COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht

Vote 32 — Transport.

Ms J. O’Neill (Secretary General, Department of Transport) called and examined.

Chairman

I remind witnesses that they do not enjoy absolute privilege. Members and witnesses' attention is drawn to the fact that as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 grants certain rights to persons identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. Such rights include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents; and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, the rights may only be exercised with the consent of the committee.

Persons invited before the committee are made aware of these rights and any persons identified in the course of proceedings who are not present may have to be made aware of the rights and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers it appropriate in the interests of justice. Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 156 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.

I ask Ms Julie O'Neill, who is the Secretary General of the Department of Transport, to introduce her officials.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I am accompanied by Mr. John Fearon, the assistant secretary at the Department of Transport who is in charge of corporate services, Mr. Derek McConnon from the Department's finance unit and Mr. Dan Commane, who is the finance unit's principal officer.

Chairman

I ask Mr. David Hurley from the Department of Finance to introduce his officials.

Mr. David Hurley

I am from the Department of Finance's organisation, managing and training division. I deal with the administrative budget of the Department of Transport. I am accompanied by my colleague, Ms Deirdre Hanlon, from the Department's public expenditure division.

Chairman

I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to introduce Vote 32.

Mr. John Purcell

The committee will note that other than my certificate on the appropriation accounts for 2003, there are no report items for the committee to consider. It was different last year, when problems and shortcomings in financial control led to the late submission of an amended appropriation account. I am glad to report that things have improved immeasurably — there are no such problems and no indication of such problems for 2003. The Vote under consideration involves the disbursement of approximately €2 billion. Most of that money is not directly administered by the Department — it is allocated to public bodies like CIE and the NRA. I suggest that there is plenty of scope for inquiry.

Ms O’Neill

I wish to make a brief opening statement. I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I would like to make some general comments to provide a context for the Department of Transport's appropriation account for 2003. As the committee is aware, the Department was created in June 2002, bringing together staff from a number of Departments. Therefore, 2003 was the Department's first full year of operations. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, the Department was responsible in 2003 for a total budget of over €2 billion, the bulk of which was expended, through State agencies, in investment in transport infrastructure.

Over €1.2 billion was spent by the National Roads Authority on the improvement and maintenance of roads in 2003, when significant progress was made with the roads programme. The committee has examined certain aspects of the NRA's expenditure on the roads programme. There were concerns about the extent to which that expenditure was under control. The committee queried whether roads projects were being delivered on time and within the budget. Eleven major schemes, involving 83 km of new high-quality road infrastructure, were completed in 2003, requiring a total investment of approximately €1 billion. Three of the schemes involved the M1 route between Dublin and Belfast, which has been constructed to motorway standard over a distance of 72 km between Dublin and Dundalk. The Kildare bypass opened to traffic in December 2003, almost five months ahead of the completion date specified in the contract. The Watergrasshill bypass on the N8, which is the main road between Dublin and Cork, was also completed ahead of schedule, thereby reinforcing the pattern of projects coming in ahead of time and on budget.

In the same year we invested over €480 million on public transport, €300 million of which was spent through CIE on investment in public transport infrastructure. A further €129 million went to the Railway Procurement Agency to meet the capital costs associated with the Luas, which, as the committee knows, is now in operation. A sum of €40 million was spent through the DTO for capital funding of traffic management measures in the greater Dublin area, as well as funding for a range of other public transport projects, including the rural transport initiative and the public transport accessibility programme.

The Department spent some €27 million directly in support of regional airports through the PSO programme and by way capital and marketing grants for the airports. It is fair to say that, taken together, these investment programmes represent significant progress in terms of meeting the Department's goal of improving accessibility, expanding capacity, improving the use of our transport system and enhancing its quality.

The availability of five-year financial envelopes for capital investment has further strengthened the ability of the Department and its agencies to properly plan for and manage expenditure on transport infrastructure. The transport infrastructure investment is taking place against the backdrop of very rapid growth in our economy and population. We are still very much in catch-up mode in terms of transport infrastructure and we are moving very fast to catch up with investment requirements.

On the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the outturn was very much in line with the provision in the Vote of over €2 billion. The underspend was just €8 million, or 0.4%. Given such a large budget and the historical background of overspending on some of the programmes, particularly the roads programme, one of the challenges the Department set for itself was to manage tightly within budget. There were some transfers within the Vote during the year, the most significant of which was the transfer of some €40 million into the public transport safety and development subhead from the roads subhead. That reflects timing issues at the end of the year.

It can be difficult to forecast with absolute precision the amount that will be spent in a given year. It depends on when particular contracts come to fruition. The five-year investment plan that commenced for roads in 2004 is very helpful because it allows us to carry over funding from year to year. We were able to use that money to bring forward the purchase of diesel rail cars under the Irish Rail stock acquisition programme. We will begin to see the benefits of that this year.

On the administrative side of the Vote, two issues arose. There was an exceptional and unanticipated legal expense of €1.5 million arising from the Nestor bus case. It had to be catered for. As it was the Department's first full year in operation, it took some time to bed down the requirements under the various administrative subheads and to get the balance right within those subheads. This is reflected in some variations between Estimates and outturn on those subheads.

Apart from its role in infrastructure investment, the Department is also required to drive changes in the organisation and regulation of Ireland's transport services in order to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. It is also to ensure that we can sweat the assets and the very considerable expenditure on infrastructure. We also have important responsibilities in the areas of road, rail and aviation safety, as evident for instance from our funding of the National Safety Council, on which we spent nearly €3 million in 2003.

We are also working hard as a Department to reap the benefits of an integrated approach to transport policy and its delivery through harnessing the full range of our resources, including the competences of our staff. On the competences of our staff, the Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention to the difficulties that had emerged in our Vote for 2003. I gave an undertaking at this committee last year that we would be moving to strengthen our arrangements for financial management, monitoring and internal audit. As the committee is aware, that work was well under way when I met it last year.

I am delighted to say that, following the difficulties that were highlighted last year, my finance division, as represented here by Mr. Dan Commane and Mr. Derek McConnon, undertook a comprehensive review of our systems and a range of new procedures and measures were taken. I am glad the Comptroller and Auditor General has acknowledged the progress that has been made in this regard. I agree with him. It has been a quantum shift in the extent of our control. It is something that we watch carefully as a management board. In this regard, I am delighted to be able to say that the finance division was accredited just last week with ISO 9001:2000 certification. I am not sure if it is the first finance unit to achieve it in the Civil Service but it is one of the first. It is a measure of the way it has transformed its operation. I am happy to take any questions the committee may have.

