done when meeting in private.
We will provide specifically for the publication of recommendations. I will reconsider the matter with a view to ensuring there is nothing in the legislation that prevents the body from meeting in public should it so decide. On that basis, I ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments.
My amendments Nos. 35 and 40 are just technical amendments. Amendment No. 35 is necessary to avoid confusion in section 17 concerning the use of the phrase "the Council". Section 17(1) provides that any reference in the Bill to "the Council" shall be a reference to the advisory council. However, reference to "the Council" in section 17(4)(a) is intended as a reference to Dublin City Council.
I know what the Minister is saying about my amendment, No. 38, but I ask him whether there is merit in trying to continue some of the good work of the social transport partnership.
We can try to fit it in here. The main points it made to us was that the advisory council should reflect social partnership generally, that the consultative process should be formalised — we have already achieved this — and that consumer interests should be included. Both Deputies have made these points strongly and I agree to trying to introduce a Report Stage amendment that will meet their concerns.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 21, subsection (4)(a), line 14, to delete “the” where it secondly occurs and substitute “that”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36, in the name of Deputy O'Dowd, is out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Amendment No. 37, in the name of Deputy Broughan, is also out of order.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 21, subsection (4)(e), line 27, after “(5)” to insert the following:
"including 2 members drawn from the Social Partners".
Is the amendment being pressed?
I will come back to it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 21, subsection (5)(a), line 34, after “movement,” to insert “and representatives from the private sector”.
In view of what the Minister said earlier, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 21, subsection (5)(b), line 38, to delete “and” and substitute “or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 24, subsection (1), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(f) establish a statutory commuter panel with adequate cycling and pedestrian representation to reflect commuter interests at Authority and Council level and to monitor the impact of DTA policy on commuters in the GDA.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 24, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Meetings of the advisory council must be held in public and all recommendations made by the advisory council must be made public.".
In view of what the Minister said earlier, I will return to this on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
Sections 19 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 27, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) The Authority shall be required to provide an account of the continuing necessity for the subsidiary to remain in being on the expiration of two years from the date of its establishment.".
This amendment proposes to ensure subsidiary quangos are not needlessly established. It is a sundown clause. If a quango cannot show its reason for existence after two years, it should be disbanded.
I opposed a similar amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad. However, I have thought about it a little more but I am not sure whether it should be a blanket two-year clause. I will accept the thrust of the amendment but examine it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 28, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The guidelines must be laid before and approved by each House of the Oireachtas.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 28, subsection (3)(a), line 16, after “before” to insert “and approved by”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 27 agreed to.
Sections 28 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 32, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) Pending the designation of the Authority for the purposes of public access to disclosures under any other statutory code, a disclosure under this section or section 36 or 37 shall be recorded in a register together with particulars of any interest of members of the Authority or persons to whom section 36 or 37 applies, and the register shall be available to public inspection during office hours.”.
This refers to the disclosure of interests by members of the authority. This type of provision is contained in many Acts. This amendment would establish a mechanism for compiling public information regarding the interests and possible conflict of interests on the part of members and staff. The Minister said previously that the authority will be designated for the purposes of access to disclosures under the Standards in Public Office Act. A similar amendment was tabled on Committee Stage in the Seanad. I have adjusted it to make it clear that it will only apply pending such designation under the Standards in Public Office Act.
The Standards in Public Office Act 2001 provides for the statutory framework for the regulation of the disclosure of interests. It also provides for a range of measures to underpin compliance. It is well established within the legislation. Newly established agencies are brought within the remit of the legislation by an order made by the Minister for Finance. The interim, which the Deputy's amendment is trying to cover, is already covered. Newly appointed directors and agencies are captured by a second procedure under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies, issued by the Department of Finance. Under this code, on appointment to the board of a State body, each member must furnish the secretary of the body with the declaration of any interests which could give rise to a conflict of interest or materially influence the member in the performance of his or her duties. This second procedure covers any time lag before the ethics Act is brought to bear on the authority and should catered for the Deputy's concerns in this regard.
I have different legal advice. I know lawyers differ but our advice is this provision should be inserted.
I shall check it again for Report Stage.
We are trying to ensure it is covered statutorily.
Yes, I understand they are only guidelines per se but they do have effect for false declarations or failure to submit a declaration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 35 agreed to.
Sections 36 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Question proposed: "That section 41 stand part of the Bill."
Should the Minister not have mentioned the Committee of Public Accounts, given that it is referred to in the Constitution? Obviously it will be looking at all aspects of the performance of the Dublin transport authority, ultimately, doing value for money reports, etc.
I believe it is covered in the legislation. The only committee the Comptroller and Auditor General is a member of, reports to or is an Accounting Officer for is the Committee of Public Accounts. The wording there refers to a committee of Dáil Éireann established under Standing Orders "to examine and report to Dáil Éireann on the appropriation accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General". The Deputy is right. I do not know why——
Why not just say "the Committee of Public Accounts", because it is in the Constitution?
I do not know. Apparently, this is just the legal way it must be worded, but it is a description of the Committee of Public Accounts. What the Deputy is trying to achieve is covered.
That is all right.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 36, before section 42, to insert the following new section:
42.——The Minister is fully and directly accountable to Dáil Éireann through standard Dáil procedures including oral and written questions and all forms of debate for all policy, strategic decisions and financial accounts of the DTA.".
This is core amendment concerning democratic accountability and it should be in the Bill. I notice there is a meeting this evening of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It has been an ongoing subject over the past five to six months or perhaps a year. Speaking on behalf of Deputies, not just on the Opposition side but also, perhaps, on the Government side, we find it impossible to do our business with many agencies. I definitely want to press this amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
Níl
- Brady, Áine.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- McGrath, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 36, line 27, to delete paragraph (a).
This amendment deals with the immunity of the authority and the attempt to protect it from future damages and so on. I tabled it to protect some of the public service operators, but looking at the section again, I am not sure of its impact. Why is the Minister not accepting it?
This type of section is common enough and we are precluding the possibility that a person could decide to take an action against the authority, or a subsidiary of the authority, for something the authority did not do. It is based on section 10 of the Roads Act 1993. There is no bar on anybody taking an action for alleged damage arising from the exercise by the authority or a subsidiary of its statutory functions. It is just that we will not give people the right to sue the DTA if an action was not taken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 43 agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 are technical alternatives. Amendments Nos. 52, 75, 87, 88 and 89 are also related and cognate. Amendment No. 53 is related. Therefore, all these amendments will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 37, subsection (2), lines 28 to 38, to delete paragraphs (b) to (d).
This amendment deals with the authority acting as an operator of last resort. Looking at the record of public transport authorities on infrastructure, I considered it would be better to delete these paragraphs. We believe they could pose a threat to elements of the financial viability of CIE, such as its statutory pension scheme. As that is underpinned by public transport infrastructure, these paragraphs could be an assault on CIE itself. The ability of the company to discharge its statutory responsibilities on pensions and other funding could be impaired. That is the original motivation for this amendment.
If that is the Deputy's reasoning for tabling this amendment, then he should not pursue it. This section deals with the provision of transport infrastructure and it merely ensures that if an agency with a responsibility for providing a piece of infrastructure is not willing or able to continue doing so, the DTA will have an ultimate power and sanction. We do not want a situation arising where a necessary piece of infrastructure is not put in place for whatever reason, and the DTA is forced to get High Court injunctions and so on.
There is a similar section later in the Bill that deals with services rather than infrastructure. Delivery of the DTA's transport strategy and the integrated implementation plan would normally be undertaken by the existing public transport agencies such as the RPA, Iarnród Éireann or Bus Átha Cliath. We want this to continue as these agencies have the expertise at their disposal. However, if they fail to comply with the direction for whatever reason, the DTA will have power to step in and take over their functions for providing this kind of infrastructure. The DTA will also have the power to step in and undertake a public transport infrastructure project where it considers it more convenient, more expeditious, more effective or more economical to do so. It may be the case, in certain circumstances, that the agency which would normally undertake a particular project might agree that this approach is the best one to take. The National Roads Authority has the same power.
It is absolutely necessary that this power should be available to the Dublin transport authority in cases where a person or body obdurately refuses to implement a vital element of an infrastructural project. However, the Minister is designated, in certain circumstances, to prevent the Dublin transport authority from interfering in this way. That is important from a democracy point of view. Each of my amendments is designed to ensure there is consultation. It is not the case that somebody in the Dublin transport authority will be allowed to follow through on grandiose notions that it should be responsible for delivering all transport infrastructure projects and to hell with existing agencies. A balance is maintained in these provisions and they are absolutely necessary.
I understand the Vote for public transport services will now flow through the Dublin transport authority to the various CIE subsidiaries. Is that correct?
Yes.
This will constitute a major change for the CIE holding company. In other words, it will become akin to something like the Railway Procurement Agency, with no more standing than that body. This is the focus of concern regarding the new methodology of funding. I referred on Second Stage to the provision — I understand it is in section 111 — whereby the holding company will no longer appoint the directors for the three public transport companies. This represents a major change in how CIE will operate. The concern is that, down the line, this may have a negative impact on the company's capacity to discharge its commitments, particularly in regard to the pensions of current and retired staff. That is a significant function of the holding company. Any change which serves to weaken this aspect of its role may be detrimental.
The Minister declined on a previous occasion to consider my request to designate CIE as the operator of last resort. That would provide the company with a positive function for the future. Under the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of section 44(2), an unusual situation arises in that the regulator, the Dublin transport authority, may discharge services and create infrastructure. In his previous portfolio, colleagues and I raised the possibility with the Minister of the Commission for Communications Regulation taking over the broadband network. There have also been suggestions, given that Babcock & Brown is in such dire straits, that we should simply take the network back. The Eircom situation represents the classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Getting rid of the network is the reason there is still such appalling broadband provision in parts of Galway and the midlands.
In regard to public transport infrastructure, we have a historical entity, the CIE Group, which could be given a useful function in this regard. The legislation might have been drafted in a different way to accommodate this. In other words, CIE could and perhaps should have been designated a national transport authority, overseeing all the necessary services in addition to its own subsidiary companies. CIE could have been used as the anchor on the basis of the 1958 Act. These minor amendments reflect the concerns that exist in regard to the ultimate outcome for CIE. Why should the company not be given a definitive role in regard to its own subsidiaries and as an operator of last resort? This would ensure it retains the responsibilities it has, which it will always have, in regard to pensions and so on.
Will Deputy Broughan clarify what he means by "operator of last resort"?
According to this Bill, the Dublin transport authority can take upon itself to deliver services or infrastructure where it determines that they will not otherwise be delivered according to its standards. Besides the democratic issue, the concern being expressed in local authorities and transport fora is that the regulator and ultimate authority under the Minister should have the power itself to become an operator. That is not good practice. A regulatory body should not also be a provider. In his previous portfolio, the Minister was not prepared to allow the Commission for Communications Regulation to take on that type of function. Why should CIE, an entity that has been in existence for decades, not be allowed to take on this particular role?
Deputy Broughan has made an important point. What we are seeking to achieve is an efficient and integrated transport system. The Dublin transport authority should have primacy in all these issues. There will obviously be tension between CIE, incorporating its subsidiary companies, and the authority. Who does the Minister intend to appoint to the board of the Dublin transport authority? Does he know whether the directors of CIE or its subsidiaries intend to seek places on the board and, if so, does he intend to grant them? This is a critical issue.
There is a perception that significant resources are used to support public transport without adequate transparency in regard to public service obligations, routes and so on. Iarnród Éireann, which is a subsidiary of CIE, has a fare structure which is neither transparent nor fair. There are many such issues that must be examined. The age of the monolith is no more. With the Dublin transport authority in charge, all these other historical entities — I might go so far as to describe some of them as white elephants — will no longer exist. We are in a new era now and the consumer is king. An efficient, effective transport system is vital.
I envisage no threat to pensions as a consequence of these proposals. I do not understand that point. However, I recently received an information note about a meeting the Minister attended, which referred to constructive tension between CIE and the Dublin transport authority. Reference was made to three CIE chief executive officers being appointed to the board of the Dublin transport authority. Are these persons seeking membership of the board? I am not sure whether that would be a good idea.
