COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 31 Jan 2008

Value for Money Report 56.

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

Chairman

I welcome everybody to the committee. As of 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. These rights include: the right to give evidence; the right to produce and 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 or 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, these rights may be exercised only with the consent of the committee. Persons invited before the committee are made aware of these rights and any person identified in the course of proceedings who is not present may have to be made aware of them 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 by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 158 that the committee should also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I welcome Ms Julie O'Neill, Secretary General of the Department of Transport, and invite her to introduce her officials.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I am accompanied by Mr. Dan Commane from the finance office and Mr. Eddie Burke from the integrated ticketing unit.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Frank Allen of the Railway Procurement Agency and ask him to introduce his delegation.

Mr. Frank Allen

I am accompanied by Mr. Tim Gaston, director, integrated ticketing project.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. David O'Callaghan, chairman, integrated ticketing project board, Mr. Joe Meagher, chief executive officer, Dublin Bus, and Mr. Fred Barry, chief executive officer, National Roads Authority. I ask Mr. Barry to introduce his delegation.

Mr. Fred Barry

I am accompanied by Mr. Hugh Creegan, head of operation of the PPP unit and Mr. Michael Egan, head of corporate affairs, National Roads Authority.

Chairman

I welcome Ms Deirdre Hanlon from the sectoral policy division of the Department of Finance and ask her to introduce her colleagues.

Ms Deirdre Hanlon

I am accompanied by Mr. David Denny also from the sectoral policy of the division who deals with administrative budgets.

Chairman

I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, to introduce Vote 32 — Department of Transport — and chapter 8.1 — integrated ticketing scheme update.

Chapter 8.1 of the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

8.1 Integrated Ticketing Scheme — Update

Background

I referred in my 2005 Report to the project being managed by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) to deliver a multi-operator system of integrated public transport ticketing using smartcard technology. It outlined concerns that the way in which the Integrated Ticketing System (ITS) project had been managed had led to a lack of progress, termination of the initial procurement phase and the incurring of substantial nugatory expenditure.In addressing these concerns the Accounting Officer detailed revised governance arrangements for the project, which were introduced in July 2006. The purpose of these arrangements was to ensure that the project progressed as expeditiously as possible and that the benefits of expenditure to date were realised

New Governance Arrangements

The new governance arrangements for the project comprised the following measures

•Establishment of a new high level project board, known as the Integrated Ticketing Project Board (ITPB), charged with the successful delivery of the smartcard technology required for an integrated ticketing system within an agreed specification, timeline and budget. The board to comprise an independent chairperson, the CEOs of the RPA, Dublin Bus, Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann, a representative of private bus operators, a senior Department of Transport official and, as appropriate, a senior official of the Department of Social and Family Affairs (DSFA).

•The ITPB, being accountable to the Minister for Transport, was required to formally report on progress to the Minister in September 2006 and every three months thereafter.

•The establishment of a project implementation team to report to the ITPB and be responsible for the day-to-day development and implementation of the project.

•Review and possible amendment to the mandate of the RPA and

•The establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority.

The integrated ticketing project is concerned with the delivery of one coherent system of integrated public transport ticketing involving various transport companies initially in the Greater Dublin Area. Accordingly, the enhanced governance structure for the project is designed to recognise the independent statutory roles of the various stakeholders while ensuring a single focal point for all key decisions in relation to the project. The structure is intended to be interim in nature pending changes in public transport institutional arrangements in the form of the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority.

Implementation of New Arrangements

I carried out a review of departmental papers relating to the project and confirmed with the Accounting Officer that the up-to-date position is as set out in Table 32.

Table 32 Progress on Implementing the New Governance Arrangements

Measure	Progress
New High-level Board (Integrated Ticketing Project Board, ITPB)	ITPB in place since July 2006 Includes CEOs of RPA, Dublin Bus, Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann, private bus operators’ representative, the Department and attendance as appropriate from DSFA First meeting 25 July 2006 ITPB has met at least once per month since
Progress reports to Minister for Transport	Appointed a professional advisor to provide independent expert technical support 3 reports to date (October 2006, December 2006 and May 2007)
Project Implementation Team (PIT)	A team, comprising representatives of all transport operator stakeholders, put in place.It generally meets fortnightly.Meetings take place with DSFA as required. The PIT reports to the ITPB and is responsible for the day-to-day management of the implementation process.
Review and possible amendment to mandate of RPA	The Department concluded that there was no need to amend the statutory basis for RPA’s functions pending the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority. The Department updated the RPA mandate, in April 2007 by issuing the document titled, ‘Policy Principles Regarding Integrated Ticketing’.
Establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority	The Minister has announced the intention to establish a Dublin Transport Authority on a statutory basis. Responsibility for integrated ticketing will be transferred to the new authority on its establishment.

Recommendation of the Second Report of the ITPB

The second ITPB progress report to the Minister in December 2006 detailed the revised project scope, timetable and budget. The scope of the project was defined to be all scheduled services of Dublin Bus, of LUAS and of a named private coach operator as well as all Iarnród Éireann DART and suburban commuter services, along with a Bus Éireann pilot route serving the greater Dublin area. It would also accommodate the free travel scheme funded by the DSFA by way of a link-up with that Department's Public Services Card initiative.

In regard to the completion timetable, the report envisaged that the ITS would be launched initially on the services of Dublin Bus, LUAS and the private coach operator within 27 months of the decision to proceed with the project (i.e. end August 2009). Full integration would be achieved within four years.

The Accounting Officer informed me that the expected capital cost of the project would be €49.6m, of which €11.2m represented costs incurred to end December 2006, primarily on design development. This increase from €29.6m is due to the longer implementation period from 2005 to 2010 and the associated price inflation, increased contributions to transport operators to reflect the cost of integration and to stimulate private sector bus operator involvement, and inclusion of the technical requirements for the ‘Free Travel' link-up with DSFA. The budget also includes increased provision for contingency.

The revised budget has been prepared on the basis of the best assessment of current market conditions. Final costs would not be known until tendering has taken place. The ITPB report provided a pre-tender estimate of the annual operating costs of the system and stated that the Project Board would consider the means by which these were to be met. The Department has decided that operating costs would not be borne by the Exchequer. It envisages that these costs will be met through savings accruing to transport operators from participation in the integrated ticketing scheme and an adjustment to fares, as appropriate, sufficient to off-set the net cost of operating the ITS.

Concerns Raised by the RPA

In February 2007 a new chairperson was appointed to the Board of the RPA as well as being nominated as chairperson designate of the proposed Dublin Transport Authority. The following month the Board of the RPA, having considered the second ITPB progress report, raised the following concerns with the Department

•The need for formal approval for the project by the Minister and by the respective stakeholder boards

•The RPA's perception of a lack clarity on the arrangements for project governance

•The risks posed by the development of interim schemes

•The need for the signing of binding Heads of Agreement by all participants

•Uncertainty as to who would bear the operating costs of the scheme.

In response to my enquiries, the Accounting Officer informed me that on 19 April 2007, following discussions with the Chairperson and Chief Executive of the RPA, the Department responded to these concerns by way of a Memorandum to the Chairperson of the ITPB and copied to the CEO of the RPA. The Memorandum addressed each of the issues raised by the RPA. The RPA Board subsequently confirmed that it considered that the issues had been addressed to its satisfaction or that steps were being taken to finalise them.

Interim Smartcard Schemes

The first report of the ITPB, in October 2006, indicated that the Board had agreed to Dublin Bus introducing an interim smartcard from late 2007 on the basis that it was consistent with making progress on the full scheme. In November 2006, Iarnród Éireann obtained ITPB approval to develop its own interim smartcard scheme. This scheme would include an electronic purse facility. Early in 2007, Dublin Bus informally raised with the ITPB the possibility of linking its interim smartcard with the existing Luas smartcard and the one being considered by Iarnród Éireann. In. The Departmental Memorandum of 19 April 2007 to the Chairperson of the ITPB addressed the RPAs's specific concerns regarding interim smartcard schemes.

On 30 April 2007, the Department wrote to both Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann in relation to interim smartcard schemes informing them that

•The ITS should be the sole integrated ticketing mechanism for public transport ticketing

•There should be no initiatives on linking their interim schemes

•There should be no further enhancements of smartcard schemes without the approval of the ITPB and the Department.

In a letter to the Department on 15 May 2007, the Chief Executive of Dublin Bus reiterated his belief that " ....we need to look seriously at developing bus/rail and bus/Luas smartcards". He also pointed out that in due course there would be four smartcards in operation " the two existing Luas and the Private Operator's Cards with Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann cards yet to be introduced. He suggested that " ... we should be exploring ways of offering combined products on these cards which will fit in with the ultimate development of the ITS to which everybody is committed."

The Department, in a high-level consideration of the pros and cons of this suggestion, stated, at the outset, that the integrated ticketing system needs to have the capability in the future to accommodate public transport operators outside Dublin, meet competition law requirements, facilitate various fare systems and act as a trusted agent of an independent transport authority. The Department noted that, in facilitating implementation of the full ITS, the approach informally suggested by Dublin Bus could, inter alia, deliver a measure of smartcard based integrated ticketing somewhat quicker than the full ITS and would cover approximately 95% of the current public transport market in Dublin for a marginal additional capital cost. Alternatively, if linking the interim schemes resulted in it being an alternative to the full ITS such a link-up would result in limited smartcard based integrated ticketing at a preliminary estimated cost of between €4m — €5m; would be operator driven resulting in appropriately pitched ticket products; and the costs of operating the system may be absorbed by the operators.

On the other hand, the Department considered that any further enhancements to interim schemes could increase the risk to the delivery of the overall ITS project. Both the Department and the RPA considered that linking interim systems could potentially delay the implementation of the full scheme; lead to confusion in the market place; divert scarce professional resources and result in some nugatory expenditure.

The Department also had to consider the possibility that the linking of the interim smartcard schemes would be seen as an alternative to the full ITS. In this scenario, the Department had even more fundamental concerns that the suggestion would potentially reinforce the dominance of the large (State) operators and raise problems from a competition perspective; be a closed technical platform not accessible to all parties; be at variance with the proposed requirements of the Dublin Transportation Authority in relation to fares, information and transport integration; be of no value to passengers who need to interchange between private bus and State operated services and would not be extendable to the rest of the State. Furthermore it would not contain an electronic purse resulting in a lower passenger take-up; have limited linkages to the DSFA Free Travel Scheme and question the reputation of the Department and the RPA.

In conclusion, the Department was firmly of the view that the ITS now proposed by the ITPB is the system that meets the Department's policy requirements and would complement roll-out of the public transport infrastructure under Transport 21, while being sufficiently neutral from a technical perspective to facilitate future decisions of the Dublin Transport Authority in relation to transport integration, fares policy, information provision and market regulation. The Dublin Bus proposal would not achieve this and, while, on the face of it had some short-term merit, it raised additional risks as regards timeliness, costs and technical resources.

The Department considered that the possibility of linking the interim schemes had moved on and was not now as topical an issue as had been considered at the time. Commitments by Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann to the full ITS had alleviated its concerns.

Project Approval

In May 2007, the Department made the case, which it regarded as compelling, to the Department of Finance for investment in a smartcard based integrated ticketing system and sought sanction for the revised budget of €49.6m. In making its proposal, the Department stated that it was firmly of the view that the implementation of the Integrated Ticketing Project would significantly enhance the attractiveness of the public transport infrastructure and services being rolled out under Transport 21 and would contribute to the achievement of wider Government policy in relation to transport and sustainability. The Department also stated that the financial case for the project was supported by both the updated financial analysis undertaken by the independent Technical Advisor and the outline business case prepared by the Project Director. These appraisals indicated that there was a positive Net Present Value for the project.

The Department of Finance sanctioned the proposal, subject to the following conditions

•The Department of Transport would continue to fully adhere to the Guidelines for the Appraisal and Management of Capital Expenditure in the Public Sector in respect of evaluation and management of the project, and would reappraise the project in the event that outturn costs were likely to increase or there was any reason to believe that the project benefits would not materialise.

•The capital cost of the project, including agreed contributions to the stakeholder companies and the cost associated with incorporating the Free Travel Scheme, would not exceed €49.6m.

•The full capital cost would be met from within the Transport 21 financial envelope.

•The ongoing current costs of the project would be met by the transport operator companies and not, in any form, by the Exchequer.

In conveying its approval for the project to the ITPB the Department attached additional conditions

•Each stakeholder company was directly responsible for delivery of its element of the overall system in line with the agreed management and monitoring framework for the project.

•The focus of the ITPB and the stakeholder companies should now be on delivery of the integrated ticketing system as set out in the Board's Second Report.

•The ITPB and the stakeholder companies should comply with Department policy in relation to interim smartcard schemes and their migration to the ITS as soon as practicable after its establishment.

•The ITPB should ensure that the costs associated with integrating the ticketing schemes of Bus Éireann's pilot project, and of Iarnród Éireann's greater Dublin area network, with the ITS are finalised as soon as possible.

•The ITPB should develop a detailed implementation plan setting out precisely how integrating ticketing is to be delivered within the committed timescales.

•A Heads of Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding between the stakeholders should be completed before substantive contractual arrangements arising from the ‘build' procurement are concluded.

On 27 June 2007, a tender notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities to secure a supplier to develop, supply, test and integrate the complete back office and associated interfaces for the ITS. The date for submission of responses to the pre-qualifying stage is 30 July 2007.

The Accounting Officer informed me that the Department had introduced new monitoring and reporting arrangements in accordance with the Capital Appraisal Guidelines to reflect the revised governance arrangements now in place and the renewed emphasis on the delivery of the integrated ticketing project. A new Monitoring Committee, comprising the Department, the Project Board Chairperson, Project Director and others as appropriate was established. The first meeting of this Committee took place on 10 July. While the focus would be on delivery within the agreed programme and capital budget, if, at any stage, it appeared that outturn costs were likely to increase or that the expected benefits might not materialise, the Department would immediately undertake a reappraisal of this project.

