Other Questions.
27 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Transport the research that has been carried out on the proposed new Luas Line to Rathfarnham as was recommended in the Dublin transportation platform for change transport plan 2002; if a preferred route alignment has been identified; and the estimated cost and timescale for the construction of the project. [21098/05]
View answerMy Department is preparing a ten-year transport investment framework. The draft framework takes account of the work done on investment priorities under the current capital envelope to the end of 2009. It also takes account of the various strategic studies completed by the Department and its agencies, including A Platform for Change which recommended, among other things, the development of a new light rail line to include Rathfarnham.
An outline of the draft ten-year transport investment framework is under consideration by the Cabinet committee on infrastructure, housing and PPPs. I will bring specific proposals to Government in due course once the Cabinet committee has concluded its work.
It would be nice if the Minister answered the question. Has his Department done any research since the study, A Platform for Change, was produced in 2002? The Government approved it as official policy, within which an indicative timescale was included. This Rathfarnham Luas line, which would connect with the Dundrum line, through the connectivity about which the Minister spoke earlier, would commence, possibly, in 2006 and be completed by 2010. Given that the Government has officially approved this route, that it has an indicative timetable and the broad research on it is done, what further research has the Minister done on it? Has he an estimated cost on the proposal and when does he think it can be completed? As the Minister has not answered my question, I presume he has not got those details. How can he consider this project as an example within the ten-year frame if he has not done the detailed cost and route analysis to work out whether it is one of the projects that should go ahead?
As a Deputy for the area, I think the route should go ahead. From my awareness of the logjams day in and day out in the area, I think this project would give a much better return than many of the mad, over-designed roads being built around the country. This route, like the hugely successful other Luas lines, would carry tens of thousands of people in and out of Dublin every day. The Government has officially approved this route as evidenced by the plan approved before the last election and the initial route work has been done by the DTO. Has the Minister followed up on that and done the detailed cost estimates and research so that it can be included in the ten-year plan?
I will not get into the detail of individual projects in the House in advance of publication of the plan, despite the many of my colleagues who have been pressing me on various projects.
This project was already in the five-year plan.
The RPA is charged with the roll-out of the Luas. It has been talking to all of the local authorities and has assessed the cost effectiveness of many different options throughout Dublin. Some, obviously, appear far more cost effective than others. There is a great willingness on the part of the private sector to invest substantially in Luas lines in different areas, which is extremely helpful to the State. The more money we can get into these projects from the private sector, the greater number of projects we can deliver. In terms of the technical and financial assessment of the projects, the RPA is charged with that.
I do not presume to pre-empt the Minister's decision, and as the Minister, it is his decision. I simply want to know if the Minister has a projected cost for this project and if so, what is it?
Many of the Deputy's constituents, from all parties, have been on to me about how valuable is this project. The RPA is carrying out its assessments on a myriad of projects on the Luas lines in Dublin, some of which we have asked specifically about. It must cost some of them and ensure they stand up and are deliverable. In advance of the final decisions being taken in Dublin, I will not comment on any specific route. I will not go further than I have gone this afternoon with the Deputy.
I asked the Minister earlier about the map on the Department's website, a copy of which I downloaded and have here. This map has been on the website since before 2002; it was the 2002 pre-election transport stunt. What is the status of this map? It shows Rathfarnham linked by metro to Bray and northside to Finglas and Dublin Airport. As it is on his website, will the Minister tell us about its current status? Is it fantasy or was it just an election stunt in 2002? Why is it still on the website and does it mean anything? Does the Minister intend to implement it?
That proposal would not be adequate now to meet the needs of what is required for Dublin. I am in the process of substantially enhancing some of the projects outlined on that map. The two Luas lines are up and running with substantial passenger numbers. The public sees Luas as very successful and wants more. We are trying to finalise the marrying of Luas, possibly metro, DART, intercity trains and buses, and bus lanes etc. into a cohesive outturn for delivery of public transport in Dublin. I hope one of the consequences of this will be to reduce traffic in the centre of Dublin and provide public transport as the real alternative. Some people will like that. The reality is that we must also manage the traffic in Dublin and elsewhere.
I am quite appalled to hear that the RPA is assessing projects that were the basis of the Minister's election platform in 2002 as projects that had been selected and agreed by the Government. This morning I got on the Luas at its third stop at 8.15 a.m. At every stop after that people were turned away because the line was at capacity. The Rathfarnham line, to which my colleague referred, feeds into that line. Is it not true that the Rathfarnham line cannot go ahead unless there is an upgrade to metro? That is the only way we can have that line. Given that is the case, can the Minister give us a timescale for the Rathfarnham line?