I assure the Deputy that will not happen. I have dealt with the reasoning behind this. Deputy Broughan's concern about pensions is not well founded, particularly with reference to this section of the Bill. One cannot and should not nominate CIE as operator of last resort because in some of the envisaged instances, CIE, Iarnród Éireann, Bus Átha Cliath or Bus Éireann may be the organisations that are not providing the required infrastructure because, as they perceive it, it affords an advantage to one of their rivals. Consequently, CIE cannot be an operator of last resort.
I do not disagree with the Deputy, given our current knowledge. Were we back at the time CIE or the separate companies were set up, perhaps we might have done things differently. However, we are where we are and it is important to have an authority with some clout to ensure the provision of the efficient and effective public transport system we seek and to which Deputy O'Dowd referred.
As for the query on whether it is correct that the Dublin transport authority, DTA, might operate a service, I do not foresee it operating or providing a service. While it will not need to provide a service, it must be in a position to declare that a particular organisation, which it asked to provide such a service, has failed to so do and that consequently, the DTA will take it over. It may hand over the service to another of the existing agencies. While I do not wish to raise hares or cause people grief, if, for instance, the Railway Procurement Agency failed to deliver a light rail system, the DTA could step in, tell the agency it was making a mess of it and to stand aside. The authority then could ask Iarnród Éireann to provide the service because it possesses the requisite engineering expertise or whatever, or vice versa. Alternatively, the DTA could put it out to tender for competent people to come in and deliver. It is not necessarily obliged to provide the infrastructure itself.
It is important that the authority should have this power in principle. On that basis, and notwithstanding the fact I am tempering it somewhat by specifying it cannot be done without due consideration and acquiring the points of view of others, I am not prepared to accept these amendments.
What about the proposed three representatives on the board?
That was before my time. I am aware it is contained in the paper members received on——
On Wednesday, 14 December. I am unsure of the year.
It was a couple of years before that.
It probably was in 2005.
I refer to the three subsidiary companies and the Minister's comment that conflict of interest could arise. Effectively however, if financial power is to move directly from the DTA, as time passes will it not tend to go towards the companies such as Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann that will have the direct award contracts? They are mentioned in the legislation and effectively will have independent boards. Does this mean that CIE will begin to operate in a different manner, at some remove from the aforementioned companies?
The CIE holding company will remain in place and this legislation does not change the position.
I know that.
As for the provision of funding, the companies still will be obliged to get funding to provide the requisite level of service. The only difference is that it will be directed through the DTA, rather than directed straight from the Exchequer through the Department of Transport.
Will it go from the DTA through CIE to, for example, Dublin Bus or will it flow directly? Arising from the legislation it appears it will flow directly.
That is a good question. According to the legislation, it must go through the CIE holding company.
I will withdraw the amendment. I may return to this issue, if possible, on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 37, subsection (2)(c), line 34, after “with” to insert “and consider the views of”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 37, subsection (4), line 44, after "with" to insert "and consider the views of".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 37, lines 46 to 49 and in page 38, lines 1 to 29, to delete subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment should be made mutatis mutandis.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 45 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 48.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 40, subsection (3)(d), line 23, to delete “the routes to be operated or”.
This section pertains to public transport services contracts. It outlines the main types, what such contracts will entail and section 48(3)(d) refers to “the routes to be operated or the areas to be served”. I may have a different view to my colleague in respect of public service obligation routes. However, for a company with a direct award contract to operate successfully and given other provisions of the Bill, presumably much information on the costs and benefits of each route will be available to the DTA. A concern exists that putting the emphasis on the route could detract from the overall service in an area.
Members should consider the issue of Swords as an example in which Deputy Kennedy has a profound interest. My understanding is that three or four years ago, Dublin Bus attempted to put in place a widespread local service. I do not refer to the 41X route, which was a more recent development, but to a dispersed service encompassing River Valley and elsewhere around the town, in an effort to get Swords fully connected in the period leading up to the development of the metro. People would say the reason it failed was that the Minister's colleagues were not prepared to grant licences under the 1932 Act. This is the reason the failure to reform the 1932 Act has been disastrous. The only scenario it does not mention is a person using a horse and cart. Together with the bicycle, that was the main mode of transport used in those days by our distinguished ancestors to ramble around the country. People used to cycle 100 miles to a match.
Given the energy crisis, we are heading back in that direction.
Yes. Horses and bicycles were used.
We will have tractors.
People used to cycle 40 miles to and from matches, dances and so on.
I refer to the maintenance of a wider area network. Yesterday, like other colleagues I received an interesting document from the surveyors' organisation containing studies of how one would assess connectivity in urban or urban-rural areas. In other words, whether one can judge how many minutes' walk a householder is from a public service in locations such as River Valley. This is the bottom line everywhere. This point was discussed during Question Time yesterday and the Minister answered quite well in respect of rural transport. I hope he will stick to it and cutbacks will be avoided in this regard. The same issue arises in respect of rural transport, that is, how far from a public transport node is a person in a rural district. The English Department of Transport appears to have targets in this regard. As the DTA will operate in partly urban and rural areas, the concern is that as some routes will be seen to be profitable, a form of cherry-picking system will develop and the direct award contractor, Dublin Bus, will end up without an incentive to expand or develop. It should have been allowed to implement its Swords plan. It could have been up and running. I accept there was nowhere to measure and that we will have the DTA to say whether Swords is connected and to ask whether, as the direct award contractor, Dublin Bus, will give that service about which it spoke years ago and so on.
I can understand mentioning a route. The area is more important. I refer to those maps that, again, the English seem to have in some of their transport authority areas whereby they seem to know the connectivity of different streets to a public transport node. This is brilliant research and is something we obviously need to do in the DTA and the entire island. If one is ten miles from Tuam, what does it take to get a public transport route? I know that in the Beara Peninsula in west Cork the public transport route I sometimes use, which is the school bus, does not run in the winter time. If one lives 20 miles from Kenmare, one cannot get there because there is no bus service or possibly only one bus a day in winter, which is completely crazy.
This is the serious point. One might say that it is only the routes but the idea is that there would be full connectivity for everywhere and that the direct award contractor will not be disincentivised from building up its routes and having the best possible public transport infrastructure for the city. It might seem to be a strange one that I tried to change but that is the reasoning behind it.
What the Bill proposes is the same as what Deputy Broughan says he wants to happen as a result of this Bill. Section 48 empowers the DTA to procure passenger transport services by way of public transport service contracts. Those contracts can be entered into in respect of the provision of light rail, metro, rail or public bus services. Contracts in respect of light rail and metro must be pursued by way of open tendering, while the public bus services may be secured in that fashion or by a direct award, depending on the circumstances.
The section we are dealing with sets out the principal matters that must be addressed by the contracts. Deputy Broughan has set them out eloquently himself. One cannot give out a contract and not specify the routes to be operated. It just would not be possible. It relates to the areas to be served, the integration of services, frequency, fares and the terms and conditions where an operator proposes to subcontract services. The contract must contain provisions for review and incentives where an operator exceeds specified performance standards. One offers the incentive and the penalty for non-compliance and the duration of the contract itself. I would suggest that what the Deputy puts forward verbally is not reflected in the amendment. The thrust of what he is looking for is contained in the Bill as it stands.
The provisions of this section generally are based on the principles of transparency and clear definition that underline the framework established by Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 about which we spoke earlier. One could not operate a contract for public transport services without the routes being clearly laid down. If they are not clearly laid down, we will not get away with it. We would not be complying with our obligations legally or otherwise. Respectfully, what Deputy Broughan has said is reflected in what is included in the Bill. The effect of his amendment would be to negate some of that.
With regard to the legal obligations mentioned by the Minister, could he clarify whether the DTA can give a direct award to Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann, given that they are not internal operators to the DTA? Is there any danger that this could be challenged? While they are internal operators to the Minister, they are not to the DTA.
There is nothing in the regulation that prohibits an arrangement concerning the awarding of service contracts by which another authority other than the Minister, in this case, the DTA, acts in the name and under the responsibility of the competent authority, namely, the Minister for Transport, provided that such an arrangement is transparent and non-discriminatory and does not render impossible compliance with the rules of the regulation. We cannot stop people from taking legal action and testing things legally, but that is the situation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 40, subsection (3), after line 40, to insert the following:
"(n) a requirement where appropriate that the operator holds an operator’s licence (within the meaning of section 2(9) of the Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006),
(o) requirements relating to compliance with applicable law in relation to pay and terms and conditions of employment,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 41, subsection (3), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(p) the obligation on the public transport operator to comply with all employment legislation is specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Law Compliance Act 2008 and any instruments specified in Part II of Schedule 1 of the said Act, and employment regulation Orders and registered employment agreements within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 2004, and
(q) the public transport operator shall be required to grant work staff previously taken on to provide services, the rights to which they would have been entitled if there had been a transfer within the meaning of Directive 2001/23/EC together with all pension rights and entitlements of the said staff with the previous public transport operator.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
Does Deputy Broughan wish to take 15 minutes to go to the Whips' meeting?
We will resume at 5.15 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 5.15 p.m.
Sections 49 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 42, before section 52, to insert the following new section:
"52.——(1) The Authority shall issue additional public service contracts where it can be shown by any person or body corporate that—
(a) there is a requirement for such service in the general economic interest,
and
(b) a public service operator has the capacity to provide such a service.
(2) The Authority shall ensure there is a facility in the Authority to accept and consider any such proposal under subsection (1).”.
The purpose of the amendment is to open contracts to those who wish to tender for new routes and who have the capacity to provide new services. If it can be proven that there is a need, the authority should be provided with the ability to issue the contracts. At issue is the opening up of the market.
The Deputy should consider sections 48 and 52, which establish his amendment's aim. Part 3, Chapter 2 of the Bill establishes a comprehensive framework to give the authority the power to procure public passenger transport services through the making of public service transport contracts. Section 48 envisages that the authority may enter into such contracts following open tendering in respect of public bus routes and metro and light rail services. It also provides that public bus and rail services can be secured by means of direct award contracts. However, section 52 provides that direct award contracts will apply only to the continued provision of the services currently being provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Accordingly, the future growth in the market for subvented public bus services will be pursued by way of public tendering. The current areas of subvention will continue, but everything outside of those areas will be pursuable by way of open tendering or direct contract awards.
The Deputy's aim is addressed in the overall provisions of the chapter, notably in sections 48 and 52. They were drafted mindful of the current situation, particularly the provisions of EU regulation 1370, which has direct application to the relevant contracts. Given that the amendment's intent is met in sections 48 and 52, I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.
Perhaps the Minister can assist me. He seems to be saying the initiative will rest with the DTA, but my amendment would mean the initiative would rest with anyone who identifies and can perform a service on a new route.
Given the stage at which the market is, the situation envisaged would result in chaos. There would be oversupply on some routes for a period of——
I am discussing new routes, not existing ones. The person or group in question might have buses, skills and a business plan.
As I understand it, the amendment would result in a free-for-all. New routes would be decided on by a company, another company would see how lucrative they were and——
I appreciate the Minister's point concerning tendering and that other people should be able to tender for a contract.
That is only if the route is being subvented.
Yes.
While the amendment is along the same lines, there is a difference in that we are discussing subvented services where a PSO must be applied. Deputy O'Dowd, however, is discussing opening the market generally.
Yes.
Nothing in the Bill prevents such an opening up, but we must reform the 1932 Act to allow for it. We are discussing services and how they——
I am discussing opening the market, which is Fine Gael's intention. I will push the matter to a voice vote.
Were there no PSO, anyone could apply for the licence.
Will the integrity of current licences be maintained?
Yes.
We are not discussing current licences.
We all agree on the necessity in that respect. Were the market totally free, the situation could become disastrous within a number of years. While I accept that no committee member has called for this, we have necessary subventions to ensure a decent public transport system. If we are agreed that the provision of a service is a job for Bus Átha Cliath or Bus Éireann, we can park the issue to one side.
