Vol. 604 No. 5
22 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he has considered allowing private sector operators to tender for container rail freight services; if so, the actions which have been taken to facilitate this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21507/05]
In accordance with Directive 2004/51/EC the market for international rail freight services will be opened from 1 January 2006. This will enable any railway undertaking established in the EU, whether publicly or privately owned, to provide international freight services on the existing Irish rail network. From 1 January 2007, the domestic freight market will be opened. Under the proposed arrangements CIE, as the owner of the rail network, will be entitled to recoup the costs associated with allowing access to its network. In preparation for market opening, my Department is open to discussions with any interested operator.
Unfortunately there will be no rail freight in Ireland by the time we are open to international competition. It seems almost incredible in this day and age when we are so conscious of rising oil prices, the large number of deaths on our roads, growing traffic congestion and the increased cost of building roads, that we are closing down all our rail freight services. From June 27 we will have no container traffic whatsoever except where firms are willing to take an entire train at a time. Nothing will come out of Dublin Port despite the infrastructure there to provide a rail freight service. A large investment by the State will be run into the ground.
When we discussed this in committee the Minister maintained it is not economically efficient to use rail freight in this country unless it is for an entire train. Does the Minister accept he is getting his information from Iarnród Éireann which has done nothing whatsoever to develop the freight service? Several logistic companies told me that in 15 years CIE or Iarnród Éireann never contacted them to market or increase their business. It is clear Iarnród Éireann wants to get out of the business. It has gradually withdrawn services and now will take only full train loads. This smacks of a monopoly company trying to have the business suit it rather than it suit its customers.
Does the Minister accept it is extremely shortsighted to allow Iarnród Éireann divest itself of infrastructure such as freight wagons, rolling stock, freight yards and depots? It might be reminiscent of the situation regarding the Harcourt Street line as in ten years' time it may be critical to the country. This area has not been explored. Does the Minister have a role to play in ensuring the infrastructure is not deconstructed in such a way that it cannot be put back in place?
As Deputy Mitchell knows, I agree with her on this issue, and I find it deeply frustrating. We made a large investment in the rail infrastructure, and there is no question of decommissioning it. Perhaps Deputy Mitchell is referring to some of the rolling stock issues. I have engaged on this issue and many Deputies, primarily Deputy Mitchell, have contacted me on this issue. I have tried to impress my view upon the chairman of the CIE group, that it is in all our interests to have the maximum amount of freight carried on our rail network.
I do not take my evidence exclusively from Iarnród Éireann. As I may have stated publicly, I saw the experience of the substantial international container shipping company, Norfolk Shipping Line. It approached Iarnród Éireann and persuaded it to put on extra trains to deliver container traffic from the west of Ireland into Bellvue Port, which happens to be in my constituency, but that is beside the point. I encouraged this as I saw it as a precursor to the private and public sectors working together.
Recently the private sector company stated that, in spite of the good work done by Iarnród Éireann fulfilling all the criteria required, the project failed to succeed. Individual customers would not use rail services because it was more cost effective to use roads, which came as a great disappointment to Norfolk Line and Iarnród Éireann. There was no block to putting the system in place.
I make it clear to the House that my Department is open to discussions with any interested operator and we would like to hear from anybody who thinks they can make this work. It is simply not cost effective for an individual company to get a container to its location, load it, get it delivered from that point to a rail station, load it on to a train, deliver it to the rail head or shipping head and then unload it. The evidence I have been given is that rail freight works on huge numbers over long distances. I am not using that as an excuse. I am trying to convey to the Deputy that I have tried to acquaint myself with the problem. It is a nut we would all like to crack but I do not intend to decommission any of the rail line currently in place. The market opening may encourage some of the people in the private sector who said they would operate trains to come forth.
I understand CIE intends to divest itself of freight facilities and yards at both Limerick and Cork but I hope the Minister can stop that. While I accept it is difficult to compare head to head with road transport, there are externalities that operate and I believe road transport will become increasingly expensive. One container is the equivalent of 18 heavy goods vehicles on our roads. There is an enormous cost to all of us in switching from the container to the heavy goods vehicles. I ask the Minister to ensure that, at the very minimum, CIE does not divest itself of any of the infrastructure or lands currently in use or previously used for freight so as to ensure that in the near future, when I believe this method will become cost efficient, it will be available to us.