Mr. John Purcell

My introductory remarks concern the integrated ticketing scheme, the driver-testing service and the Department of Transport Vote.

I originally drew attention to problems with the development of the integrated ticketing system in my 2005 annual report. At the time, there had been shortcomings in the governance and management of the project which had led to a lack of progress, the initial procurement phase had been a failure and substantial unproductive expenditure had been incurred.

A major source of difficulty at the time had been the lack of buy-in to the concept by some main stakeholders. The original plan prepared by the Railway Procurement Agency when the project began in 2002 was that it would be delivered in 2005 at the cost of €29.6 million. However, by 2006 it had become clear that both the timetable and the estimated costs were unrealistic. The Department commissioned a review of the project in 2006 and a resultant report recommended proceeding with the project, stating that with firmer governance the project could be kept on time and budget.

The Department acted on the report and a new high level project board was established in July 2006, charged with successful implementation of the smart-card technology required to deliver an integrated ticketing system within an agreed specification, timeline and budget.

A new maximum budget for the project was set at €49.6 million with the first use of integrated ticketing scheduled for late 2009 in the Dublin area. The chapter in my 2006 annual report records how matters are progressing.

The new governance arrangements seem to be working well and the main stakeholders are committed to the project. The revised budget figure holds for the moment but this may change when the main tender processes are completed and we have a better handle on the operators' integration costs. The first large procurement is the contract for the back-office system which is expected to be finalised by March 2008. The second will be for a business to operate the scheme, due to be completed in early 2009. Responsibility for delivering the scheme will pass from the RPA to the Dublin transport authority, once that body has been established.

In 2000, I published a value for money report on the driver-testing service. In my special report on improving performance, issued last year, I reviewed the extent to which the shortcomings identified had been addressed in the interim. The driver-testing service came under the then Department of the Environment and Local Government when I carried out the original examination. It was subsequently transferred to the Department of Transport in 2002. From September 2006, the newly established Road Safety Authority took over responsibility for the operation of the service. That authority functions under the aegis of the Department of Transport.

The updated findings of the follow-up report showed that while the number awaiting tests at the end of 2007 had more than doubled since 1998, to approximately 180,000, the average waiting time was down from 30 weeks to 19 weeks. The increase in the number of waiting tests is mainly attributable to the announced change in the conditions attached to drivers on second provisional licences and the promised higher levels of enforcement of the law. The Road Safety Authority expects to provide for 430,000 tests in 2008 as against 203,000 in 2007. It is intended many of these tests will be carried out by a contracted firm. If this level of testing is achieved, it should make serious inroads into the test backlog and significantly reduce waiting times.

The other main finding in the original report related to a lack of uniformity in the pass rate between centres. The average pass rate in 2000 was 57% but this stood at 53% in October 2007. However, within that average, it is interesting to note that the highest pass rate was in Birr, at 67%, while the lowest is in Carlow, at 39%. This may go some way in explaining why the waiting list in Birr is going up while going down in Carlow. The wide variation suggests there is still a problem in achieving consistency and assessing candidates' driving skills. The Road Safety Authority is formulating proposals to address this problem.

Over €2.4 billion was expended in the year by the Transport Vote, the lion's share, €1.65 billion, going on the roads programme. Most of the rest of the Estimate provision went on public transport, €670 million or so. There was a considerable underspend on the public transport investment programme, even after taking into account the reduction of €101 million in the provision for the programme by way of Supplementary Estimate. On the income side, the largest receipt is the €18.5 million from National Toll Roads.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Purcell.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Regarding the general background to the Department of Transport's appropriation account for 2006, during the year there was considerable organisational change in the Department aimed at improving and integrating the delivery of transport policy.

At the beginning of the year the Department took over responsibility for maritime transport functions, including maritime safety, from the former Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. In September, the establishment of the Road Safety Authority brought together a range of road safety related functions, including many formerly undertaken by the Department, each with a specific contribution to make towards improving road safety.

The year also saw further tangible progress in delivering new transport infrastructure under the framework of Transport 21, with the Department being responsible for a total budget of just under €2.5 billion, the bulk of which was spent on investment in transport infrastructure.

Total expenditure on Transport 21 in 2006 was just €2.1 billion. Over €350 million was spent on public transport capital investment projects. Some of the highlights included €77 million spent on the purchase of new rolling stock for CIE, €100 million on rail safety and €10.5 million on the upgrade of the DART as well as €4 million on the Docklands station which opened in March 2007 ahead of schedule and under budget. This ongoing capital investment in the railway system has led to strong growth in passenger carryings with a 14% increase in 2006 to over 43 million and a further 8% increase in 2007 to a total of 47 million. In 2006, €25 million went towards additional buses for Dublin Bus.

Luas carried 25.8 million passengers in 2006, an increase of 16% on the previous year. There was a further 10% growth on the system last year with 28.4 million passenger trips meaning passenger numbers have grown by over 6 million in just two years. This success shows the public appetite for high quality, reliable and frequent public transport services. Building on the success of Luas, two public inquiries for the Luas extensions to Cherrywood and the Docklands were held in 2006, both of which were granted railway orders. Work is well under way on these two Luas extensions.

The route for the flagship metro north project was selected in 2006 following extensive public consultation and the Railway Procurement Agency will be in a position to lodge an application with An Bord Pleanála for a railway order in the coming months.

Progress on the national roads programme, as noted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, was ahead of expectations. Total expenditure was €1.7 billion, some €90 million ahead of target. A total of 14 projects were completed, mostly ahead of time, on time and within budget. Construction work commenced on 11 projects and continued on ten others. Certain elements of the national roads programme were accelerated during 2006, in particular the start of construction on the N8 Cashel to Mitchelstown project and land acquisition for several schemes. These successes reflect once again the improved project management, cost estimation and control arrangements put in place in recent years by the NRA.

With this unprecedented level of investment there is a requirement for the monitoring arrangements supporting Transport 21 to be sufficiently robust to ensure that the projects and programmes funded under it are being carefully monitored and providing value for money at all times — and that the projects are being appraised and implemented in line with best practice and Government guidelines. Structures were developed during 2006 to provide the required assurance. A new division was established in the Department with overall responsibility for monitoring, oversight, audit and communication of the Transport 21 investment programme. An interdepartmental monitoring group comprising representatives of Departments was also established. The group is assisted by chief executives of the State agencies and is responsible for monitoring the overall implementation of projects and programmes as well as for the review of progress. It also oversees and approves the annual audit programme and submits an annual progress report to the Government. An internal programme board was also established by the Department. This is responsible for the management of the capital envelope for Transport 21 and deals with cross-cutting issues as regards the investment programme.

Having referred to some of the large infrastructural projects successfully implemented during 2006, I will now deal with the integrated ticketing scheme. When I last met the committee to discuss the project, in early October 2006, the new integrated ticketing project board had been established for some three months and its first report to the Minister was imminent. That report was received a few days after the committee meeting.

I take this opportunity to thank the board's chairman, Mr. David O'Callaghan, for the great contribution he has made to the project since he took up his appointment in June 2006. The chairman advised the Minister, in the report, that the project board was working well. All members of the board had agreed the technical approach to introduce integrated ticketing and were committed to delivering on the mandate given to them by the Minister. A second report, in December that year, set out the recommended scope, budget and timelines for the delivery of the project. The board agreed that the integrated ticketing system would be launched on services of Dublin Bus, Luas and Morton's coaches within 27 months of the decision to proceed with the project, and then be rolled out within the following 12 months to include Irish Rail, DART and suburban services as well as other private bus operators, as appropriate, and a pilot study on some Bus Éireann services. Prior to the receipt of formal tenders, the expected capital cost of the integrated ticketing system was estimated by the project board to be no more than €49.6 million and the reasons for the increase in the budget are set out in the Comptroller and Auditor General's update.

In May 2007 the Department of Finance gave its revised sanction for the project. In doing so, the Department reiterated that it was favourably disposed towards the merits of the project, particularly in light of the very substantial Exchequer investment now agreed for public transport under Transport 21. On 1 June 2007 the Department authorised the project board to proceed with the implementation of the project in line with the agreed approach. The focus of the project board immediately changed from one of review and development to one of project implementation. Later that month the project board commenced the EU public procurement process to seek a supplier to build the back office for the integrated ticketing system. In October, the chairman informed the Minister that the project board had agreed a memorandum of understanding setting out the roles, responsibilities, actions and commitments of each of the participants for the effective delivery of the integrated ticketing project. In December, the Department of Social and Family Affairs issued its procurement notice for the public services card, PSC. In line with the agreement reached with the project board, the PSC will accept the integrated ticketing application and therefore allow free travel recipients to avail of integrated ticketing in the greater Dublin area. I understand the Department of Social and Family Affairs expects to start issuing these cards later in the year.

Tenders for the back office and associated systems were received in December and are currently being evaluated. A contract is expected to be awarded by the end of March. The project team will immediately move to commence the EU public procurement process for a contractor to operate the system. That contract will be awarded early in 2009 and the initial roll out of the system will commence a few months later, in September 2009. In the meantime, Dublin Bus will launch its interim smart card scheme in summer 2008. Irish Rail will follow suit with its interim scheme in 2009. These interim smart cards will begin the process of replacing magnetic strip technology on buses and trains and enable bus and train customers to familiarise themselves with smart cards. The progressive roll out of smart cards is in line with good international practice. Both of these systems, along with the smart card system already in place on Luas and Morton services, will migrate to the overarching integrated ticketing system, on its establishment.

An integrated ticketing system for the Dublin area is long overdue. It is important, however, that it is established and rolled out in a manner that is effective and makes it immediately attractive to public transport users. The work of the project board is moving us towards this objective. All five of the board's reports to date are characterised by a consensus approach being adopted by board members through progressive actions and decisions in agreeing, developing and implementing the various aspects of the project. The timeframe for its commencement, September 2009, is a realistic and challenging assessment, based on their best judgment and experience, taking into account the process that must be taken to reach the objective. Overall, I am satisfied that the new governance arrangements are working effectively. I am aware from my Department's monitoring role, and from the chairman, that the project is currently progressing in line with the agreed timelines and budget. However, in a project involving numerous organisations, where there are many business and technical complexities, there are and will continue to be difficulties that will pose challenges for all the participants in delivering on the agreed programme. This has been the experience internationally. Experience to date indicates that the project board is working well and in a manner that allows it to meet the challenges as they arise.

I will touch briefly on the reference the Comptroller and Auditor General made to the public service case study on driver testing. In the relevant chapter he identified a number of practices that added to the cost of the driver testing service. Following negotiations at the Labour Relations Commission, an agreement was reached with testers in early 2007 to discontinue certain practices that impacted on maximising output and which represented the major constraints in delivering efficiencies. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, the Road Safety Authority has made a major impact on driver testing since its establishment in September 2006, particularly as regards addressing the surge in applications late last year. Central to this is the delivery of extra tests by the outsourced test provider, SGS Limited, which will increase its staff from 37 to 158 by the end of March. The RSA is putting the necessary resources in place to deliver 430,000 tests during 2008, an unprecedented level of activity, more than double the capacity achieved in 2007. It is still our target to have all 122,000 on the waiting list at the end of October 2007, tested by early March 2008 — and by the end of June all driving test applicants should be able to get a test on demand, that is, within ten weeks.

I have a reference to the consultancies issue and to the Westlink M50 barrier tolling which the Chairman indicated to me he might want to raise. In the interests of time, however, perhaps the committee might take those matters as read and we can move on to questions.

Chairman

I thank Ms O'Neill. Does the committee have permission to publish the statement?

Ms Julie O’Neill

It does.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I welcome Ms O'Neill and the other guests. I will start with the issue of integrated ticketing and the long-running saga associated with it. This project started in 2002 with an estimated cost of €30 million. We were told at that stage that it would take four years. The latest information is that the cost is estimated to reach €50 million and it will take 12 years. I should like Ms O'Neill to first of all provide a breakdown of the additional costs of €20 million. How robust is that estimate, given that the earlier figure of €30 million was somewhat off the mark?

Ms Julie O’Neill

When I last appeared before the committee, I was extremely concerned at the state of development that integrated ticketing was at and whether it was possible to get all the players together and deliver a project of this complexity — coming from the base we were, here in Dublin, where there was no history of integrated ticketing. The Deputy will be aware, as is the Comptroller and Auditor General, that we stopped the project in 2005 when the procurement process failed. I was Accounting Officer at the time and was prepared to recommend to the Minister and the Department of Finance that we should not proceed with the project unless we could get robust costings for it, a deliverable timeline and a realistic project plan. Several reviews were undertaken, by MVA, and we have also participated fully in a peer review process. That process led to the revised timeline and the revised budget for the project.

In terms of the elements of the revised budget for the project, a number of factors contributed to the increase. When a project takes longer and there is associated price inflation, this makes a contribution to the increase in costs. In addition, a number of decisions were taken. One was to increase the contributions to transport operators to adapt their equipment to allow their participation in the scheme. A second element involved the Department of Social and Family Affairs. For the integrated ticketing project to be fully credible, we felt it would have to have a link-up with the free travel card and costs are associated with that. There is a contribution for the equipment of the private bus operators and for public transport operators' costs associated with the roll out of the project, and we also increased the contingency provision. Mr. David O'Callaghan, as chairman of the integrated ticketing project board, may wish to add further comments in this regard. I would be happy for him to do so.

I was asked about my confidence in the budget and the timeline. For a project of this nature, everything possible is done at the outset to establish what is a robust budget and a robust timeline. Having examined the experience in many other countries, I have no doubt the timeline is challenging. When one sees the project deliverables in other countries, one does not see the enormous work that went on behind the scenes over many years to get to that point. Unlike other countries, which in many cases have been upgrading an already integrated ticketing system into a smart card system, our difficulty is that we are going through several steps at once. The targets are challenging but achievable.