I congratulate the Deputy, as she certainly knows what she is talking about. That is one of the key issues. It regards segregation and non-segregation and how the two can work together or whether they can work cohesively. I am happy that the evidence presented to me is that they can, and we have good examples of that from Germany. The Deputy is right. We can get greater capacity on metro type carriages and with a metro type system than on Luas. We can also get far higher frequencies on it. Metro carriages are up to 100 m long as opposed to the current length of Luas carriages, which is approximately 35 m.
When will the Minister do it? We know all this.
I am trying to indicate by my answer that I am engaged on this. I have learnt much in recent few weeks. I have listened to Deputies Olivia Mitchell and Shortall, who lead on these issues more than others, but their questions are not easily answered. The Deputy knows that as well as I.
The transport budget for the country is not limitless. No matter what substantial projects we carry out over the next ten years, every wish list cannot be accommodated in our economy, even if we shut down all resources into education and health. The balance of what I have picked up, particularly from those who promote the excellent platform for change argument, is an emphasis on an integrated network and public transport rather than roads, as Deputy Ryan has been suggesting for some time. I hope we will have this shortly.
The Minister's flattery of some of the Opposition spokespersons on transport is truly touching — such a great meeting of minds.
It was an honest assessment. I am damned if I do and damned if I do not.
I would worry if I were Deputy Mitchell at getting such flattering compliments from across the floor. I will move away from questions about a specific project. Six additional Luas lines were to be built as part of the platform for change. The Minister says the RPA is looking into this area. Did the Minister instruct the RPA to look at all six and come up with detailed costings and route analysis for each of them? After he has made his decision on which ones to select, will the Minister make available the costings on the route alignments to assist Deputies here, when there is a change of Government after the next election, to possibly revise some of the ten-year timetable? Hopefully, we as a future democratically elected Government will be able to do that.
I doubt that day will ever come. However, I look forward to seeing how the different approaches between the three parties will be resolved in the area of public transport. To answer the question, I have asked all of the bodies that have proposed projects to do assessments for me. On a number of routes there were proposals for DART, metro and other conflicting modes of transport. Obviously, we want to get the most efficient and best mode of transport. The possibility of some new Luas lines is more advanced than others for a myriad of reasons. They may be more obvious and we could probably deliver them more quickly and easily. We may be able to overcome difficulties with other routes by doing something with metro or otherwise, but we will wait to see the outcome of the assessments.
28 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Transport if he is satisfied with the progress made to date in the decentralisation of State agencies under his control; his views on the number of posts to be decentralised in each location; the number of personnel identified and willing to move to these locations; the work which is under way to ensure full-take up of this scheme to fill the specified number of posts in each location; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21220/05]
View answerA number of posts, including 40 posts in the road haulage division of the Department of Transport and ten posts in the National Safety Council, have been identified as early movers under the decentralisation programme. The 50 posts in question are being relocated to Loughrea. I am satisfied with the progress being made in this regard. Nineteen people in the Department of Transport have expressed interest in moving to Loughrea. In the context of the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill, which is before the House at present, I am considering whether additional road safety functions, including some of the functions proposed for Loughrea, can be given to the authority. That could increase the level of flexibility associated with the decentralisation of the 50 posts identified for Loughrea. Implementation plans have been prepared in the meantime. The Office of Public Works is making good progress in identifying a suitable site at Loughrea.
Plans for other agencies are at an early stage because they have not been identified as early movers by the decentralisation implementation group. Discussions are continuing between the Department of Transport, the agencies and the Department of Finance. Implementation plans are being updated. There may be some variations in the plans for the relocation of posts as implementation plans are finalised, but I expect the projected numbers in each location to be achieved. There is a particular issue with the Bus Éireann numbers. While the proposal to relocate some headquarters posts in the company to Mitchelstown remains unchanged, the company has identified just 86 posts as being suitable for decentralisation. The target number of Bus Éireann posts to be decentralised is 200. The difficulty presented in that context is being examined by the company.
