Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 4

Estimates for the Public Service, 2003

Vote 32 - Department of Transport (Revised).

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the revised Estimates for the Office of the Minister for Transport, Vote 32. I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, and the officials accompanying him - Mr. John Fearon, Assistant Secretary, Mr. Dan Commane, principal officer, and Mr. Derek McConnon, assistant principal officer.

A proposed timetable for today's meeting has been circulated to members, along with papers for today's meeting. The Minister's opening statement will run from 3 o'clock to 3.15 p.m. The opening statement on behalf of Fine Gael will run from 3.15 p.m. to 3.25 p.m., and that on behalf of Labour from 3.25 p.m. to 3.35 p.m. A general discussion will take place between 3.35 p.m. and 4.45 p.m. Concluding comments will take place from 4.45 p.m. to 5 o'clock. It can be shorter than that if we so wish. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will now proceed to a general discussion on the Estimates.

Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee and officials for agreeing to delay the start of the meeting until 3 o'clock. Issues with which I needed to deal arose. In view of that and with your agreement, Chairman, I will circulate the text of my speech to members.

I will give a summary of its contents for two or three minutes and members can then refer to the script themselves. Therefore, I will avoid going into enormous detail unless members wish me to do so. I will, however, circulate the text.

The roads budget for 2003 is €1.2 billion. It is worth noting that back in 1997 the figure was €290 million, so it has increased dramatically. There are 19 major schemes of which 13 will open to traffic this year, including the Drogheda bypass and the Cloghran, Balbriggan and Glen of the Downs bypasses. As members will have seen in the media recently, I have signed the contract for the Kilcock-Kinnegad bypass, which is a public-private partnership motorway. The Dundalk western bypass, the Cashel bypass and the Waterford bypass are all going ahead. There are 64 other schemes in design at the moment. The total investment over the first four years of the national development plan will be about €33.8 million, which is 13% higher than was envisaged.

There have been increases in the cost of the programme and I have taken action on that in recent times. Because of that, however, it is quite clear that the programme will take longer to implement than was originally intended when the NDP was put in place. The onset of recent announcements, particularly about the Kilcock-Kinnegad bypass and other deals which are coming to a conclusion - the Dundalk western bypass and the Waterford City and Fermoy bypasses - will increase the pace substantially. Investment in road maintenance at €54 million is going ahead.

The 2003 allocation for the Dublin Transportation Office comes to €40 million which, by and large, is to fund quality bus corridors, cycle networks and traffic cells, investment in computerised traffic signalling systems and parking information systems, as well as developing integrated land use and transport framework plans. Broadly speaking, that is where that €40 million for 2003 will go. It represents a substantial increase on the previous year.

There is a backlog of 130,000 driving tests, which compares to 65,000 at the end of 2002. Therefore, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people applying for driving tests. I am putting in place measures to decrease that backlog as quickly as possible. In addition, I will be bringing forward a range of measures concerning the rules for holding provisional and full driving licences.

Members will be aware that there has been an explosion in the number of taxis, in particular in Dublin City, from approximately 3,000 to 12,000 or 14,000, depending upon whether one takes Dublin or the country as a whole. In response to that increase, I have had a number of meetings with the interests involved. I have appointed an interim national taxi regulator who is the chairman of the commission. We are pressing ahead with paying out the funds as soon as possible to the taxi hardship panel to assist those who have suffered hardship because of deregulation. I have also committed myself to implementing fully any proposals that Mr. Jimmy Farrelly, the interim chairman, brings to me. He is in the middle of a round of meetings with taxi and hackney interests and will bring forward those proposals to me as soon as possible.

Members will be aware that we have made substantial advances in road safety with the introduction of the penalty points system, which has brought about approximately a 20% reduction in road deaths. I also want to warn against complacency because the system will require the full attention of the Garda Síochána and a bigger effort by the insurance industry. I acknowledge, however, the intention of the Hibernian Insurance Company, which has put forward a particular proposal to quote reduced premia from 1 November to drivers who have not incurred penalty points. I applaud the company for having made that proposal and I call on the rest of the industry to do the same.

On 1 June, I am proposing to add five penalty points to uninsured drivers' licences. I remind members that a penalty point offence of not wearing seat belts will be added from 1 July. I am having further discussions with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on that matter. The road safety strategy is a major priority of my Department and one in which I continue to take a strong personal interest. Apart from the human tragedy involved it feeds into health costs and investment issues.

Substantial investment is being made in public transport, with rail costs of approximately €400 million per annum. New buses have been acquired and new rail cars have been ordered, along with further investment being made in rail track. Since 1999, a total of €533 million has been spent on the rail safety programme. It is worth pointing out that in the last five years about €1 billion has been spent on railway investment. Looking forward to the next five years, that figure could rise to a further €2 billion, making a total of €3 billion over the ten-year period.

CIE's current subvention is still strongly supported by the taxpayer, and strong Exchequer subventions are still being made in all three CIE companies. Since 1997, the subvention to CIE has increased by 84%. Members of the committee will be aware that I am proposing to restructure CIE by dissolving the main company and establishing the three companies independently in order that they may offer competing services. I am also proposing to open the Dublin bus market to the extent of 25% in 2004, and to bring forward proposals of a similar nature for the rest of the country. An independent transport regulator will be in place to oversee new entrants to the industry and to ensure they have a level playing field.

I appeared before this committee recently to deal with rail safety and more work remains to be done to complete the Railway Safety Bill. I look forward to working with members of the committee, as well as Members of the Dáil and Seanad, on that legislation.

The Government is committed to providing greater autonomy for Shannon, Cork and Dublin airports. We are in the final stages of arriving at conclusions with regard to the Aer Rianta board and in the coming weeks the Government will be finalising its thinking in that area. Members will also be aware of the Government's proposals regarding the second terminal. There have been 13 expressions of interest, which are being examined by Paddy Mullarkey, the former Secretary General of the Department of Finance, and his expert group. He has concluded that it could be viable to proceed. The Government is considering the matter but no final decision has been made.

Members of the committee will be aware that substantial moneys continue to be put into regional airports. The aviation sector continues to be vulnerable to external shocks and it must be watched carefully. We are also examining the use of the red safety zones at airports.