On the budget, the Comptroller and Auditor General picked up on the point that what we tried to scope was the pre-tender price. A point that is always an issue for me is that the more one talks about a budget in advance and the more information one puts into the public domain, the more one is inclined to increase the expectations of the bidders for the project. A tender process is under way at present, in which there will be fairly tough negotiations with the various bidders for the back office operation, so I am loath to go further at this stage, save to say that it is a pre-tender price and the best price the project could arrive at. Perhaps the chairman would like to add to that.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

We can leave that until later. It is difficult to understand how it could possibly take 12 years to introduce an integrated ticketing scheme. We accept it is a complex process but this is a small country. Whatever other city or country one visits, they all have integrated ticketing schemes. It is not rocket science. For example, London has a population of 10 million people and perhaps 20 million visitors annually, yet it has an Oyster card that can be used on every mode of transport and is extremely flexible. When it was introduced, I understand the lead-in time was much less than 12 years and it was done on a far greater scale than anything we are trying to do in Dublin or the country generally. It is difficult to understand how it could take 12 years.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out, there have been serious issues in regard to governance in this area. Initially, it would seem, the Department of Transport made the mistake of trying to deal with this project at arm's length by passing it to the RPA to deal with, which, as we know, was a fiasco in anybody's terms. Does Ms O'Neill accept there are ongoing issues in regard to governance? The Department, which is the only body in the transport area that has the power to knock heads together, which is what needs to be done with the various transport providers to reach agreement on this and create a single system, has been taking a back seat. This is part of the reason for this delay.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I can honestly say that of all of the projects in my portfolio, this is the one to which I have probably given most personal time as Secretary General of the Department. That is a reflection of the complexities and difficulties associated with a project like this. I wish it were not so because it is a relatively small project in terms of the actual cost relative to my overall programme, but it is an extremely important project in terms of its impact.

The Deputy asked about the issues and concerns in terms of how this was handled in the past. I would be the first to admit that when we examined the project and the reason the procurement process had not worked in 2005, we identified that there were governance issues at that stage — this view is shared by everybody who has examined it. The fundamental issue was that what was seen to be, as the Deputy put it, a relatively straightforward technical project that should have been possible to deliver in a relatively straightforward manner was far from that. The issues were not technical issues and were not about the robustness of the technical solution; there were quite significant strategic and policy issues for all the players involved in the market and the delivery of public transport services. When I undertook a close examination of the project at that stage, I found that many able and well-qualified technical people were engaged in trying to tease out technical aspects of the project but we did not have an arrangement in place for a detailed engagement at the highest level of the chief executives of the agencies involved.

When this problem emerged in 2005, we first engaged in a tripartite process involving the various agencies, in particular Dublin Bus, the RPA and the Department, to try to resolve some of the underlying issues. Then, on the very best advice from the peer review process and from the review carried out, we identified a governance structure that was suitable, which involved asking Mr. David O'Callaghan to take on the role as chair of the integrated ticketing project board. We also put in place a monitoring committee in the Department. We have made clear at all times that our intention is that when a Dublin transport authority is established, it will take on the role. This is clearly a policy matter which it would not be appropriate for me to go into in detail.

I was asked whether I was satisfied that the governance in place is robust. It is the appropriate governance arrangement at this stage. Mr. Eddie Burke, my assistant principal, and Andy Cullen, the assistant secretary with responsibility for that area, continue to give much of their personal time to the project, as I do. This is not a reflection of bad will, lack of collaboration or commitment; it is because of the inherent difficulties. The chairman is to be complimented on his superb effort in building consensus among all the players who, for genuine commercial reasons, have disparate views on the matters involved.

The Deputy referred to the position in other countries. My understanding is that the overall approach in London goes back nearly 17 years. These projects do not emerge overnight. The timeline for putting in place the technical solution, which was set by the project board at 27 months from the point where the project had the go-ahead, is very tight. Others may want to comment on this as they have greater technical expertise. However, we had a project that was in crisis to the point where there was a real question about whether we should even attempt to proceed, whereas it is now at a point where there is a robust project plan and very intensive engagement by all the players at the most senior levels. The fact that two chief executives of my State agencies are here with me today is evidence of this and they can vouch for the time they have put into this. We have unblocked the blockages and we are moving ahead and delivering on the project.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

As the funder of all the transport agencies, the Department of Transport would be the obvious body to steer and drive this project because it is in a position to insist on co-operation if that was a problem along the way. Part of the new governance arrangements that were put in place in September 2006 was that there was to be a report to the Minister from the new board on a three-monthly basis from September 2006. How many reports have been made? Has the board been keeping to the three-monthly promise?

Ms Julie O’Neill

The sixth is due shortly, when it is cleared by the project board. In addition, the chairman has met the Minister.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

To pursue the issue of governance a little further, if the Department were not taking responsibility for it, there is, by all accounts, an urgent need for a transport authority, which has been promised for a very long time. Does Ms O'Neill accept that part of the reason for the debacle in regard to integrated ticketing is that we do not have such an authority? What is the reason for the delay in bringing forward the legislation on that authority?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I would not accept it was a debacle. It was a project that ran into difficulties. With the great benefit of hindsight, those difficulties were identifiable and understandable. It is not necessarily appropriate that a policy Department such as the Department of Transport should in a hands-on way try to steer projects of this sort because that is not where our expertise rests. As far as possible, I want our agencies to work together in a collaborative way, which is why the structure we put in place is the appropriate one.

We all agree it would be helpful to have a Dublin transport authority in place. The legislation on that is close to final draft. On his appointment as Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey sought to review the legislation, which was in draft form on the change of Government, because he wished to strengthen many of its provisions. He intends to ensure that on its establishment, a Dublin transport authority will have the necessary powers and capabilities to tackle the major challenges that must be faced in the coming years in the greater Dublin area. I refer both to the roll-out of a massive increase in public transport infrastructure and a highly significant ramping up of public transport services.

It is also worth stating that a complaint was made to the European Commission querying whether there was a state aid element to the subvention paid to the CIE companies. This complaint, coupled with a new public service obligation, PSO, directive that has been agreed on and will come into force shortly, meant the new Attorney General felt it was essential to proof the Dublin transport authority Bill against the new regulation to ensure it was fully compliant with the latter and would deal with any concerns that were likely to emerge from the PSO review. While there were good reasons for the delay, I hope and expect the Bill to be published and brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas at some time in the coming months.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I thank Ms O'Neill. I will move on to the driver testing service. In the past three or four years, the then Minister, Deputy Martin Cullen, promised that the waiting times for driving tests would have fallen to eight weeks by mid-2007. Given the estimation system that was employed, a number of Members did not accept this. It is now known that the current average waiting time is 19 weeks, although it varies widely. I understand that Clifden's waiting time of 40 weeks is the longest at present but many test centres have waiting times of more than six months, which is a far cry from what was promised. Why did it go wrong? Why were the set targets promised by the Minister not met?

Ms Julie O’Neill

One should reconsider the situation at the time of the Department of Transport's formation, which took place after the Comptroller and Auditor General's first report. At that time, the driver testing service was part of the Department of Transport and we were unable to ramp up the service in respect of the number of tests that could be provided because of constraints arising from Government policy on staff numbers and recruitment. At that stage, we had no agreement with the driver testers on the outsourcing of any tests and had all the constraints that arise when trying to deliver such a service through a Department.

When considering how to approach this issue, essentially we took two tacks. First, we recognised that we needed a road safety authority with responsibility for the full range of road safety functions. I hope members from all parties will agree that the Road Safety Authority has hit the ground running and has been highly active in recent months since its establishment in addressing the many challenges in the road safety area. At the same time, we engaged in protracted negotiations with the driver testers who then were under the auspices of the Department, under the terms of Sustaining Progress. The negotiations went right to the wire in respect of the Labour Relations Commission and the appeals mechanisms under Sustaining Progress. Ultimately, with the driver testers' goodwill, we reached an agreement that allowed for the outsourcing of a block of tests. At that point, that block of tests was sufficient to reduce the existing backlog to manageable proportions.

I refer to an issue about which we all have been concerned from a road safety and public policy perspective, namely, as matters stand, approximately 427,000 people hold provisional licences, of whom approximately 120,000 are on their second provisional licences. At any one time, a significant number of people will hold provisional licences. At present, 200,000 people hold their first learner permit or provisional licence. This is normal in a scenario in which the number of cars on our roads and the number of people who choose to drive have increased significantly. However, the persistent manner in which many people hold second or subsequent provisional licences for a long time does not constitute good road safety practice.

It was for this reason the Road Safety Authority made a recommendation, which was accepted by the Minister, to move to make it a requirement that everyone on a provisional licence would be accompanied and to introduce a learner permit with all the associated implications. It is well known that this had the impact of swelling significantly the number of applications. It is quite clear to us that it is not simply a matter of eliminating the backlog of applications in the system at any one time. It also pertains to reducing the numbers of people who persistently drive on second or subsequent provisional licences.

The Road Safety Authority, with financial support from the Department, has been highly successful in creating mechanisms to ramp up significantly the capacity for driver testing in the current year to 430,000 tests. This constitutes a substantial number of tests in comparison with anything that has been achieved historically. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the authority also has agreed changes with the driver testers in respect of the latter's productivity and arrangements. It is clear, as I believe the Comptroller and Auditor General has acknowledged, that the backlog must be taken out of the system, after which a steady state will obtain. There always will be a waiting list and obviously the higher the volume of applicants, the longer will be the waiting list but it will be possible to reduce it to an average of ten weeks, which experience shows is what people want. When people are offered tests any sooner they are inclined to become slightly panicked because they have not had time to undergo their training.

We have two historical problems, one of which is related to an inability to ramp up to address an increase in demand, while the other is related to the number of people who are dependent on second or subsequent provisional licences. The way to deal with this is to provide a once-off highly significant injection in capacity. Thereafter, when the backlog has been eliminated, one should reach a point at which one's core staff and the greater productivity therefrom have the capacity to meet the ongoing demand. The Road Safety Authority is doing some further work on researching the underlying ongoing demand and the number of tests.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I thank Ms O'Neill. Some people are of the view that there is too much concentration on the backlog and that the underlying ongoing demand for tests goes unrecognised. It could be argued that we never have had a sufficient number of driver testers. With up-to-date census figures and so on, we know the rate of car ownership, which is likely to rise. More young people are driving and when one factors in a commitment to eliminate the practice of driving unaccompanied--

Ms Julie O’Neill

Absolutely.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

--it appears as though the manner in which the Department has estimated the level of demand for tests is faulty in some way as it never has been in a position in recent years to even come close to meeting that demand. I wished to make that point.

I will move on to the question of wide variations in the pass rate.

Chairman

We must move on to the next questioner.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Have I exceeded 20 minutes?

Chairman

The Deputy has gone well over it.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I do not believe I have. I thought I began at 11 a.m.

Chairman

It was 10.57 a.m. The Deputy should carry on for two minutes.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I have two minutes. I refer to the wide variation in the pass rate, which ranges from 43% in Kilkenny to more than 64% in Buncrana. The Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention to this issue previously. I also note that since the advent of private testing, an even wider variation has emerged between private and public tests. The pass rate appears to be much higher among private testers than in the public system. What action is being taken by the Department to tackle this problem?

I refer to the information technology system. A report produced by Farrell Grant Sparks a few years ago described it as a serious business risk because it was so outdated. The head office in Ballina still communicates by snail mail with the test centres and cannot communicate by e-mail. Moreover, when people apply for their tests on-line, the information in question must be transcribed manually in Ballina. What action has been taken in this regard? This seems to be a major contributory factor to the delays and costs as well as to the lack of streamlining.

Ms Julie O’Neill

The two questions are interrelated because a highly significant enhancement of the information technology systems is under way at present by the Road Safety Authority. One example of the new IT system's new capabilities is that it will enable Road Safety Authority supervisor testers to monitor and receive feedback on each test carried out. At present, when a supervisor wishes to find out the reason for variations in pass rates among the driver testers who work for him or her or the head office wishes to examine variations across the board, the information must be extracted manually. There has been a significant enhancement of IT systems. One of our purposes and one of the backgrounds to establishing the RSA was to give it the budget and the capacity to revamp its systems.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Has that happened?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I understand it is under way.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

When is it expected to be completed?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I will check that information for the Deputy because it is built into the budget of the Road Safety Authority and I do not have the detailed breakdown. I know it went with requests for tenders, is working its way through a process and has put in information technology capability. I will check if there is anything in the brief and come back to the Deputy.

There are a number of dimensions in respect of measures to improve consistency. One will never get a completely standard result because of the need to standardise driver instructor training to ensure the capability to take tests is similar in different places, which is a separate issue. In respect of carrying out the test, two documents have been published, one on driver testing marking guidelines and the other on driver testing standard procedures. An agreement is to be finalised shortly with the driver testers' trade union on a much more explicit approach to supervision, monitoring and remedial action for testers who are deemed to be assessing candidates incorrectly. One will get some anecdotal evidence of that and a perception that there is possibly some unfairness. Obviously, such an approach as I have spoken of must be done on an agreed basis.

I have mentioned the IT system, which would give the capacity to the supervisor and provide monitoring information. The RSA is also in discussion with the Irish National Accreditation Board with a view to adopting an internationally recognised standard for the driving test.

I checked out the issue of the differences with the SGS test centres. One of the issues with these centres is the fact that the numbers involved are much smaller. That does not always give one a handle. In the early days, it could have been that the anxiety of people going to those test centres because they were very much in need of a test may have meant that they were better prepared. It is important to filter out those general matters and get down to being satisfied that one has a standardised approach across driver testers. The SGS centres are supervised by the authority's advisers.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I welcome Ms O'Neill and the other representatives to the meeting. I will continue on from a question asked by Deputy Shortall. Ms O'Neill spoke of the deviation in pass rates between areas. There will be some deviation but when I look at the figures for 2006, I see that the largest deviation against the average is Carlow, which is minus ten or ten below. Clonmel and Kilkenny are in joint second place at minus eight.