Chairman

Will Ms O'Neill agree to publishing her statement?

Ms O’Neill

Of course, yes.

Deputy Curran

I welcome Ms O'Neill back to the Committee of Public Accounts. I compliment the finance division of the Department on achieving ISO 9001:2000 certification. It is the first time it has come to my attention as a member of this committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General can probably say if other groups have achieved it. It is a very welcome development.

The accounts for 2003 highlighted expenditure of over €2 billion. When I looked at them to decide where to begin, I noted that there was so much involved. The main element of expenditure was and continues to be in the area of roads. Some €1.2 billion was spent in this regard. Perhaps Ms O'Neill could bring us up to date on this.

Traditionally, when we talked about roads and the delivery of infrastructure projects, there were two significant problems. First, they were all grossly above budget. Second, they were always late. There is now a multi-annual funding programme. Will Ms O'Neill fill us in on how that programme has been proceeding?

Ms O’Neill

First, considerable progress has been made in the roll-out of the programme, particularly in terms of getting projects in ahead of schedule and on budget. In the major amount of documentation I was given by our roads division I have a list of projects that are being implemented ahead of schedule and on budget. I am aware that the Ashford, Kildare, Water-grasshill and Monasterevin by-passes were ahead of schedule. Virtually every project that has come in recently has come in ahead of schedule. That is a reflection of a significant shift that was highlighted as a result of the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and work within the Department. It involved a move from the standard remeasurement contract that was traditionally used in the financing of the roads programme primarily to the design-build approach.

The difference between the design-build approach and others is that there is a real incentive for the contractor to get the project in fast so he can draw down the finance that is available. We are beginning to see that materialise in many respects. If one examined the projects that had been late traditionally — one very noteworthy example was the Glen of the Downs project — one would have seen evidence of the problems associated with the standard remeasurement approach. There was variation in terms of price and the ground conditions that were encountered. All the risk was borne by the State rather than the contractor so there was no real incentive in place.

As well as the move towards design-build contracts, there has also been an examination of particular contracts of the standard remeasurement type to see where it might be worthwhile to buy out price variation and other risks in order to have projects completed on time. This has been helpful. In the past few days, an example has arisen regarding the contract entered into regarding the Dundalk to Newry by-pass, on which we are working jointly with our colleagues in Northern Ireland. In this case, a target price contract is being used. Again, the Comptroller and Auditor General suggested that this type of contract might be worth considering.

At the time the Department of Transport was formed there was a significant mismatch between the funding provided and the amount spent on the roads programme. We have all made a thorough analysis of the reasons for that. They included undercosting at the outset, additions, a very high cost projects such as the Dublin Port tunnel and some others for which the budgets had not been anticipated.

Since the Department was formed the only escalation in the cost of the programme is that associated with the price, in line with construction inflation which has moderated to 6% or 7%. Sooner or later the list will be found and I will furnish it to the committee because it gives a good example of where the progress has been made.

Mr. Curran

Is the NRA delivering all of these projects?

Ms O’Neill

Yes.

Mr. Curran

Does the Department have a direct input into the control of the projects or is it at arm's length from them?

Ms O’Neill

It is at arm's length to the extent that the NRA is directly accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts for its expenditure. It has responsibilities within roads legislation to deliver its projects to a given programme. We set the strategic policy framework for the programme. On the basis of information supplied by the NRA and others we assess where will be the demand and where the funding should be spent at the high level. This applies to the broad thrust, for example, the focus on completion of the major interurban motorways, the arc that runs from Donegal, via Galway down to Limerick, and across via Cork to Waterford. It also takes in the programme of expenditure in the BMW area. Within that high level framework we give the NRA the job of getting on with the developments.

The Department has a responsibility to satisfy itself that the proper arrangements are in place to monitor control of expenditure within the NRA, including the estimation of the costs in advance, and the monitoring of expenditure after the event. We inherited good structures from the then Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Public Enterprise.

However, recently we have moved to form one investment monitoring unit in the Department which brings together the staff who were working on public transport projects and on the roads projects. Their job is twofold, first, to monitor the investment to ensure it complies with the budget, which involves oversight of the various audits carried out on behalf of the EU and the Department. Its second job is a wider evaluation function. Having decided on the strategic framework in advance, we have an evaluation responsibility after the event to satisfy ourselves about the impacts of the programmes. That is manifest in the Indecon and other reports as part of the mid-term review of the national development plan.

We have a strong monitoring and evaluation role but we do not, and it would be inappropriate to, detract from the responsibility of the NRA and CIE and others to develop their own monitoring systems. Both have developed strongly in that area in recent years, in terms of cost estimation at the outset, standard costing for high cost items, and of continual tracking of expenditure.

We no longer get shocks or surprises about spending which is good news. There is a legacy of sorting out to be done on some of the projects from the old regime. The controls now are much tighter.

Mr. Curran

Ms O'Neill mentioned several projects coming in ahead of schedule which she attributed to design-build projects. Are there financial bonuses for contractors completing ahead of schedule?

Ms O’Neill

With regard to Luas, what is the Department's view on a more integrated service? For example, there is a Luas depot at the Red Cow, but there is not a bus that delivers people to the depot. From the point of view of the public, both operators are in competition with each other. I presume the Department wants an integrated transport system, but that does not appear to be what is happening.

Ms O’Neill

I welcome the opportunity to clarify the record on bus capacity in the greater Dublin area and how it interfaces with Luas and other developments that have been taking place, including the development of quality bus corridors. First, I will deal with the bus numbers issue, because it has been well rehearsed in recent days. People may not be aware that since the beginning of 2000, there has been a 25% increase in capacity in Dublin Bus. That capacity has arisen partly because the total number of buses has increased from 987 at the end of 1999 to 1,062 currently. As Dublin Bus has been replacing existing buses and adding new buses to its fleet, it has been replacing them with double-deck buses that have a greater capacity. It has been taking out some of thesingle-deck and mini buses. Even though there has not been a 25% increase in the fleet, there has been a 25% increase in capacity.

Second, a number of commitments were given in regard to the number of buses that would be provided under the national development plan. It refers to the provision of approximately 275 additional buses in the period up to 2006. As has been rehearsed in recent days, so far Dublin Bus has received 93 net additional buses, spread over a few years. There were no additional buses last year. In terms of the extra buses that have come on stream, Dublin Bus would not have been able to absorb additional buses in the last year or so until the Harristown garage was opened. It opened last October. The garage, which the Taoiseach formally opened in the last day or two, has a capacity for 240 buses. There are already 199 buses in it. Up to that point, Dublin Bus had to park buses on the streets around Conyngham Road. This was beginning to pose serious safety and other issues. The INDECON mid-term review of the national development plan advised against additional buses being given to Dublin Bus until this issue was resolved. Under the national development plan, an investment of €22 million has gone into the Harristown bus garage.