Thank you, Minister. I call Deputy Naughten.

I welcome the opportunity to debate these Revised Estimates. The Minister has been an excellent media performer over the past 12 months, but little action has been taken in any area, other than in relation to taxis. We are working in a different economic environment and we must carefully review the way budgets are being spent. However, it is pathetic that there should be only four gardaí policing clearways and QBCs in Dublin City on any evening of the week. Consideration should be given to extending Operation Freeflow to cover the entire year. While the Minster will argue that this would cost a lot of money, the current traffic congestion in the city centre is costing businesses a huge amount.

The Phoenix Park rail tunnel and the Glas-nevin junction have been mentioned in the context of the frequent debates on the strategic rail review. These are two of the biggest assets in the rail infrastructure, yet both have been ignored by the review. Even the basic map accompanying the review omits any connection between Heuston Station and Connolly Station. At the same time, there is talk of spending €1 billion to construct a new tunnel under the River Liffey, despite the fact that with the right level of commitment a shuttle service between both stations could be provided which would alleviate problems for many commuters, especially those using the Kildare line. Basic measures such as these could have been implemented in the past 12 months but nothing has been done.

The additional investment provided to the roads programme will not even keep pace with the rate of construction inflation, which has accelerated for a number of reasons, including the rise in fuel costs. The Minister for Finance contributed by increasing the rate of VAT. In real terms, there is a cut in the budget available to the roads programme, with the BMW region again the worst affected area. It means that the disadvantaged communities will remain disadvantaged, which flies in the face of the national spatial strategy. For example, the designated growth triangle in the midlands has no decent road connecting the three surrounding towns of Mullingar, Athlone and Tullamore. The NRA has stated that no funding is available to develop national secondary roads. Similarly, the Ballina-Castlebar corridor contains some of the most modern rail line in the world, yet no service will connect the two towns.

Some €445 million will be spent on the roads budget for the four Dublin local authorities while the five Connacht counties between them will receive less than €70 million. Turning to the five inter-urban routes, huge costs are being incurred on the design because of the failure to take decisions. For example, on the Dublin-Galway route, it has been decided to shelve the section of road between Athlone and Ballinasloe. This means consultants will get more money to redesign an exit from the new motorway onto the N6. The same is happening on the south-eastern motorway where contractors will get €200,000 per week to allow it lie idle. Such developments beg the question as to the kind of management in place on these projects. Little funding has been allocated to planning and design. The intention appears to be to keep the consultants on board and projects ticking over. It means that money is being badly spent.

The road maintenance budget has been increased by 2.7%. The purpose of the budget is to maintain the existing national primary roads. However, when construction inflation is taken into account this represents a real cut in expenditure. The programme covers winter maintenance and surfacing, including the gritting of roads in poor weather conditions. There is a direct correlation between maintenance and road safety, yet the NRA is slow to provide figures showing where an inadequate road or road structure is the cause of an accident. Despite this, budgets are being reduced.

There is an allocation for supervision under the national car test. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the NCT is becoming increasingly strict. This means that instead of recalling vehicles for visual tests to correct an error, they are put through the system again with the result that other flaws are being identified. There is something wrong with the system if it does not pick up all flaws on the first examination. It begs the question whether re-examination is being done as part of a revenue measure by the NCT service. I question the kind of supervision in place.

The Minister is aware that despite the introduction of the penalty points system, the number of fatalities this month is 30% higher than in May 2002. Fatalities are on the increase because resources are not being allocated to the enforcement of the system. There are three fixed speed cameras located around the country, but this year Garda resources to deal with enforcement have been reduced. It is pointless to introduce a penalty points system unless the resources are put in place. It is possible that if the number of fatalities this month continues to increase, this May will have been the worst month in terms of fatalities since the Government took office six years ago.

The announcement by Hibernian Insurance Group regarding premium reductions for those with no penalty points is welcome. Why did the Minister not approach the insurance companies before the launch of the penalty points system and secure their agreement to premium reductions? Why was it not done before the introduction of the national car test and the theory test for the car driving test? The Minister should secure the agreement and commitment by insurance companies to respond favourably to similar programmes before they are introduced. I hope this will happen with regard to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The insurance companies are good at calling for the introduction of various measures but they are slow to pass on reductions in premiums to drivers.

On the road safety initiatives, will the Minister indicate the current position regarding the national driver file and the Garda IT system? When will the fixed speed cameras be rolled out and when will there be a decent level of enforcement of road traffic legislation? The Garda Síochána does not have adequate resources in this area. When will the road safety strategy be published?

Will the Minister comment on the design plans for the Luas light rail system in so far as they apply to the Naas Road and the Red Cow interchange? As soon as the road opens, pandemonium will ensue. It is already being called the mad cow interchange. The decision to provide park and ride facilities on one side of Newland's Cross without providing an over or underpass will exacerbate current difficulties.

The service development budget for the rail investment programme has been cut by 8.5%. The Minister referred in the Estimate to the 67 new carriages for the inter-city service. What he failed to tell us, and what Irish Rail failed to tell us, is that these will replace existing carriages. There will be no additional carriages to provide additional capacity on the rail network in the coming years. We must wait until 2005 for the new carriages to arrive and some time in the future we may have additional capacity. Has the Minister considered the possibility of leasing carriages rather than purchasing them? We could get much better value for our investment and we could provide additional capacity on the rail network.

The Minister also said he was bringing forward proposals on provisional licences as soon as possible and he has given a commitment to his parliamentary party in this regard. When will we see the proposals? He made the announcement before Christmas but the proposals have not yet been published. Some 360,000 drivers have provisional licences, that is, one in every four drivers. However, the backlog is not being addressed. It has got much worse since the announcement before Christmas. The appropriations-in-aid table indicates that fewer driving tests will take place this year than last year, therefore there will be less revenue.

I have a number of other questions with which I will deal later. However, I want to ask the Minister a question about the legal action between Aer Rianta and the regulator. What is the State's liability in this regard, both from the semi-State and the regulator's point of view? What will be the total cost of these two agencies and arms of the State having to go to the courts to deal with a dispute?