Those three areas are in reasonable geographic proximity to each other. I am aware that testers move from area to area within their geographic region. It has been suggested that there is a particular problem in that area given that those three centres perform so badly in terms of people passing the test. This needs to be examined very closely.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Clearly, what I have just described to Deputy Shortall in terms of the efforts being made by the Road Safety Authority will have an impact in this regard. I know nothing about the specifics of those cases but, hypothetically, one could have factors such as different skill sets available in the localities in terms of the training of drivers. The issue of a register for driver instructors is very important in terms of standardising the quality of training given to drivers. One could have issues in terms of differences in the routes or the actual test patterns. Anecdotally, there is a perception sometimes that it is easier to pass the test on certain routes than others. Obviously, this is an area at which the RSA would look.

Interestingly, the issue of driver testers moving from location to location is one of the issues chosen by the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of one of the inefficiencies in the system. There is more focus on what one's headquarters are and so forth. In any one year, one will get variations.

From the RSA's perspective, the critical issue is to be satisfied that there is a standard test, a standard approach to implementing the test by driver testers that is rigorously monitored and a high standard of training provided to drivers such that they have the capacity to pass their test as quickly as possible. The emphasis is on taking lessons from qualified instructors. I think we will see continuing roll-out.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I have some difficulty believing some of the figures presented to us. For example, according to the report, the waiting time in my area in Waterford is 30 weeks. I know for a fact that this is not the case because I know many people who have taken their driving test and have waited much longer than 30 weeks. I wonder about the method of calculating how long these people are on the list.

In respect of the number of applications received and tests conducted from 2000 to 2006, we were told in March 2002 that the Department had the waiting time down to about ten weeks and the figures bear that out. Bearing in mind that there were 192,000 applications and 148,000 tests conducted in 2002, 43,000 were carried forward into 2003. If one adds up the carry forward in each of those years, according to these figures, 255,000 people were waiting for a driving test at the end of 2006. Ms O'Neill said that the number at the end of October 2007 was down to 122,000. We had a rash of applications during 2007 so those figures do not add up. I cannot see how that was achieved.

Ms Julie O’Neill

If the Deputy will bear with me, I will get the information. I may have to check some factual information for the Deputy. In terms of the total tests conducted, 159,000 tests were conducted in 2006. About 216,000 applications were received that year. That figure went up to 300,000 applications the following year. We think there were about 203,000 tests, although this figure must be finalised. The estimated outcome is that about 203,000 tests were conducted last year. If I do not have information readily to hand, I can get it from the Road Safety Authority.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

That does not add up because there is a cumulative build-up of 255,000. A total of 300,000 applications were received so that makes the figure 555,000. A total of 200,000 tests were completed, which gives a figure of 355,000, yet we are told there were only 122,000 applications outstanding at the end of October. It does not add up.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I must check the figures for the Deputy. I am afraid of misleading him by giving him inaccurate information. I can get the information from the Road Safety Authority.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I do not know if it is possible to do this because Ms O'Neill said there would be 430,000 tests this year.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Yes.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

That is a figure of 35,000 per month. Were 35,000 tests carried out in January? It would be useful if, on an ongoing basis, figures could be produced to show the position at the end of December, the number of applications in January less the number of tests and the balance at the end of January.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Due to the fact that I mentioned in my opening statement the way in which SGS is ramping up its figures, my understanding is that by March, the Road Safety Authority will be in a position to deliver somewhere between 10,000 and 11,000 tests per week. That is where that capacity comes into the system significantly. It is a little bit less than that at the moment but it is ramping up over time as SGS carries out its recruitment. It is well ahead of the level of applications being received.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

That would suggest that we have no chance of meeting this target by the end of June.

Ms Julie O’Neill

No, it does not suggest that at all. The target is that by the end of June, there would be an average of ten weeks' wait for people looking for a driving test. The RSA has planned that out and that target is achievable. It is planning what the intake is at the moment and the number of tests being delivered at any one time. Its commitment was that the 122,000 people on the waiting list at the end of October would be cleared by March. It is very clearly on target in respect of this and, with the injection of capacity into the system, is working towards having an average waiting time of ten weeks in June.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I would appreciate it if Ms O'Neill could provide the figures I requested and tie them in with what we have already been given.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I have it here somewhere.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

My last question concerns productivity, that is, the number of tests that have been carried out. In 2006, 122 testers carried out 159,000 tests. In 2001, 119 testers carried out 172,000 tests. We have gone from an average of nine per tester in 1999 to six per tester in 2006. Why is this occurring?

Ms Julie O’Neill

A number of factors can impact on productivity per tester. In that period, the nature of the tests needed to change to take on board a number of EU recommendations. The test lengthened. At the time of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the objective was to have eight tests per day per tester. In practical terms, it is closer to seven tests per day because of the test's increased length.

When one examines the pattern over a period, one will see down times due, for example, to training. A number of changes in the test required driver testers to be retrained as part of their PMDS arrangement. Some time was lost by those testers in particular years. Sick leave and other factors could affect the matter. Recently, some driver testers have been appropriately involved in supervision of the SGS service. It is difficult to compare like with like, but we aim typically for seven tests per tester per day. It was necessary to reduce the target discussed by the Comptroller and Auditor General to deal with the longer test.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I will move on to the Department of Transport's Vote. I am puzzled by the movement of funds between headings B1 and C2. Some €110 million was moved to B1 and C2 was reduced by €101 million, which suggests poor budgeting. Why should this occur?

Ms Julie O’Neill

It reflects the value of the Transport 21 framework, which is designed to give the Department capacity to manage the funding available under that ten-year programme and to allocate it where it is most required. When we developed the framework, we set out certain targets for the roads programme and priority projects were identified in public transport. The main difference between the roads and public transport programmes is the significant ramping up of the former in recent years. When I appeared before an Oireachtas committee in 2002, it was extremely difficult to deliver roads projects on time and within budget. Currently, the National Roads Authority has a stock of projects ready to go. If Mr. Barry and his chairman had their way, they would be delighted to have even more resources available to them. The NRA is delivering its projects quickly, on time and within budget.

We have moved from spending approximately €50 million on public transport a number of years ago to spending somewhere in the order of €1 billion this year. The experience, skills and readiness of projects to roll in the public transport sector were considerably less than the NRA's. In 2006, it was hoped to move a number of projects forward more speedily, including the two Luas projects to which I referred in my opening statement. That was an issue of delays arising from a judicial review in one case and the railway order process taking longer than expected.

In such situations, the critical issue with Transport 21 is that instead of surrendering the money to the Department of Finance as would have been the case previously, the tight management described in my opening statement and the way in which we use the programme board mean that we can identify whether a project will move as quickly as hoped early in the year. We can re-allocate the budget early enough in the year so that Mr. Barry can be satisfied that he can spend it and accelerate elements of the roads programme. There is a clear commitment and understanding that the budget will flow back into public transport in the programme's later years.

We knew that Transport 21's targets were challenging. Over a ten-year period, I was never able to say with absolute certainty which projects would move and how far in each year. The idea is to manage the money tightly, use it all and ensure that public transport projects, which are ramping up capacity significantly, are in a position to absorb the money. Committee members have seen the evidence of this and the progress made recently.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

Ms O'Neill referred to surrendering money to the Department of Finance if the Department of Transport does not use it. That is fair enough because not using the money must be like a cardinal sin. It is difficult to get money out of the Department of Finance in the first place.

Ms Julie O’Neill

As long as it is spent wisely.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

One would not want to give it back. Why did the Department of Transport return €18 million at the end of the year?

Ms Julie O’Neill

It was carried forward. We carried forward €29 million.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

The Department returned €18 million. Could that not have been spent on other projects? Many local authorities would have been delighted with funding from the NRA for small projects on national primary or secondary roads.

Ms Julie O’Neill

The capital envelope is dealt with in the context of Transport 21, allowing for the carry forward of capital spend year-on-year. Obviously, the capital envelope does not apply in terms of current spend. In the area of current spend, it is not such a cardinal sin in the Department of Finance's opinion to save money. It is usually pleased if we can do so for one reason or another.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I am sure it would be delighted.

Ms Julie O’Neill

It would not have been possible for us to divert the current spend to the capital spend. In the case of capital, the ten-year envelope gives us a considerable amount of flexibility in terms of managing money effectively.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

Capital assets under development of €3.3 million is a new entry. What is this? Was it transferred from the old Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources?

Ms Julie O’Neill

The Deputy is right — it is on the coast guard side of the Department. It is the IT project under development, the Safe Seas Ireland Internet project that transferred to us from the coast guard during the year.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

There is a reference to Pobal, or ADM, which administers the taxi--

Ms Julie O’Neill

The taxi hardship scheme and rural transport programme.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

What was the average amount that went to each person who applied under that scheme and did people get tax breaks? It is not a matter for the Department of Transport.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I can get the terms of the taxi hardship scheme for the Deputy. I will supply him with information in terms of the breakdown of what awards were made under the scheme.

Chairman

Does the Department have figures on the total cost of the scheme?

Ms Julie O’Neill

It was gone from our Vote by that stage, but I will get the information for the Chairman.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

The €4.5 million for Derry Airport was not spent. The €500,000 in 2004 was not spent, nor was nearly €1 million in 2005. What is the point?

Ms Julie O’Neill

We have been able to carry that money forward in our capital envelope. Derry Airport is a North-South project and we have been working closely with the authorities in Northern Ireland. We have indicated a willingness to provide funding for the projects, but we and the Northern authorities are only prepared to do so when we are satisfied that all of the safety, regulatory and other issues of the proposed project are met.

Derry Airport has experienced difficulties putting the project together and bringing it to fruition. In principle, our commitment to funding it remains. We are hopeful that it will come to a head this year, as it is getting there, but the delays were outside our direct control. We are willing to participate jointly with the Northern authorities when we are all satisfied about compliance with the rules for the draw-down of funding.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I have a brief question on integrated ticketing. Is the Department satisfied that all of the stakeholders are fully committed to this project? From reading its history, it is obvious that the Department has been lukewarm to date. As recently as 15 May 2007, the chief executive of Dublin Bus wrote to the Department regarding its own scheme. That is not so long ago. Is Ms O'Neill satisfied that they are all committed to it? Without their support, it will not happen.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I must accept the assurances given to my by the chairman of the project board on the basis of his reports to the Minister. They have all signed up to a memorandum of understanding in respect of this project. I am not concerned with Mr. Joe Meagher writing to me about aspects of the project. It is in the nature of a project of this sort that there will be tensions and difficulties along the way. I am satisfied that everyone recognises integrated ticketing as the only game in town and that there is willingness to tease out inevitable problems. I have had personal assurances from the chairman and the chief executive on their commitment to the project, as well as feedback from the project board.

Chairman

Integrated ticketing has taken double the time and will cost double the original estimate. In the context of the transport plan announced, there are contradictions between the Department and Iarnród Éireann about the Navan rail link, where Iarnród Éireann states the project will cost €200 million more than estimated. What assurances can we get that there will not be serious cost overruns on this project?

Ms Julie O’Neill

The experience of the Department and agencies has grown dramatically in recent years in terms of our ability to forecast and plan capital project costs. Mr. Fred Barry can provide an example of that.

Mr. Fred Barry

Taking our programme of completions in 2007, we will be 3% under budget and three months ahead of schedule.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Regarding the public transport aspects of the project, we are at an earlier stage of development with these projects. The critical element is receiving the tender price. We have put much effort into forecasting and we are managing the envelope tightly to deliver within it. I have virtually signed in blood in respect of delivering within the scope of the overall Transport 21 envelope. As projects mature we must assess each one and they will be subject to a robust cost benefit analysis. Each will be put through the wringer of our departmental assessment processes, ex ante and ex post. We probably have one of the most robust and rigorous systems of assessment of capital investment projects. My colleagues, who are part of various monitoring committees, will attest to that.

Chairman

Is Iarnród Éireann wrong when it suggests the Navan rail link will come in €200 million over budget? There are also reports that 21 investment programmes will come in over budget and that this is admitted by the Department. Are these reports correct?

Ms Julie O’Neill

Inevitably, there will be variations in terms of outline costs but I am confident we can deliver the overall programme within the overall budget available. Some projects will be over budget, when one decides on the specification, and others will come in under budget. I referred earlier to the Docklands Station as an example of the latter. Our job is to manage within the overall envelope. We must also subject each specific project to a rigorous cost benefit analysis before proceeding. Inevitably, some projects will make the cut, others will not. Some will cost somewhat more, some less but this is the nature of running an investment programme over a ten-year framework.

Chairman

Where is the accountability? I am not being parochial in referring to the Cork Airport terminal debacle. The terminal was managed by Aer Rianta, then by the Dublin Airport Authority under the responsibility of the Department, under which the project cost doubled. The chief executive appeared before the Joint Committee on Transport and told us that we were imagining things and there were no cost overruns. Where is the accountability and what investigation has the Department conducted to find out where this went wrong?

Ms Julie O’Neill

There is a major distinction between the Transport 21 programme, which is financed directly by the Exchequer and for which I am the Accounting Officer through the departmental Vote and through, in turn, the chief executives, who are responsible for that spend and monitoring the process, and the activities of independent commercial State agencies that are not in receipt of finance from the Exchequer. Not one cent of Exchequer money was spent on Cork Airport.

The Chairman referred to the chief executive. The board of the Dublin Airport Authority is managing the delivery of the development of Dublin Airport. The board keeps us informed of progress on the budget of the project, which is currently on time and on budget.

I cannot comment on the specifics of Cork Airport. There were changes in specifications along the way. Mr. Fred Barry is aware of this. In the bad old days, where we had contracts with a tender price--

Chairman

It is only a few years ago.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Yes, but the project goes back further. The approach of starting with a high price, and with cost escalating clauses arising from inflation, gives a very different result to that used now for the roads programme and other programmes. It is the new contract recommended by the Department of Finance, which is essentially a fixed price contract. One is certain what the outturn cost will be.