At the weekend, I found myself reading two sets of headlines simultaneously. One report stated that Dublin Bus had a major problem with buses it could not use because of the impact of Luas, while the other stated that the Department was not giving it extra buses. It is true that Luas has had an impact on Dublin Bus. We reckon the impact is of the order of 7,000 to 10,000 passengers per day. On the other hand, Luas is carrying 300,000 passengers a week and approximately 50,000 passengers per day on a week day. This means that there has been a significant benefit to the travelling public from Luas. There has been a significant impact in terms of people getting out of their cars and other modes of transport. Inevitably, because of the routes Luas is following, it will impact on Dublin Bus.

Deputy Curran

To clarify, is Ms O'Neill saying that approximately one in five people who use Luas were former bus passengers?

Ms O’Neill

Yes. However, that is subject to the studies that have been carried out. Some 7,000 to 10,000 passengers is the maximum impact on Dublin Bus at present. Luas carries approximately 300,000 passengers a week, or 50,000 passengers per day on week days. This is a maximum of one in five passengers.

Last year, with Harristown garage coming on stream, Dublin Bus approached the Department saying that it was now time to consider putting approximately 40 additional buses into the bus fleet. However, it is now saying that the impact of Luas has had the net effect of taking approximately 30 buses out of the system. As the Deputy will appreciate, we want to talk to Dublin Bus about the best way to deploy its resources. I want to stress here that capital funding for the provision of buses is not a problem in that we have a significant capital envelope for public transport investment, running at approximately €500 million a year. We hold back contingencies so that we can see how issues unfold during the year and decide on the investment that may be required. A double-decker bus costs approximately €250,000, therefore, a little goes a relatively long way in capital terms. Dublin Bus is working off a fleet replacement programme. The buses currently have a depreciation of approximately 12 years. That can be easily stretched to 14 years because Dublin Bus now has a modern fleet. Simply by not replacing a number of buses in a given year, Dublin Bus can expand its fleet, it can borrow to do so or we can give it money. There are a variety of ways in which additional buses can be funded at relatively short notice.

The bigger issue from my point of view of an Accounting Officer is that every time we give Dublin Bus an extra bus to put on its bus routes, and if that goes on a quality bus corridor and is only used at peak times, the additional cost in subvention terms is approximately €80,000 to €100,000 per annum. This is a recurring cost. It is one thing to provide the capital money for Dublin Bus to spend, it is another thing to ask are we satisfied if it is the best way to get value for money in terms of subvention. Of course, we look to Dublin Bus, in the first instance, and ask how can its existing fleet be deployed efficiently so that it will get the maximum turn on the investment in an individual bus.

The other backdrop, about which we are unapologetic, is that we are in the business of reforming the Dublin bus market. We are working under the 1932 Act which has outlived its usefulness. We must find, once and for all, appropriate arrangements for the balance between private and public sector involvement in the delivery of bus services in the greater Dublin area. We wish to do this in a way that achieves the greatest possible return on the State's investment, the best quality service to the customer and the best value for money for the taxpayer. I have a responsibility for the very considerable subvention that we are currently putting into public transport. Overall it ran to €245 million in 2003 and is running at €284 million in the current year. Dublin Bus at present gets approximately €65 million per annum.

We are seeking Dublin Bus's finest thinking, given the changes that have taken place in the patterns of public transport. One issue is that Dublin Bus originally inherited many of the old tramway routes. It is open to question as to whether the company's scheduling and route patterns are the most appropriate possible. Indeed, the Dublin Transportation Office is also carrying out a study on the route network. All of this is relevant to the wider issue of how we manage public transport.

The Deputy referred to specific comments made by an employee of Dublin Bus. I should say that this morning I had a long conversation with the chairman of Dublin Bus and with the chairman of CIE, Dr. John Lynch, and there is no difference between us as to how the issue should be approached. I wish to be clear that there is no gap between the thinking of the Department and the thinking of Dublin Bus's board and chairman.

Deputy Curran

Does Ms O'Neill disagree with the specific comment by Dublin Bus that "Our advice to local authorities is not to build any more quality bus corridors"?

Ms O’Neill

Frankly, yes I do. We believe that the investment in QBCs is appropriate and worthwhile. When Dublin Bus is ready to talk to the Department and when its chairman is ready to tell us that the company now needs X number of additional buses to be able to make use of the QBCs, we will deal with it. I understand the chairman is very clear about this issue and has made his views known publically in the last few days. Under no circumstances do I believe that we should be rowing back but it is a chicken and egg situation. One must have the QBCs before one can justify the investment in extra buses to ensure they are used effectively.

In common with most member states, Ireland exempts all flights, including military flights, from payment of the en route charge. This arrangement has applied since Ireland joined the EUROCONTROL en route charging scheme in the early 1970s and for that reason it is not in the vote. A small number of countries apparently do not grant exempt status to US flights. However, any payment they have sought has not been made because there is a question as to whether it is discretionary under the established international agreements.

We received advice some time ago from the Attorney General's office that it would not be possible to levy charges. There are issues with regard to the 1944 Chicago Convention which automatically implies exemption from air navigation fees for State and military aircraft. That has been argued by the United States, even with regard to countries which have chosen not to refuse.

Deputy J. Higgins

The US military in effect refuses to pay the liabilities that would arise and has been able to bully Governments into accepting that.

Ms O’Neill

Deputy Dennehy

I am tempted to deal with the parochial issues immediately but I will instead ask a question on safety. The Department is responsible for the National Safety Council and I appreciate that it has a very wide remit, but is the Department satisfied with the allocation of funding? I refer specifically to road fatalities and serious injuries.

Ms O’Neill

We concerned about 2004's reversal of the road death pattern. The level witnessed for the same period in 2004 of roughly 40 deaths has been reached this year. This is not a situation with which we are happy. The Department welcomed the announcement of the formation of a dedicated traffic corps by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. A new assistant commissioner with responsibility for traffic was appointed recently. I met with him, the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the deputy commissioner on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 to discuss what can be done about events to date. A high level group on road safety is due to meet shortly between the Garda Síochána and ourselves through which we hope to have the best integrated thinking on the issue of the reversal.