However, a need that cannot be met commercially or in respect of which a profit cannot be made may arise elsewhere. Deputies Kennedy and Broughan referred to Swords, Blanchardstown and similar areas. If someone applies for a licence in the belief that he or she can make a profit, I wish him or her the best of luck. However, if a large area is left alone because no one is interested in providing a commercially non-viable service therein, the DTA will be able to say that a service is required. Such situations will increasingly arise given the matters of climate change, modal shifts and so on. Bus Átha Cliath and private firms will be able to tender for the service contracts.
We are in general agreement in this respect, but the matter relates to a lack of clarity concerning existing PSOs. Private coach-hire operators have contacted me to raise the issue of transparency in the process and the question of whether there is cross-subsidisation of routes. Europe makes decisions in this regard now, but I do not understand why I, for example, should not be allowed to tender for a contract. Some private coach operators have told me they would like to become involved in the process, but they do not know what the costs are. They believe they could tender for contracts competitively. They are asking why Dublin Bus should have a closed shop.
They will not, with the establishment of the DTA. On existing routes there is a monopoly with the PSO but under section 48 there is provision for other PSO contracts to be awarded. These must be awarded by open tender.
When these PSOs are due for renewal, can anyone tender for them?
No, we have established PSO routes. These will remain as a group.
Are they with Dublin Bus indefinitely?
No, they are subject to review.
Is it for five years?
The initial period is five years. The DTA can then renew them for up to ten years. It can renew them on the basis of best value or on the basis of a tender.
That is the point.
There is a public consultation process when it is up for review. Everyone, including private hire coaches, has the right to make a case as to why it should be opened up.
What they have they hold for five years. At the end of this period there is an opportunity for companies to make a bid and there will be total transparency about cost. The biggest complaint is that there is none.
Nobody would argue with that and it is part of the reason I have asked for a review to ensure we are subsidising——
What is truly a PSO.
——what is truly a PSO. This is why, in the interim period, Bus Átha Cliath should make sure the routes it has are genuine PSO routes.
Is the analysis requested independent of this Bill?
It is, but it will feed into the Bill. By the time it is finished, the DTA will be established and we can give it the review. Examining this area would be the first thing the DTA would do.
Are PSO routes peak time routes? These are the loss makers and cannot be operational during the rest of the day.
PSO routes are not necessarily peak time routes but some of them could be.
From our discussions with Dublin Bus, it is clear that peak hours are the services that must be subsidised because they are lying idle for the rest of the day. That has been an issue for us in making recommendations.
That is the view of Dublin Bus. If it co-operates with this review, it will emerge. While I have an open mind on this and the terms of reference are sufficiently open, it could emerge that Dublin Bus runs an efficient and effective service and that we are not paying a large enough subsidy.
Our report identifies a series of new routes on the orbital routes. They can and should be put out to public competition. Where the private sector can run these routes efficiently and effectively, there should be segmentation involved and Bus Éireann should get off those routes. This refers to the orbital routes, where there are no existing Bus Éireann services or very few. This would give a more comprehensive service.
There are also new communities with no service at all. We want a direct run-in.
We should focus on how to provide the best service. It is not a question of taking services from Dublin Bus or adding them to Bus Éireann. The question is what will give the most effective public transport system.
People do not care what colour the bus is, they just want the bus.
When I say public transport, I am referring to private operators as well. This has nothing to do with protecting monopolies. I have told Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath that I want them to be effective and efficient. I want any work practices that add to the cost to be exposed and discontinued. We will continue to need Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath into the future but they must be responsive to customers and consumers.
They must be transparent.
I do not agree with my colleague. The amendment should be placed in section 48, which deals with the public transport services contracts. We are mixing public service contracts with direct award public service contracts, which are clearly defined in Regulation (EC) 1370/2007, which states that direct award means "the award of a public service contract to a given public service operator without any prior competitive tendering procedure". I do not see how the Minister can say he will privatise some of this. It cannot be done under section 52.
I did not say that.
I disagree with the tenor of this discussion. It is going against European legislation. It is clear what is a direct award, it is an award of a tender to public service operators who deliver the service.
While there are complaints, it must be said that the bus service in the city area and in the country has improved significantly. Resources have been allocated. The main reason why additional Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann services have not been rolled out is that the Government has not provided resources on ideological grounds because of the point of view of the Minister's predecessors. Deputy Brennan wanted a quadrant, 25%, of the city privatised. That was the policy. He did not want to go down this route.
The second reason is that colleagues of the Minister were not prepared to grant Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann routes under the 1932 Act. They were operating like someone under a searchlight, refusing to take action without reform of the 1932 Act. Perhaps it was not to upset the Europeans, Deputy Brennan or Deputy Cullen.
The Minister often refers to ideology. The major ideological agenda that operated over the past 11 years was not from the left, which is not in power, but the right. It was consistent in respect of this issue as well. This amendment is harmless in the context of section 48 but lethal in the context of direct award, to which it does not apply. The legislation on which this Bill is based clearly defined what is a direct award contract.
Whatever about the left or the right, we are coming from the centre and I am glad the Deputy is in favour of direct award.
It says quite clearly what is a direct award contract. It is not about what will happen in three or four years' time when we might do this or that.
I wish to make a couple of further points. There is a report on the website on the impact bus lanes have had on the carrying of passengers. There has been criticism that some buses are carrying fewer passengers and that others are even slower than before bus lanes were introduced. The key point is that because of Luas and other issues, buses may be running at a loss. Passengers have moved but buses have not. What we are dealing with is the passenger's need for a bus to take him or her from his or her front door to his or her required destination. I am pressing the amendment which is critical from my party's perspective.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Connaughton, Paul.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
Níl
- Brady, Áine.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- McGrath, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 52.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 42, subsection (1), line 46, after "law" to insert the following:
", such licence not to impinge upon, adversely affect or otherwise restrict either Dublin Bus' or Bus Eireann's exclusive rights to provide public bus passenger services described in paragraphs (a) and (b) below”.
This amendment concerns direct award contracts and amends section 52(1). It is the reverse of what we have just discussed. We are not amending the Road Transport Act 1932 and are still waiting for the Minister's reform of bus licensing, which I presume will address the issues raised by the previous amendment and those falling outside of section 52. It is important the integrated public service obligation network is protected and I sought to achieve that through this amendment to provide more certainty to public service operators.
The provisions of section 52(1) as drafted seek to maintain a balance between the need for transport services, including bus passenger services, which are subject to public service obligations, and private transport operators who provide commercial bus transport services and are licensed under the provisions of the 1932 Act or any future legislation. It will be a matter for the Dublin transport authority to procure the provision of public transport services and, in so doing, to determine whether a public service obligation should be applied in respect of particular services.
Deputy Broughan is correct that the proposed amendment pertains primarily to the criteria for bus licensing under the 1932 Act, with which we are not dealing, and I suggest the matter is more appropriate for consideration in the context of the public transport regulation Bill. Accepting this amendment could mean there would be no grounds where the public interest to increase services could hold sway over public service obligations. I do not think that would be acceptable to anybody. The exclusive rights established in section 52 for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann services are conditional on the grant of licences for commercial bus services. This must continue to be the case to recognise that markets and demands can change over time.
The Deputy may be concerned about cherry-picking of profitable elements of services to which a public service obligation applies. That will have to be addressed in the public transport regulation Bill in a manner that balances the need to support the maintenance of such services with meeting the public interest by providing new services. The provisions of section 52 as drafted acknowledge the exclusive rights of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to continue to provide current services within the framework established under the new EU PSO regulation and subject to the review mechanism provided in subsection (5). On that basis, we must have regard for public interest concerns and changing demands. I ask the Deputy to accept the wording of section 52 and to withdraw his amendment because the section meets the concerns he has expressed.
I hope that will be the case. I welcome the Minister's reference to the problem of cherry-picking services which anybody could operate profitably. It is a question of ensuring the No. 41 continues to leave Talbot Street after 9 p.m. and of avoiding the mistakes made in the past. I accept the Minister's good offices in that regard and withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 64 are related to amendment No. 59 and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 43, subsection (1), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(b) Dublin Bus has the exclusive right to ownership and responsibility for planning and operating the metropolitan bus network in the GDA,”.
This again addresses some of the concerns people have expressed about public transport. The direct award contract will not tie down fully the full public service obligation, so this amendment inserts a new paragraph granting Dublin Bus the exclusive right to provide services in accordance with the Transport Act 1958 and the Transport (Re-organisation of Córas Iompair Éireann) Act 1986. This is a fundamental issue concerning the network as distinct from the routes operated by the company. It would be the responsibility of Dublin Bus to maintain the metropolitan network, which would be separate from the overall performance of the company. My amendment provides that the right of the company to continue to provide services would include an exclusive right to ownership of the network and responsibility for its planning and operation.
The bus network has developed over the decades through a process of trial and error. Some famous orbital routes, such as the No. 101, passed through the edge of my constituency of Dublin North-East. The No. 101 was a difficult route to operate, although it was crucial because it served Beaumont Hospital. The right laid down in paragraph (a) should extend also to planning and operating the network. At the end of the day, who in the DTA will be the guardian of the network? People in the public transport sector fear the DTA will have that responsibility. There is potential clearly for new routes but Dublin Bus should maintain its direct award contracts. The bus network, of which every Dublin Deputy probably has a map, is a core aspect of the performance of the operator. In the Minister’s last portfolio and the last one I looked after for my party, the Minister may remember we worked on the electricity transmission and distribution network. The Minister made a decision which looks like it has been changed. It is a fundamental issue in terms of electricity, but it also strongly pertains to public transport. This was developed, and will be developed, under the direct awards system. It could not be lightly given over to somebody else, some privateer who could make a few bucks for a while and then disappear when it suits. This is the experience we have had with private operators in some areas. That should not be allowed to happen. That is the background to the idea that the ownership and planning strategy of the network should remain with Dublin Bus and that at the end of the day even the DTA would see itself as the ultimate planner and therefore would be in a position to privatise parts of the network.
The focus of the Deputy's amendment at paragraph (f) is to allow Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus to alter routes that form part of the direct award contracts envisaged under section 52. The issue is whether it would be possible to make changes to services in the framework of those contracts. This has been raised with me and others by a number of bodies. While I consider a provision to allow for alteration to services could form part of those contracts, I accept that it is appropriate that this should be addressed in this section. That is why I have proposed amendment No. 64, which specifically provides that alterations can be made by the authority following consultation with the relevant bus company. It is important that the DTA, as a contracting body, should make the alterations to ensure they fall within the scope of the contracts and exclusive rights to which they relate. On that basis the amendment I propose meets the general thrust of Deputy Broughan’s proposal.
Section 52 deals with the existing position. It establishes that the three CIE companies have exclusive rights to provide the services that are currently the subject of State financial support and for growth in respect of rail services subject to future legislative change. In the case of the bus services the exclusive right is also subject to the grant of bus route licences to private bus operators under the Road Transport Act 1932. Direct award contracts will be entered into to support the provision of services encapsulated by those exclusive rights, and they are exclusive.
Section 11(1)(a) establishes in clear terms that one of the principal functions of the authority will be to undertake strategic planning of transport. Sections 12 and 13 give specific responsibility to the authority to make a strategic transport plan, the term used is “transport strategy”, and an integrated implementation plan. The objective of the transport strategy will be to provide “a long term strategic planning framework for the integrated development of transport infrastructure and services in the GDA”.
Section 13(2) provides clear parameters for the DTA related to the contents of that integrated implementation plan. While Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann will continue to be responsible for the operational planning of their networks, within the contractual framework being promoted through this section, responsibility for ensuring the networks conform with the integrated implementation plan will be a matter to be determined by the DTA, which will take account of how all bus services, both private and public, are integrated. Having regard to this and the integral role of the DTA relating to the strategic and integrated planning, it is not proposed to accept amendment No. 59 or amendment No. 60 paragraph (d).