I welcome this opportunity to tease out with the Minister some of the main transport issues. It is difficult enough for Opposition spokespersons to keep track of what he is doing, given that he devotes so much attention to media coverage, as Deputy Naughten said, yet he is not prepared to support his announcements with any kind of detail. I hope he will be more forthcoming today than he has been during Question Time in the Dáil.

I have a few specific questions, the first of which relates to the administration Estimate which indicates an increase of €3 million for the Office of the Minister, Minister of State and the secretariat. I ask him to provide details on the breakdown of that increase, given the shedding of responsibilities from the old Department. I would have thought there would have been savings. How can he account for an increase of €3 million?

I also want to raise consultancies, the detail on which is listed in appendix 1 of the Estimates. It is surprising at this time when we are almost at the half year stage that several very important consultancies have not been appointed. These are in areas where the Minister has been most active from a media point of view. Some of the proposals in respect of public transport have a very high profile and will have major implications. It is difficult to understand why he is making announcements without having commissioned consultants to back up his plans. I am thinking in particular of the consultancy on the restructuring of CIE. The Minister has made the announcement and has repeated on a number of occasions his intention to push through the proposal at a very early stage, yet he has received no consultancy report. There are 12 proposals in the public transport area for this year but consultants have not yet been appointed in the case of five of them. In respect of technical advice on the rail safety task force, the Minister is proposing major amendments to the Rail Safety Bill. This did not come about as a result of consultations. I would like to know where he is coming from in regard to these issues, given that he has received no consultancy advice to back up his proposals.

In relation to the proposed so-called reform of the bus market in the Dublin area, the Minister has announced his clear intention to franchise out 25% of the market. I asked him yesterday during Question Time his reasons for doing so and the basis for thinking the commuter service will be improved, or if he thinks it will, but he did not answer. On what is he basing his policy if he has not yet appointed consultants? I was amazed at his response yesterday when we discussed the need to appoint a regulator if he intends opening up the bus market in the Dublin area. Since the market was opened up outside of Dublin there has been a free for all. The situation on some routes is crazy and there is no regulator in place. When the Minister was questioned yesterday, he responded as if it had never occurred to him to appoint a regulator.

I am concerned about how the system operates in respect of bus services outside of Dublin. In my view, in the absence of any kind of transparency in relation to how licences are granted, the system as it operates is wide open to abuse. When the two bus companies were in with us on Tuesday, we were trying to tease out with them how the system works. There were a number of instances where one of the bus companies had done the market research and realised there was a demand for a new service. It applied to the Minister's Department, he sat on the application for several months and the bus company was then informed that a private operator would get a licence. How can we not jump to the conclusion that there is something under-hand going on within the Department? We do not know what the criteria are or who is responsible for granting licences. I ask the Minister to answer this question directly. Is the system not wide open to abuse if there are no clear criteria set down about the granting of licences and no one knows how it works? This is one of my main concerns in respect of his plans to open up the Dublin market.

The other aspect is his inexplicable decision to debar publicly owned companies from tendering for any of these services. He talks about competition but, if he wants real competition, anyone who is in a position to provide a service should be able to tender for the service. If Dublin Bus can run the service more competitively than a private operator, why should it not be allowed to tender?

It is a monopoly.

It is not a monopoly. If the Minister intends to open up the market to competition, for example, the Stillorgan Road route, should it not be opened up to everyone? He could then compare Dublin Bus prices with those of private operators. It defies all logic to rule out a company on the basis that it is publicly owned. These are the people who have been providing very competitively costed services throughout the Dublin area. Perhaps he will explain this aspect.

To return to the five consultancies that have not been appointed, on what basis is the Minister making policies, if it is not on the basis of expert consultancy reports? The fact that consultancies have not been appointed explains why he is not able to back up the policy decisions he has made. It is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

I want to ask the Minister about taxis. There is extreme disappointment among the FAIR group in regard to his replies yesterday. The European Parliament has a recognised procedure through which people have a right of redress, namely, the Committee on Petitions. This committee thoroughly investigated taxi deregulation here and produced a considered report, including recommendations. One of the recommendations was that the Government should review the payments of the taxi hardship panel. It also requested the Minister to consult with the Committee on Transport and the taxi hardship panel on how he might approach the issue in a fairer and more appropriate manner and provide some form of compensation or recompense to those who had lost their livelihoods through overnight deregulation. In his reply yesterday, the Minister indicated he had no intention of paying heed to the report and would proceed as quickly as possible to make the payments under the hardship panel. Will he pay attention to the recommendations of the Committee on Petitions? This committee scheduled meetings to address this issue because its members were taking our responsibilities seriously and planning to do our best to act on the recommendations. Does the Minister plan to do likewise? Will he consult the committee in respect of a revised schedule of payments, as requested by the Committee on Petitions?

I ask the Minister for his view on driver testing. In excess of 500,000 provisional licences are currently in use. The breakdown of this figure is shocking, with a large number of provisional licence holders driving trucks, buses and coaches, which is intolerable in terms of road safety. Trucks are lethal weapons. The Minister has given a commitment to tackle the problem and bring forward proposals to get it under control. This was to be achieved by ensuring tests are carried out within a reasonable timeframe, yet the Estimate shows that projected receipts from licences will be lower than last year.

I will briefly address Deputy Naughten's points. I am disappointed that the current enforcement regime vis-à-vis speed cameras does not appear to be working. I have had discussions with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the possibility of contracting out the operation of speed cameras and will meet him early next week specifically to discuss this proposal. We envisage a substantial increase in the number of speed cameras. Subject to the outcome of our discussions, it is likely we will be able to contract out their operation which would lead to a dramatic increase in their number and help significantly in the detection of speeding offences.

The Deputy welcomed the recent announcement by the Hibernian Insurance Company and asked why we did not obtain commitments with regard to insurance costs before the introduction of the penalty points system. My consistent view has been that one should do everything one can as quickly as one can. If I were to hold back and wait for others to take decisions, I would probably find that nothing would get done. That has been my experience. I try to push various bodies into jumping. Hibernian has done so and perhaps others will now follow.