From the Department's point of view there are two elements to this, which are visible law enforcement and policing by the gardaí and targeted law enforcement. I welcome the assistant commissioner, Mr. Eddie Rock, and the deputy commissioner, Mr. Fachtna Murphy, in giving priority to the issue of using the dedicated increased resources of the gardaí in a targeted way to have the maximum impact where the risk of road death is greatest. The Department has overall policy responsibility, as was discussed in this committee previously.

The Department funds the National Safety Council directly. Currently the figure stands at just under €4 million. It is an important part of our mechanism for delivering public awareness on road safety. The Department funds the Medical Bureau of Road Safety and approximately €40 million in spending by the National Roads Authority on road safety measures. We work closely with the Garda to ensure the correct legal frameworks are in place to facilitate their work. We are concerned with the change in the pattern and that the initial positive impact of penalty points has worn off. This change must be reversed and we will work with the Garda and our agencies to do that.

Deputy Dennehy

In the context of the points raised by Deputy Joe Higgins and others who seem to be against the concept of private transport, how much of a factor are road standards in the ratio of accidents? For instance, how many accidents occur on new motorways, dual carriageways and so forth as a percentage of the overall figure?

Ms O’Neill

I do not have the information with me but the proportion of accidents that occur on modern, high quality routes is very small. Cross-over accidents are very rare on the M50, for example. If the pattern of accidents is examined, a large number involve young men, occur late at night on local or regional roads and are often single vehicle accidents in nature. That such roads comprise 90,000 kilometres of our total road network is a problem. The more we improve the quality of the network the more we reduce the propensity for accidents. The number of drivers is increasing constantly but in this regard we have done well, as the absolute death rate per driving population is diminishing.

The National Roads Authority targets the matter of road quality with its 2005 spend of €40 million, an increase from the previous year's figure of €17 million. It deals with known accident black spots. On the matter of local and regional roads, greater public awareness of the risks involved is required.

Deputy Dennehy

I hope it is not part of the strategy that the black spot signs have been removed to be replaced by ones that state "a location for a high level of accidents". I travelled extensively during the week and saw many of these new signs. To become parochial, I welcome the unprecedented investment in Cork Airport but there is an argument about the use of air bridges. Originally focussing on airport usage and diversions, current surveys invariably return complaints about the lack of air bridges and bad weather. On reading the comments of the manager and new board chairman, Mr. Joe Gantley, of the Cork Airport Authority, it seems that big airlines such as Ryanair and Aer Lingus can dictate that no air bridges be put in place. What role will the Department play when it controls the financial issues? Can it give a guarantee that the airlines will use Cork Airport? Mr. Gantley stated: "It would be more expensive to now factor them out of the plans to actually include them". They are estimated at a cost of €500,000 apiece and four of them are needed. In 1999 these "big brothers" demanded air bridges. Would Ms O'Neill give the committee a guarantee and an update on this because we will never get high marks in consumer usage surveys until we have them?

Ms O’Neill

I will clarify that the Department does not control the financing of the provision of the new Cork terminal building. The Dublin Airport Authority, formally Aer Rianta, is a commercial State agency. As such, the decisions arrived at are matters for the Cork Airport Authority. I understand that the Cork airport development project has an overall budget of approximately €160 million provided to it by the Dublin Airport Authority. It is a matter for the board of the Cork Airport Authority in consultation with the Dublin Airport Authority to make a decision as to how best to spend that money.

There is a definite issue that the more there is a trend towards low cost, fast turn around air travel and the lower prices welcomed by consumers, the greater the emphasis by all airlines, regardless of size, to sustain low price flights by getting aircraft in and out of airports as quickly as possible. I am pleased Aer Lingus counts as a big brother these days, that is a good thing in its own right. To be able to sustain low price flights, the emphasis for the airline is on getting aircraft in and out of airports as quickly as possible, with a 25 minute turn around. If a plane must connect to an air bridge it slows down turn around time. In many cities in Europe passengers disembark on landing and walk to the terminal building no matter what airline they are using. If the wider public desire for low cost air travel is to be realised there must be a fast turn around for aircraft. For that reason, Aer Lingus and Ryanair are not looking for air bridges.

Cork Airport Authority is looking at how to use the airport in future, including its potential for transatlantic flights. We want to think about the overall configuration of the terminal building and whether some air bridges would be appropriate to attract a wide range of potential customers and not just low cost carriers. That is a matter for the board to decide, it would not be appropriate for the Department to have a role in a commercial decision.

Deputy Dennehy

The Cork Airport Authority wants air bridges, as Mr. Joe Gantley said as late as last week. He wants them and it should not be the case that while Dublin Airport still has a grip on finances, it should be able to prevent Cork Airport from getting them. Using buses in sunnier climes is fine but it is not necessarily suitable for Cork.

For 20 years, because of the one way traffic system on Glanmire Road, every passenger going to Kent Station has had to travel seven eighths of a mile to get around the block to get to the entrance. This could be resolved by rotating the station but we have been told this massive project may depend on the sale of land at Horgan's Quay. I am involved with pushing for the Cork to Midleton line and the western link and I understood this could be done quickly. Recently, however, it was said the work will depend on the sale. Is the finance available separate from the sale of the land?

Ms O’Neill

Kent Station is a matter for CIE and Irish Rail. I spoke to Dr. John Lynch, chairman of CIE, about this issue some weeks ago and he is in discussions with the local authorities about making progress. It is in everyone's interest to see that valuable land developed. I passed through the station recently and I know what the Deputy means but this is in CIE's hands. CIE and Irish Rail receive funding from the State for specific purposes identified in the national development plan but CIE sits on a significant property bank and generates its own resources. In that context it is for the board of CIE to make a decision, in consultation with the local authorities, on how to unblock any blockages and move forward.

Deputy Dennehy

There seems to be a difference between the city manager and Dr. Lynch about what should go there but I am concerned about passengers. The bus station, DART and Luas in Dublin did not have to wait for land to be sold. It would not be good practice if Cork had to wait for land to be developed. That might be conveyed from the top of the Department. I am sure Ms O'Neill's word will count for more than mine.

Deputy Boyle

I am surprised that the Department does not insist on air bridges for international airports, particularly for passengers with disabilities. The idea of lifting people on and off aeroplanes, considering all the disability legislation, belongs in the past.

I am not sure about the reply that Aer Rianta is now the Dublin Airport Authority that delegates to the Cork Airport Authority in terms of this capital spend. I understand this capital expenditure is determined by the revenue that will be received after the development goes ahead. The airlines are determining if the air bridges will be put in place in Cork Airport but the Department has a role on a policy basis to determine that air bridges should be a feature of an international airport.