I agree with the Deputy. I have had discussions with the company and I will continue to impress upon it the points the Deputy makes. In fairness to all the CIE companies, whether it is Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or Iarnród Éireann, they have all become much more efficient and have improved their productivity. Many of them have done a great job in transforming themselves in recent years. We cannot ask them to be commercially sensitive and maximise the moneys they earn on the one hand and expect them not to be an exceptional burden on the taxpayer on the other. The problem we will face is whether it is a good idea that the taxpayer should subvent freight movement throughout the country. That is a road I would be loath to go down in terms of the taxpayer subsidising the private sector for the movement of its goods throughout the country. That is a serious question that must be answered.
They made no effort whatsoever to——
I take the point. The Deputy has made the point publicly, and made it well. I would be on the same track — no pun intended — as would most people. I hope we can come to a decent outcome on this issue.
23 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport the reason for the delay in announcing the ten-year plan for public transport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21561/05]
I do not accept that there has been any delay in publishing the plan. An outline of the draft transport investment framework is currently under active consideration by the Cabinet committee on infrastructure, housing and PPPs. When the committee has concluded its consideration I will bring my proposals to Government as quickly as possible.
The transport investment framework will build on the work already completed under the transport element of the national development plan. It will also take account of the work already done on investment priorities under the current capital envelope to the end of 2009 and of the various strategic studies already completed by my Department and its agencies, including A Platform for Change, the strategic rail review and the national road needs study. More specifically, my Department has engaged with Córas Iompair Éireann, the Railway Procurement Agency, the National Roads Authority, the Dublin Transportation Office and other local authorities to identify the broad direction and priorities under the investment framework.
It is a fundamental requirement that in so doing we propose an integrated solution to the transport challenges facing us and not merely a sectoral response.
It is not possible to outline the specifics of the draft framework or the level of funding to be made available pending the completion of its consideration by the Cabinet committee and a decision by the Government. However, the broad direction of the framework is expected to be along the following lines: completion of the major inter-urban motorways by 2010 and the upgrading of the rest of the national road network over the period of the framework; transformation of the transport system in the greater Dublin area, with a particular focus on the public transport network; completion of the renewal of the national rail network, with a major focus on the provision of enhanced services; upgrading of the public transport services in provincial cities and in the regions; addressing the management of the demand for transport; ensuring the accessibility of the public transport system to people with disabilities; and mainstreaming the rural transport initiative into the transport investment programme.
I put it to the Minister that there has been a considerable delay. This plan was first announced in the budget last December and the Minister told me in a reply to a parliamentary question in March that he had made the presentation to the Cabinet sub-committee. Three months have passed since that presentation and no decision or announcement has been made. Will the Minister accept that the effect of that is that all developments regarding transport have been put on hold? The Minister has created considerable uncertainty within the transport companies and meanwhile people continue to sit in cars in congested streets, wait in long bus queues and are squashed into overcrowded trains and the Luas while he cogitates on this and we wait for him make a decision. Time is ticking away. The Minister's predecessor did very little in terms of an overall plan for transport. The Minister promised this plan but six months after the announcement a decision has not yet been made on it.
When does the Minister expect to be in a position to announce the details of the famous ten-year plan? Can he tell the House what will then be the status of A Platform for Change, the previous framework for transport development for the city? What is the status of that framework now and are there various elements of it on which we have all been waiting for umpteen years? Will they be put in place now or fast-tracked or will they be shelved? Will this turn out to be another pre-election stunt as was A Platform for Change?
I looked at the Minister's Department website today and saw this map showing plans for a metro that will go from Bray, through Finglas to Dublin Airport, with a spur to Blanchardstown and going all the way to Clondalkin. Does the fact that this map is on the Minister's website mean that this is current transport policy? Will this be part of the Minister's ten-year plan? Will the Minister let us know his intentions in that regard? We need some action because people are sick and tired of waiting for a decent public transport system.