I visited the Red Cow roundabout on Monday morning and held a site meeting with engineers from the National Roads Authority and representatives from Dublin City Council, my Department, the Railway Procurement Agency and the other concerned parties during which we examined over several hours the precise options available to us. If I was starting with a clean sheet, we would not proceed with the current design of the roundabout which I viewed on Monday. However, life is a matter of options and I closely examined those available. I will leave it to others to argue about what should have happened. The reality is that the Red Cow roundabout is perhaps the busiest junction in the country. A new Luas bridge has been built which runs across the side of the roundabout. As such, the Luas will not cross the roundabout per se. One of the major issues appears to be access from the motorway to the park and ride facility, which can hold 750 cars. A proposal to build a flyover across the dual carriageway to open up the facility is being considered and I hope to be able to conclude deliberations on this proposal and ascertain what is possible, which is all we can do.

The Deputy asked about the possibility of leasing railway carriages. I have instructed CIE to do this and the company indicated it will commence leasing rolling stock, although it will not rely exclusively on leasing. This option will also help the company's cashflow.

Deputies Naughten and Shortall raised the issue of provisional licences. The number of applications has considerably increased recently leading to a substantial backlog. This is largely due to recent announcements I made on the issue. We are in the final stages of negotiating a special package with the driver testers and their colleagues which would enable them to do extra work in the evenings and on Saturdays. This would result in a substantial increase in the number of tests. My priority is to make a hole in the backlog before exacerbating it by bringing forward proposals in regard to provisional licences as these would have the immediate effect——

Why is revenue from testing decreasing?

The estimated revenue is €7 million compared to €9 million last year. The former figure was inserted in the Estimate late last year, probably in November or December, before I made announcements on provisional licences. It is not accurate that there will be fewer tests this year and we expect the figure to be substantially higher than €7 million. There will be a substantial increase in the number of tests due to the large number of applications. The Estimate should be regarded as a projection compiled in the latter half of last year. I am not predicting outturn, these are official Estimates made at a given time. The outturn under the heading will be substantially higher.

In fairness, if one was to base this year's Estimate on last year's outturn and take the figure of the number of tests taken last year, one would arrive, at a minimum, at a figure of €9.161 million. Clearly, there is a discrepancy. I understand that one could not accurately predict a figure at the time the Estimate was made as the Minister had not yet caused pandemonium by making his announcement on provisional drivers. However, he had available to him the outturn for 2002. Surely the Estimate should have been at least equal to last year's figure.

We are already €400,000 ahead of the estimated figure. I repeat that the figures in the Book of Estimates are arrived at in the final months of 2002 as being the likely income in 2003. There was a slowdown.

I am suggesting that having collected some €9 million last year, one should have based the Estimate for this year on the number of applications made last year and that, therefore, the minimum figure for this year should have been €9 million.

Prior to my announcements on provisional licences, the expectation was that there would be fewer applications this year. The number has since escalated dramatically.

With respect to the Minister, that does not make sense. Irrespective of announcements he made, it has been well known in recent years that there is a major backlog in driving tests and a large number of people using provisional licences. On what basis did the Department estimate that there would be a reduced level of activity in respect of driver tests?

The cycle of applications is not even and the number of applications moves up and down.

One would expect the level of activity at least to remain stable.

That is not the case. Before I put my foot down at the end of last year by drawing attention to and making a major song and dance about the issue of provisional licences, the number of people applying for tests had begun to fizzle out. It was not, as the Deputy is suggesting, increasing dramatically.

Somebody in the Minister's Department budgeted for a reduced level of activity.

That is correct.

On what basis was that done given that a glaring problem existed?

On the basis of the information supplied by the driving test centre in Ballina and the top-class professionals who work there who indicate to us the level of applications and fees we can expect to receive. It may not be entirely based on the number of applications because fees also relate to tests.

They were going down.

The Deputy is arguing a moot point which I could spend the day debating. The point she is making is that before my campaign we had planned for a reduced level of income from tests and following the campaign the figure grew dramatically. The Deputy now wishes to argue that my officials——

I want senior officials to account for it.

——and those working in the driving test area under-provided something, which will not now happen. It is fairly academic as to whether we should reduce the figure from €9 million to €7 million.

It is indicative of strange thinking in the Minister's Department.

It is indicative of reality. If it is the view of the Department and the driving test information centre that it will peter out for that particular year then that is the view we accept. The reality is that the figure predicted for 2003 will be substantially exceeded.

Did the Minister make his announcement following these Estimates?

That is what happened.

The Minister caused pandemonium after the Estimates were published. Were these the figures submitted to the Department of Finance?

Mr. Brennan: Yes. They are in for a pleasant surprise.

Perhaps there was another reason for the Minister having to reduce the figures.

That is strange thinking.

Perhaps the Minister could furnish us with the outturns for the previous three or four years so we can see the trend then.

The outturn for 2002 was €9.161 million.

What was it previous to that? We have the figure for 2002.

We will supply the Deputy with the figures. They go up and down.

Yes, but we will be able to see what happened from the outturns.

Yes. We will get substantially more funds from this because of extra applications and the conducting of more tests. That is the main point.

Deputy Naughten asked about the Aer Rianta law case. I agree with the Deputy on this. I sent senior officials to talk with both sides in the final stages of the law case. The case had gone too far and my officials reported to me that there was no prospect of a settlement at that late stage. I take the view that as a general rule suing State agencies over issues that could be settled through the Department is not common sense.

What was the cost to Aer Rianta and the regulator? It is the taxpayer who eventually picks up the tab in such matters.

Not necessarily.

Indirectly they do.

It affects the consumer rather than the taxpayer.

We can split hairs over it but at the end of the day it is not those managing Aer Rianta or the regulator who will pay.

It cost approximately €5 million.

It cost us €5 million because we could not get two agencies to sit round a table together. Is that what the Minister is saying?

Yes, that is a fair comment.

Deputy Shortall took me to task for not making policy and not having consultants' reports. I do not think any self-respecting Government or Minister should allow themselves to think they cannot make decisions without first having a consultant's report. I do not have one which tells me it is a good idea to open up 25% of the Dublin Bus market to provide for competition. I know from my work in public life, as a public representative, and from dealing with such issues before and within the transport forum with all the blue papers, and so on, on transport that this is not rocket science. It is as plain as the nose on one's face that from the way the EU and the courts are moving it is a good policy decision to open up that market. I do not need to pay a consultancy company to tell me that. The day I rely on consultants to inform me of Government policy will be a poor day for the country.