The table that follows this response outlines details of the number of posts under the aegis of the Department of Transport which will be decentralised to various locations and the number of applicants who have indicated their willingness to move to the locations in question. The Department of Finance is in discussions with the unions and staff associations of the State agencies with a view to progressing this issue centrally.
|
Agency |
Location to which it is proposed to decentralise agency |
Target number of posts to be decentralised |
Number of expressions of interest from within the agency |
Number of expressions of interest from outside the agency |
|
Road haulage division of the Department of Transport |
Loughrea |
40 |
19 |
73 |
|
National Safety Council |
Loughrea |
10 |
0 |
29 |
|
National Roads Authority |
Ballinasloe |
90 |
1 |
63 |
|
Irish Aviation Authority |
Shannon |
100 |
2 |
10 |
|
Railway Safety Commission |
Ballinasloe |
20 |
0 |
4 |
|
Bus Éireann |
Mitchelstown |
200 |
0 |
13 |
I am in favour of decentralisation in cases in which it makes sense, as long as it is done in sufficient numbers to create a critical mass. I do not accept the Government's scattergun approach. I am particularly disturbed by the proposal to decentralise specialist agencies such as the National Safety Council, the Irish Aviation Authority and the Railway Safety Commission which are under the aegis of the Department of Transport. One cannot expect members of staff from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, for example, to be able to perform the specialist functions which are undertaken in such bodies.
The Minister said that 86 jobs in Bus Éireann have been deemed to be suitable for decentralisation, but none of those who are employed in those 86 jobs is willing to move. Just two employees of the Irish Aviation Authority have expressed an interest in being decentralised to Shannon. No officials from the Department's road haulage unit or the Railway Safety Commission are interested in the decentralisation programme. Nobody in the National Roads Authority wants to go to Ballinasloe.
Should the entire scheme, other than the parts of it involving non-specialist staff from the Department of Transport, be abandoned? I have concerns about the loss of value that will result from the loss of specialist staff. Problems will be encountered when the various agencies try to recruit specialist staff to fulfil the terms of the decentralisation programme, which does not seem to make sense. Is the Minister reconsidering the project? I suggest that he should do so.
The answer to the Deputy's final question is "No". I am committed to the decentralisation programme. Like many Deputies, I can cite examples of the successful operation of the previous decentralisation programme throughout the country. When it was proposed to decentralise the Land Registry to Waterford, which is in my constituency, everyone said it was not possible to transfer a large number of specialist staff who were dealing in a specific legal field. It was suggested at the time that such officials would be unwilling to move. While it took time to organise that transfer, it was completed and it has worked extremely successfully. I think a similar pattern will be followed in this instance.
It is proposed under the decentralisation programme to transfer 40 officials in the road haulage division of the Department of Transport to Loughrea. Some 19 people in that section have expressed an interest in the move, as have 73 workers in other parts of the public service. That particular move is well over-subscribed. Some 29 public servants have expressed an interest in taking one of the ten National Safety Council positions which are to be moved to Loughrea. That is also well over-subscribed. Some 63 people from outside the National Roads Authority have declared an interest in the decentralisation of 90 jobs with the authority to Ballinasloe. Deputy Olivia Mitchell cited the correct figures for Bus Éireann, the Irish Aviation Authority and the Railway Safety Commission.
Decentralisation is a good thing for local economies throughout the country. It will help to attract business, for example. If the State expresses a willingness to locate in certain areas, the confidence of companies which are considering similar moves will be boosted. The decentralisation process can be difficult in some circumstances. Deputy Mitchell was right to identify that it becomes more difficult when specialist and technical jobs are being transferred. That should inspire us to bring all our efforts to bear to make the programme work, rather than causing us to abandon the process.
I have practical experience of the decentralisation system, as I have said. While I was not directly involved as a Minister in the decentralisation of some Land Registry posts to Waterford, I remember well the arguments which were made at that time. People said that the Land Registry would not function and that the technical staff would not move. Some members of staff agreed to move and many people were recruited within the Waterford region. The Land Registry operates successfully in Waterford today.
I am not sure I have made my point. What is the point of moving bus mechanics to Mitchelstown when most Bus Éireann services operate from Dublin? It does not seem to make any sense. I am not against decentralisation — I am in favour of it if it makes sense. The Minister has said that things are looking rosier and that more people are willing to transfer. Loughrea seems to be the place to go, for some reason. When does the Minister expect the first of the agencies under the aegis of his Department to be decentralised? What agency will be the first to be moved? When will that happen?
The early movers have been identified and the details in that regard will be finalised in a report that is due in August. The Office of Public Works has made great efforts to identify and acquire sites throughout the country, often with the assistance of local authorities. I know that many sites have been identified. This issue will become clearer when the report, which will deal with a number of issues, is published in August. It has been decided that revised implementation plans have to be submitted by August. The matter is being worked on at present.
Does the report relate to the Department of Transport or to all bodies affected by the decentralisation programme?
It will have relevance throughout the system, as I understand it. I am interpreting the documentation I have read about the matter in good faith.