Chairman

What I cannot understand is that individual airport authorities must submit business plans to the Department for ratification and approval. The Department has responsibility for these projects. Who pays the piper? Is there not a responsibility to ensure projects are completed on time? If they are not, who is accountable? Nobody seems to be accountable in this example. The same issue has been raised with regard to the Navan rail link. There is a contradiction between Iarnród Éireann and the Department in respect of costs.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

On a point of information regarding Cork Airport and the spending of the Dublin Airport Authority, does the funding not come from the company? Is the issue not the debt that would be left with the free Cork, Dublin and Shannon airport authorities? Is the funding not self-financed by the State body?

Ms Julie O’Neill

Yes. I need to distinguish between the two. The Navan rail link project is part of the Transport 21 programme. The Chairman is referring to newspaper reports that suggested differences. I have received assurances from the chairman of CIE that there is no difference between the Department and the company regarding the Navan rail line. A distinction was made between the cost benefit analysis and the cost of the project. The cost will be rigorously assessed when the time comes.

The State airports are independent, self-financed commercial entities, accountable to the Ministers for Finance and Transport as shareholders in the companies. Separation is a policy issue and does not impact on the Vote of the Department of Transport. The business plans of the three State airports must be submitted and agreed by both Ministers before separation is triggered. This occurs in the context of the State Airports Act and the requirements for triggering the separation of the three State companies. On a day-to-day basis, they are responsible for their commercial affairs.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

I accept that the airport authorities act semi-independently. How was a commitment given that Cork Airport would be released independently, debt-free, if all the funding was in the group of airports rather than under the control of the Minister? Like the Chairman I do not wish to be parochial but perhaps I should be. We cannot get a handle on this issue. It certainly has been extremely useful to listen to the exchange and hear the answers to the questions on integrated ticketing. I am glad to see progress being made at long last. As a major supporter of public transport, I believe it is of major importance that this is brought to a conclusion. I appreciate the Secretary General's comments on the budget figure which has increased from €30 million to €50 million. However, I was slightly concerned about the rather ominous remark from the Comptroller and Auditor General that the budget figure holds for the moment. Will the Secretary General give us confident assurances that in her view the project can be completed within or near the present projected figure of €50 million?

With regard to driver testing, I am glad that at long last this issue has been tackled and progress has been made. To be specific on the figures, the Secretary General refers to the target of having the 122,000 applicants who were on the waiting list at the end of October to be tested by early March. Most of the period between October and March has passed. How many of the 122,000 applicants have been taken off the list? What is the extent of the new waiting list which has developed in the meantime?

With regard to the accounts, as someone with an interest in the sea I often wonder whether as a maritime nation it makes sense to have sea and marine issues scattered throughout various Departments. As I see it, four or five Departments have an interest in issues relating to the marine. However, this is not an issue for this forum.

The Department of Transport has responsibility for maritime transport and safety. I see the estimate under the E3 subhead for sea ports and shipping was €4.359 million. However, the outturn was less than €1 million. The need for major expenditure for remedial works on regional harbours is clear. However, such a derisory outturn of expenditure shows no indication of priority being given to it. Why is this? Will the Secretary General assure us that in future greater priority will be given to ensure that whatever modest moneys are available for maritime transport and safety, particularly remedial works at regional sea ports, will be spent and the work done?

Ms Julie O’Neill

The Deputy asked a number of questions and I will take them in reverse order. With regard to the E3 subhead, as the Deputy will be aware from my opening statement, we took over responsibility for maritime transport at the beginning of 2006. Part of the policy established in the ports policy statement published in 2005 was that the regional harbours would transfer to local authority ownership and responsibility and that commercial harbours would stay with the Department of Transport. We work closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on giving effect to this.

In 2006, an allocation of relatively small amounts was made for remedial works on regional harbours, including Sligo, Westport, River Moy, Wexford and Arklow. In a number of cases, the harbour authorities were not able to utilise the funding, perhaps because of problems in submitting an engineer's report, delays due to the tendering process they carried out themselves or adverse weather conditions. It happens from time to time with regard to relatively small grant support where we are entirely dependent on the harbour authorities to bring forward proposals and go through tender processes.

Obviously, all this must comply with the rules and regulations covering the drawdown of this type of grant support. That year saw a carry-over of approximately €3.3 million because a number of the harbour authorities, including Sligo, Westport, River Moy and Wexford were not ready to draw down funding. The Department's view is that in line with the ports policy it is in the best interest of regional harbours to transfer them as quickly as possible to local authority ownership.

The Deputy also asked about driver testing. As I understand it, the backlog is approximately 185,000. The starting point on 25 October was 122,000. I apologise for not having the figures for Deputy Kenneally earlier. This morning, I received absolute assurances from the chief executive of the Road Safety Authority that they have been prioritised and are being processed. I cannot provide for the committee a precise breakdown of how many are through but it is on target for delivery in March.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Is Ms O'Neill stating the waiting list has increased from 122,000 to 185,000?

Ms Julie O’Neill

Of course it has because of the major surge in applications. There is no doubt about it.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

A surge occurred in 2003 also.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Every time we speak about--

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

It is like Iraq speak.

Ms Julie O’Neill

It is not quite that bad. Every time anybody opens his or her mouth, including myself, about road safety and changes to driver licensing, a number of the 420,000 people on provisional licences, many of whom have held a provisional licence for a long time, decide to apply for a test. We knew this would happen and it did. Because of this surge, we will give priority to the 122,000 who were there in October.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Should they not have priority anyway because they were in earlier?

Ms Julie O’Neill

They would and it is being worked through. From time to time, people will come forward and state they urgently need a test. The list is being worked through the system and capacity had to be injected to ensure they were all dealt with. This was not an issue.

We also want to give priority to anybody on a second provisional licence and ensure anybody on a second provisional licence, which is the only category affected by the change in the law, who applied for a test would get one as quickly as possible. Because we now have responsibility for the national vehicle and driver file we were able to allow the RSA to establish whether any new applicants are on a second provisional licence and, if so, give them priority.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

I note the use of the word "target" and it is right to have a good target. The target is to remove all 122,000 from the list in early March, which is only five weeks away.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Yes.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Is it not relevant--

Ms Julie O’Neill

Most of them will be through the system.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How many of those 122,000 will be left?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I cannot say because they are now part of the pool but I am assured by the Road Safety Authority that they will be dealt with in March.

The Deputy also asked about integrated ticketing and the budget. I have not been around as long as the Comptroller and Auditor General, but, like him, I always state that when dealing with a matter at pre-tender stage one deals with the best estimate one can get. However, the tender dictates the price with regard to integrated ticketing. The best the project board could do was to state that it looked like it could be done within a budget of €49.6 million. We will monitor it closely because it is part of the terms of our sanction from the Department of Finance to work within this budget.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

I thank Ms O'Neill.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I welcome Ms O'Neill and the other individuals and bodies represented for giving of their time. I see €2.1 billion was spent last year and the year before last on Transport 21. However, only approximately €350 million, or 17%, was spent on public transport. At a time when transport emissions increased by 6% last year, it does not bode well for climate change emissions from the transport sector that we spend less than 20% on public transport. I have been involved in transportation as an elected representative for over 15 years, since the early days of the Dublin transportation initiative. It seems that there is a tendency towards false dawns, towards saying we are spending quite a bit on roads this year, but next year we will spend lots on public transport. Is there any evidence that things will change with the new dawn this time?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I think so, Deputy. The combination of the framework we have already developed under Transport 21 and the challenge of climate change are giving an enormous, and very welcome, impetus to public transport. If one looks back, in the 1989 to 1993 national development plan, 94% of spending was on roads and only 6% was on public transport. The spending on public transport increased to 34% in the 1994 to 1999 plan and stayed at that level in the plan for 2000 to 2006. If one looks at what we are planning now, in terms of our overall spend under Transport 21, 46% will be on public transport and 54% on roads. That equates to approximately €16 billion to be spent on public transport. In contrast, in 1995 we spent £500,000. In 2006, the figure was over €300 million, while in 2007 we spent €640 million. In 2008 we are on target to spend just over €1 billion, or €986 million, to be precise. By 2010, partly because of the transfer between the roads budget and the public transport budget, we expect 57% of our spending to be on public transport.

We have seen a very significant ramping up by the agencies, particularly by the Railway Procurement Agency and Irish Rail to have the capacity to deliver rail-based projects. The public response to that is phenomenal. The money is available and earmarked and the plans are under way. It is not just that we want to spend the money, we must spend it wisely on public transport because car-based transport solutions will not meet the needs of our growing population, particularly against the backdrop of climate change.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Where do airports fit into the split? Are they considered part of public transport?

Ms Julie O’Neill

As I mentioned, we do not directly fund State airports. They are self-financing. We provide some modest funding to the regional airports. There is a programme of capital and current spending for the regional airports, which is under D2 of the Vote. We approved an infrastructural investment programme in some of the regional airports in February of last year. That is primarily safety-related investment as well as some investment which is aimed at enhancing capacity. It is primarily a recognition of one of the other policy challenges we face, namely, that of regional balance. The regional airports make a modest but important contribution to regional development.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Under which head is it listed?

Ms Julie O’Neill

That is a good question. It is possibly separate to those figures I mentioned. It is part of Transport 21 but is quite modest, amounting to €100 million out of a €34 billion programme.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

On the climate change issue, does the Department's cost-benefit analysis take into account anything related to--

Ms Julie O’Neill

As the Deputy is probably aware, we will be publishing a discussion document shortly on the sustainable transport and travel plan. That should lead to quite an exciting debate about the contribution that transport has to make to the climate change agenda. We have taken environmental and other impacts into account as part of our cost-benefit analysis model at the moment but are very open to suggestions as to how that might be strengthened.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

My precise question was whether climate change actually figures in the Department's cost-benefit analysis. I know environmental impact assessments are carried out but is climate change dealt with specifically?

Mr. Fred Barry

On NRA projects, climate change is considered. We specifically cost carbon emissions as part of our assessment.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Simply as a market value?

Mr. Fred Barry

Yes.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

At what price?

Mr. Fred Barry

Off the top of my head, I cannot tell the Deputy the price. However, we take direction from outside the NRA as to what the price should be.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

It is simply done on a pricing basis rather than anticipating future policy, is that correct?

Mr. Fred Barry

Yes, rather than anticipating future policy, but we are anticipating--

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

For instance, the European Commission's decision last week seeking a 20% reduction--

Mr. Fred Barry

That, presumably through Government policy, may lead to a change in the price levels we use for carbon emissions. It is worth pointing out that most of our new road projects lead to a reduction in carbon emissions rather than an increase.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I beg your pardon?

Mr. Fred Barry

Most new road projects lead to a reduction in carbon emissions rather than an increase because we are eliminating enormous congestion around the country and the most rudimentary calculation will give one a reduction in carbon emissions because of that.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

It never ceases to amaze me that Mr. Barry's organisation, when examining journey times, deals with edge of city to edge of city, rather than final destination, which negates his previous statement.

Mr. Fred Barry

I do not think it does. If we bypass a town and people no longer have to spend 20 or 30 minutes--

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I am not talking about bypassing, I am talking about travelling within major towns.

Mr. Fred Barry

The same principle applies. Everyone knows that the most efficient way for a car to travel is at a reasonably constant speed. Stop-start travel leads to much higher fuel consumption and higher emissions.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

There is also a clearly proven link between making car travel easier and increasing the propensity to travel in the first instance.

Mr. Fred Barry

I agree that there is a link there.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Rather than get into a discussion on that, I wish to move on to integrated ticketing. Again, in terms of false dawns, the 1994 report from the Dublin transport initiative referred confidently to integrated ticketing. Progress has been slow since then. What has the Department been doing since then? It appears that the Department of Transport's eye was firmly off the ball and that Dublin Bus and, more recently, the RPA, went their own sweet way on the issue. There was no attempt to move integrated ticketing forward, even though a seminal report on transport in Dublin advocated it 14 years ago.

Ms Julie O’Neill

The Department of Transport did not exist in 1994. It was established in 2002. The issue would have been under the auspices of the Department of Public Enterprise at that stage. It was in 2002 that the Railway Procurement Agency was given a mandate to deliver the integrated ticketing system and that mandate and process ran into stormy weather in 2005. I have explained at some length the steps that were taken to try to deal with that. Was it a case of everybody going their own sweet way? I do not think so but I think there were clearly inherent tensions, some of them very legitimately based in business considerations. Dublin Bus, for instance, had tired, old and rickety ticketing equipment that it was anxious to replace as quickly as possible. There is always an understandable desire for agencies to get on with doing their own thing. Our concern, as a Department, was that we had to have a robust platform for integrated ticketing which was capable of being accessible to all operators, whether in the public or private sector. Brokering that took time.

A number of people have mentioned the costings. My experience on the roads programme and more recently with this one is that getting a robust and realistic costing up front is half the battle. Very often the problem with these projects is not so much that there are cost overruns but that there are underestimations, in the first instance, of what is a reasonable price for delivery on projects of this magnitude. The costing we have now is much more realistic.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I do not have the costings for the Oyster card system in the UK but I am gobsmacked by the suggestion that we might be hitting the €50 million mark on this. Does Ms O'Neill anticipate any reductions in journeys that involve two different modes of public transport?

Ms Julie O’Neill

There are two separate issues here. There is the capital cost of establishing the system and the current cost of operating it, the latter of which will be met by the operators. The Oyster card system in London cost over £2 billion sterling over its full life span. These systems are not cheap and I reiterate the important point that in many countries there was an already existing integrated ticketing system, based very often on magnetic cards, which was being replaced by a smart card system. We are doing all that in one go so the capital cost is greater. The volumes do not necessarily impact significantly on the capital cost. They have some impact on it but certain capital costs would arise, no matter how small the system.

The kinds of products that will be available on the cards and what that might involve in reduced rates for interchange and so forth is dependent on the resolution of policy questions. There are also issues to be worked through in the near future by the integrated ticketing project board and I presume recommendations will come back to the Minister in that regard. Certainly, the intention is that when integrated ticketing is launched it is as attractive as possible to the transport user. We are acutely conscious of the necessity to do something that gives a lift to the transport user. They must be given something that makes it attractive for them to hop on a bus, off that and on to a Luas train, off that and on to a Dart train and so on. That is an issue that requires further exploration.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I do not hear any suggestion that there will be a significant reduction in prices.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I would not jump the gun on a policy issue such as that.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I appreciate that. It is slightly disingenuous to suggest there was no agency overseeing integrated ticketing during the first part of the 14 years since its suggestion in the report. The predecessor of Ms O'Neill's Department certainly had a responsibility for it and that did not disappear once the name of the Department changed.