Does the Minister intend to spend that money this year?

Yes. I told the Deputy so yesterday, today and I will tell her the same again tomorrow.

Is the Minister saying it is not his intention to do so?

It is my intention to do so.

Will that happen after the event?

To do what?

To appoint consultants.

No. The Deputy criticised the manner in which I make policy and the fact that I did not have a consultant's report. My response is that I do not need a consultants report for many of the policies I pursue. She also quite rightly picked up on a figure which relates to consultancy to assist with implementation. I have made it clear to my officials that I approve of consultants assisting in implementing Government policy. I do not need them to make Government policy.

Is it the Minister's intention to appoint these consultants later this year?

Only if required. If, for example, in the area of removing the holding company in CIE very technical issues arise - they are beginning to arise in relation to pensions, property and aeroplanes - and we need expert advice we will then use the funds provided in the Estimate for so doing. I will not authorise the money to be spent if we do not need it; I will give it back. This provision merely enables us to engage consultants if we need assistance in implementing the policy.

We already have consultants' reports on both issues. One can argue as to whether one agrees or disagrees with them but they are in the Department's possession as we speak.

There is a report on non-Dublin buses. There is also a PriceWaterhouse report on the implementation of the dissolution of the holding company in CIE and the implications involved.

There is another in relation to the Dublin bus market which went before Cabinet in March 2000.

Subject to correction, the Deputy is referring to the publication of the consultation document put out by the public transport forum on the shape of the future Dublin market. No outside consultant was involved.

That makes a change.

Deputy Shortall also asked about the regulation of public transport. I took careful note of what she had to say yesterday. It is not fair to say there is no regulation of country buses, there is. The Department of Transport is the regulator.

What about clear criteria?

There are detailed criteria. Unfortunately, they need to be substantially modernised. The statutory base for the criteria is the Road Transport Act 1932. As a result of decisions which have flowed from that Act a huge body of precedent built up under successive Departments of Transport. A substantial regulatory regime already exists. It is evident from the number of hoops which a person applying for a bus licence must go through, such as measurements of the market and of displacement, requirements to meet quality in regard to buses and financial requirements if the operator is external. A strong regime exists and I want to move it out of the Department to a full and proper public transport regulatory authority.

I understood from yesterday's meeting that I was being urged to do that before introducing legislation on the opening up of the market. It was my intention to do it at the same time but I undertook to consider that request and I will do so to see if that legislation might be a useful precursor to the second one on the opening up of the market. We could argue this for a long time and I suspect we will. In terms of banning public transport companies from bidding, I have said many times to Dublin Bus that it is a good bus company. I attended its board meeting and met the unions and told them that. It has a modern fleet and employs good people. However, it does not have to be the only bus company. There is place for other bus companies.

In that context I want to open the market to the extent of 25% until we get to that level. It would be nonsense to have the policy objective of bringing in new companies and then allowing the existing transport company to win all 25% of the routes put up for tender on a franchising basis. The Deputy's point is they may be cheaper but the point behind this is to ensure we have more transparency in regard to the €240 million a year that CIE gets from the taxpayer. We cannot do that if we allow it to use its subsidy to tender for routes coming onto the market. That could result in CIE winning all 25% and us being back where we started with no policy of opening routes implemented. I do not think the argument will ever be settled. However, once we get a market environment there is no reason why Dublin Bus should not use the huge amount of expertise it has to bid for whatever comes up. I do not rule that out.

Deputy Shortall asked about taxis. I am not in a position to revise the hardship payments. The Petitions Committee, led by Prionsias De Rossa MEP, came to me and indicated the committee from the European Parliament wanted me to increase the payments. I pointed out that three senior people, with a good history in trade unionism and the private sector, were appointed by the Government and had come forward with a hardship list of payments which the Government undertook to meet. The only further movement I can make depends on the amount of people who apply. The overall amount available may result in additional payments if a smaller number of people than expected apply, or there may be payments of smaller amounts to a larger number of people if more apply. There is a limit to which route we can go within the report. We undertook to pay what an independent board suggested we pay and will pay that as soon as possible. If I can find scope to do better within the report I am open to that proposition. That is as far as I can go at this stage.

Is the Department paying its moral responsibility, as the EU Petitions Committee put it?

The EU Petitions Committee had the view that we should pay substantial funds to people who had taxi plates but now find themselves at a loss. We put in place an independent assessment procedure to take all of that into account. Deputies know the people involved are well capable of making judgments. Their judgment was a schedule of payments which it is now incumbent on the Government to make. I do not want to reopen the report in any significant way. I am open to keeping a close eye on it to see the level of claims that are made. I suspect, although I may be wrong, that if a number of people are not able, for different reasons, to meet the criteria, there may be some extra funding available. There is a high filter applied in that people who apply for support to the hardship panel must show their tax affairs are in order and must meet other criteria. However, I am only speculating about this and do not want to give any false hope on it.

Is what the Minister is saying a confirmation that he has no intention of reviewing the schedule of payments, as recommended by the Petitions Committee?

That is not what I said. I said the Government is committed to paying the level of payments recommended in the report. If it turns out that there is a smaller number of applicants we can look at whether larger payments can be made. These would be on a pro rata basis as I would not wish to upset the relativities between the categories. If there is a shortfall in successful applications it may be open to me to see if an increase is possible.

Does the Minister know there will not be a shortfall?

I do not.

Let us be realistic. There will not be a shortfall. Will the Minister confirm again that he is going to ignore the report of the Petitions Committee?

I did not ignore it. I met it and listened carefully to Prionsias De Rossa MEP, and his committee. They made some points but all politicians make these kinds of arguments.

I am not talking about individual politicians. I am talking about the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament which made clear recommendations——

It was led by Prionsias De Rossa MEP.

——to the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister going to take any action at all?

Yes. I do not know if I should bother repeating it for the third time. I told the Deputy that——

I understand "no" when the Minister says it.

It is possible in circumstances where successful claims are down in number, that is claims that get past the filter in place in the report. The filter was recommended by the people who produced the report. If there are extra funds we will see what we can do to assist applicants to a greater degree. The Deputy is trying to get me to say that I will not improve the payments under any circumstances but I am not prepared to say that.