On the balance between road and public transport expenditure, there is an inconsistency in the prelude to making capital funding decisions in both areas. Any proposal for rail development seems to be accompanied by years of reports before any decision is made, as we heard in the Chamber this morning on the Navan railway line. Other decisions seems to be made readily without any reports being sought, such as the decision on the outer ring road beyond the M50. I have not heard any decision on that being dependent on resources or reports. Why does this inconsistency exist? Why are guidelines stricter for public transport than for road projects when public expenditure is involved?

Ms O’Neill

The legislation on State airports is clear that the responsibility for managing, planning and developing the airports rests with the airport authorities. It would not be appropriate for the Department to become involved in micro-managing the airport. We do not have the necessary expertise. I am not aware of any particular legislation on people with disabilities, although we have a general concern about it and I take the point that it would impact on the need for air bridges. Commercial State airports, however, must meet their expenditure from the revenues they generate through airport charges, which are paid by the airlines, and by commercial revenues. They must make the judgment. Dublin Airport Authority is bearing the cost of the terminal development, a significant cost, and it works closely with Cork Airport Authority, giving over the budget and letting the Cork Airport Authority decide how to spend it.

I want to dispel any impression that we take a more casual view of expenditure on roads than on public transport. We have established an investment monitoring unit in the Department that deals with both those aspects of investment and with investment in regional airports. We also have a cross-cutting team on capital appraisal that has been examining consistency in the approach used in all expenditure on transport. That group identified that there is already consistency in approaches adopted to the evaluation of projects before sanction is granted, whether they involve roads or public transport. In both cases, projects must go through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis before they are given the go ahead. The Navan rail line is far further on in terms of that process than the outer orbital route, which is simply a proposal which needs to be subject to the broad feasibility study and ultimately to in-depth cost-benefit analysis. No project can be funded by either CIE, RPA or the National Roads Authority until it has achieved a positive cost-benefit analysis at various stages.

The other point which I did not get a chance to finish with Deputy Joe Higgins is that sometimes there is a misperception that the only thing we do for public transport is provide the money spent directly on it while roads is about something else. There is no doubt roads investment is hugely important, for example, for the carriage of freight given that 90% of all goods in the country are carried by road. Therefore, roads investment is fundamental to underpinning the overall competitiveness of the economy. There is also the fact that roads investment is fundamental to the effective functioning of the bus network. The bus network is a significant part of a successful public transport provision, whether on the intercity routes or in the greater Dublin area. I have the figures somewhere for the number of passengers that Dublin Bus carries per annum, and it is very substantial. Getting our roads right is important for public transport, it is not a sine qua non.

From our point of view all projects go through a rigorous appraisal. We have had the strategic rail review which gives us a strategic framework for rail investment and we have had the national roads study, which gives us something similar for roads. Individual projects and a number of projects that did not make it through the strategic rail review, because there was not a justification at the time, have now surfaced as proposals again. We have said that where CIE, Irish Rail, local authorities can show there is a good business case for those investments we will do it. I point to one extremely good example, the Cork-Midleton line, which is the first new rail line that has been opened for some years. This is an example of where we are anxious and want to put investment into areas where there is good collaboration between local authorities and public transport providers to show how a project can be made work and made viable. We see Cork as a shining example of integrated transport development in action and the best in the country.

Deputy Boyle

That is in theory. The Secretary General should use the proper tense — when the line will be open. The line is not open and there is still a great deal of work to be done. The argument in regard to buses, particularly in the light of today's information that car sales have increased significantly, is meaningless if the ratio of additional road expenditure and new road provision is not matched by an increase in the bus fleet. If one is talking about the road network holding the same number of buses and providing the same level of service then it is clear that it is not benefiting from the additional road expenditure.

Ms O’Neill

Interestingly, it is, because the difference between the bus network in the greater Dublin area, where we are essentially dependent on public provision, is that the bus network outside the greater Dublin area, leaving aside the provincial cities — the intercity network — is essentially a commercial network. Therefore, there is a combination of provision by Bus Éireann and provision by private operators on those routes and significant growth in the level of that provision. Given that it is essentially a commercial market, we do not and cannot provide direct funding to Bus Éireann for buses on intercity routes, nor does the company require it because its concern is about a fleet for the outer suburban routes and for the provincial cities. As it is a competitive and a profit-making market we would be into State aids issues if we were to try to fund Bus Éireann while not funding the private sector. The reality is that there is significant growth in intercity traffic which is commercially viable. On those routes, Bus Éireann has increased peak capacity by 40% in all its main corridors into Dublin in recent years. There is a direct benefit in that area.

Deputy McGuinness

Is there an issue in regard to licensing buses in the private sector that serve Dublin and the service they provide to, say, Dublin Airport? Is there a difficulty within the Department in regard to the licensing system that does not allow them to get those licences? In reply to Deputy Boyle the Secretary General referred to joined up transport. Is that not a typical example of transport not being joined up?

Ms O’Neill

To clarify, what is the Deputy's specific concern about the Dublin Airport run?

Deputy McGuinness

For example, there are operators who have a difficulty in getting licences from the Department. They are serving rural locations and their service cannot be joined up, either because of the policy of the Department or something else. What is the reason for the blockage? Can the Secretary General say what is stopping them?

Ms O’Neill

That is helpful in clarifying the Deputy's concern. Yes, there is a difficulty. At present we are obliged to use the 1932 Act which is outdated legislation written for a different time and where the tests that need to be satisfied in order for a private sector operator to get a licence are limited in terms of the scope we have to award licences.

I accept the Deputy's point about the difficulties encountered by people and the difficulty in encouraging people to use public transport. It is not a clock-face service, meaning that services are run on the hour or every two hours at the same time every day. There will be a roll-on effect of the investment whereby Irish Rail will be able to take off the current rolling stock on the Cork line before the end of this year and put new stock on that line and run early services on it. This will have a ripple effect through the system. The current rolling stock can then be used to replace some of the older carriages on other routes. I expect that by 2007, the entire inter-city fleet will be less than three years old and the service will have developed dramatically.

The other point raised by the Deputy is at the heart of the kind of discussion taking place on the ten-year investment plan. It is one thing to have a good service from point A to point B; the critical issue to get right is that of the interchanges, such as the park and ride on the M50 at the outskirts where passengers can connect to public transport. The upgrade in the four-tracking of the Kildare line will have a dramatic impact in terms of the ability to run services in that direction south of Dublin. The improvement on the Gorey by-pass is on the agenda and this will further enhance the N11. Improvements are also under way on the N9. In the context of the ten-year plan the Department is putting a lot of thought into connectivity and how everything hangs together. The Deputy is correct; it is about facilitating people to drive from A to B, get a train at B, travel to the outskirts of Dublin or the centre of Dublin, change to a Luas or to a bus network. This is the sort of joined-up thinking that is required. This requires not only the right investment, which will be very significant, but also a concerted effort by all agencies to get their acts together both internally and with one another. There will be work to do on the institutional framework in order to put this in place.