Regarding amendment No. 60 paragraph (e), the provision of this chapter of the Bill, in so far as it relates to the provision of public bus passenger services, relates to two policy principles. They support the continued provision by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann of existing subvented bus services in the greater Dublin area. They also provide that future growth in the market for subvented services will be addressed by way of public service contracts that will be granted following open tendering, which will allow private operators and Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann, as appropriate, to submit tenders, having regard to the geographical remit that applies to their operators. Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann will have the opportunity, along with other public transport operators, to compete for such open tender services in compliance with EU Regulation (EC) 1370/2007, which will apply in respect of any public service contract for the provision of subvented public bus passenger services.
The proposed amendment, which would give priority to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in consideration of proposals to issue contracts for new public bus passenger services, would not comply with EU Regulation 1370/2007. In those circumstances I ask the Deputy to withdraw that amendment. The public bus operators have exclusive rights in the areas where they are, but overall planning must be a function of the DTA because it must take into account other services such as rail, light rail, Luas and metro to try to ensure we achieve an integrated transport system in the city. That is what this Bill is principally about.
I saw the list of grouped amendments for the first time when I came in here at 9.30 a.m. I did not get the chance to talk about amendment No. 60. I ask for the same rights for Bus Éireann, the exclusive rights to ownership and responsibility for planning and operating provincial bus networks in the GDA. That would become a new part of section 52(1). The Minister has gone on to amendment No. 64, where he says the authority may, following consultation with Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann "make alterations to elements of that contract which relate to the provision of services contained within that contract, subject to there being no amendment to the scope of the relevant exclusive right".
I was trying to ensure that, as the holders of the direct award contracts, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann would have the first option on the expansion of the bus network in their operational areas. Their direct award contract and their exclusive right under direct award is working well. They would have the first option there, in contravention of the Road Transport Act 1932. I was amending section 11(1) of the 1932 Act to give Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann the first option and allow them to make alterations to protect the integrity of the service. The Minister has accepted that to some extent in amendment No. 64. Again, it relates to the concerns people have in public transport that in practice the exclusive rights might not be so exclusive and the possibility that, if the 1932 Act continues to be on the long finger for whatever reason, the two companies in their public service obligation role could be left exposed.
Are we discussing just amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 64? I appreciate the distance the Minister has come in amendment No. 64 on the latter part of amendment No. 60, which was the 50th amendment in my list. I would still like to have something like amendment No. 59 and the new section in amendments Nos. 61 and 62.
The Deputy's proposal would not comply with sections 30 and 70 and we would be taken to court and everything else. The system would collapse, as would the system of granting exclusive rights to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Whatever concerns people might have with the current system, it has been checked and rechecked. These sections, from section 48 to section 56, were thoroughly examined by the Attorney General. This is as far as we can go.
Is this in the context of European regulation?
I am not blaming Europe for this but it is as far as we can go. We have given exclusive rights here.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
It is a bit like the debates we had up to last Friday. The problem with Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 and other European legislation is that it is made up of a bit of this and that. It is a bit of whatever you are having yourself. A lot can be read into it. That is the reason posters showing workers being hammered by a mallet in the new European order were such a serious cause of grief to the "Yes" campaign. It is a problem.
I accept it is a problem in the way it was presented but the "Yes" side did not make a particularly good job of talking up all the rights the EU had given and defended for workers, and how well it defended the environment, etc. I accept it is a collective failure but I do not accept the argument of the "No" side that the EU has hammered down workers. It is far from it.
In measures such as Regulation (EC) 1370/2007, one can take an element of the preamble which would seem to be very protective of workers' rights, although the Minister would not accept the formula in which it was placed. Another element could then be taken and it could be argued it could be a charter for the most right-wing liberal economics one could think about. It is a bit of this and that, which is a difficulty.
I do not disagree that there is a difficulty with preambles. That is probably why we do not have them in our own legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 43, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(d) Bus Éireann has the exclusive right to ownership and responsibility for planning and operating the provincial bus network in the GDA,
(e) section 11 of the Road Transport Act 1932 is amended by inserting after 11 (1) a new section
"(2) As the holder of the direct award public service contracts, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann have first option on the expansion of the bus network within their optional areas.",
and
(f) after the granting of the direct award public service contracts, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann may make minor alterations to designated routes to protect the integrity of the service.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 43, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The DTA is one of a group of authorities of which Córas Iompair Éireann is another and that body Córas Iompair Éireann exercises control over the public transport operators aforesaid.".
This amendment goes back to our earlier discussion about the role of CIE as this legislation develops. It also tries to copperfasten a legal provision to ensure that the way in which direct awards are brought forward to any subsidiary companies is in compliance with EU legislation. The best way to do this was through the formula of saying that CIE, going back to 1958, also has an overarching role on the procurement of public transport services. It therefore has a role in the granting of exclusive contracts as well.
Going back to the comment of the Minister's colleague when I asked the question of where the money goes, legally the company also has a role in direct awards to subsidiaries. We should not have a case then of the holding company being allowed to wither on the vine, with its legal basis completely usurped.
Clearly, within the DTA area that authority has a significant role, although CIE is still, to some extent, the shadow public service regulator for the rest of the country. It has a major role in that regard, such as dealing with most of Bus Éireann and so on. CIE would continue to have an overarching role with regard to public transport with this formula, and CIE itself would have a role in how the contracts are maintained, awarded and so on.
I am not clear on what the Deputy is proposing in the line "The DTA is one of a group of authorities of which Córas Iompair Éireann is another and that body Córas Iompair Éireann exercises control over the public transport operators aforesaid." What is being said in that?
It goes back to the original discussion in that CIE has a role in this.
Is it the DTA which should exercise control? I understand and appreciate fully where the Deputy is coming from on this but many of these amendments all go the same way. While I support the Deputy's right to make known his views on them, it is very clear that either things will change or they will not. Either the DTA will exercise control or it will not, whether in respect of Córas Iompair Éireann or private operators. It does not matter who they are. The DTA must be in charge and its authority must be undiminished following due consultation and process. This proposal does not make sense at this stage.
In light of other amendments, this would be the tail wagging the dog. We have clearly given the DTA authority in previous amendments and we would now perform a somersault in indicating Córas Iompair Éireann has full control. It would negate everything which has gone before. I am not saying the Deputy is not entitled to his view but if we have agreed that the DTA will have control, as per previous amendments, it would not make sense for us to reverse the whole process.
It goes back to the earlier discussion about the role of CIE in the DTA area, and it will have very serious responsibilities, no matter what way we look at it. This provision would give CIE a function in terms of existing legislation, which has Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann as CIE subsidiaries.
I cannot help but comment that it does give serious responsibilities but it also provides serious opportunities. It has been clear that in this committee we all want to see such opportunity.
Deputies O'Dowd and Kennedy have succinctly outlined the case for not allowing this amendment. I do not want to delay the committee. It would be a case of the tail wagging the dog and there cannot be an organisation that might be involved in providing services deciding who else will compete for or provide those services. I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
The next amendment is No. 61a. Amendments Nos. 61b, 68a and 69a are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 61a:
In page 43, subsection (3)(a), line 21, to delete “and Bus Éireann”.
This series of amendments relates to concerns about the role of Bus Éireann because it is a national company and much of its remit lies outside the DTA. Through these amendments I wish to ensure that its functions outside the DTA are not compromised. Its national operation should not be circumscribed by the DTA. Amendment No. 61b proposes a new subsection (4) that states: “The Minister shall enter into direct award contracts which impose public service obligations with Bus Éireann to secure the provision of public bus passenger services within the GDA.” To enable this to happen it was suggested that the Minister, rather than the DTA, should award the direct award contract.
One view is that Bus Éireann would be better off having no contractual relationship with the DTA. This is an alternative set of amendments to some of my amendments that made general points. I have a genuine concern and believe that Bus Éireann, for the sake of certainty, should have a direct relationship with the Minister and should not be part of the direct award contract through the DTA. This concern was expressed to me and I feel it should be mixed with some of the other amendments. I went through each section, for example section 53, and removed Bus Éireann from the DTA system, leaving it with the Minister. This is a little like the taxi situation because people were concerned that this national company, which has a network in Limerick, Cork, Galway and so on, would be better off with breathing space. I wanted to raise this issue to find out the Minister's thoughts.
I am at a loss as to where these concerns, expressed by a number of people, are coming from. I referred on earlier amendments to the fact that the provisions in the Bill with regard to the making of the PSO must be grounded in Regulation (EC) 1370/2007. The competent authority for the award of those contracts will be the Minister for Transport but in the GDA that function will be carried out by the DTA. This arrangement is consistent with the overall authority given to the authority throughout this Bill.
I do not think it would be appropriate to create a situation in which the Minister for Transport would be given a range of powers relating to direct award contracts for certain services in the GDA, as, I think, is suggested in these amendments, while at the same time the DTA would exercise similar powers in respect of direct award contracts in the city and county of Dublin. This also applies to open tendering in the GDA. If these amendments were accepted this is what would result; two different sets of decisions would be made by two different entities. I know Deputy Broughan did not intend that but the proposed amendment to section 53 would remove a specific new empowerment for Bus Éireann to enter into public transport service contracts with the DTA. The amendment would give rise to circumstances in which Bus Éireann would be prevented from competing for tendered bus contracts that are subject to an open tendering regime operated by the DTA, and I know the Deputy does not intend that.
In the circumstances I do not propose to accept the amendments proposed by the Deputy. He may wish to withdraw them if he wants to consider them further for Report Stage. The amendments he proposes may have the opposite effect of that which he intends.
It all flowed from the idea that the Minister would make direct award contracts to Bus Éireann because of its national role. I understand what the Minister says about sections 53 and 54. We were wondering how this could be done other than by removing the reference to Bus Éireann, but I know this would open a Pandora's box when trying to legislate for it.
I will liaise with those who expressed concerns. Representatives of the Bus Éireann workforce came here on a number of occasions and I have met them personally. There are concerns about the integrity of the network and the issues I mentioned with reference to Dublin Bus which apply equally well to Bus Éireann. When Mr. Tim Hayes, the chief executive of Bus Éireann, came here he made a powerful point on the connectivity of the network he tried to create. He constantly raised the point that if the Minister's colleagues in the Department grant an A to B route under the 1932 Act it makes it difficult, nearly impossible, for him to maintain connectivity through small villages and townlands, for example, in east Galway and Roscommon. It was due to such concerns that the workers of Bus Éireann were anxious to see that the Minister would retain responsibility for the national bus company.
I will take the Minister's advice, examine the amendment and see if I can return with a better one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 61b not moved.
Amendment No. 62 is related to amendment No. 63 and they will be taken together.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 43, subsection (4), line 28, to delete "5 years" and substitute "10 years".
The Minister spoke about this matter and I mentioned it in my speech on Second Stage. This relates to direct award contracts as mentioned on line 28. It states: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 48(6), the direct award contracts referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) shall each be for a period of 5 years, and the contract referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) shall be for a period of 10 years.” On the period of five years with regard to bus companies, we felt, when contrasting sections 52 and 48, that people coming in on public service awards would have the advantage. The Minister referred to this earlier with regard to the first direct award contracts but we wanted a level playing pitch for public transport. Five years seemed to be an impossibly short period. The Minister said there would first be an award and that there could then be an award for ten years and so on. However, we felt it should be a level playing pitch, with ten or 15-year terms. Five years is a very short period for a bus company when one takes into account route and infrastructural development, acquisition of vehicles and so forth. Similarly, 15 years for rail is also comparatively short when one thinks of the type of major infrastructural investment that will be involved in the metro north and was required for the Luas. Also, it seems short in view of Transport 21 and the Platform for Change programme for Irish Rail.
Amendment No. 63 is similar. I wanted to extend the period of ten years provided for rail contracts to 15 years. This is with the aim of having a level playing pitch with regard to public service contracts, as I mentioned on Second Stage. The Minister seems to be saying the contracts would not necessarily be for five years, but that is something that jumped out at everybody in the public transport sector when they first looked at it.