I would make two points in response to the Deputy. First, there is a five year plan and budgeting framework in place and all of that becomes part of the overall ten year investment. There is no stoppage on companies. I note in a positive way that the NRA is continuing to roll out its programme. Bus Éireann is continuing to fulfil its orders and enhance its rolling stock. Iarnród Éireann is doing the same. The Luas investment has gone ahead. The investment in the DART is visible as we speak, although I realise inconvenience is caused to customers at weekends. There is a huge amount of work going on.
When will the Minister announce the plan?
I have a fairly clear view at this stage of the framework but the question the Deputy will pose to me is whether I have applied due diligence to the costs. The figures involved in terms of the financing are very significant, as the Deputy can appreciate. In fairness, the Minister for Finance wants to be sure that the moneys we put in to the budget line for the next ten years will not be out of kilter with the costs as they arise. That is a substantial exercise and it has given rise to various questions about some aspects, which are quite legitimate and must be answered. If there is a delay it is a delay in a positive sense in terms of trying to finalise these points.
When does the Minister expect to be able to announce it?
I am not in absolute control of this in the sense that I am waiting for people to get back to me on some technical and financial aspects. As soon as that happens I will go back to the Government as quickly as possible. I accept it is much better from the Government's point of view and that of the different companies involved in public transport that they have clarity on the issue as quickly as possible to allow enhanced activity in terms of what is required in all the areas of public transport. I do not have an argument with the Deputy on that but I have to be sure that the day I announce this plan on behalf of the Government, and when people look at figures, the hard cash will be provided with it, unlike previous plans or visions. Everyone will welcome that because it will bring certainty to companies, whether they are in the public or private sector, in terms of investment.
The third point was about A Platform for Change. The Platform for Change proposals are being integrated with this plan. There are specific Platform for Change proposals, Luas proposals, metro proposals and Iarnród Éireann proposals, all of which have much merit. We must ensure that when we finalise those proposals they all integrate and that, whether we choose one or the other, they connect up. The Deputy has heard me say previously that if we are investing in inter-city rail it is important that it can connect to the main hub of transport, be it Luas, metro or DART connectivity, and that all of that works in a cohesive way. It is not about favouring one company over the other but about considering what delivers for Dublin. There are other rail proposals and substantial road proposals for the rest of the country, which are key to the spatial strategy. We have engaged with local authorities to be absolutely sure they are lined up with what we want to do. The local authorities have rightly made the point that we should be well aware of the sort of investment they want to make and the direction of their planning proposals, for example, where major new housing or commercial developments will take place.
We want to plan the transport network now, not when developments are completed. It has been one of the curses of the country up to now that we have built first and introduced transport years later. I do not want to go down that road again.
We must move on to the next question.
Plans were in existence in the past but the Government did not deliver on them — that is the difficulty. I asked the Minister when he might announce details of the ten-year plan. The public wants to know when it can expect relief from the chronic congestion it deals with daily, particularly in Dublin city. The Minister has already given the go-ahead to the extension of the M50. However, despite the spending of countless millions of euro and all the inconvenience to the public, there will not be any improvement of traffic congestion because the Government has failed to deliver on the commitments made under A Platform for Change. When will the Minister fast-track the major public transport initiatives in the pipeline, which have been researched and costed, and which await decision and action by the Government? That is what we want to know.
I do not agree with the Deputy's opening statement. Next week, the opening of the final stage of the M50 will make a huge contribution to the completion of the network.
It will not make any difference to congestion.
Having a motorway connecting the M11 and the M1 is a huge step forward.
The environmental impact statement stated it would not make any difference to congestion.
Anybody I have met who travels regularly from Cork to Dublin — this is not political — told me the transformation of that road is astonishing. That includes those who used to have to fly because of the traffic.
We must move on to the next question. We are well over time.
Does the Minister accept the findings of the EIS on the M50?
I am not blind to the problems on the M50.