On page 47 of the Estimatewe see that €79,000 is due on the Booz AllenHamilton strategic rail review consultancy report. Can the Minister give a commitment that prior to that payment being made the basic numerical errors made in the report will be corrected in order that we can have a report we can actually believe? Basic numerical errors were made consistently throughout the report. For example, the consultants do not know the distance from Sligo to Limerick or from Sligo to Cork. Basic figures for such distances seem to be completely out. They do not seem to know there is a Phoenix Park tunnel which appears to be missing from the network. Will the Minister give a commitment in regard to this report?

I compliment the Minister for being the only Minister in the last five years, and definitely in the current Cabinet, to achieve a situation where an insurance premium has actually gone down rather than up. Would the Minister elaborate on that? He might also want to talk to the Minister for Health and Children in that regard.

I see from item No. 10 on page 46, national toll roads, that the Minister estimates that there will be less than half the number of vehicles going through the toll bridges in Dublin than there was for the last 12 months. Surely his Department did not predict there would be less cars going through in 2003 than 2002.

Will the Minister account for the €3 million increase in the administration budget given that the Department has lost a number of areas of responsibility?

We have had encouraging results for the first six months since the introduction of penalty points, with a marked change in drivers' behaviour and a consequent reduction in the number of road fatalities. However, anecdotal evidence shows that people, to a large extent, have reverted to their original driving behaviour. On any journey a person driving within the speed limit is passed out by others. People have lost the fear they had in the first few months of the system, a fear which was based on an impression that the law would be enforced vigorously. Sadly, road fatalities in the past month have borne out that. The rates exceed the rates for this month last year.

I want to ask a question about computerisation. What provision is being made to bring that system up to date and to ensure it is in place at the earliest stage or has that been entirely left to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Why does it take over 18 months to put a computerised system into place? Given that the Minister has responsibility for road safety and personally regards it as an important issue, does it not make sense that funding would be provided for the provision of cameras?

I want to move to the metro and the astronomical pricings that the Minister has received, such as a cost in the region of €4.6 billion to provide a link from the city centre to the airport. The Minister has already signalled his intention to look at how those figures can be reduced. Yesterday, the committee had a very interesting presentation from the Dublin Metro Group. They seem to make an excellent and reasonably convincing case that the route can be delivered at a fraction of the cost of the estimates received by the RPA. Bearing in mind that some of their arguments in respect of the planning process did not stand up and there would be a need for changes to the planning process for projects such as this which are regarded as for the public good, they made a convincing case that it is possible to do the job much cheaper by taking the same approach as was taken in Madrid. Has the Minister made any arrangements to meet them and what is his view of their proposal?

Where now stands the proposal for a dedicated traffic corps? The funding was not provided for it this year. I note that both the Minister and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform are both talking about a beefed-up traffic section within the Garda. One of the Ministers spoke recently about constitutional problems in setting up what we all had in mind originally which was a dedicated traffic corps that would come under the auspices of, for example, Dublin City Council. The dedicated traffic corps could possibly be a privatised service such as the clamping service and would enforce traffic regulations. The director of traffic frequently talks about his difficulties in keeping traffic moving because he has no means of enforcing the regulations. As Deputy Naughten said, it is ludicrous that the small number of gardaí engaged in these duties go off for their tea at the time when they are most needed. Does the Minister intend proceeding with that proposal? Is he hoping to do so once funding becomes available or does he mean that it will be a section within the Garda? I think that would be a serious mistake and would not be cost effective because it would mean those gardaí would not be doing the important work of dealing with crime.

It seems there is no integrated thinking in Government regarding the impact of the spatial plan on the Minister's and the Department's plans for public transport. Various announcements have been made at different times and they do not seem to relate to each other. Specifically in respect of spatial planning, if we are to develop the regions outside Dublin as proposed in the spatial plan, why is there no investment, for example, in the Limerick-Rosslare line or the western rail corridor? The strategic rail review was deeply flawed in so far as it stated the need for local authorities to bring about the development initially and the Department would then consider putting in the infrastructure. That is nonsense and that approach has been dumped in practically every other European country. We know that development will not take place until the transport infrastructure is in place first. Is the Minister taking any account of the spatial plan and if he is, does it not make sense to put in the transport infrastructure outside the greater Dublin area so that housing developments and industry will follow?

What is the timeframe for the provision of a second terminal in Dublin Airport?

Deputy Naughten asked about what he called the factual errors in the strategic rail review report. It is a professional, independently produced report.

We will use the word professional with a question mark until we hear the Minister's response.

I am not aware in detail of any factual errors.

There are significant errors in the report. To be quite honest with the Minister, a number of projects were shelved based on significant errors in the report. The western rail corridor was reported as being twice as long as it actually is. The distance reported to Cork would bring one halfway into the Atlantic. The calculations in relation to upgrading of the lines would nearly build a motorway. These figures - even the mileage calculations - are all out of sync with the figures from Irish Rail. Will the Minister give a commitment to withhold the final payment until the report is corrected?

The Deputy should compile a list of factual errors as opposed to differences of opinion. I note that the definition of the length of the western corridor varies substantially depending on whether one means from Sligo to Galway or whether Galway to Cork is included and how one is to go around Athenry.

I am referring to the existing alignment.

If there are factual material differences as opposed to minor ones, I will examine it and refer it to the consultants.

The Western Development Commission had that information. Professor Séamus Caulfield produced a report.

I want to make it clear that I am familiar with this argument. I wish to make certain that the so-called errors are factual.

I am talking about factual errors.

The estimated cost of something is not included. As is happening with the metro, if someone says it will cost X, another says it will cost Y. I do not regard that as an error, rather it is an opinion.

I am not disputing that fact and it is something that can be debated. My point is that the calculations regarding the cost are based on factual inaccuracies in the report.

I will contact the consultants and I will forward their response to the Deputy. I will also send copies to other members if they wish. We can then see what factual issues arise.

Deputy Shortall asked about salaries costs of €3 million. Payments as a result of benchmarking and the national pay agreement account for the difference between €15 million and €18 million for departmental staff salaries.