It seems there has been no movement by the various operators, be they Mortons, the RPA or Dublin Bus, towards streamlining the ticket types on offer to simplify the integrated ticketing project. How many ticket types does Dublin Bus issue at present and has it made any attempt to rationalise them?

Mr. Joe Meagher

In terms of integrated ticket availability, we are discussing the development of the smart card integrated system but have been working with the other agencies to provide integrated ticket products. When the Luas was launched we worked with the RPA and the Luas operators to make some popular products available, including daily and weekly tickets for travel by Luas and bus. We are doing more than €8 million worth of business at present. A great deal of work is therefore being done in the interim.

Our range of tickets include day and rambler tickets as well as single fares. There are quite a number of these when they are divided out because, for example, we issue different adult, child and student tickets. As we develop the smart card, the tickets will be rationalised because several of them will be based on the e-purse. The system will be much simpler in that passengers will have a card and the price will be determined in a particular way. The smart card will give us the capability to greatly rationalise tickets. In the meantime, we will continue to offer as many integrated products as we can with the other modes.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

My question was how many tickets types are currently being issued by Dublin Bus.

Mr. Joe Meagher

We have between 30 and 40 in total when adult, child and student tickets are taken into account. I can revert to the Deputy with the exact figure.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Does that include the different fare structures for each journey?

Mr. Joe Meagher

Yes.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I appreciate that some products have been successful. However, the other day I took the No. 10 before transferring to the No. 46a, a journey for which I had to purchase two €1.50 tickets. Surely some sort of integration could be introduced in that regard.

Mr. Joe Meagher

The travel 90 ticket, which is very popular, allows passengers to transfer between buses.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

However, they are not sold on board buses. When the average member of the public hears the term "integrated ticketing", he or she envisages a purse card which allows seamless transfers between buses and other modes of transport. There has been frustration over the past 14 years at the failure to put such a system in place, particularly given its relative success in a huge metropolis such as London.

Mr. Joe Meagher

Absolutely, and that is what we are working towards.

Chairman

With regard to integrated ticketing, I use the Cork-Dublin train and occasionally take the bus. I used to be able to purchase an integrated ticket in Cork which brought me to the gates of Leinster House but that has been discontinued in recent times. We seem to be going backwards instead of forwards.

Mr. Joe Meagher

I must check that out. I thought that a ticket which includes bus transport is still available.

Chairman

We were told it was being abused for some reason. That is a simple example. We are talking about plans yet seem to be going backwards on the only integrated ticket I have used.

Mr. Joe Meagher

That product was available for a long time.

Chairman

It was but it has gone.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Are there any other integrated ticketing type financial disasters in the Department? I am reminded of what I read about speed cameras and the gaps in the legislation on penalty points in respect of foreign drivers. The Minister told me the Dublin transport authority Bill would be published in January.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

There are a few hours remaining.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The Comptroller and Auditor General might already be investigating speed cameras. Is there a pattern of administration which will lead to further debacles?

Ms Julie O’Neill

It would be a brave Secretary General who would say there are no problems anywhere in the Department or that nothing is going to go wrong because that is usually a recipe for something going wrong. Speed cameras are not under the auspices of the Department of Transport. We obviously have a strong policy interest in them but the road safety strategy assigned the lead role to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

We dealt with the issue in the Committee on Transport, where we learned that contracts have not been fulfilled for more than a year. The head of the National Roads Authority referred to carbon emissions. Given the amount we have spent on road safety, it must be asked why there has been no immediate movement on it.

Chairman

I ask Mr. Purcell to comment on the issue raised by Deputy Broughan.

Mr. John Purcell

I think I heard my name mentioned in regard to speed cameras. Approximately three years ago we included a chapter in the annual report which set out the ineffectiveness of the speed camera system at that time and the ensuing difficulties in following up on penalty points and fines for those who were outside the jurisdiction. That was well signalled.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The cost is not just in taxes. There is also a significant cost in lives. These issues are critically important.

Further to the points made by Mr. Meagher, we are familiar with the types of cards that can be used on Dublin Bus and other modes of transport. It is difficult for ordinary people to get their heads around how €50 million was spent on this project. The nub of the matter seems to be some sort of hubris in the Department of Transport. The report notes that the Department feared the potential dominance of large public transport operators in the integrated ticketing system. Public operators provide the widest range of transport. Have we not lost a great deal of time when we should have been serving ordinary people, who do not care at the end of the day with whom they travel once they are transported efficiently? We waste a great deal of time on ideology, and in this context we suggested earlier that the non-involvement of the private sector means this meeting is like Hamlet without the prince. We do not have the private sector for which we have wasted years in terms of developing integrated ticketing. Does the buck not stop with the Secretary General and her Department?

Will the public be hit with a double whammy? I do not know the present value of this project but we are already looking at an expenditure of €50 million before we even consider the reference by the Comptroller and Auditor General to an adjustment of fares. Will the poor commuter, having paid taxes which were wasted on this project, have to pay for it again through swingeing fare increases? We had a debate earlier in the year on the 5% plus increases in Luas and DART fares. This is the problem. There is a serious cost to this debacle.

Ms Julie O’Neill

The Deputy made a number of points. We have had many projects with which people are familiar and have always tried to have what Deputy Cuffe and others described as one single ticket and what the public understands to be an integrated ticket that can be used on any form of transport. Deputy Broughan has mentioned that the private sector is not represented here today. It was not invited, a matter on which the Chairman can comment. The private sector has been actively involved in and has fully signed up to the work of the integrated ticketing project board. This is not about ideology but about having a platform open and accessible to all the players involved. We have private sector operators of the Luas and will have private sector operators of the metro and other Luas lines.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

There seems to be no problem getting Luas on board. We have the tickets.

Ms Julie O’Neill

That is one matter if one just wants a ticket for Luas and Dublin Bus.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

All a commuter wants is to be able to take a bus to the DART, hop on the DART, hop on the Luas and then on to another bus.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Deputy Cuffe has described what he thinks a commuter wants, which is to get on an air coach, the bus, Irish Rail or CIE services. We will have many other operators during the years. In the context of state aid and competition regulations, one cannot have something that simply confers benefit on some operators--

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

That is what the Department states--

Chairman

Deputy Broughan should let the Secretary General finish her comments.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

President Nicholas Sarkozy says something different.

Ms Julie O’Neill

It is not just what I say; it is the advice we have received from the Attorney General. Therefore, we have to--

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The Attorney General of the Government.

Ms Julie O’Neill

The Attorney General is the senior law officer of the State and as Secretary General, I am obliged to take and value his advice. It is extremely important we ensure any arrangement we put in place will stand up to scrutiny from a State agent competition perspective. If not, we will spend years in court and being fined.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

We are spending €50 million.

Ms Julie O’Neill

We are spending money on the project. It is not wasted. In his last report the Comptroller and Auditor General correctly referred to a certain amount of nugatory expenditure incurred because of the failed procurement process, but the bulk of it has gone into the design of the system. In any other country or jurisdiction there is a capital cost associated with establishing such a system. Although there is a modest ongoing cost associated with operating the system, the benefit flows in far greater usage of public transport. If we can get far more people to use public transport because they have an integrated ticket that allows them to use different modes of transport, we will dramatically increase fare box revenue. The cost-benefit analysis of this project is positive and stands up. The benefits are significant, not just in encouraging more people to use public transport, but even in the design of metro or Luas stations when one has an integrated ticket and smart card project. Savings arise throughout the transport network. There are significant tangible and intangible benefits. We have been giving attention to this issue and I very much want to see it happen. We need to do it, as agreed by the Government, on the basis agreed and in an open and transparent way.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

How many economists and accountants are in the Department?

Ms Julie O’Neill

We have a number of accountants. Like all other Departments, it is staffed primarily by general grade civil servants. That is the nature of the business in which we are involved.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Can the committee have the information? How many accountants, economists and transport engineers work for the Department of Transport?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I can give the Chairman the information we have but the way the Department operates does not involve significant recruitment of accountants, engineers and transport specialists. We draw expertise as we need it.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The training of civil servants is on the agenda today. Approximately one third of Departments did not give a report on training. Therefore, there are fundamental issues of expertise within the Department. May I briefly move on in the short time--

Chairman

There is a vote on the Private Members' motion in the Dáil. What arrangement will we come to?

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

We will adjourn.

Chairman

We cannot adjourn but will suspend the sitting for the duration of the vote. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

For how long will the sitting be suspended?

Chairman

As long as it takes. I apologise to Ms O'Neill.

Sitting suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 12.55 p.m.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I will move on to the driver testing service. A report finding indicates that 78% of the cost of the service was recouped via fees, despite a policy to recover 100%. Is it the case that the 78% figure has been reduced to 59%?

Ms Julie O’Neill

Driving test fees have not been increased for many years but if we were to do so, people should be given the quality of service they deserve. The policy position has been that when the driving test service is able to offer tests within ten weeks, we can look at the fees issue. It makes sense that it should be a self-sustaining service. It was a clear policy decision not to change the fees which are behind and have not been changed for many years.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

With regard to waiting times, a young constituent called last Saturday morning to one of my information clinics. She had just attended the Raheny centre for a test, having applied last February. Therefore, in her case the waiting time was approximately 11 months.

With regard to the list of pass rates and waiting times, the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the position in Birr where there is a 36-week wait; Clifden where there is a 40-week wait; Ennis where there is a 30-week; Loughrea where there is a 29-week wait and Raheny in my constituency where there is a 35-week wait. There are quite a few other spots where there is a waiting time in the 20-week band or over, beginning in Athlone and finishing in Wicklow.

It is a political issue, as the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, gave commitments to the Oireachtas on waiting times as of 1 July. Considering the position in centres such as Raheny and Clifden, it seems very unlikely the desirable waiting time mentioned by Ms O'Neill can be achieved.

Ms Julie O’Neill

There are a few issues to consider. The metric used by the Road Safety Authority, which has been used for many years, is that of average waiting time. With this, a person could be waiting a long time and another a relatively short period. From this the average is calculated. This can have a distorting effect, which I picked up on with some statistics. Some centres may have a relatively small number on a waiting list but because some have been around a long time and others a relatively short period, the average waiting time seems long. If testers could be sent to the centre, the backlog would be virtually eliminated in a couple of days.

The Road Safety Authority, in conjunction with SGS and its own testers, is looking to target the black spots and tackle the areas where the impact would be greatest. The authority is acutely aware of the issue. We are trying to achieve an average waiting time of ten weeks. While there will inevitably be a divergence, it is a realistic target.

It is unusual to have a break at this committee but I checked the issue with Mr. Brett of the Road Safety Authority when I had the chance. I understand approximately 70,000 of the 122,000 waiting at the beginning of October have been tested and that the vast bulk of the rest are scheduled in such a way that he is absolutely confident he can deliver.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Mr. Brett gave me figures on 1 December.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Yes.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

At that stage there were 178,000 on the list, of whom 26,000 were cleared in November. That would indicate that it will be a close run thing.

Ms Julie O’Neill

He is increasing the capacity significantly so that by March there will be over 10,000 tests per week. As things stand the number is rising and he told me that better progress is being made on the backlog than was expected so greater capacity than was hoped for is being delivered. Nobody should be blasé about this; he is tracking the issue carefully, working on improvements and he knows where he stands on the 122,000 that were there at the beginning.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

On the variation of standards, I have a list of the Société Générale de Surveillance, SGS, driver testing centres and I do not know whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has that information. SGS driving test centres have the following pass rates: Cahir 84%, Nenagh 81%, Charleville 78%, Kells 69%, Fonthill 66%, Naas 64%, Deansgrange 60%, Drogheda 58% and Citywest 52%. The variation is astonishing and one wonders whether testers are moved from centre to centre because it would be nice to sit the test in Cahir if possible. I know people who were thinking of going to test centres with high pass rates.

Ms Julie O’Neill

These things are closely watched and SGS would say that the samples used for those statistics are not significant in terms of determining variations in pass rates. Beyond anecdotal suggestions, no evidence has been found of people shopping around for a test centre with a high pass rate. When SGS was taken on as a contractor it was agreed with the driver tester union that there would be supervision of testing standards so every effort has been made when it comes to consistency.

When SGS first started testing it was marketed towards those who were most anxious to be tested and they may have been those who were best prepared. This could have influenced the figures. As I mentioned in response to earlier questions, the issue of a standardised accredited test is very important, not only to SGS and the driver testers but across all driver testing locations.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

In Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s there was an efficient driver testing system. Has the current driver testing situation in Ireland arisen due to a serious breakdown of administration? The Comptroller has gone through the various stages involved and the negotiations with IMPACT. Speaking as a Secretary General, does Ms O'Neill feel the entire public service should view this as a test case relating to an important civic function in society, not to mention road safety? We should never allow an entire vital public service to fall apart again.

Ms Julie O’Neill

In fairness to those who worked with it successfully for many years, the service did not fall apart. In that sense I would like to pay tribute to the driver testers who were staff of my Department until 2006. There was a dramatic increase in the volume of applications, partly predicated on an awareness that we could not sustain a situation wherein many people were inappropriately driving with only a provisional licence for indefinite periods.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The report makes clear that there was absolutely no planning for the future. As the Labour Party spokesperson on transport I have met the Road Safety Authority on a number of occasions. Given the economic downturn I am not so sure there will be the population increases foreseen by the Central Statistics Office only a year ago. Allowing for the steps being taken on global warming we may not see the expected increases and it seems no planning was done on driver testing.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I would appreciate a chance to finish my response to the Deputy's question because I think it is very important. For some time the Department was aware of the growing need for additional driving tests and also, as the Deputy suggested, that the high demand might not persist into the future. There was a backlog of people on provisional licences who needed to be moved through the system and after that the standard intake of applications was expected to be around 150,000 to 200,000 per year.