It will have no impact on traffic congestion.
I accept there are problems on the M50. I have made clear that my view of the resolution of the problems in Dublin, including, in large measure, those on the M50, will be the development of a public transport network to create an alternative mode of transport.
All the Minister is doing is talking about public transport. We want decisions and action.
We must move on to the next question.
I am some months in this office. I have told the Deputy I will make decisions. I have done so on aviation; I intend to do so on this issue as quickly as possible.
When?
As quickly as I can.
We must move on to the next question.
The Minister is making promises but there is no action.
There is action.
People are sick and tired of traffic congestion.
Neither the Deputy nor I have a magic wand to turn around tomorrow morning and end the real problems that exist.
Nobody said anything about a magic wand.
We must move on to the next question.
24 Mr. McHugh asked the Minister for Transport if he will put in place a rural transport service to cover the north-east Galway region to enable elderly persons with no transportation of their own to be provided with transport to local towns and services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21489/05]
My Department is funding the provision of public transport in rural areas on a pilot basis through the operation of the rural transport initiative, RTI. The RTI has been operating since 2002 and, under it, funding is made available to 34 community organisations throughout the country to provide local transport services. It is not proposed to expand the number of projects pending the conclusion of the pilot phase of the RTI at the end of 2006. I have already announced that from that date I intend to put the scheme on a permanent footing. The RTI makes a daily difference to the lives of thousands of people and it is for this reason I have put it on a permanent financial footing.
Area Development Management Limited administers the RTI on behalf of my Department. ADM and the individual RTI groups are solely responsible for all the operational aspects of the initiative, including the areas to be served by transport, and neither my Department not I have any role in these matters.
This year I have allocated €4.5 million for the RTI, which is a 50% increase on the allocation for 2004. This should allow individual RTI groups to make some modest expansion of services in some areas. The provision in 2006 will be €5 million. This will bring the total national development plan, NDP, provision to more than €18 million, compared with the original NDP commitment of €4.4 million.
In the period up to the end of 2006 my Department will engage in a wide-ranging consultation process to seek proposals for a permanent structure for the RTI. In developing these proposals I will pay further attention to the transport needs of rural communities such as those to which the Deputy referred.
I thank the Minister for his reply. However, it does not give hope to the thousands of rural people who do not have a transport service. Will the Minister admit that the service as currently constituted is unsatisfactory and discriminatory in the sense that it covers some rural areas but not others. To put it mildly, it is unsatisfactory that one person might have a service while a neighbour might not. It is also discriminatory given that a free travel scheme is in place but rural residents cannot avail of it, which is wrong.
While the Minister's party gets much support from rural areas, it does not treat those areas well by not ensuring the service is available for use by everybody, not just a select few. For example, a transport initiative is in place to cover part of my constituency of Galway East but a large chunk of the constituency has no service. I do not understand why it will take a total of three years before the Minister reviews the scheme. As a pilot project, why was it not run for one year to assess its operation before making an evaluation and developing proposals to put it on a permanent footing?
The Minister may not be aware that some people in rural Ireland live in a tunnel of loneliness and isolation because they have no contact with others for weeks at a time. If they had a transport service, they could avail of it, perhaps for weekly trips to a local town to do shopping, meet people and have some contact with others.
Does the Minister have the will to take this on now rather than waiting for 2006? The scheme has proved itself and the Minister and his officials have enough experience of it to make a judgment as to how to move forward. There is no need to wait until 2006. It is unfair on rural people who do not have a service to drag the process out for another year and a half.
This is one of the most successful schemes ever introduced here. I have taken the time to assess it, having viewed its operation, met those who use it and travelled on the buses. Shortly after I came into office, many Deputies persuaded me of the value of the scheme. I was strongly persuaded it should be made permanent and provided with increased funding, given its huge impact, as the Deputy rightly noted, on the lives of many who are isolated in rural Ireland and unable to access services, meet friends, travel into towns and feel part of everyday living. The service has clearly transformed lives, as all its users I met have told me.