If we were talking about providing a level playing field we would let everybody in from the word "go". We would ask the DTA to tender for services all over the place. What we are actually talking about here is granting an exclusive contract, without going to tender, to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. This is a five-year contract that is subject to review, and thereafter, it can be a period of ten years or another period. We are not saying every contract after that has to be for five years; for these companies, we expect that all subsequent contracts would be for ten years. We have to have a second contract in that early period of nine or ten years. The Deputy mentioned section 48, which mentions a period of up to ten years; it does not say it has to be ten years. I would be reluctant to change this, but the Deputy has made the point on several occasions. If he is prepared to withdraw this amendment I will bring one in on Report Stage that will extend the terms of the contracts. I will be honest with the Deputy and state that I will not extend it to ten years because that might get us into difficulties at EU level, but I will consider this and extend the time on Report Stage.
The directive comes into force in December 2009, which is still a good bit away.
Yes, December 2009.
We would be some way into a five-year contract by then.
Yes, and we can then opt for a ten-year contract.
On that basis, if the Minister will amend this on Report Stage, I will withdraw the amendment.
I would like to express the view that five years is fine. I understand people will have to invest in rolling stock, buses or whatever, but I would have some concerns about a ten-year contract.
It will not be ten years.
With regard to public service contracts and the private sector, what is the likelihood of contracts being awarded for up to ten years? The Minister said less than ten years, but surely it will be for a significant period.
The contracts will be up to ten years for public and private contractors. These are exclusive contracts.
That is a fair compromise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 43, subsection (4), line 29, to delete "10 years" and substitute "15 years".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 43, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) Where a direct award contract is entered into in respect of the provision of public bus passenger services under this section, the Authority may, following consultation with Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann, as appropriate, make alterations to elements of that contract which relate to the provision of services contained within that contract, subject to there being no amendment to the scope of the relevant exclusive right referred to in subsection (1).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 43, subsection (5)(a), lines 32 and 33, to delete “unilaterally make amendments to such contract” and substitute the following:
"can amend such direct award in objectively justified cases and in a proportional manner".
This refers to section 52(5), which deals with public direct award contracts. Paragraph (a) states: “The Authority may at any time review a direct award contract entered into under this section and may following such a review unilaterally make amendments to such contract.” My amendment is a legal formula to ensure the DTA cannot act in an unfair way in this regard. The idea of revoking contracts unilaterally is probably unfair. One would wonder, if the section as it is currently framed went to the courts, whether it would survive a judicial review. The amendment is to introduce some proportionality.
Amendment No. 66 is similar. Section 52(5)(b) states: “the Authority shall be entitled to unilaterally amend or terminate the contract as appropriate.” I wish to remove the word “unilaterally” and replace the phrase with “amend in an objectively justified and proportional manner”. It is the same idea. In other Bills in which I have been involved we have tried to adopt a proportional and fair approach. This is something we should maintain with regard to direct award contracts, particularly because they are exclusive. Thus, on the basis of fairness and also to prevent a future legal challenge, amendments Nos. 65 and 66 should be agreed by the Minister.
The wording of both of these paragraphs is very deliberate and they do not actually say what the Deputy has stated. The word "unilaterally" is used, but it is not as black and white as the Deputy says. With regard to public bus and rail services, procurements arise in which a public service obligation is determined and there is a consequent requirement to subvent the operation of these services. The approach adopted in the chapter generally is with regard to the determination of public service obligations, which have to be consistent with the provisions of EU Regulation 1370/2007, which provides that the making of a determination that such an obligation is to be applied is a matter for the competent authority. In the case of public bus and rail passenger services in the GDA, that role is being given to the authority acting on behalf of the Minister for Transport. For that reason, the associated responsibility is given to the authority to ensure that funding for delivery of services in respect of which the public service obligation relates is in compliance with the regulation and it must be empowered to carry out reviews of the public service contracts at its exclusive direction. That position is encapsulated in section 52(5). In the case of a review under subsection (5)(b), the authority must engage in public consultation as provided for in subsection (5)(d). As part of that process the authority is required to consult the service provider as well as other potentially interested parties, including the users of the service, before it makes the amendment. The authority is also required through subsection (5)(e) to publish a report on the reasons it promoted the amendments it makes as a result of a review under subsection (5)(b). The section provides the opportunity for all interested parties to make their views known to the authority and the approach set out is appropriate. I recognise the Deputy’s concern. When one sees the word “unilaterally”, unless one reads the text in detail, one has the impression that the party in question can just walk in and suddenly decide to withdraw services or a subvention. That is not the case. Those two subsections should be read in conjunction with the subsections (d ) and (e ), which also refer to the consultation process. On that basis I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
There is a reference to reviews of direct service contracts. It seems very brusque in the current legislation. I withdraw the amendment for the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 66 not moved.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 43, subsection (5), lines 43 to 52, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
(c)(i) The Authority shall, six months prior to the expiration of any direct award contract, invite and consider tenders from any public transport operator in respect of the relevant public transport service contract or any portion thereof.
(ii) The Authority shall provide a written statement of the reasons to any public transport operator whose tenders is unsuccessful under subsection (1).”.
I am happy to stay to finish this Bill tonight since many issues are still to be raised. I await the Minister's response.
This amendment, if accepted, would mean that the direct award contracts envisaged under subsection (3) would cease to have effect, after five years in the case of public bus passenger services and after ten years in respect of rail services, and that the making of subsequent direct award contracts would not be provided for in this Bill. This would mean that in the absence of alternative operators very serious questions would arise regarding the future provision of the services to which the direct award contracts relate.
I do not consider that the uncertainty that would inevitably result from the acceptance of this proposal would be in the interests of the travelling public. I understand the Deputy's point but it would have an effect that he does not intend and I ask him to withdraw the proposal. I believe that the section, as presented, is the most appropriate structure for ensuring the adequacy and the continuity of bus and rail services.
I agree with the Minister that we cannot have uncertainty, particularly in rail services. There is no competitor in that area at present and it is unlikely there will be one. In the bus business, however, there certainly is competition. I shall put it to a vote and leave it at that. I shall not tire the Minister with my arguments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 44, subsection (7), between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(c) The Minister shall be fully and directly accountable to Dáil Éireann through all standard Dáil procedures for any such directions issued to the Authority, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Irish Rail.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 68a not moved.
Section 53 agreed to.
SECTION 54.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 44, subsection (1), line 44, after "GDA," to insert the following:
"but where the predominant part of the service is carried out within the GDA,".
This amendment concerns services that operate, in part, outside the greater Dublin area. It returns to issues relating to Bus Éireann, in particular, to Irish Rail and to the role that the GDA has in designating those services for the purpose of the section. By tabling this amendment I have tried to deal with services which originate or have their destination outside the GDA but which are predominantly carried out within the GDA. The intention is to limit the power of the GDA in this regard. Because so many routes connect through Dublin, the GDA is virtually a national regulator as it stands. We seek therefore to reduce that power and to give more certainty to the situation of Irish Rail and Bus Éireann. My basic point in the original submission of amendments was that the public service contracts should apply to services operating predominantly within the GDA. We would not, therefore, allow the GDA to become a national transport regulator from day one.
There is a difficulty with the Deputy's amendment. I recognise that he is looking for certainty but how is "predominant part of the service" defined? If a rail service starts in Kildare, Cork or Galway, and one measures the length of rail to discover what the "predominant part" is, then that part would lie outside the GDA. If the measure were to be the number of passengers carried, the predominant part might be within the GDA. The certainty the Deputy seeks is not served by the amendment per se.
However, the section provides that the Minister can, by order, designate services regarding the GDA. In other words, such services would be the subject of exclusive rights, subject to the grant of a licence under the Road Transport Act or subsequent legislative changes. If one of the organisations wishes to designate a service for this purpose, the matter must be referred to the Minister for the making of an order. The DTA does not do this. That offers enough certainty in the matter. The drafting is adequate as it is.
Without restricting unduly the considerations that might be taken into account by the Minister in designating services under the provisions of this section, in some respects the looser the phrase——
The Minister makes a point about the predominant part of the service. I attempted to refer to the predominant part of services within the GDA. It is a matter of opinion as to whether a particular service can reasonably be regarded as part of the transport system of the GDA. That is the problem to which I allude. The intention was to give certainty, in particular to Bus Éireann, about how it might operate. Unlike Irish Rail, that company has a significant number of routes, for example the Kells or Navan routes, that are absolutely integral to the GDA. It will have other routes further afield which are not as significant a part of the transport infrastructure. People wish to know the extent of the greater Dublin area.
There is a test of reasonableness in the section. A service has to be regarded, reasonably, as part of the transport system. I do not disagree with the Deputy and perhaps a Minister rather than a legislative body might be in a better position to decide whether a service is within the greater Dublin area. It is probably safer to leave it that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 69a:
In page 45, subsection (4), line 5, to delete Bus Éireann".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 54 agreed to.
Section 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 45, lines 42 and 43, to delete "may provide public passenger transport services" and substitute the following:
"shall designate CIÉ as the operator of last resort".
This was mentioned on Second Stage. We discussed the idea of the authority acting as operator of last resort where a provider has failed to deliver a service. The Minister suggests the authority will procure the service. However, with the changes that the establishment of the authority will bring about, I believe it would be useful for CIE to provide this function given that it already has a statutory role as the provider of public service obligation services. It is entitled to be considered as the ultimate operator of last resort. Outside of the greater Dublin area and throughout the country, CIE is effectively the operator of last resort.
In my constituency on the north fringe of the city we did have a private bus service initially which was, I presume, licensed by one of the main developers. The new district of Clongriffin developed and people there wanted a bus service, but there was no rush from private operators to provide one. Many of the people living there are young, some are migrants and many have cars and so on. Eventually in its wisdom, the Department of Transport approved the licence for the No. 128 bus service which is a cross-city route much used and a spectacular success. Ultimately, Dublin Bus and CIE acted as the operator of last resort in that instance. They have this tradition where the private sector had an opportunity but failed to provide the service. There was a company called Aerdart operating for a while. It seems to be operating again in the Swords area or Blanchardstown. It operated in my constituency for some time and then bailed out and we were left with many unused bus stops.
Did the Deputy not use these stops?
I used them to display posters for the vote "Yes" campaign.
At least they were put to good use.
Posters of Deputy Eamon Gilmore appeared on several of the them. Other than that they have been completely——
What about posters of Deputy Broughan?
No, I do not believe in such personalised politics. I simply put forward the arguments at a serious level. The point is the operator of last resort is a possible role for Bus Éireann. The authority could instruct Bus Éireann or CIE to provide a service if no other organisation was willing. Would it not turn out like that in any event when the authority begins to operate? People in areas such as Clongriffin or Hansfield in Blanchardstown, or new areas in Drogheda, Cork or Galway would ask the authority to request a service from Dublin Bus or CIE. Would it not be a useful opportunity to recognise the role of CIE as the operator of last resort?
The argument against this is the authority may want a service to be provided in a particular area and CIE might refuse to provide it. If one designates it——
There are very efficient private operators, such as Matthews Coach Hire, which competes and provides effective services in east County Meath and County Louth. It is an exceptionally capable firm. It is necessary to open up the routes.
There must be a competent authority. It would not make sense to have one of the operators, albeit the one that may end up providing many of the services, as the competent authority. The Dublin transport authority must be the competent authority. I agree with Deputy Broughan that the authority may end up putting up for tender certain routes because a service is needed and no firm is providing it and Bus Átha Cliath or Bus Éireann may win all of those contracts. However, it is necessary to do this in a legal manner. CIE and others are entitled to be considered as service providers, but the discretion must be left to the authority due to a range of circumstances which may arise. For that reason I cannot accept this amendment.
Does the Minister accept that CIE is the operator of last resort?
No, not at the moment.
We should congratulate Dublin Bus for the No. 128 bus service. For the first time it was fastest out of the traps. It saw a market, applied for a licence and was successful.
None of the exceptional companies to which my colleague referred came forward, which is the problem.
Dublin Bus was fastest on the draw for once.
For once, yes.
Unlike the case of the No. 41X bus, when it did nothing.