The Deputy asked why revenue from toll roads is down even though traffic has increased. I have been informed that it is to do with the calculation of the tolls. Most of the toll fee goes to the owner of the toll plaza. In the agreement about the West Link toll bridge, a claw-back was inserted in the contract whereby when traffic reached a certain level it triggered a claw-back of a smaller amount of money to the State relative to the total income of the private operator. Before that payment is triggered, a table of costs borne by the operator is allowed. The reason the amount for 2003 is lower than 2002 is that the additional costs allowed to the operator under the contract are significant, therefore, according to the formula, the claw-back to the State is less. It is interesting and I intend to examine it.

Are we revising that claw-back now that we will eventually have the Dublin Port tunnel open which will put more traffic through the toll bridge on the West Link?

Certain lessons were learnt from the detail of the contract on the West Link.

Indeed they were.

I will make sure that any other contracts will take perhaps a different formula. The formula in the contract at the time gave this result. The sums are quite substantial.

Do those figures take any account of the additional toll booths?

Is it simply the case that the more business National Toll Roads does, the less comes to the State?

It is supposed to work the other way.

Is this explained by the capital investment going into the new bridge?

It is not related directly to the capital investment. The company is obliged to meet all costs relating to the toll scheme out of toll revenues. It then pays an annual licence fee. Its costs this year are substantially higher than its costs in the previous year. The figure stated for the 2002 outturn is €18.439 million. I am informed there was a double count and the figure should be half that amount.

Can the Minister explain what he means by a double count?

The outturn for 2002 is €9 million and not €18 million.

Was this an overestimation rather than the other one being an underestimation?

I am afraid it was a mistake. When the Departments of Transport and Environment and Local Government went their separate ways it seems the figure appeared in both Departments and was counted twice. The true figure of €9 million is included in the overall sums for the Government finances. It is actually down from €9 million to €7.6 million on the formula of increased costs which are allowed to the operator of the toll plaza.

I presume we are only getting a fraction of the overall income.

Absolutely.

That would mean the overall cost had to increase significantly on the toll bridge for us to lose even €2 million on it.

It seems to be a massive cost if we are not talking about the additional capital investment on the new bridge.

I am subject to correction and if I am wrong I will come back on it. I do not believe capital expenditure forms part of the formula here.

But if we are——

I do not think we are.

Let us take it that we are not talking about the additional capital investment. It is very hard to know what additional costs exist that would have such a big claw-back. While salaries increase, they do so in line with benchmarking, etc. and while other costs may increase with the rate of inflation, there seems to be a very high rate of inflation if we are losing €2 million on the deal.

It is actually less than €2 million. I have a note from the section outlining that there is a second bridge adjustment relating to the potential revenue from the second bridge. The formula allows for the operator of the toll plaza to claim extra costs against the State's take from the surplus traffic. That formula has resulted in a reduction of €1.5 million in 2003. I must make an important point that is true for the entire debate today. This is an estimate of what will happen in 2003. It could be that when the formula is finally worked out it will produce more in 2003 than was produced in 2002. However, the estimate at the start of the year when this book was produced was that it would account for less.

Obviously officials in the Department knew the criteria in the contract that would kick in and that there would be this additional cost.

They do not know the traffic. If the traffic flows increased significantly, the throughput was increased and additional money was taken, that figure could be above the figure for previous years.

We know for certain it will not decrease. The Minister mentioned a double count. What has happened to the €9 million that appears in error?

As I mentioned, it has not affected the overall Government finances. The error that occurred——

I am talking about the finances of the Department of Transport.

It is not in the appropriations account. The original figure of €9 million is there. It does not affect it.

It is hard to make sense of that.

The outturn was €9 million and not €18 million.

Why does it appear here as €18 million?

An amount of €9 million was taken into the Government finances overall.

Even based on a figure of €9 million, it is hard to understand how there is an estimated take of €7.5 million for the current year. We have spent considerable time on this. I ask the Minister to prepare a note on the formula that NTR applies and any other background he has on it.

I will do that. I am actively examining this whole area at the moment. I am anxious to make certain that we learn from the formula and apply those lessons to future tolls.

Is there provision for the State to buy out the toll bridge operator's rights? Would that be a viable option?

The East Link bridge must come back very soon.

The contract would have to provide for that and I am not aware it does. All future contracts should provide for that. However, very substantial funds are involved. I do not have a note on the income from the West Link toll bridge. I have heard figures of perhaps €40 million per annum for the take by the private company on the West Link toll bridge. That is for about 20 years. This gives an indication of how much it might cost if the State were to attempt to buy it. It would cost a substantial amount.

Do the contracts for the East Link and West Link not include a provision whereby they revert to the State after, I believe, 30 years?

They do but as I understand it, the question was whether it would be possible to buy it out immediately, next year or the year after.

Arising from that who is responsible for the new bridge? Who has had to carry the cost for that? Is it the NRA or the toll bridge operators?

It is the toll bridge operator.

It will get that back on the tolls.

It might get more cars through faster and make more money. For the State to buy it back would cost a substantial amount. If we had such funds we would be better off building new roads with them.

Following from the Chairman's question on the second terminal——

There are other questions to answer.

Perish the thought.

It is a related question.

The Deputy talked about penalty points in May. I acknowledge that May so far has been bad. However, May last year represented an all time low with only 20 deaths on the roads, which was totally out of sync.

The figures to date are worse than five of the past six years.

I do not see much point in picking out a particular month. It is not fair to either argument to say that penalty points must directly affect a particular month's figures. We are trying to change driver behaviour over a period. While a particular month is disappointing, we should not read too much into it. The bottom line is that substantially fewer people have been killed in the six months of the operation of the penalty points system to date, compared to the same period last year. From a situation in which fatalities were increasing constantly, they have now reduced. Even one life saved is worthwhile. There may still be ups and downs from month to month but, overall, our efforts are directed towards changing the behaviour of drivers so that, over a period, we will bring about a change of culture. In a similar manner we changed the culture with regard to payment of tax from a position one time where some people did not appear to recognise they had to pay.

Are some drivers not reverting to their old habits?