Deputy McGuinness

In the context of expenditure and the reference to agencies coming together, I wonder about getting the Department's agents together. The questions about the Dublin to Waterford route cannot be asked locally because the Department's agents are the county councils in this case. They are the also the agents of the NRA. The system seems to be adding hugely to the cost of roads infrastructure throughout the country, as problems arise along that route. They never seem to be resolved in a sensible way and they become protracted.

I refer to the current expenditure on the design of the route from Dublin to Waterford. The Bennettsbridge community action group made submissions about a particular route and this committee studied the costings. An issue emerged between the Department and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources as to the cost of a particular mineral on one of the routes. It is now accepted that this route was shifted because of the demands being made on the Department by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. That Department was planning to claim the cost of the road structure from the Department of Transport because it would be near a quarry owned by the Department. This does not make sense, that one Department would claim off another and the people to suffer would be the community at large who accepted that the road was to be built but could not have an independent audit carried out on the mineral. The word of the large company involvedwas accepted. This will cause the Department of Transport further difficulty in the planning process.

I will give another example from that route which complicates life for both the Department and the local people. The construction of the road at Powerstown in Carlow includes a section which falls between two county councils. One lady whose house is due to be acquired must go through the CPO process in two counties, Kilkenny and Carlow. Another action she took against the local authority regarding a nearby dump remains unresolved which means she is involved in three processes in addition to dealing with the National Roads Authority. Is it notpossible to simplify the process by dealing with all matters at once? It is traumatic enough to lose one's house and complicated enough to deal with one agent of the NRA but to deal with two is incredible.

Expenditure on delivering the road will increase because of the manner in which issues of this nature are addressed. While the case I outlined is exceptional, many other issues have arisen on the route. Surely it is possible to be more efficient and protect expenditure.

Ms. O’Neill

A few points arise. The specifics of the case the Deputy outlined are a matter for which the NRA should account directly. I do not have details available to me. On the general points raised, which relate to the institutional structures for the delivery of the roads programme, the Deputy may recall from the discussion we had on foot of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that strengthening and developing the role of the NRA was one of the issues identified as requiring examination. The question is essentially whether the NRA should be turned into a delivery agency and not just a funding agency. The Deputy is correct that at present, it is a funding agency which works with local authorities. We have seen a number of examples of cases involving a number of different local authorities and the NRA. The question has arisen as to who is responsible and accountable for particular problems and whether this is the most streamlined, efficient way of doing business. I expect the Minister to bring proposals in the relatively near future to reform the NRA and its role and relationship with local authorities and address some of the issues the Deputy raised.

On the issue the Deputy raised concerning contacts with another Department, such matters do not only arise between the Department of Transport and other Departments. I am not aware of any specific engagement between my Department and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on the specific issue the Deputy mentioned. As he will be aware, this can happen from time to time. Even within my Department, CIE might take one view and the NRA another on certain issues. Clearly, each Government Department and agency is accountable and has responsibilities and resources, which it has a duty to protect to get the best decisions from its perspective.

The Department of Transport is trying to facilitate joined up thinking between the various agencies when blockages arise. We will look at this issue in terms of what sorts of institutional frameworks make most sense.

Deputy McGuinness

The lack of joined-up thinking in the two cases I raised is costing the State a great deal of money. I have made queries at local level and in this committee, given that a cost element arises, but it appears no one is obliged to give me an answer. If I was losing money in business due to an inefficiency I would correct it immediately. The Department is in a position to do something about at least one of the cases I raised, namely, the area around Powerstown, and should do so. On value of money grounds and to protect the Department's expenditure on the project, I ask that something be done to bring the different bodies involved in the case together to resolve the matter. The alternative is for the State to incur considerable costs in legal and other professional fees to solve the problem. It is unfair that one citizen must try to deal with two bodies, a local authority and the NRA, a body she regards as impossible to deal with. I ask Ms O'Neill to ensure I receive a response on this matter.

What penalties can the Department or the Department of Finance impose on a local authority which grossly overspends NRA funding in the delivery of a project? I appreciate the NRA is taking corrective measures to achieve greater value for money, better contracts and so forth. At a previous meeting I raised the cost of thePiltown-Fiddown bypass which exceeded the original cost estimate by more than 100%. A staggering amount of money was spent on a short road which regularly made national headlines because of the actions of the local community and a farmer involved in the matter. This year, the Department has allocated a further €1.7 million to the scheme for what are described as extra works and a retrofit. If the latter is required on a scheme which entered service only recently, it must raise questions about the manner in which it was designed in the first instance. Surely the Department must take corrective measures, whether with regard to the NRA or the local authority in question, to ensure this does not happen again.

An application has also been made for additional funds for a scheme which opened recently in the same county. The original cost estimate for that scheme, also a short stretch of road, was €2.5 million whereas the final cost was €4.132 million. The application is for a retrofit on the route for safety reasons. Contractors who do the job on time and provide value for money are to be given bonuses, which is great, but what are the penalties for authorities that overspend and require further funding? What is the Department of Finance's view? This does not appear to be good management of funds.

Ms. O’Neill

The retrofit on the Piltown-Fiddown road relates to a pilot being carried out by the National Roads Authority of the two plus one road type. This is a specific road safety measure.

Deputy McGuinness

The reason is that the design was wrong in the first place. I understand there have been between three and six fatalities on the route since it opened.

Ms. O’Neill

It might be more appropriate if the Deputy put some of his specific questions to the National Roads Authority the next time its representatives appear before the committee. The retrofit is part of a wider pilot of the two plus one approach which is examining whether it is worth experimenting with this particular road type. It has been used successfully in Sweden and appears to contribute to reducing road accident fatalities by up to 50%. The stretch of road mentioned by the Deputy has been selected for this purpose.

On the wider issue, it is a matter for the NRA to answer for the costings of specific cases. As the Comptroller and Auditor General will be aware, the NRA has worked hard to strengthen not only its cost estimation procedures but the controls it has in place with the local authorities. As I stated, the wider issue for the Department is about moving towards a new role for the NRA which avoids some of the issues raised by the Deputy in the future.