I will not use the term "decentralisation" because that is not what is involved in the Government's proposal. It is a complete misnomer. The Government is proposing to relocate staff on the basis of reasons which appear to be solely political. I would like to ask the Minister about the original proposal to relocate 200 Bus Éireann posts from Dublin to Mitchelstown. The plan has caused significant concern among staff, who are not prepared to contemplate such a drastic move because they and their families are settled in Dublin. We know that no member of the staff of Bus Éireann has applied for decentralisation to Mitchelstown. The Minister has said that 86 jobs in Bus Éireann are capable of being decentralised.
That is what the company says.
Why did the Government announce that 200 jobs in Bus Éireann would be relocated to Mitchelstown? Was that figure just plucked out of the air?
Yes.
Was the announcement made for political reasons? Who originally suggested that 200 Bus Éireann jobs could be shifted? Leaving aside the fact that none of Bus Éireann's employees is prepared to move and the debate on the benefits or otherwise of the decentralisation of Bus Éireann, how did the Government get it so wrong when it suggested that it was possible to transfer 200 jobs to Mitchelstown?
The Deputy is right. I have stated clearly that there is a particular issue with the plan to decentralise Bus Éireann to Mitchelstown. I do not deny that. The Government has announced that it intends to move 200 jobs to Mitchelstown and it intends to see that plan through.
What was the figure of 200 based on?
I was not involved in the collation of the information at that time. I will not take the blame for it. I was not directly involved in the collation of the figure in question.
Was anything collated?
It was. Most of the figures which were specified when the Government announced that it planned to decentralise jobs to various locations throughout the country were spot on. There is a particular issue in the case of the plan to decentralise Bus Éireann posts to Mitchelstown. The company has said that just 86 posts are suitable for decentralisation. The Department has asked it to re-examine the matter. I am waiting to hear from the company again. It seems there was a miscorrelation between the question that was asked and the information that was given by the company in response.
Why did the Minister ask Bus Éireann to re-examine the matter if none of its employees is prepared to move?
I want the management of Bus Éireann to be certain that it has applied correctly the criteria which were specified.
It does not matter whether the number of posts that nobody is willing to take up is 86 or 200. It makes no difference.
We must work on the problem. I do not deny that we need to bring clarity to this matter. I would not like to colour the entire decentralisation programme on the basis of this issue.
Why is the Minister continuing with the plan as it applies to Bus Éireann?
There are a couple of odd and difficult cases.
Is it not a nonsense?
It is not.
It is a nonsense as it applies to Bus Éireann.
I do not think the Labour Party's candidate in the Mitchelstown area at the next general election will speak about 86 jobs.
I ask the Minister not to bring politics into it.
No, I do not think the candidate will be thinking——
What is the rationale for suggesting that Bus Éireann can be decentralised to Mitchelstown?
Sustainable jobs are needed in Mitchelstown.
The rationale is that——
Why is the Government pursuing the proposal if no member of staff has applied to participate in it?
The simple rationale behind the proposal is that Bus Éireann is a rural-based company that operates direct routes into Dublin. For buses coming into Dublin one naturally needs a Dublin facility to deal with them, but it does not mean that one could not have a substantial number of people — almost half of the number identified — in the country, based in Mitchelstown, as opposed to having people in Dublin too. That is a reasonable position.
Is the Minister continuing to pretend to the people of Mitchelstown that Bus Éireann will move there?
I am not pretending anything.
The Minister has pretended from the start. He continues to ignore the fact that this will not happen.
I am adhering to the programme. I have been fair in admitting to the issues involved, and that matters are not quite right, but I do not consider that 86 posts identified for Mitchelstown is somehow a pretence.
The Minister is pretending that everyone will go, that this move will take place.
29 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Transport if he is satisfied with the significant delay in the bus licensing unit within his Department; the reason for the lengthy delay in securing a decision regarding a passenger licence faced by service providers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21218/05]
View answer42 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Transport when the national transport regulatory office will be established; the role he expects such an office to fulfil; the geographical area it will have responsibility for; the transport modes and services he expects it to have remit over; and the legislative changes required to facilitate its introduction. [21102/05]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 29 and 42 together.
The Road Transport Act 1932, which provides the legislative base for the issue of bus route licences, is administered by the bus route licensing section of my Department. Given the wide range of issues which must be taken into account in assessing an application for a bus route licence under the 1932 Act, the process is both time-consuming and complex. The workload in the area continues to increase significantly, given the increase in applications for new bus route licences and amendments to existing licences. Despite the best efforts of the staff concerned, who have achieved significant increases in their productivity, a backlog of applications has developed which has given rise to significant delays in the process. I have asked my Department to increase the staffing resources available to the section, and this is being done. In addition, work is proceeding on the development of new information technology systems which, when available, will help to improve matters.