In response to what colleagues and those who use the service said, I increased the budget by 50% this year. Nothing like this was done in any other area. I have further indicated what the figure will be next year. Despite an original commitment of €4.4 million for the total period, we will have spent €18 million. It would be wrong to state there is not a huge a commitment to this initiative.
All the groups involved have responded positively to my announcement because they now have certainty on what will happen this year, certainty in their budgeting for next year and certainty that the scheme will become permanent. In the meantime, we are talking to all the different groups involved to ascertain the best structure for a fully rolled-out permanent scheme throughout the country. I would like every part of rural Ireland to be able to avail of this service, which is the object of the exercise.
Some 35 schemes are in operation at present. They are well funded and delivered approximately 65,000 RTI transport services last year, totalling more than 500,000 passenger trips. The impact is very significant and we will do more. There are two successful schemes in County Galway, one in Bealach in Connemara and the other in south-east Galway. We would like to have these schemes extended not just to Deputy McHugh's area but to other parts of the country, and we are well on track to achieve this. All the organisations involved have thanked me for what I have done and for allowing them the timeframe in which to maximise the work of the schemes.
Some of the schemes work extremely well in that almost the entire budget goes into the service. In some schemes the proportion of the budget that goes into the administration is high relative to the amount that goes into the service. This concerns me and I do not think it is necessary. Some people have tried to set up large organisations to run this while others have shown me how this can be run in a cost efficient manner in co-operation with the local authorities. More services can be obtained because the more money that is put into services, rather than administration, the more one benefits. I want to look at why this has happened in some areas so we can maximise the money to the benefit of the customer.
What exactly does the Minister mean when he says he will put the initiative on a permanent financial footing from 2007? Is he referring to the initiative as it currently exists, or will those areas still be without a service? Does he mean there will be blanket coverage?
That is a good question. That is why I have asked the groups what they want. The one thing that is certain is that this scheme will not end. This was tried as a pilot scheme and it will now be a permanent scheme for the entire country. It will not be limited to those which have it currently. I want to look at how we can expand it around the country and make the most of it.
25 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport the number and details of private operator bus passenger licences for new routes awarded by his Department’s licensing unit each year from 2002 to date; the number of such requests awaiting a decision; his Department’s policy toward the role of private bus operators in providing commuter services in major urban centres; the number and location of new routes commenced by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann each year from 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21508/05]
My Department was unable at short notice to collate the information requested for the years prior to 2004. This information will be forwarded directly to the Deputy as soon as possible.
The numbers of passenger road licences issued to private operators for new routes and the numbers of new routes by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann noted each year from 2004 to date are as follows: 138 passenger road licences were issued to private bus operators for new routes in 2004; there were 24 notifications to State bus companies for new routes; and in 2005 so far, 72 licences have been issued to private operators and there have been two notifications to the State for new routes.
The information provided relates only to new routes. There may be cases where existing routes have been amended to include new services, re-alignment of an existing route or to extend the existing route, for example to a university, and this information is not included in the records supplied. However, the Department will be happy to forward this information to the Deputy should she require it.
The commencement of new routes by State bus companies is an operational matter for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. However, the information given includes the proposed implementation date and the date the proposed route was noted by my Department. I can advise the Deputy that as of 17 June 2005, there is a total of 74 applications for passenger licences for new routes on hand in my Department. These applications are at various stages of processing. In the case of two applications carried over from 2003, my Department has had extensive correspondence with the applicants and they are now at an advanced stage of consideration. I expect decisions will be given shortly. Of the remaining number, 24 applications on hand were carried over from 2004.
The Road Transport Act 1932 provides the legislative basis for entry to the public transport market by private bus operators. In accordance with this legislation, private operators are licensed to operate coach and bus services within the State. At any time there are approximately 500 licences held by private bus operators for a range of public bus services including regular scheduled services, school and college services, occasional bus services for special events such as concerts, city tours and so on.
My Department is required, under the provisions of the Road Transport Act, to apply a range of criteria in considering applications. These include a public interest test and issues such as frequency, capacity, adequacy or otherwise of existing services and availability of buses. Generally, the "public interest" is interpreted as being best served by enhancing and facilitating an expansion of the range of public transport services available to the public as opposed to allowing unrestricted competition for market share.