Ms Deirdre Hanlon

I will add to what Ms O'Neill has said. In general terms, the Department of Finance has provisions on the appraisal and management of capital projects. Members of the committee will be familiar with the guidelines for the appraisal and management of capital expenditure proposals in the public sector, a revised version of which issued in recent weeks, and a copy of which was sent to the committee. The guidelines set out the provisions under which Government Departments and agencies in receipt of funding are required to evaluate project proposals and manage projects and programmes. There are specific provisions laid down in the capital appraisal guidelines for the manner in which management should be carried out, including a new provision in the revised guidelines for regular programme level evaluation. This will apply to the programme of roads projects. The type of issue identified by the Deputy, to the extent it would present a problem, should emerge from such evaluations. We would see such issues then being dealt with and addressed in that context.

Deputy M. Smith

The number of schemes coming in ahead of time and on budget must be welcomed. I have benefited from two such projects. It was stated that in some of the older projects problems had led to excessive costs and delays but that this had been substantially corrected.

What is the Department's role in what can be considered controversial projects? We have a rich landscape with significant archaeological sites. One intersection on the M3 is situated close to the Tara site. While people speak only about the hilltop at Tara, the broader site must be taken into account as it has the potential to attract an enormous number of foreign tourists. Bearing in mind the history of certain projects that ran beyond the deadline and cost excessive amounts, what procedures are in place to resolve such controversies? If it was the witnesses' responsibility to resolve the problem with the M3 project, what would they do?

Ms O’Neill

Regarding the specific issues related to our archaeological heritage, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a legal responsibility under the National Monuments Act, of which he is availing in his consideration of the M3 and Waterford city bypass projects, in which archaeological issues have been identified.

It is important to distinguish between the role of the Department and the National Roads Authority. The Department's responsibility is to ensure the proper legal frameworks are in place to enable the National Roads Authority to do its job. It must give proper overarching guidance in policy terms to the authority on how to approach the job which the authority must interpret in specific circumstances. The Department is involved in a cost benefit analysis before projects get off the ground. We must ensure in the ex ante appraisal of projects that the analysis reflects particular environmental, ecological and archaeological concerns and other issues such as noise treatment. The authority makes this operational by developing specific guidance on the preparation of projects. It would be inappropriate for me to get into the specifics of the M3 project or other controversies.

The Deputy referred to the additional costs and the issues that arose in the construction of the south-eastern motorway at Carrickmines. The M3 project, for example, like other projects, was subject to a rigorous planning process which encompassed opportunities for public hearings and the right to appeal An Bord Pleanála's decisions to the courts. However, the Department's biggest problem arises when issues emerge after the event, when the National Roads Authority has put a project out to tender and project planning is well under way. In some cases this is due to archaeological finds such as the discovery in Waterford. In others, it arises because of wider concerns about project impact. It is clear that the authority, in making a judgment call about a particular route, must do so while balancing many factors, not just archaeological but also ecological as well as the impact on the built environment and noise pollution. Finding a pathway through is difficult.

As part of exercising our overall policy role, we work closely with our colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to see whether the legislative frameworks are sufficiently robust to handle the issues emerging due to a more intensified roads programme. The National Roads Authority has invested heavily in archaeology and is unearthing unexpected finds. However, in many cases the legislation was designed for a different era. We welcome the new powers for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under the National Monuments Act which allow him to examine projects. We continue to work with our colleagues in that Department in putting the right framework in place.

Ms O’Neill

As the Chairman is aware, discussions were under way on an EU-US bilateral agreement but those discussions stalled last year shortly before the change in the Commission. They are due to be resumed in the near future. We expect them to resume in the coming months.

From our point of view, in regard to the Ireland-US bilateral agreement, there may be a narrow window of opportunity in the short term in which it may be possible to enter into a revised bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow us to have certainty about the phasing out of the Shannon stopover at the same time as there would be the opportunity to increase the number of destinations to which Aer Lingus could fly within the United States. Discussions have been ongoing for some time with the United States authorities against the backdrop of the EU-US discussions. The discussions have continued in recent weeks, culminating in a meeting held here a few weeks ago with a United States delegation. It is a policy decision as to the stage at which we would bring the discussions to a conclusion.

My next question is local in character and I do not know if Ms O'Neill can answer it but she might be able to point me in the right direction. Part of my constituency covers Lucan in which Weston Aerodrome is located. Weston Aerodrome has been in place for many years and there has been much housing development around it as Lucan is probably the fastest growing part of the country in the past five or six years. At the same time, activity at the aerodrome has increased significantly and there is much local concern.

Last November, following an incident I had witnessed, I asked the Minister, Deputy Cullen, for a list of incidents which had occurred and which had been registered with the Irish Aviation Authority. The incident I witnessed occurred on 9 September last. The Minister listed five incidents in 2004 alone. I cannot say whether they were serious but last February an aeroplane's main rotor blade struck the ground. In April a take-off was abandoned due to power loss; in June, part of an aircraft struck the refuelling pumps; in August there was the loss of a tail rotor and in September an aircraft lost power in one engine as it came in over the Irish Sea and had to make an emergency landing. That was the incident I witnessed. Fortunately, there were no injuries in those cases.

Weston Aerodrome is mainly used as a flight school for light aircraft and helicopters. It is different from an airport where aircraft take off and leave. In many cases, aircraft take off, do manoeuvres, rotate and come back. There is much local concern about the increase in the level of activity. As a public representative, it is difficult to find out who is in charge. If there is an incident, we know where to go but who monitors the overall development and policy in respect of what happens at the aerodrome? While bearing in mind that it was a traditional aerodrome, much development has taken place in the meantime. As a public representative who has received queries from residents, I do not know where to go. The local authority is responsible for planning while the Irish Aviation Authority and the accident investigation unit are responsible for other areas. It is very fragmented.

I do not expect Ms O'Neill to be able to resolve the problem but who is responsible for co-ordinating a policy to review activities at Weston Aerodrome? Are they appropriate in the context of development in the area? It seems to be very fragmented and residents are concerned they are not getting straight answers. There is no problem getting an answer about an incident but who is responsible for the general policy?

Ms O’Neill

I cannot comment on the specifics. If I can get further information, I will come back to the Deputy. The Irish Aviation Authority is the appropriate first point of call in terms of its responsibility for licensing activities at a particular aerodrome. As the Deputy is aware, the air accident investigation unit is staffed by my staff who have a particular responsibility which they exercise extremely efficiently in investigating and reporting on incidents. In terms of ensuring a private aerodrome or airfield is in keeping with guidance on safety, licensing requirements and so on, the Irish Aviation Authority is the first point of call. Compliance with planning and so on also applies.