We recognised early on that the level of intake could slow down, as the Deputy suggested, depending on population changes. One of the requirements of our action plan, under the Civil Service performance verification process, was negotiating with driver testers to outsource a block of applications to deal with the backlog. This was strongly resisted, partly on ideological grounds, and IMPACT had deep concerns. The union went to the wire with us and we pushed Towards 2016 to its limits until IMPACT won with a ruling at arbitration stating that driver testers need not agree to our plan for dealing with the backlog. I appreciate that there was then a recognition that this issue affected the wider public interest and road safety and had to be addressed. People such as Peter McLoone were involved at the time. At that stage, despite having won at arbitration, the driver testers agreed to changes and, through protracted negotiations, other practices were eliminated.

I mentioned that there is a capacity to conduct 430,000 this year. There is a pent-up demand due to people with provisional licences and this must be dealt with but the more people realise it is not tenable to drive forever on a provisional licence, the more people with provisional licences will emerge from the system.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Our new Polish population is astonished that we have a provisional licence system. In the UK people are amazed the situation got so out of hand. One solution would have been to hire more staff, given the importance of the matter.

Ms Julie O’Neill

One issue about hiring staff is that all Secretaries General must work within the public policy on the recruitment of staff. The main issue at the moment is that a block of testing is needed and IMPACT and the driver testers have signed up to this. The Comptroller and Auditor General said earlier that if the capacity is delivered this year we will be in a far more manageable situation. The RSA's professional assessment is that the core stock of driver testers available to it as full-time, permanent employees is at the right level to meet the underlying, steady level of demand. Deputy Shortall apparently does not agree. Further work will be done but this issue has been clouded by the backlog of people who have been on provisional licences for long periods. There is a calculation that can be done to ascertain the number of people who will seek driving licences; they are primarily young people — boys as they turn 17 and girls when they are a little older. It is important to monitor how demand will be affected by population change and climate change.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

The Secretary General is correct that I disagreed vehemently with her a moment ago. I think there are serious flaws in her Department's estimation procedures because we know the target will not be met this year and nor was the target set by the Minister met last year. The same has been the case for a number of years. Successive Ministers threatened to change the rules on unaccompanied provisional licence holders driving but they could not because the driving test service was such a disaster. There would have been mayhem had a Minister changed the rules.

When Ms O'Neill described the history of this issue to Deputy Broughan she made no reference to the public service recruitment embargo, which was a major factor in the failure to strengthen the service to the required level. The response to this matter has been crisis-driven and the resulting initiatives involve contracting out large numbers of tests. What is the Department doing about reforming the existing service? The huge problems in the service have been known for some time. For example, in 2005 36% of driver tester earnings were derived from travel and subsistence claims and it is intolerable that a public service should operate like that. Presumably, this suited the Department because those payments did not have pension implications. Is it still the case that more than a third of their income comes from travel and subsistence allowances? If so, it is an absolute scandal. It means we are paying people to drive around the country from one test centre to another instead of doing the tests. This is a key reason the number of tests per tester is so low. Has this been tackled?

My other point relates to the antiquated IT system. A major factor was the high cancellation rate and the fact that a situation whereby a person need never take a driving test was allowed to pertain. For a person to renew his or her provisional licence, he or she merely had to apply for a test and then promptly cancel it. In 2005 the cost of cancellations which could not be filled by other people amounted to something like €1 million. Is it still the case that people can do this and avoid ever having to take a test? Is there not a strong case for plugging that loophole and instituting a penalty to be applied when people cancel their tests?

Ms Julie O’Neill

It is important to reiterate that from September 2006 responsibility for the driver testing service rested with the Road Safety Authority. That was a deliberate decision by the Department. We recognised that we needed to create an agency that could deal with all aspects of road safety, of which this is an important part. We also recognised some of the issues mentioned by the Deputy, which ultimately have to do with the morale of driver testers. Testers were working at a particular salary level and topping up their salaries with travel and subsistence allowances. They were not in a career structure in which they felt there were opportunities for development because they were not part of the normal Civil Service career structure. Part of the rationale behind the development of the Road Safety Authority was to create a structure in which people could see real opportunities for career development and for change.

As part of the negotiations to which I and the Comptroller and Auditor General referred, considerable progress has been made in eliminating the types of restrictive practice that have led to the situation in which people were, as the Deputy said, driving around the country as a basis for topping up their pay with travel and subsistence allowances. In fact, they have effectively been eliminated. Coupled with this, progress has been made in increasing the number of supervisory and other positions so that people can see genuine career outlets for themselves.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Have basic pay levels been increased?

Ms Julie O’Neill

The basic pay levels have not changed. The grading system is a matter of public pay policy and is not something that is--

Deputy Róisín Shortall

A total salary of €45,000 including 36% for travel and subsistence is nonsense.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I understand it is roughly equivalent to executive officer level in the Civil Service.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Including the 36%?

Ms Julie O’Neill

No, not including the 36%. The pay rate for the job is at EO level. The issue is to ensure that people have opportunities for promotion and other outlets.

The Deputy mentioned the cancellation rate. There is no doubt that the high cancellation rate was related to a perception that there was no need to move on from a provisional licence and that one could get away with staying on it for ever. As has been well rehearsed here today, when changes are signalled — and further changes will come in terms of tightening access to driver permits and provisional licences — people will resist them. These changes are important from a road safety point of view. However, there is no doubt that this tendency to cancel tests has undergone a marked decrease as a result of people's desire to move on from a provisional licence.

Deputy Broughan made a number of points before the vote was called to which I did not get a chance to respond. One was about a number of legal issues around this area. We expect a new Road Safety Bill to be introduced this year. As the Deputy is aware, there are a number of issues that must be dealt with in this legislation. We are in direct contact with the Road Safety Authority, the Garda and other stakeholders to make sure we hoover up any bright ideas. This includes ideas from Deputies and Senators about matters that need to be addressed or that will have an impact.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I have a question about the extra people being brought in under contract to deal with this backlog. I have just done a quick calculation. Based on each tester doing seven tests a day and allowing for holiday periods and so on, roughly 270 testers would be needed to carry out this work. In 2006 there were 132 testers, which means that 140 contract staff will have to be brought in. I would not have thought there were so many people in the country who were capable of doing this. Where will the Department get them from?

Ms Julie O’Neill

Whenever I am asked where I will get these people, I must restate that this is a matter being driven by the Road Safety Authority. It is its responsibility.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

It comes under the Secretary General's remit.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Yes, it is under my remit. I do not deny that, but I do not want to create the impression that I personally am out in the highways and byways recruiting driver testers. The capacity of SGS to ramp up the number of testers — it will be about 157 at its height, for part of the year — was a big issue towards the end of last year. There are quite a number of people out there who are suitably qualified and can be trained very quickly. They are often retired gardaí and others who have driving experience. There is no shortage of applicants. In fact, the RSA was pleased about the level of interest in and demand for the positions. There is a healthy demand from well-qualified people. Obviously the issue of standards is extremely important. The standard of the test cannot be compromised.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I have a final question on road safety. We did better last year in terms of road deaths but there was still horrendous grief for around 340 families. The advertisements were a step in the right direction by Mr. Brett, Mr. Gay Byrne and the Department itself. Do we have a cost-benefit analysis of the lives lost over the past eight to ten years? In that context, why are we waiting for things such as a new Road Safety Bill? Why are we waiting for the new blood alcohol limit? It is a critical issue and there is a huge cost to the people in terms of horrendous deaths. I am not sure of the figures for January but, as mentioned by my colleague Deputy Shortall, who was our spokesperson on transport in the previous Dáil, we will not reach the EU target of halving road deaths by 2010. Besides the social cost, there is an enormous economic cost due to the death of all these young people. Is the Department conscious of the sense of urgency associated with all of these measures?

The Comptroller might consider the safety programme in a future analysis and point out that from every point of view, not least from an economic point of view, we should not allow the carnage to continue but do whatever is necessary to stop it. For example, the Road Safety Bill could be introduced next week. We could have it passed by next Thursday so that, for example, the police could arrest somebody with a deficient licence. It could be done. I know these are political issues also. Does the Department actually have the facts and figures?

I also wish to ask Ms O'Neill about the Civil Service report, because the issues we are discussing and the quality of training we give to our public servants are related.

Ms Julie O’Neill

There are a number of performance indicators I track as Secretary General. Every Monday morning I receive an update on road deaths in the previous week. That is a reflection of how seriously I take this. It is a major issue in terms of the personal tragedy involved. I do not have the figure here, although I know it is in the road safety strategy, but I seem to remember that each life lost costs something like €2 million. I cannot remember the precise figure but to be honest, it is almost impossible to count the human cost.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

It even dwarfs the cost of integrated ticketing for last year.

Ms Julie O’Neill

It is a huge issue. One of the other international benchmarks we track is the progress being made in other European countries. It is fair to say to all involved that we have come a long way in recent years. If we consider other countries such as France, where rapid progress was made as a result of the introduction of speed cameras, it was from a very low base. I could not claim that the base from which we started, given our population, the number of cars on our roads and the nature of our road network with some 90,000 km comprising local, regional and twisting roads, was good, but we have been doing better. We are trying to make changes, as evidenced by the change in terms of provisional licenceholders, to dramatically change people's behaviours and attitudes. We have seen in recent years the significant impact the introduction of mandatory alcohol testing has had on people's behaviour. We need to cause a similar mind shift in terms of the need for drivers to be properly trained and fully qualified and in regard to the danger of speeding. That is the reason a target has been given to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to roll out the speed camera initiative as quickly as possible.

Road safety legislation is complex, as members will be aware from having dealt with it in the Dáil. Part of the process involved is ongoing engagement with the Garda, particularly with Assistant Commissioner, Eddie Rock, who heads up the traffic corps and the Road Safety Authority to identify issues as they emerge. As members are aware, we expect a report back from the Road Safety Authority in March with a recommendation on a new drink-driving alcohol limit.

I am not sure if the Deputy mentioned this issue, but it is one that is live, namely that of cars that have been written off in the UK ending up on our roads. In the past day of two the Minister responsible had a meeting with the Irish Insurance Federation and secured its voluntary co-operation on sharing information.

Deputy Tommy Broughan

I advise the Secretary General that at a meeting of this committee it was indicated that the Revenue knew exactly what those cars were, and it registered write-offs to be driven here. It knew what they were and presumably the Secretary General's Department had--

Chairman

I would appreciate if the Deputy would allow the Secretary General to finish the point she is making.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Only last year we took under our wing the national vehicle and driver file, which has given us direct access to the kind of information we did not have previously. On the question of whether we have a sense of urgency about this issue, we do, absolutely, and I could not stress that more. The Deputy is correct in pointing out that this is a political matter in terms of the introduction of further road safety legislation. It is an area where there has been good collaboration across the House. As soon as we have drawn the various measures together and received the proper advice from the Garda and others as to what will work in practice, it will be a matter for the Government to decide when to introduce the legislation.

Deputy Tommy Broughan

Briefly on the two reports, Nos. 18 and 19, that the Comptroller and Auditor General has prepared, which cover related issues, his 2005 report revealed that seven of the 25 Departments responded that they did not have a formal training and development strategy in place for staff. Interestingly, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs spends 7% of its payroll budget on training and, similarly, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources spends nearly 7% of its budget on training while other Departments spend very little of their budget on training. What is the variation on expenditure on training among Departments?

This relates to the original issue we discussed of the availability of expertise such as economists, accountants and engineers in Departments, to take the Secretary General's Department as an example. What can be done about that? France was mentioned. France has a higher university of public service, the école nationale or école nationale supérieure, from which have emerged many of their great civil servants and politicians and civil servants who become politicians. That is their tradition. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s report dealt with that issue.

I will also raise another issue, that of the number of consultancies commissioned, as I am aware the Chairman wishes to wrap up proceedings. The large number of consultants we have to use seems to be related to our lack of expertise in critical areas. There is a shortage of road engineers in the local government sector due to many of them having moved to the private sector. Officials in the various local authority areas such as south Dublin find it difficult to evaluate projects because they do not have people with the necessary expertise. It is astonishing that a cost-benefit analysis, even a brief one, is not prepared in advance of major projects out-sourced to consultants to provide an understanding of their likely effectiveness. There are other questions on that area. The quality of our public service and the educational opportunities available to them is an important subject. There is a tradition in Departments of staff pursuing studies and this probably also applies to the Comptroller and Auditor General's office, where staff have probably studied to become accountants. We need to examine that area to ascertain if staff can be trained to the highest possible level. In that way, we would be able to address the issue of integrated ticketing and avoid the loss of money in regard to it.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I am glad the Deputy gave me an opportunity to speak on this issue. It is important to put across the way we approached this matter. Prior to the vote being called the Deputy asked about the expertise available in the Department. I had started my reply by saying that the Irish Civil Service, by its nature, is a general civil service staffed by people at general grade levels. However, we invest heavily in staff training. Our training represents 4% or 5% of payroll budget and staff are also refunded fees for professional courses. A considerable number of people employed by the Department have professional qualifications, including economic and other qualifications.

The Deputy would be aware of the historic tensions around the balance between specialist and generalist posts in the Civil Service. A number of engineers are employed in the roads section and the maritime section, we also have a financial adviser who is also a fully qualified accountant. My colleague here is an accountant in the finance branch of the Department. We took on a legal adviser last year, we have an environmental economist as an adviser on sustainability who has an economics degree specifically in environmental economics and we have a statistician who has a PhD in statistics. We have built a core of specialist expertise as a resource to the management board.

Deputy Tommy Broughan

Is the Secretary General's Department one of the 18 Departments that has a formal training programme?

Ms Julie O’Neill

Absolutely. I am a member of the value for money committee chaired by the Department of Finance. Through that committee, we have invested heavily in a training programme for developing to master's level and other levels of financial and analytic capacity and a capacity for evaluation and value for money analysis. A number of staff who have completed the programme are working in various sections of the Department.