I was asked a direct question which I will answer. I do not regard Dublin Bus as being an operator of last resort. At times it has been, as Deputy Kennedy said, very fast and efficient out of the traps and at other times it has not, simply reacting to circumstances. It tried to put out of business private operators that went into areas that Dublin Bus would not go.
I regularly get representations from different parts of this city and the suburbs and so on from people who have sought for years a bus services which Bus Éireann will not provide. Private bus operators then begin operating and suddenly Bus Átha Cliath or Bus Éireann start servicing the area.
This is not perfect. I believe there is enough business for Bus Éireann, Bus Átha Cliath and private operators as well. Ultimately, we need to remember the need for the public to get a good and efficient service. Bus Átha Cliath and Bus Éireann have done this quite consistently, but I have received e-mails at various stages about behaviour I would not condone. It is necessary as circumstances change to focus a little more as the committee has done. It is necessary to examine the bigger picture, see what needs to be done and, at all times, consider the point of view of the customer as opposed to vested interests of one kind or another, whether they are private or public.
I agree with what the Minister has said. It is probably the most significant thing he has said all day. It surprises me that we have had this structure in the bus market when there is potential for Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and the private sector to operate. Hopefully the reports that we will present to the Minister in the coming weeks will give some direction in that respect. One of the first tasks of the DTA will be to implement it. Much of what is contained in this Bill is what has been said by this committee. In the context of various parties represented on the committee, there has not been much difference in regard to the way forward. There is a very bright future for the bus market.
I will not sign any report that will privatise networks. The committee can take that for granted.
There is no question of privatising existing networks which is the big issue about which the Deputy is concerned. Is the amendment withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 56 agreed to.
May we have our sos now?
On the basis that we might finish before the vote at 8.30 p.m., we will take a sos until 7.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 7.01 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Section 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 46, subsection (2), line 28, after "party" to insert the following:
"but shall not devolve operational responsibility to a private sector third party".
This section deals with the integrated ticketing scheme. It provides that the authority shall develop, procure, implement, operate the scheme and so on. Subsection (2) states: "The Authority may assign any or all of its functions in relation to the development, procurement, implementation, operation and maintenance of an integrated ticketing scheme to a third party." I propose after the word "party" to insert the words "but shall not devolve operational responsibility to a private sector third party".
The operator of the integrated ticketing scheme will acquire widespread knowledge of the public transport market. My colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, I and other members talked about the profitability or otherwise of PSO and other routes and having access to significant information on all these matters. The integrated ticketing scheme was to be completed in 2005, then we were told it would be completed in 2009 and now it is hoped it will be completed by 2013 at the outside——
It will probably be completed earlier than that.
——or perhaps earlier in 2011. At least, the project of work is apparently running smoothly. There is a concern that competitors could obtain possession of commercial knowledge and they might use it for their own resources. I propose this amendment as a safeguard to ensure that a private sector third party could not utilise such information in a way that would be detrimental to public transport.
The provision of the integrated ticketing scheme and the back up facilities required for its delivery is a highly specialised job. Its development, procurement, implementation, operation and maintenance, and any combination of all those elements, is best undertaken by assignment to a specialist contractor. It would probably be much more cost-effective and efficient to do that. That is the route that we have already chosen. We are in the process of moving on now with the tendering procedure. However, the Deputy's concerns, which I fully understand, are being met in section 58 which provides that the authority will retain ownership of any information or data generated by the system. The contractor will be required to ensure the security of the information or data given to it. Those safeguards are contained in subsections (9)(a) and (9)(b) and, in accordance with subsection (3), the authority is empowered to terminate or vary any assignment of functions made to a third party.
The integrated ticketing board, which is overseeing the implementation of the project, will shortly initiate a public procurement process to engage a contractor to operate the integrated ticketing system. The relationship with the contractor will be defined through a contract which will be entered into by the RPA and will ultimately transfer to the DTA in accordance with the provisions of section 58. The contract will protect the public interest with regard to the integrated ticketing system. Obviously that will be dealt with as well in the contract that will be signed with the operator. I am satisfied the Deputy's concerns are being fully met within the terms of how we are moving this forward. To go down the route of trying to put in place a public body to handle and run this project means it would be delayed for years. There need not be concern about this. Sufficient safeguards have been built in to prevent what the Deputy is trying to avoid.
Even to the extent that we did have integrated ticketing, such as the annual ticket one can buy for Irish Rail, the DART and the Luas, the two competitive companies would have some idea of how the other is performing even in a very small area. However, the board is in place at present. I presume it becomes part of the DTA.
Yes.
Okay. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 58 agreed to.
Section 59 agreed to.
SECTION 60.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 49, subsection (2), between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(c) shall provide an integrated real time information scheme to passengers across the full range of public transport modes in the GDA.”.
The Minister has put down amendment No. 73, creating a new section 61, which appears to incorporate many of the elements we hoped for. Before the 1991 local elections there was talk about Dublin Bus having a real-time information system on the network, such as we have seen in other cities, whereby people could virtually see the bus coming. In Dublin, however, we are still waiting for it 17 years later. People who are lucky enough to live along the DART line are familiar with it. Real-time information is something the traveller and visitors to the city should be able to expect, at least with regard to approaching bus stops and other infrastructure.
I await the Minister's remarks on his amendment. I presume amendments Nos. 72 and 73 are being discussed together.
No, they are separate. Amendment No. 73 deals with real-time information relating to roads and road conditions. I have examined the Deputy's amendment and I agree it would be helpful to insert a more explicit reference to real-time passenger information systems in section 60. I have asked the officials to examine the matter again with a view to preparing an appropriate amendment for consideration on Report Stage. It is important to have that information available and it would improve usage of the public transport system. On that basis I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment with leave to re-enter it on Report Stage. However, I will put forward an amendment on Report Stage to meet his concerns.
The key phrase is "the full range of public transport modes", particularly buses. I cannot understand why buses cannot provide it as well, given that we have new systems and bus routes. I hope the Minister will deal with that on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 60 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 50, before section 61, to insert the following new section:
61. —(1) The Authority may develop, procure, implement, operate and maintain an information system ("road user information system") in the GDA to provide road users with information, including real-time information, on traffic and travel conditions.
(2) The Authority may decide the means by which the road user information system is made available.
(3) The Authority shall consult with and consider the views of the NRA and road authorities before exercising its functions under subsection (1) or (5)(a).
(4) Where the NRA or a road authority proposes to establish a road user information system in the GDA or proposes to modify an existing road user information system, it shall consult with and consider the views of the Authority.
(5) Notwithstanding any enactment, other rules of law or, in the case of a company any provision contained in the memorandum and articles of association of that company, the Authority may——
(a) give a direction to the NRA or a road authority in respect of any road user information system in the GDA provided by or on behalf of the NRA or road authority,
(b) in the exercise of its functions under subsection (1), give a direction to the NRA, a road authority, a public transport operator, an operator of a tolling scheme, or such other holders of information as it considers necessary for the provision of the road user information system to—
(i) generate and provide information in a manner, form and within a time specified by the Authority, and
(ii) comply with any requirements specified by the Authority for a road user information system.
(6) The Authority may assign any or all of its functions in relation to the development, procurement, implementation, operation and maintenance of a road user information system to the NRA, a road authority or any other person.
(7) The Authority may terminate or vary at any time an assignment of functions under subsection (6).
(8) Where the Authority terminates or varies an assignment in accordance with subsection (7), it shall recompense the assignee for the reasonable costs incurred, if any, by it up to the time of termination or variation.”.
The purpose of this amendment is to take account of the reality that the National Roads Authority and some of the road authorities in the GDA, including Dublin City Council and South Dublin County Council, are already engaged in the provision of road user information in one form or another, for example, the NRA is providing limited information at present such as variable message signs on the M50 and M1 as well as road condition information. Dublin City Council, of course, has a sophisticated traffic control centre. While the amended section is largely in line with the original section, it was considered neater and clearer to replace the complete section rather than make a series of line amendments that would be difficult to follow.
The section, as amended, contains three principal changes. The first, under subsection (3), provides that the DTA must consult with and consider the views of the NRA and road authorities before exercising its power to establish a road user information system or exercise its power to give directions to those agencies. That is in line with what everybody has been seeking with regard to various parts of this Bill, that there will be consultation if any changes are to be made. It is clearly desirable that there are such consultations. Second, under subsection (5)(a) the DTA is empowered to give a direction to the NRA or a road authority in respect of any road user information system in the GDA provided by or on behalf of those agencies. That is consistent with the approach elsewhere in the Bill of allowing the existing agencies to carry out their existing functions, but giving the DTA the power to exercise control over the actions of those agencies where that is in the interest of ensuring the development of an integrated transport system.
The third change is under subsection (6) whereby provision is being made for the DTA to assign its functions with regard to the provision of a road user information system to the NRA or a road authority in the GDA in addition to a third party. The purpose of this provision is to recognise that the NRA and some road authorities are already actively providing road user information and that the DTA may decide to exercise its function under this section through the agencies that are already active in this area. It is a case of "why fix it if it is not broken?". If the information is already being provided, the existing agency should continue to do it.
The key provision is subsection (5)(b)(i)and(ii) which provides that the information be in the form and manner specified by the authority. One of the criticisms people have of road user information is that it is often bad information. In my constituency one can see a machine which tells the motorist that he is travelling at 50 kph when he clearly is not. It is an attempt to give information which simply brings the entire system into disrepute. Another example is when major roads are closed or there is a problem at a junction, as tended to occur when the port tunnel was being built, and motorists are in the vortex of traffic before they know what is happening. The information system should be to the highest international standards. It is a good amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 61 deleted.
SECTION 62.
Amendment No. 76 is related to amendment No. 74. Amendments Nos. 74 and 76 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 51, subsection (3)(c), line 24, after “services” to insert the following:
"with regard to the full economic cost of providing the facility in determining the level of compensation and that the level of compensation be subject of a regular review".
Section 62 deals with access to the infrastructure, that is, bus stops, bus stands, bus and railway stations and shared facilities for services within the DTA.
Amendment No. 74 states:
In page 51, subsection (3)(c), line 24, after “services” to insert the following:
"with regard to the full economic cost of providing the facility in determining the level of compensation and that the level of compensation be subject of a regular review".
This wording arose from the kinds of difficulties that certainly exist in my constituency between public service operators and private sector providers. At the end of the day we ended up with two networks, which was ridiculous. The general point of having a single facility for boarding public transport, which relates to some of the earlier discussions we had on this Bill, is an important one. There is a feeling among public service operators that the full economic cost should be obtained — in other words, that we would not end up with a new situation whereby the public transport agency would effectively have to support private operators. We have seen competition between operators where a route is established and they start using facilities having made no contribution towards them. They use bus stops that the public transport operator has had to install.
I do not know if the Minister got a chance to do anything about the famous Bus Éireann stop at the M50-N6 spaghetti junction. It is so dangerous to have a bus stop at that junction, I hope something can be done about it. The general point, however, concerns the full economic cost involved.
In Swords there are three bus stops together at the Little Chef roundabout on the airport road. They are for Dublin Bus, Air Coach and the Swords Express. Apart from the waste of steel and other material, it looks horrible. I hope that in future the DTA can have one pole with three signs on it.
I have tabled an amendment that I hope will meet the Deputy's concerns about an appropriate level of compensation. All the bus stops, including those of Bus Átha Cliath, were provided by the taxpayers, directly or indirectly. They are not the private property of Bus Átha Cliath, but I will not argue the point at this stage. They have incurred expenses in maintaining them but public sector organisations sometimes forget that they were set up for particular purposes. They seem to lose sight of the fact that taxpayers pay large sums of money annually.
Deputy Kennedy's point is well taken — that we should not have three or four sets of bus stops, just one. If they are being used, people are paying for the provision of the service. It is arguable whether we should compensate Bus Éireann or Bus Átha Cliath for bus stops, although we are providing for it in this legislation. I will leave it as it is.
The public good is served by doing so.
Somebody has to maintain them.
The taxpayer.
Sometimes, but a great deal of stuff is generated and I am not sure they plan it.
We all know where we stand on it.