The adequacy or inadequacy of existing services and the net benefit to the public interest of a proposed service is assessed by the Department on the basis of the best evidence available to it. This includes evidence submitted by the applicant in support of the licence application, and outcome of consultations with such interests as local authorities and regional, community and business groups. The Department also examines applications for their added value to the public in terms of the route and locations to be served, the timing of services and the days on which services are available, in order to maximise the availability, regularity and frequency of service.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Road Transport Act 1932 does not provide for any distinction between passenger road services in rural or urban areas. In accordance with standard practice, all licence applications and notifications are dealt with on a first come, first served basis. However, pressing or exceptional circumstances can be taken into account in determining the order in which applications are dealt with. This would, for example, cover applications for passenger services to operate in conjunction with other transport modes such as Airport services or Luas feeder services, time-bound applications such as tour services or student services and commuter services, for example, in conjunction with the development of a quality bus network.
Such exceptional treatment is based on added value in terms of integrated transport, reducing congestion and meeting peak demand. However, due consideration must be given to all existing services and prior applications for passenger services on the same or similar routes in accordance with the Road Transport Act. The provisions of the Road Transport Act no longer provide an adequate basis for regulating the bus market and discussions are currently taking place with all the stakeholders with a view to replacing the Act with a modern regulatory framework, in line with the commitment in the programme for Government.
In this context, I propose to establish an independent national public transport commission to, inter alia, allocate Exchequer subvention for public transport services, both bus and rail, through public service contracts, to license commercial bus services and regulate fares on all rail services, Luas and buses.
I feel almost moved to tears because I have asked this question year in, year out and nothing seems to change. I have raised the issue of additional capacity for Dublin Bus. We are looking for more buses, not a fanciful interconnector or a metro. Buses are cheap and flexible and can be delivered relatively quickly.
Why is that not happening? Dublin Bus does not have the buses and no one else is allowed to provide the service. There are almost 200 applications on hand, of which 74 are for new licences, in some cases for two years. The Minister has received more applications for licences where the applicant simply wants to enhance the service and the Department will not provide an answer.
There is a major conflict of interest between the Minister as the licensing operator for private operators and as shareholder of CIE. How can the Minister stand over a situation where someone waits over 18 months to get a licence and the very day he or she receives a licence and puts his or her buses on the route Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann appears on the route for the first time? Neither could provide a service until they had some competition.
I ask the Minister to do one of three things and I do not care about the ideology involved. He can give buses to Dublin Bus, give licences to private operators or he can appoint a regulator and let the regulator organise the buses.
People need extra capacity. People, whose children are growing up, are growing old waiting on any kind of bus service. Entire communities were promised by the previous Minister that if houses were built on the basis of sustainable development, buses and trains would follow. None of it has happened. The houses are there, the children are growing old, in some cases there is a second generation, yet no bus has arrived.
It is unforgivable as the public interest is not being served. I do not know whose interest is being served. I cannot believe there is no progress on this matter because the Taoiseach wants to keep the unions happy. I cannot believe the public interest should be dumped to such an extent that this reason is the motivating factor. When will we see some action that will get extra capacity? It can be done quickly and we can put people out of their misery.
If it is any consolation to the Deputy I first spoke on this Bill in the House over 20 years ago. The Road Transport Act 1932 is totally inadequate. It no longer provides an adequate basis for regulating the bus market.
The Government has been in power for eight years.
The Minister's party has been in Government for 18 of the last 20 years.
We need a completely different framework to deal with it. I understand the Deputy's frustration. Now I have the opportunity to do something about it and I intend to do so. I wish to clarify one point relating to the number of buses and the capacity of Dublin Bus. The capacity of Dublin Bus has expanded enormously.
It has not expanded as much as the population.
There has not been one extra bus.
The type of buses has changed, resulting in a capacity expansion of 25%. The number of buses may not have changed but the type of vehicle and the capacity has changed. There has been a huge expansion in the capacity of Dublin Bus. I am not making the point for political reasons but because it is misunderstood.