Another issue in running a major programme such as Transport 21 is that we must get the balance right between recruiting a large number of permanent professional experts and having the right expertise in our agencies, which is where we want much of this expertise to reside. We have opted to handle that issue by putting in place a monitoring committee and programme board, which was assisted by economic advice following a robust procurement process. Booz Allen Hamilton consultants has a contract with us and we also have audit advice available to us on which we can draw. I hope the Comptroller and Auditor General would agree that there are times when the use of consultancy expertise is appropriate. It is the most efficient and best way to proceed because the nature of the projects with which we are dealing in Transport 21 are so varied that the number of permanent employees I would have to recruit with a different range of skill sets would not make sense. We have a training and development programme. We need to constantly attend to developing the capability of staff at assistant principal, principal, assistant secretary and Secretary General level because the nature of the work of the Department has changed dramatically. It is no longer only about policy development; it is about a capacity for evaluation and project management skills and we have to work through our PMDS to build up those skills.

Chairman

In the period 2000 to 2005, the Department spent approximately €4 million on 30 consultancies.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Yes.

Chairman

Some of them related to eGovernment and the Department abandoned three of those. What was the background to that?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I am not sure that the expenditure on consultancies related to the projects that were abandoned. There were three projects at that time. One was the driving licence application. The Chairman might recall that under the auspices of the eGovernment initiative, the Taoiseach's Department was considering projects that might be included and could be listed. I have a slight problem with the term "abandoned" because in some cases the projects were not started for good reasons. In the case of the driving licence application, for example, the issue is that a very secure application is needed to be able to take the medical certification and so forth and we are a long way from that. As has been pointed out by Deputy Shortall and others, the more immediate and urgent requirement is to have a robust IT system for the Road Safety Authority that can handle the most straightforward part of the process. There simply is not the level of development in terms of secure servers. It requires a secure verifiable method of integrating the documentation via public service broker and that simply was not available.

In the case of road haulage, the idea was that the road haulage applications would be made on-line. We were working off a computer system called the Paradox system, which is rather old and was causing problems. The project for issuing digital tachographs had to be put in place at that stage. It was an EU requirement and it took precedence. Subsequently, the road haulage division moved to Park West and then, as part of the decentralisation process, it was moved to Loughrea. Some of the functions have been moved to the Road Safety Authority. Now that we have a steady basis for that project, it is being developed as part of our new IT strategy.

The third aspect was real time passenger information. There is a fair amount of work ongoing in that area. A great deal of work is being done with Dublin Bus at present in terms of using a system so one can track where all the buses are at any point in time. Other work has taken place. There has been development in terms of information. Luas has real time passenger information available, as do the rail systems. However, with regard to the concept of one comprehensive project, given the difficulties we encountered with integrated ticketing, introducing this into the mix at that stage would not have been sensible until we had the type of structures, governance and otherwise, that could handle it. I foresee it as something the DTA will take forward when it is established.

Chairman

The figure we were given for consultancies was €4.1 million and the appropriation account shows only €2.3 million.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Yes. This is an agreed arrangement with the Department of Finance. Some of the consultancies specifically related to capital projects under Transport 21 — although it did not have that title at that stage — are in the specific subheadings related to those projects. That is all detailed, accounted for and reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Department of Finance, so it is clear.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

One of the problems we have about consultancies, as in the case of the Department of Transport, is how we can know how much precisely is being spent on them. How is it that we do not have the overall or global figure?

Mr. John Purcell

We have an overall figure but historically there has been a problem about what one classifies as consultants. There is a range of things. Sometimes contracted staff who are taken on would be treated in one place as consultancy and as something else in another. There has been some rationalisation and it has improved but I am not sure to what extent we have nailed it down to the nth degree. I just do not know.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Does the Comptroller and Auditor General believe that spending on consultants is massively under estimated and that we are not getting a fair picture in the national accounts of the level of consultancy throughout the public service?

Mr. John Purcell

There are guidelines, as a result of the concerns expressed in the earlier report, as to how one might account for consultancy and other external services in the Vote structure. It will always be difficult because there are several headings under which one can validly classify consultancy-type expenditure. There is usually a number of headings due to the type of subhead structure we have. It is a matter of implementing the guidelines in so far as one can. To get a handle on the scale of it, although not down to the absolute last euro, is important for information purposes.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Does the Comptroller and Auditor General believe the large consultancies, for example, the 21% costing more than €200,000, should have undergone a cost-benefit analysis of some description before they started?

Mr. John Purcell

As is the case with capital projects, whatever one does should be proportionate. It is usually a matter of making a decision as to what level of cost benefit analysis is appropriate or if it should be something more rudimentary. Clearly, it should be rudimentary if it is fairly modest expenditure. As expenditure increases that should be graduated up to a particular level where there would be a cost-benefit analysis with bells and whistles. That situation pertains under the capital appraisal guidelines promulgated by the Department of Finance. The same type of thinking applies to consultancies.

One would have to take into account the nature of the consultancies as well. Take the example of what we were discussing earlier, the driver testing, where a huge amount of work is being contracted out. One would have to estimate if it is cheaper to do it in-house before making a decision on it, and have all the financial data available. Then one would have to balance that by determining the benefit attached to getting the task done sooner to meet the backlog and so forth. One would have to make those decisions supported by a cost-benefit analysis in the case of contracting out those services. However, for something more modest where one is deciding whether to contract consultants or do it in-house for anything up to €50,000, for example, it would be fairly rudimentary. That would be appropriate. The important thing here is proportionality.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Revised guidelines were issued by the Department of Finance in 2006 on the use of consultants and the Minister for Finance's value for money initiative commenced in October 2005. The revised guidelines were promulgated to Departments.

Chairman

Have the contract prices that are agreed for consultancies been exceeded in many cases? Have you sought permission or approval to exceed them?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I would not like to answer that off the top of my head. There was a recent review of procurement policies generally in the Department which has given us a good deal of information, but I do not have indications that there is a dramatic change. Mr. Dan Commane, head of the finance unit, would get feedback where there are variations and, by and large, there are no variations. I would be acutely conscious of that. Normally one would scope that to ensure one is clear about what variations would be taken into account.

Chairman

Does the Department use fewer consultants than other Departments?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I would not say that. In certain areas, because of the nature of our role, we make considerable but appropriate use of consultants, where we need professional expertise that it does not make sense to have within the Department. In terms of smaller scale consultancies, the committee will see that we have been shrinking the A7 subhead year on year. We have been trying to reduce the routine use of consultants where we believe it is unnecessary and save it for something major where we believe it is necessary and appropriate. The A7 subhead in our Vote has been reducing significantly over the years and that has been part of our drive on administrative efficiency.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

It is late in the meeting but I wish to raise one issue. I am concerned that €100 million was transferred from public transport to roads. In addition, €39 million was unspent under the public transport heading. That is €140 million that should have been spent on public transport last year but was not. Ms O'Neill said earlier that the Department will catch up and it will balance out. At present, the ratio between spending on roads and public transport is 2.5:1. It is not accurate to say the Department will catch up eventually. The Department is definitely front-loading spending on roads. This leads to the point the Chairman raised earlier about the Navan rail line. Vast amounts of money are being spent on the M3. If a top of the range motorway is serving an area there will not be the critical mass to also support a top of the range rail line. Iarnród Éireann made that point. It is marginal whether this approach stacks up and very much depends on the population projections coming through in respect of development in the Meath area. The Department is taking an ideological position in deciding to front-load the spending.

Chairman

I presume that is policy. Is it policy?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I will answer the question.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

A sum of €140 million was set aside in the budget last year for public transport. One may cite whatever delays there were with rail projects but Dublin Bus put in a request for 425 buses and got only 100. Meanwhile, thousands of people are waiting at bus stops for buses that do not come. There is an issue there about the direction the Department wants to take. I accept that it is influenced by the Minister of the day but there is an issue concerning the priority that is being given to roads over public transport, which has implications about the viability of public transport projects in future.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Could I mention an addendum about one of the great former leaders and an old economics teacher of mine.

Chairman

Which one?

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Garret FitzGerald, who was a teacher. In looking at the overall cost I noticed that this time ten years ago when we were having intense debates about a new fixed-line public transport system for Dublin, Dr. FitzGerald strongly argued the case for a city-wide metro. In a recently published article he came back to this issue and cogently argued about the need to get people into the city on the red and green Luas lines. The problem, as he sees it, concerns the capacity of Luas. He is very much a metro person, as I am. If we are going to spend more, Dr. FitzGerald says we should make provision for extending metro north and creating a facility for it to go southside also. In overall terms, is that the kind of decision in which the Department will be taking an interest given that we may have to revisit some of those issues, especially the Luas options given the huge capacity of a metro system?

Ms Julie O’Neill

The Deputies' questions are longer than my answers so I will have to keep remembering from where I was coming. On the issue of the roads programme, I want to be very clear — because it is extremely important — that this is not an ideological issue. There is a clear framework within Transport 21 which includes €16 billion to be spent on public transport and €18 billion on roads. As I mentioned earlier in response to Deputy Cuffe, we have the breakdown as to how the percentage spend on public transport will ramp up over the years. There was a real issue in that the roads programme — which, let us face it, we had to work hard to get under control a number of years ago — is now in such good shape that it had projects ramped up and ready to go. There was no deliberate slowing down on anybody's part, either the agencies or ourselves, but when one runs into any kind of slowdown on public transport the critical trick with the Transport 21 programme is, rather than lose the money, to get it spent fast, get the roads programme out of the way and move on.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

It is desperately needed throughout the country.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I would like to finish the point because it is important. As regards public transport I can show that in 2012, some 62% of the spend will be on public transport.

Some 100 extra buses were given to Dublin Bus last year. The numbers on Dublin Bus have been relatively static in recent years but I hope they are beginning to pick up again now on the main corridors. We are quite sure that buses have an important contribution to make. The Minister's position — this is a policy issue — is that additional buses will be given when we are satisfied that we can get best value from them, and that will happen.

The Deputy also made an important point about whether by doing the roads first we are making public transport projects unviable. We would not accept that. We subject each project to a cost-benefit analysis and they stand independently of one another. We are very clear about that. In recent years, the dramatic increase in the use of the Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Sligo rail services is evidence of that. The fact that we are improving the road does not make a difference.

As regards Deputy Broughan's addendum on the metro, it is worth saying that the green Luas line was built to be capable of being upgraded to a metro. The planning work to upgrade it to a metro is already underway so there is no holding back on that. It is certainly an issue in which we would be interested. I have a huge regard for Garret FitzGerald and his avid interest in these matters, which has continued over the years. However, his understanding of the role that line BX would play in the overall transport network is incorrect. Line BX is not simply about linking up St. Stephen's Green and the red line — linking the green and red lines — it is part of a line that goes out to Liffey Junction and that will ultimately connect with metro west. Therefore, it is an important part of the overall architecture.

It is fair to say, however, as the Deputies have said, that the priority is the metro system to St. Stephen's Green. In making choices under Transport 21 and examining the scale of the metro project one would undertake, it was quite clear that the biggest priority in terms of growth and capacity was for the Fingal area, which is extremely important. Extending the metro north of the airport to Swords is where it would have the biggest impact. So it was a choice between that or immediately upgrading the metro on the southside where there already was a good service. It is not something we are losing sight of and I am quite aware that Mr. Frank Allen and the RPA have already done the preparatory work and will make planning applications. That is not to say, however, that it is a waste of what is there at the moment because that will connect into the other line.

Chairman

I wish to ask one question before we conclude. In 2004, Mr. Meagher told a meeting of the then Joint Committee on Transport that the line from Heuston to Connolly, which we use on All-Ireland days to get near Croke Park, would have an important role in the development of a link between Heuston and the quays. I see, however, that it is not going to be used now in that link.

Mr. Joe Meagher

I was in Irish Rail at the time. We were proposing an interconnector which is part of the Transport 21 programme. The key to that is to increase the capacity of the rail lines into the city centre. Question were asked about whether or not the line under the Phoenix Park could be used instead of the interconnector. It cannot serve that function because at the moment the only line into the city centre is through Connolly station, Tara Street and Pearse Street stations. That is the limiting factor for people coming from the Drogheda, Maynooth and DART lines. In order to increase capacity into the city centre an interconnector was needed. If one got the interconnector, as proposed, one would have the potential to quadruple the capacity because there would then be two lines through the city centre, one from the Maynooth line coming through to Bray along the existing line through Tara Street, and the other from the Drogheda line coming via Spencer Dock underground through the interconnector and to Heuston. So one would create immediate access through the city centre for people from the Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda lines, thus increasing capacity.

It would not be possible to achieve that by a greater use of the Phoenix Park line. The difficulty in an expanded use of that line at any stage was the blockage at Connolly station in terms of the lack of capacity. I did say that when an alternative station, such as the one at Docklands, was opened that could be examined but it must be looked at in the context of the demands from other lines as well. That is because there already is access to Heuston station from there whereas there is no other options from Maynooth, or in terms of extending the line through to Ongar or the other lines. There is the potential to do it but it must be looked at in terms of developments on the other lines and the need to prioritise. They must get first priority because there already is the option to bring people from the Kildare line into Heuston.

Chairman

That sounds rational. I wish to thank the Secretary General for providing such direct answers to the questions that were posed., and to the officials from her Department, as well as the officials from other Departments and agencies.

We will note Vote 32 and will dispose of Chapter 8.1. We must agree an agenda for our meeting of Thursday, 7 February 2008, as follows: the 2006 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General — Vote 39, Department of Health and Children; Vote 40, Health Service Executive and HSE financial statements 2006. We will look at chapter 10.1, control and sanction of ICT expenditure, and relevant chapters from the Value for Money Report 56 of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Improving Performance: Public Service Case Studies.

On a discussion we had earlier, perhaps the convenors will speak to the secretariat and me early each week about the number and type of witnesses attending and we could come to a conclusion on that.

The committee adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 7 February 2008.