Yes, but we can see the private infrastructure that is allowed to go to rack and ruin. At the moment, at least, Dublin Bus is actively repainting all the bus stops in the company's yellow-coloured logo in anticipation of the difficulties that may come about. It is very impressive because one can spot them from far away. When we had AirDart and Air Coach versus Dublin Bus, I am not sure who was responsible for signage. An issue arose about the colour. Members of the committee may think it is a joke but it is not. Dublin Bus is actively putting up bus stops in the company colours. One could say it is an advertisement for the company and it is good that they can be spotted a mile away. They look very well and there is much to be said for that. However, those are the kinds of issues that arise and bus stops have to be maintained. Will the other companies contribute towards that maintenance or will a neutral body be involved? Dublin Bus has schedules on some bus stops, so if it will be that company's function to maintain bus stops, we must find a way of doing it that is fair to everybody.
Does the Minister wish to make any further response?
No. We have outlined how we intend to do that. I appreciate the costs involved.
What does the Minister suggest will happen to the colours? Does he anticipate they will end up in the Dublin brand?
One of the DTA's functions is to have the one brand, so it will be one brand no matter what bus uses it.
They might wait until the paint fades a bit before painting them again.
We might go for those colours.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 75 has already been discussed with amendment No. 50.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 51, subsection (4), line 27, after “with” to insert “and consider the views of”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 51, subsection (6), lines 41 to 43, to delete all words from and including “shall” in line 41 down to and including “basis.” in line 43 and substitute the following:
"shall be determined on a reasonable cost, non-discriminatory basis, having regard to appropriately depreciated costs incurred by the owner or operator concerned in providing, maintaining and operating that shared facility.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 62, as amended, agreed to.
Section 63 agreed to.
SECTION 64.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 52, subsection (1), line 18, to delete “prepare and adopt” and substitute “prepare, adopt and implement”.
These amendments seek to make crystal clear that the DTA is required to implement its strategic traffic management plans and that the road authorities are similarly required to implement local traffic plans. The amendments remove any doubt that might otherwise exist with regard to the intent of these sections.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Amendment No. 78 has already been discussed with amendment No. 77.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 53, subsection (1), line 18, after “prepare” to insert “, adopt and implement”.
There are concerns in local authorities about local area traffic plans. The Minister might have seen a report about a meeting of Dublin City Council's transportation committee. Many councillors were upset by what they saw as a power grab by the new DTA to take away their power to make local area traffic plans. Will their local plans be respected completely? Will they have the basic call, particularly if they are doing their business properly, that they will not be dictated to consistently by the DTA? For example, in Dublin city, possibly in the Minister's era, we created a director of traffic which is an interesting position almost outside the council, although the director is a council official. He has a special role, which was in the days before we had the DTA. A core function of local authorities, and a great interest of the Labour Party group, is to devise, maintain and pursue traffic plans. Will that be in any way damaged by the legislation?
The authority will put in place a strategic traffic management plan and then every local authority will be obliged to prepare a traffic plan for its functional area within six months. Provided the road authority has regard to any of the relevant guidelines issued by the authority and that it is in compliance with the overall strategic traffic management plan, there will not be a problem. Obviously, if a local authority ignores the traffic management plan of the authority, there will be a problem. Again, it is a case where one cannot have the tail wagging the dog. The overall body must take full responsibility.
Will the Minister have the final say in this regard?
I will have the final say on the strategic traffic management plan which the DTA will put in place, but the local authority will have the final say in regard to the local one.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 53, subsection (3)(a)(i), line 30, after “area” to insert the following:
"notwithstanding that the operation, collection and distribution of parking fees remains the sole responsibility of the designated Local Authority".
A number of Labour Party councillors contacted me on this issue. They were particularly exercised about parking fees and the income generated by local authorities. There should be no question that the operation, collection, distribution and spending of parking and clamping fees should remain the sole responsibility of the designated local authority.
To be fair to local authorities, they try to develop some independent income in this regard. That happens in Fingal County Council and in Dublin City Council. When we were all councillors, we would get the plan for traffic improvements, traffic calming and so on each year. Some of the local authorities have come up with some very innovative ideas on traffic calming, traffic management and so on and they deserve much credit.
The only leeway local authorities had was the freedom to spend their own moneys, and the Minister was Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government during this era. Would it not be useful to insert this amendment in the section? The almost 200 councillors representing the greater Dublin area would appreciate it if we gave them certainty and security in regard to parking income.
There is no question of the control of these moneys being removed from the local authorities. This section does not provide for that or for anything like that. It states that the money must be used in a way which facilitates openness and transparency. It also states:
"[T]he net proceeds of parking or other traffic management revenues for traffic management ... purposes within its functional area, and
(ii) measures to be taken to manage utility or other works, whether carried out by the road authority or a third party, on roads in the functional area of the road authority to ameliorate the impact of such works on the movement of persons, goods and vehicles.
It mentions that as part of the local traffic plan. If one is taking money from motorists, the local traffic plan should say how that money is spent. We are not dictating how it should be spent.
The former Minister for Education, as it was known then, my colleague, Councillor Niamh Bhreathnach of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, asked me to examine this. As reported in the media, that council's director of traffic and the director of traffic in Dublin City Council seem to be suggesting that it is the end of the line for transport committees and that from now on, the DTA will lay down the law and councillors will not have much discretion. Councillors will suggest a roundabout or a cul-de-sac is needed to make life better for their constituents but it could be shot down. It is reported that Michael Phillips of Dublin City Council seems to have concerns that the independence of the local authority might be compromised. Will the Minister consider strengthening this?
I will look at this but what the Deputy suggests is not the intention. However, it is intended to have integrated traffic management systems. There is no question about that. One cannot have an integrated traffic management system if every local authority and every area of a local authority has a different traffic plan and they do not join up. That is where the difficulty would arise. I will look at this and at the concern expressed in regard to the use of the parking fees. There is certainly no intention to interfere with that provided parking fees are used for traffic management purposes. I will look at this before Report Stage to see if we can clarify it.
Councillors from every party have held up progress on many of the issues causing such congestion.
How long is it since the Chairman was a councillor?
It has been a few years. The facts are there. One only has to look at councillors from all parties. Recently I read the minutes of some of the council meetings and if I repeated what I read to some of the councillors, it would be an embarrassment to them. They held up the most successful quality bus corridors in this city.
They were put in place eventually. It is like all these things. Somebody must bite the bullet.
It was councillors who did not have a little bit of vision. Is the amendment being withdrawn?
I will withdraw it if the Minister has a look at this again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 65, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 66.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 54, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Before issuing guidelines to a road authority under subsection (1), the Authority shall consult with and consider the views of the NRA in relation to the proposed guidelines.”.
This requires the DTA to consult and consider the views of the National Roads Authority before issuing traffic management guidelines to road authorities in the greater Dublin area. Again, it promotes and facilitates consistency between the guidelines issued by the DTA on matters such as traffic signs, traffic information, etc.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 81 in the name of Deputy Thomas P. Broughan has been ruled out of order.
I did not know how to frame the amendment. The Minister might say it is something for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but it is a characteristic of transport authorities in Europe and America, the two centres of democracy, that——
The Deputy is out of order.
Can I just ask the Minister——
I have been very lenient to the Deputy. He is out of order.
I want to ask the Minister——
The Deputy cannot ask a question.
It is a fundamental point. I did not know until I came to the meeting that the amendment had been ruled out of order. I wanted to ask the Minister——
The amendment has been ruled out of order.
Stockholm, for example, is very like Dublin and it has four county councils — Stockholm city and three others. It had a vote on congestion charges and the interesting thing was that the outer councils voted in favour of them but the inner city council voted against them. However, the majority won the ballot. There are five boroughs in New York city and Mayor Bloomberg decided to hold a referendum on congestion charges. It was rejected by Manhattan, in particular, although the other boroughs voted against it as well.
I have put forward the idea of an estate having a traffic management system. If, for example, one closes a laneway——
With due respect to the Deputy's colleague——
I am making——
The Deputy's colleague has been waiting patiently.
This is one of the most important amendments I have tabled, whether it is out of order or not. The people should be consulted. There is a newspaper in this city——
Can we adjourn because I have other things to do?
There is a newspaper——
I want to deal with this Bill.
So do I.
This is not even in the Bill.
I am trying to put it into the Bill.
The Deputy is being unreasonable.
I am not.
The Deputy is out of order.
I am asking the Minister if he can see any way in which the DTA can do any kind of intense consultation, for example, on the M50 tolls, through referendum or otherwise.
It is not a function of the DTA——
Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Who will vote for a toll if they can get it for zero?
The Swedes did. That is the point. There was talk here of biting bullets.
It is not a function of the DTA. The NRA is the competent authority on tolling. There is no provision in this Bill for the DTA to undertake any such consultation.
Chairman, may I ask for direction at this stage? There is a vote in the House at 8.30 p.m. I appreciate we came back to do our best here. As it is unlikely we will finish the Bill tonight, will we adjourn at 8.30 p.m.? What time will we start tomorrow morning?
We can come back, either after the vote or tomorrow morning.
I propose returning tomorrow morning at 9.30 a.m.
There must be some consistency. People, including myself, have made alternative arrangements for the morning. We already agreed we would finish this evening.
We did not. We said we would try to finish.
We said we would try.
There are serious issues I want to raise regarding the Bill.
I have no difficulty about coming back after the vote. The understanding was that we would do that.
Until 9.30 p.m.
That depends on the Members.
I want to make this point. I accept everybody's right to speak and go through every amendment for as long as they wish. I have no difficulty with that, but I want to consider the Bill itself and we will not be able to do that tonight.
We will continue until 9.30 p.m. and see how we go.
Fair enough.
Now that we are extending our time for consideration of the Bill, could we have the intention to try to finish tonight?
It is not our business to try to get legislation through the House, that is for Government Members.
There is much repetition.
Our business is to invigilate the Bill. This is a democracy.
If we do not get through it tonight——
I went to the trouble of tabling an amendment.
That is accepted.
It was ruled out of order.
If we do not finish tonight, we will return tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.
The amendments were submitted only last night at this time. We have never had a situation, unless it was a national emergency, where a Bill was taken within hours of the Second Stage ending. I have the right to put down any amendment. I went to the trouble of putting down 75 or 80 amendments——
That is accepted. We will be back tomorrow at 9.30 a.m. if we do not finish tonight.
Amendment No. 81 not moved.
Section 66, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 82 is in the name of Deputy Broughan. Amendments Nos. 83 to 86, inclusive, are related, therefore, amendments Nos. 82 to 86, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 54, before section 67, to insert the following new section:
67.—The Act of 1961 is amended by inserting the following section after section 20-
20A.—An inspector appointed by the Road Safety Authority may stop and inspect any HGV vehicle at any time where accompanied by a member of the Garda Siochana.".".
A couple of months ago a journalist, I understand it was Ms Miriam Lord, asked if the Department of Transport could produce some legislation and we finally got this Bill. No doubt a major road traffic Bill is necessary. We know where are the gaps in the legislation. The Minister stated he will address one of them and he got his colleagues to contact me earlier regarding amendment No. 82.
Amendment No. 82 is concerned with the ridiculous situation which we heard about only five or six months ago, that our RSA transport inspectors could not stand beside a garda on the roadside, stop a defective vehicle where people's lives were being endangered, have it taken out of circulation and do whatever was necessary about the driver, etc. It is a problem we should have addressed and I understand the Minister is moving to address it. It is a gap in the legislation that should not have been there in the first place.
As the Chairman will probably be aware, the subject of amendment No. 83 is one of those reported repeatedly in the motoring supplements of the three main morning newspapers. In it I try to amend the 1961 Act so that endorsements shall apply to foreign licences. The Minister will probably state it will not do so. I therefore provide for a new section 36A, which states: "The provisions of this Act relating to endorsement of licences, shall apply to any licence issued by another State or jurisdiction, with any necessary modification." This tough measure should be implemented.