The Deputy is correct in stating that a conclusion must be reached. I do not think it is right the Minister or Department as the shareholder in a State company is also the regulator in the market. There is a conflict of interest and one cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher. We need an independent body to look after the issuing of licences and the subvention for the provision of public services through the bus network.
Will there be a regulator or a public body for procuring services before the next general election?
With the help of Deputies Olivia Mitchell and Shortall I certainly hope so.
The Deputy is the Minister in charge of the Department.
It was in the programme for Government and it was dropped.
I will do everything I can. The Bill is being readied. I am working on the Bill, despite everything else.
What is the Bill to which the Minister is referring? The Bill is off the programme.
26 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Transport if he is satisfied that the best practices in terms of ensuring passenger and driver safety are being followed on public transport buses; if he has had any communications on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21477/05]
An extensive range of requirements must be satisfied to use a bus in a public place. In this regard all buses are required to comply with statutory requirements for the construction, equipment and use of vehicles as set out in the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations 1963 to 2002, the Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) Regulations 2003 to 2004, and the Road Traffic (Lighting of Vehicles) Regulations 1963 to 1996.
Safety standards applied under these regulations relate, inter alia, to maximum passenger accommodation including the circumstances where standing passengers may be carried, maximum dimensions, overall vehicle weight and axle weight limits and the fitment of speed limiters. Notwithstanding the general speed limits that apply to vehicles, single deck buses are subject to a maximum speed limit of 80 km/h with double deck buses subject to a maximum speed of 65 km/h. Buses over one year old are liable to annual roadworthiness testing in accordance with the European Communities (Vehicle Testing) Regulations 2004.
In order for a private bus operator to operate a passenger road service, the operator must hold a passenger licence issued by my Department in accordance with the Road Transport Act 1932. One of the requirements to be satisfied for such a licence is that each bus to be used on the proposed route is licensed as a large public service vehicle in accordance with the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations 1963 to 2002.
Tachograph recording equipment in passenger vehicles comes under Council Regulations (EEC) Nos. 3820/85 and 3821/85 and Statutory Instruments Nos. 392 and 393 of 1986. These regulations are enforced in respect of buses with a seating capacity of more than 17 persons, including the driver. Tachograph record sheets are used daily by the driver and these record the hours driven, breaks and rest periods.
The basic rules provide that after four and a half hours driving, a driver must take a break of at least 45 minutes; a daily driving period shall not exceed nine hours, but may be extended twice in any one week to a maximum of ten hours; in each period of 24 hours, a driver must have a daily rest period of at least 11 consecutive hours; and after six days driving a driver must observe a weekly rest period of 45 hours.
The tachograph record sheets are inspected on a regular basis by inspectors from my Department. The enforcement occurs at the premises of operators and at roadside checks. Both operators and drivers have a responsibility to ensure compliance with the regulations and both are prosecuted in the case of non-compliance on drivers hours.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
All other passenger vehicles that do not come within the scope of the above regulations are covered by section 114 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations 1963 applies also.
These regulations are enforced by the gardaí and provide that a driver shall observe a break of 30 minutes after five and a half hours driving; a driving time of 11 hours and a rest period of ten hours must be observed in each period of 24 hours; and, in accordance with the regulations of 1963, a driver shall observe a weekly rest period of 24 hours after each period of seven days driving.
Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath have confirmed to my Department that they comply fully with all relevant legislation concerning drivers, vehicles and health and safety.
As with all matters of public importance, my Department receives correspondence concerning these issues from time to time. I am, however, satisfied that the aforementioned regulations and controls provide a framework for a safe, convenient and comfortable bus transport system both for passengers and drivers.