However, despite increases in resources and improved productivity of staff, the Road Transport Act 1932 is inadequate in terms of providing a basis for a modern, effective regulatory system for the bus industry. As I have indicated previously before this House, the bus market will continue to grow in the coming years and I am committed to providing opportunities for both public and private companies to deliver increased public services and to ensure the taxpayer and the customer get a high quality of service and best value for money. This will require the replacement of the Road Transport Act 1932 with a modern legislative framework.
To this end, I propose to establish an independent national public transport commission to, inter alia, allocate Exchequer subvention for public transport services, both bus and rail, through public service contracts, licensed commercial bus services and regulated fares on all rail, Luas and bus services. The establishment of this body will require primary legislation, which will include provision for the repeal and amendment of some existing transport legislation, notably the Road Transport Act 1932.
In addition to modernising the regulatory framework, I am currently finalising plans for a major programme of investment in public transport and considering the structures and arrangements which will need to be put in place to ensure the best possible return is achieved from this investment. In this context, I am giving consideration as to how best to ensure the timely, co-ordinated and integrated delivery of public transport investment in the greater Dublin area. Work is ongoing in my Department to identify the best way forward. However, I envisage that whatever arrangements are put in place, they will work effectively with the proposed national public transport commission. Operational planning of services will remain with the public transport providers. Officials in my Department are continuing to meet with stakeholders on how to modernise the regulatory structure governing public transport. That includes public companies, a number of which I have met, and private companies. Their views are interesting and useful.
Under priority questions, the Minister has dealt with the regulatory framework. Everything he says sounds wonderful but I have heard it so often before that it lacks all credibility.
Why is the bus licensing unit taking so long to make decisions? We have heard much about congestion, the stress it causes for people and its cost to business and individuals, not to mention the toll it takes on people's health. On the one hand we have people who want a bus service, including new communities within and outside Dublin trying to commute into the city, while on the other hand there are bus companies which want to give them a bus service. The Minister is in the middle, preventing a service being given to the people who want it. It makes no sense to thwart the public will.
I accept the difficulties caused by the Road Transport Act, and all the difficulties involved in setting up a new regulatory framework, but the Minister could take action on this matter now. He could issue temporary licences to get people into buses and out of cars, and reduce the congestion which is destroying life in Dublin and the towns outside it, to which people have been forced to migrate because of the high cost of housing in Dublin.
The Minister's reply sounds wonderful, but if he cannot deal with the bigger picture immediately — I know he will try to do something before the general election — can he deal with individual issues, such as providing licences? I understand that in his Department there are currently 180 requests for licences, either new or enhanced. Could they be dealt with, perhaps in the next three months?
I have given the Deputy the figures and she can see that a substantial number of new licences has been issued, both to private and public companies. I agree with the Deputy that the existing legislation and framework for the issuing of licences are completely inadequate. The Road Transport Act 1932 does not provide the necessary framework and raises complex legal issues regarding the framework and the consultation processes that must be gone through in order to make a decision with different communities, local authorities and so on. It is very cumbersome. I am happy to issue licences to private sector and public sector companies but I want a good mix of resources in those sectors, delivering the bulk of transport needs in Dublin and throughout the country in the future. It is not possible to do that adequately under the existing Act. The system and structure in my Department do not meet the requirements of a modern economy to provide the necessary framework.
The Minister seems to be developing policy on the hoof.
No.
The Minister has been talking about a new commission for awarding licences. Very recently he announced, in the newspapers, a transport authority. What will the relationship be between the commission and the authority? A transport authority should surely be in a position to issue licences.
The Deputy is correct. I am enunciating two different bodies, one of which relates to the delivery of services. What I said this afternoon relates to the issuing of licences and to the issuing of the subventions whether they be to the private or public sector, while seeking value for money. All that relates to the technical side. The Deputy will probably agree there is a large range of bodies in Dublin with views on public transport. In parallel with a roll-out of substantial investment in infrastructure over the next ten years or so, we need a specific and sophisticated body to——
Why did the Department oppose such a body when Dublin City Council tried to include it in its development plan in the past six months? Why did the Department oppose a Dublin transport authority?
I do not know what the Deputy has in mind but I know what I have in mind.
Six months ago, the Department opposed a transport authority.
The Deputy is turning the question around. I have been more open than anyone else in this House with regard to parliamentary questions. I have given the Deputy fresh information every time.
It is different every time the Minister announces it, and on many occasions it is contradictory.
The Deputy does not like it when she sees us taking action. We will have the licensing regime in place as quickly as possibly, certainly before the next general election.
The Minister has done a complete U-turn in the past six months.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