It is scandalous that one third of penalty points are awarded to persons who hold licences the State cannot endorse because they are foreign drivers. The latest RSA figures published in the past few days show that in the previous couple of months, 4,500 foreign drivers had been caught, yet there is still no resolution of this difficulty. It is a serious matter. If one third of drivers can ignore the penalty points system, then it is a farce. It is unfair to the two thirds who are native drivers, whose licences are endorsed and who could be put off the road eventually. That is a matter on which the Minister should take urgent action.
Amendment No. 84 relates to speed cameras. The Minister might state this is not necessary, but I am trying to provide for it in legislation, although I accept that when he brings in the road traffic Bill he will almost certainly make some provisions in this regard. My amendment states:
The Minister, the NRA or a roads authority may make arrangements for the placing of a speed camera in or adjacent to any road and for the operation of such camera by such person including a contractor as may be determined by the Minister, the NRA or the authority making such arrangements.
This seeks to give a statutory basis to speed cameras.
We, on this side of the House, find frustrating the area of speed cameras and other road safety areas because they involve dealing with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As a result, the Minister cannot address the matter and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will not do so for whatever reason. We have gotten into this morass about speed cameras, with the result that Mr. Gay Byrne has had to threaten to resign as chairman of the RSA, while its chief executive has expressed his serious concern. We did not seem to be serious about addressing the issue. There should be a legislative basis for speed cameras.
As the Minister will be aware, we had a brief discussion about the matter in the Dáil recently. According to the State of Victoria, Australia, where 60% of all cars in the state should be on camera once a week, there is good invigilation. Apparently, that is what applies there.
Amendment No. 85 addresses a problem regarding the seizure of vehicles by gardaí. It arose with gardaí stopping somebody knowing that there was a major problem but not being able to remove the vehicle from the road and thereby possibly save somebody's life. I try to amend the 1961 Act by inserting a new section 110A, which states: "A member of the Garda Síochána may without warrant seize and remove any vehicle in respect of which he or she reasonably suspects an offence under this Act has been committed." This matter seems to have come to the fore under the Minister's watch and our colleagues in the media have highlighted it.
That last of these amendments, No. 86, seeks to insert a new section 51B into the 1961 Act. The amendment states:
Section 4(4) of the Road Traffic Act 2006 shall apply with any necessary modifications to the testing of any person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle involved in any collision, whether the person is subjected to a requirement at the scene of the collision, or elsewhere during the period of 3 hours thereafter.
Like me, the Minister met a group of relatives who wonder why it is not possible soon after a collision, even if somebody must be invigilated at some stage in hospital, to take a test for alcohol. There have been allegations that persons have escaped following what effectively were criminal acts as alcohol testing could not be carried out because there is a gap in the legislation in that regard.
These are serious issues. While they are not easy to address, this represents one attempt to amend the 1961 Act. We are constantly stating this needs to be done. The Minister has stated he will be coming forward with legislative proposals regarding transport inspectors but the other elements should be dealt with as well. On the safety front, these amendments present an opportunity to get these matters enacted at this stage. I would welcome the Minister's views.
All of these matters, with the exception of the first one, are matters for a road traffic Bill. They require careful consideration which they have been getting. They will be dealt with in the road traffic Bill I intend to bring forward in the latter part of the year. I do not believe this legislation is a suitable vehicle for the amendments proposed.
I thank the Deputies opposite for agreeing to the proposal in respect of traffic inspectors. There is no need for legislation in respect of speed cameras because such legislation is already on the Statute Book. I have certainly not been made aware of a need for further legislation in this area. The other matters are subject to consideration under the forthcoming road traffic Bill. I will not, therefore, be accepting the amendments.
These matters must be addressed. There have been a number of horrific accidents in the past couple of weeks.
These matters will be addressed in the legislation to which the Minister refers. Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
It is a good job Deputy McEntee, who feels quite strongly about some of these issues, is not present. The issues to which I refer should be addressed post haste. We could take the road traffic Bill before the summer recess if it is ready. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform could be encouraged to take whatever steps are necessary in order that action might be taken. Will the Minister indicate what I should do in respect of amendment No. 82?
Will the Deputy withdraw it?
Amendment No. 113 in my name deals with this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 54, before section 67, to insert the following new section:
67.—The Act of 1961 is amended by inserting the following section after section 20—
20A.—An inspector appointed by the Road Safety Authority may stop and inspect any HGV vehicle at any time where accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána.".".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 54, before section 67, to insert the following new section:
67.—The Act of 1961 is amended by inserting the following section after section 46—
46A.—The Minister, the NRA or a roads authority may make arrangements for the placing of a speed camera in or adjacent to any road and for the operation of such camera by such person including a contractor as may be determined by the Minister, the NRA or the authority making such arrangements.".".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 54, before section 67, to insert the following new section:
67.—The Act of 1961 is amended by inserting the following section after section 110—
110A.—A member of the Garda Síochána may without warrant seize and remove any vehicle in respect of which he or she reasonably suspects an offence under this Act has been committed.".".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 54, before section 67, to insert the following new section:
67.—The Act of 1961 is amended by inserting the following section after section 51A—
51B.—Section 4(4) of the Road Traffic Act 2006 shall apply with any necessary modifications to the testing of any person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle involved in any collision, whether the person is subjected to a requirement at the scene of the collision, or elsewhere during the period of 3 hours thereafter.".".
Is there anything that can be done about this matter?
I will be dealing with it in the context of the road traffic Bill and I am taking the advice of the Attorney General in respect of it. This is not an easy matter with which to deal but a commitment has been given. We will take whatever action it is possible to take.
Will we have this in September?
We will have it as soon as possible. Officials from my Department are currently working on the road traffic Bill.
Is there any chance the road traffic Bill, another tiny item of legislation from the Minister's Department, will be passed this year?
I hope it will be passed this year.
Well done Deputy Broughan.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 67.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 55, subsection (2), line 5, after "with" to insert "and consider the views of".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 67, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 68 to 73, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 74.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 58, subsection (3), line 26, after "with" to insert "and consider the views of".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 58, subsection (5), line 37, after "with" to insert "and consider the views of".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 74, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 75.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 59, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following subsections:
"(2) Where in the opinion of the Authority, a road authority is exercising its functions in a manner inconsistent with a transport strategy, integrated implementation plan, traffic management plan, or demand management measures, the Authority may give a direction to the road authority to exercise its functions in a manner which is consistent with the strategy, plan or measures.
(3) Before giving a direction under this section, the Authority shall consult with and consider the views of the road authority concerned.".
This amendment addresses a gap in section 75. As it is currently drafted, the section requires the NRA and road authorities in the greater Dublin area, GDA, to ensure that they exercise their functions in a manner that is consistent with the DTA's transport strategy. However, while it has power under section 74(2) to give directions to the NRA to exercise its functions in a manner that is consistent with the transport strategy, integrated implementation plan, traffic management plan or demand management measures, the DTA has no similar power with regard to road authorities. This amendment corrects that omission. It also contains the standard requirement that the DTA consult road authorities and consider their views before giving them directions.
Will this lead to a turf war between the NRA and the DTA? We have seen the NRA in operation and it must be commended on its efficiency in progressing interurban routes to the point at which they now stand. The Minister appears to have covered both angles but they are equally powerful agencies.
They are not. The DTA will have the power to step in. If the NRA decides at some stage that it is not going to do something it has been directed to do by the DTA, the latter will have the power to intervene.
What is meant by the term "demand management measures"?
Such measures, which are not provided for in the Bill, can relate to tolls, and so on.
Is the Minister stating that tolls could be implemented even if a local authority was opposed to them? Does this apply to the NRA?
All of section 71——
I thought we were dealing with section 75.
We are dealing with amendment No. 90.
That is correct. Will the Minister indicate what is the position?
Demand management measures are defined in section 71, which states:
(7) In this section "demand management measures" means measures which promote a reduction in the total amount of travel or reduced growth in the total amount of travel and includes measures to—
(a) reduce the need to travel,
(b) reduce the use of mechanically propelled vehicles and particularly private cars,
(c) increase travel by public transport, bicycle or on foot as an alternative to the private car,
(d) encourage travel at less congested periods other than by means of a congestion charge, and
(e) reduce trip length.
Effectively, the Minister is stating that if the DTA is not satisfied with policies a local authority is implementing in respect of this matter, it will be in a position to direct that authority to change those policies.
Yes, it can direct an authority to change all or any of its policies.
Before it can do so, however, it must engage in consultations. What will the consultation process involve?
The normal process would be that the DTA would indicate to a local authority that it is of the view that the latter should do X, Y or Z. The local authority would then be given an opportunity to indicate whether it agrees.
If it was a budgetary issue and if a local authority wanted to take a particular course of action but did not have funding available, what would be the position?
There would be nothing to stop the DTA——
From providing the funds.
Yes, if the provision of such funds was deemed necessary. There are powers to direct local authorities and the NRA to acquire property that might be necessary for traffic management, etc.
On what grounds would a local authority be judged to be exercising its functions in a manner inconsistent with a transport strategy, integrated implementation plan, traffic management plan, or demand management measures? The situation would be unusual because local authorities would be ad idem with the DTA.
They might or they might not.
When would they not be? What criteria would be used to judge how local authorities carry out their functions?
The most obvious one would be where the DTA was of the opinion that a policy being pursued by a local authority was encouraging a greater use of cars than necessary.
If the local authority wanted to build or extend a road and local opinion supported that, could the DTA say "No"?
That should not arise. The question is hypothetical and I have given a glib answer. However, such a situation should not arise when we have a proper DTA with an overall strategy and local authorities implementing their local area strategies. The situation should not arise, but it could in certain situations, for example, with regard to the point the Deputy made earlier. It could happen on a county border or elsewhere that one local authority wanted to do something and another was not particularly interested in doing it. The DTA might feel the project was important for traffic management purposes or for improving the movement of people or goods and say it should be done. It can then allocate moneys to the local authority for the work.
Could I put the question again? Is it the case that where one local authority is in the DTA area and the other is not, the authority can only direct the one within the DTA area and not the other?
Yes, that is the situation. I do not envisage a significant problem in that regard, especially where money is provided to do particular works.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 75, as amended, agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 8.35 p.m. and resumed at 8.50 p.m.
SECTION 76.
Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 59, subsection (1), line 14, to delete "construction" and substitute "development".
These amendments replace the word "construction" with the word "development" in sections 76(1) and 76(2). It is considered that the use of the word "construction" could be taken to indicate that consultation with the DTA on a major port or airport development affecting the DTA should only occur at the final stage of a project, whereas the intention is that such consultation would take place at the development phase.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 59, subsection (2), line 18, to delete "construction" and substitute "development".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 93 has already been discussed with amendment No.17.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 59, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The Commission for Taxi Regulation and the Authority shall consult with each other with a view to identifying administrative efficiencies in relation to the implementation of their respective functions and shall implement such measures as they consider appropriate to achieve those efficiencies.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 76, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 77.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 59, subsection (2), line 38, to delete "€5,000" and substitute "€50,000".
This amendment refers to the enforcement role of the DTA, the authorised officers and powers of inspection of documents and electronic records and notices. The sum of €5,000 seems a small fine for a summary conviction. I am not sure what would be the difference between a summary conviction or an indictment but the DTA's enforcement powers could be concerned with a very significant matter and therefore the records would be very important. It would be important that the DTA could ask for production of all documents where somebody has done something that has led to a major problem or even a disaster in traffic terms or whatever. Clearly it is an offence to obstruct or impede an authorised officer or to give false or misleading information. I thought that the Bill should include a sum on summary conviction of up to €50,000 as being a reasonable fine in current monetary terms. Is there a limit applying?
There appears to be but I will check the point made by the Deputy about a company and whether a distinction can be made. I will check that with the Parliamentary Counsel between now and Report Stage. The intent is that we have the maximum fines possible provided for within the legislation. The current limit for summary conviction is €5,000 and larger fines apply on indictable offences.
My legal adviser did not cross it out so I presume it must be possible, irrespective of whether it is a company. The disruption of the DTA or an important project is a serious offence and in the case of a company it should be punished severely. On that basis I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 77 agreed to.