The Minister is aware that there have been a number of high profile accidents recently and no doubt we will receive a report on them in due course. Is anyone in the Minister's Department carrying out an overview of these accidents and what caused them? Is the Minister aware that some Dublin Bus drivers are regularly clocking up to 90 hours plus per week? Others have medical certificates stating that they are unfit for driving work, yet they are being pressurised daily to undertake such work. Does the Minister have any view on this matter? Is he satisfied that cost-cutting, particularly on bus maintenance, is not endangering passenger and driver safety? How often do health and safety officers call to maintenance depots and is prior notice given before their arrival?
Concerns have been expressed about the use of substandard seats on Dublin Bus vehicles, which have caused serious back injuries to many drivers and miscarriages for pregnant women, fuel fumes in the lower decks of buses and faulty brakes prompting drivers' fears of brakes going on fire. Is the Minister aware of any of these issues? I have received correspondence about these matters and I understand that similar letters have also been sent to Ministers and other Deputies. We never hear the Government's view on these issues, however.
An overall investigation is needed into public transport safety. During the summer recess the Minister's Department should investigate this whole area, including the concerns I have raised. Perhaps answers could be provided not only to me but also to the Joint Committee on Transport.
There is growing concern among drivers about the pressure under which they are working. I am not sure if this matter comes within the Minister's remit, but it affects drivers and their passengers. Will the Minister bring together a number of people to investigate these matters? The request is a reasonable one given that a number of serious accidents have occurred recently involving buses.
I have no knowledge, and no information has been presented to me, that Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or any other State companies are breaking the law on a daily basis, as the Deputy has suggested. If that were the case, it would be a matter of the most serious gravity. If the Deputy has evidence of this wanton law-breaking, as he has suggested, by State companies and those who work for them, he should present the evidence either to the Garda Síochána or to me, and I will pass it on to the Department. My understanding is, however, that Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, the two State bus companies, operate at all times under the strict letter of the law. It has never been suggested to me, either in writing or orally, as the Deputy has done, that anything other than the highest standards are applied by those companies.
We are all concerned with recent tragedies that have occurred in the public transport area. We all await the outcome of those reports which are compiled by the Garda Síochána and others, not by my Department.
The accusations the Deputy has levied in the House are extremely serious for the employees of the companies, whom he has accused of being complicit in law breaking, and equally from the viewpoint of management which, the Deputy claimed, has exerted undue influence on workers to encourage them to break the law. These are extremely serous charges and the Deputy should present the evidence to me or to the Garda Síochána.
Is the Minister saying that he has not received correspondence from drivers about this? My information is that letters were sent to the Department, although it may have been before the Minister's appointment. The letters were sent, however, and I am told that other Deputies received similar correspondence.
The Minister has not answered the question about substandard seats for drivers on Dublin Bus causing serious back injuries. The Minister does not appear to be aware of that problem, the dangers of miscarriage for pregnant women or fuel fumes on the lower decks of buses. Has the Minister been on a bus and smelt such fumes? Is he aware of faulty brakes or drivers' fears of brakes going on fire? Is the Minister aware of any of these matters or is he in the dark, as was the kitchen downstairs earlier?
I am making a simple request arising from my concerns and those of the drivers involved. This is a priority question and perhaps other Deputies received the same correspondence that I did. I am concerned because I think there is a tragedy waiting to happen. I will pass on the information that I have been given to the Minister. If he suggests it should also be furnished to the Garda Síochána, I will do that as well. My understanding is, however, that when drivers produce letters from their general practitioners stating that they are unfit to drive buses, pressure is put on them to drive on those routes. That is second-hand information but it has been furnished to me. It is a serious accusation but I felt it was important to raise it here as I have been given that information.
I reiterate that I would be deeply concerned if such practices occurred in any State companies, as I am sure all of us would be. I would like to see evidence of such practices, however. That needs to be established. The day-to-day operation of the companies is a matter for the companies themselves. As Minister, I do not have a role in interfering with the daily operation of any of the companies concerned, and rightly so, nor would any Minister under whose remit State agencies operate. Such bodies are legally given that independence of operation and they should be allowed to get on with the job.
I would be interested to receive whatever the Deputy has to send to me. I cannot personally recall receiving in writing any of the accusations to which the Deputy referred, but I will certainly check in my office whether such information was sent directly to me.