When the air accident investigation unit becomes aware of a specific issue which has arisen in Weston Aerodrome or wherever, it makes a formal report. I read all reports as they cross my desk. The unit does an excellent job. If it has specific recommendations to make, whether to the Irish Aviation Authority or anybody else, it does so. Its recommendations are followed up speedily.

Deputy Curran

Ms O'Neill might look at the issues I have raised and revert to me in due course. The aerodrome is developing and the concern is that there is no overall structure in respect of how it might be planned. One must bear in mind that the location is considerably different than when the aerodrome was originally established. One might argue that there should not have been housing constructed. However, the reality is that the environment has changed considerably. The five incidents logged in 2004 took place within close proximity of housing estates. That is the concern, that is, that the flight path runs directly over housing estates. Fortunately, there were no injuries but there is much concern about the activity.

Ms O’Neill

I will arrange for one of my staff on the aviation safety side to talk to the Deputy.

Deputy Curran

I thank Ms O'Neill.

Deputy J. Higgins

Ms O'Neill indicated that she was well aware of the problems relating to the M50. On tolling, did it ever occur to her to say to the Minister that a medieval practice which would have been fine in the Middle Ages, that is, the payment of a farthing to cross over London bridge, was responsible for the single biggest traffic barrier in Dublin and the State? Does it not beggar belief that the M50, from the West Link bridge to Ballymun and an equivalent distance on the opposite side of the bridge, is transformed into a car park each morning and evening?

Ms O’Neill

The matter of what causes the road to become a car park goes beyond the toll issue. There is no doubt, however, that the tolling arrangements are a contributory factor. The contract entered into with NTR does not date back to medieval times but it does date back to a time when the revenue available to the Exchequer to spend on infrastructure was much lower. In addition, the expected traffic volumes were very different from those we are now experiencing. When NTR entered into the contract, the traffic forecasts provided were not met for some years. At the time the company agreed to provide the bridge in return for the revenue from tolls for a considerable period. That is a locked-in contract. The new contracts into which we are entering in respect of PPPs are very different, particularly in terms of the revenue-sharing arrangements.

We are concerned about this issue. In the context of the M50 upgrade, the issue as to whether we should buy out the tolling arrangements has been raised and considered. The difficulty is that it would involve a considerable sum of money, perhaps of the order of €300 million or €400 million. In the light of the other issues relating to congestion that have to be addressed, the benefit to the travelling public would be potentially quite limited. The sum to which I refer would have to be appropriated from some other area within the roads programme and other projects would have to be deferred or delayed as a result.

The other issue is that the way in which we are funding phase 2 of the upgrade of the M50 is by securitising the income stream from the State share of the revenues from the tolls. Not only, therefore, would we have to appropriate between €300 million and €400 million from elsewhere, we would also lose out on the funding potential of phase 2 of the upgrade. This would mean that a further considerable sum, €600 million or €700 million, would have to be found from another source.

We are focused on recognising the nature of the problem and considering what will be necessary to resolve it. We must proceed with the M50 upgrade and in the context thereof — or, if possible, ahead of it — move as quickly as possible to barrier-free tolling. We must, therefore, use whatever leverage we have, through the NRA, with NTR to ensure this move takes place and make the necessary legislative changes to facilitate it. There is no doubt that removing the toll barriers, in conjunction with other parts of the upgrade to improve access, is the way to proceed.

Deputy J. Higgins

I represent the area adjacent to the West Link bridge and the problems to which it has given rise have taken such a toll on my patience and psyche that I will say no more about them. I will state, however, that those who entered into the contract could easily have predicted future rises in traffic levels — even if they did not foresee that they would reach today's levels — and provided therefor. We would, as a result, have been long rid of that private company.

Ms O’Neill

Hindsight is 20:20 vision. The Comptroller and Auditor General will investigate whether there is a case for a value for money examination of the contract entered into. To put the matter in context, when the bridge was opened in 1990, it was estimated that the average daily traffic volume would be 18,400 vehicles. The figure for 1991 was actually 11,500, considerably lower than the estimate. This soared to 78,000 in 2003. No one predicted what was going to happen in terms of the explosive increase in traffic volumes, part of which was related to the planning decisions made in respect of projects in the vicinity of the M50. I accept, however, that there are lessons to be learned. I would find it difficult to blame my predecessors for not having foreseen the dramatic expansion in traffic volumes. We have learned from what occurred, particularly the revenue-sharing arrangements we enter into. People thought those at NTR were mad at the time to take on the project.

Deputy J. Higgins

If Ms O'Neill's predecessors had spent time hanging around in the corridors of Dublin County Council in the 1980s, they might have seen what was coming down the line.

Deputy J. Higgins

The amount spent on road safety is infinitesimal when compared to that spent on roads. I put it to Garda representatives who appeared before the committee that a much more rigorous examination of crashes and the patterns involved should be undertaken in order that conclusions other than those usually arrived at in terms of reducing the number of accidents could be reached.

When will a decision be made by the Government on the future investment arrangements on the part of the State in Aer Lingus?

Ms O’Neill

I do not have a date. That is a matter for Government decision but it is one the Minister is anxious to bring to a conclusion speedily. Among other things, a recruitment process is underway for a new chief executive for Aer Lingus. That will probably come to a head within the next month. A new chief executive will want clarity — not necessarily a decision — before taking up the job regarding what kind of organisation he or she is taking over and what sources of investment might be available. It is imminent but it is a matter for Government to decide.

On the other issue mentioned by the Deputy, a considerable spend is not captured by my Vote such as significant expenditure by the Garda on road safety. The issue of obtaining more in-depth information on the causes of accidents is important. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is drafting a Bill to amend the Coroners Act and we are in dialogue with the Department about this.

As I mentioned the last time I appeared before the committee with regard to road safety issues, there is a problem obtaining the precise causes of death in accidents. This is sensitive coroners information and we do not have access to it because they are legal office holders. I agree this area needs to be strengthened.

Chairman

Is it agreed to note Vote 32? Agreed. I thank Ms O'Neill for her attendance and for being so forthcoming.

The committee adjourned at 2.35 p.m. until11 a.m. on Thursday, 10 March 2005.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht - Wednesday, 2 Mar 2005

Vote 32 — Transport.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Mr. David Hurley

Mr. John Purcell

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms. O’Neill

Ms. O’Neill

Ms. O’Neill

Ms Deirdre Hanlon

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms Hanlon

Ms Hanlon

Ms O’Neill

Ms Hanlon

Ms Hanlon

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 2005