We are also trying to change the culture in relation to alcoholic drink. Many young people seem to have picked up that message - they no longer drink and drive to the same extent as other generations. The aim of the penalty points system is to change driving behaviour in general. Certainly, we must guard against complacency and a return to old habits. It is incumbent on the Garda to step up enforcement levels.

Where are the resources?

The Garda has confirmed to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that it has not sought additional resources for this project.

The Garda has been told there are no resources available. Overtime has been reduced. Any garda will confirm to the Minister that resources have been cut back.

The Garda Commissioner has not sought additional funds for the penalty points system. He has assured the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that, in the normal course of their duties, gardaí are doing their best to enforce the penalty points system. However, I take the point, which I have made to the Garda and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that enforcement is an issue right across road safety, not just in relation to penalty points. Pressure must be maintained and the cameras which I am proposing will help substantially in that regard.

Does the Minister agree that diverting an increasing proportion of Garda resources into traffic duties has resulted in a very bad situation in many communities in terms of shortage of staff and the non-availability of overtime? It is a matter of robbing one area to cater for another.

It is a matter for the Garda Commissioner to decide on the deployment of his staff, having regard to his assessment of priorities at any given time. Such priorities may change from day to day. The Garda Commissioner has assured the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the Garda is making every effort on the penalty points system and I take his word on that at this stage.

Why is it taking so long to bring the computer system into operation?

The contract has been placed with Fujitsu. It comes under the budget for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform rather than my Department. I am informed that it will be early next year before Fujitsu completes the contract. I share the Deputy's sense of annoyance that it has taken so long. Short of personally taking on the task of building the computer, I have done everything humanly possible over a series of meetings, including one with the company last year. The contract is due to finish early next year and will not be completed before then. That is what the professional computer installers and operators are telling us. Neither the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform nor I have a magic wand. Apparently it is a complex system, which has to talk to the PULSE system and also involves the national driver file. I have knocked heads together on this on a weekly basis but the reality is that the system will not be ready until early next year. If there is a computer wizard out there who can deal with the matter, I will be happy to put him in touch with the people concerned.

I am aware of a company which tendered unsuccessfully for the job but now has the same system up and running, providing the same service to 26 local authorities around the country. I understand the company has written to the Minister and had a recent meeting with him. As it happens, the company is Irish, not Japanese. It is difficult to understand how one company can have the system up and running at this stage while another company cannot.

Returning to resources and Garda enforcement, if this month's increase in road fatalities continues into next month, though I hope it will not, would the Minister then agree there is a difficulty in relation to enforcement and Garda resources? It has been shown in the UK and every other country where the penalty points system has been introduced that, although traffic offences and fatalities dropped during the first few months, there was a return to the previous levels in the absence of adequate enforcement. That pattern is also beginning to emerge in this country, thus emphasising the need for resources.

On a further point, I do not believe a glorified traffic warden should be involved in relation to a custodial sentence for a person who commits a road traffic offence. That has to be a matter for a legitimate police force. We have had numerous debates in this House about random breath testing and the fears among the community in relation to abuse of that. It is crucially important that it is operated by persons with full authority and powers in that regard, rather than traffic wardens, where prosecutions can lead to custodial sentences.

I have acknowledged that enforcement is an issue. I have asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to seek assurances from the Garda that it will maintain the maximum level of enforcement with regard to the penalty points system and he has undertaken to do so. I hope the new cameras will also help considerably in the enforcement process. However, it is a constant battle. I am not taking on the mantle of eliminating road deaths - that is something which a higher authority than I might find it difficult to contemplate. What I am attempting is to put in place a system which I believe can change driver behaviour in the long-term, keep down insurance costs and, I hope, save lives.

In relation to the metro, I take Deputy Shortall's point. My position is that the Railway Procurement Agency has given me a price of €4.8 billion, as I explained yesterday, to construct a metro from Dublin Airport to St. Stephen's Green, as phase one of a city-wide metro system. The Government has yet to take a decision, and will do so in the next month or so, on whether to authorise the commencement of that phase. I have told the agency that figure is not acceptable. Following my visit to Madrid, I sent my Department officials to conduct further examination of that city's metro system. They reported that there was an exciting possibility that the Dublin project could be carried out substantially cheaper, having regard to the Madrid experience.

Arising from that, arrangements have been made for a presentation to the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure by the leading experts who were responsible for implementation of the system in Madrid. That will take place within a couple of weeks. On the basis of the response from the Railway Procurement Agency and the further advice of the experts from Madrid, we will then be in a position to decide on how to proceed. I wish to have the metro put in place - it is the right thing to do. However, we need to do it in half the time and at half the cost which is currently being mentioned. I am not prepared to recommend its authorisation to Cabinet until we get clarity on that issue, which I hope we will have within a couple of weeks.

Has the Minister examined the proposal of the Dublin metro group?

I have not yet studied it in detail. I am aware the group made a presentation to this committee yesterday and I will study their proposals fully. I share the group's wish to do the job at a lower cost.

The difference in cost was absolutely staggering. If the Dublin metro group can do it at anything like the cost it put forward, does that not raise serious question marks over the process currently mandated by the Minister?

If I may express a note of caution, there has been a great deal of criticism of cost over-runs on road schemes and various other projects. We should not jump to the conclusion that a project can be carried out at half the price, only to discover later that it actually costs even more. We need to be very careful in that regard.

Nevertheless, a threefold difference seems extraordinary.

I have made it clear we are not proceeding on the basis of the figure proposed or the timeframe of up to nine years envisaged by the RPA. That is not acceptable. We are taking two steps immediately, as I pointed out to the committee. I share your view, Chairman, that the figure mentioned is staggeringly high, which is why I have told the agency that I am not prepared to proceed with it on that basis.

I agree with the Minister on that.

Has the Minister considered what the metro people told us yesterday about design, build and operate? They talked of a cost of about €100 million in State aid, provided they were to be the operators of the project. If that is the case, the RPA is totally off the wall. There are enough companies out there to take on this sort of project and to hand the State a turnkey project which they would operate. That is the only way to go. If we go the RPA route, there will definitely be over-runs. Somebody must come in and do this as a package, put the trains on it and deliver the service. That is the only way. Even if it is necessary to move totally outside State control, that would be acceptable to the public because they want a service. The other means of transport available will, no doubt, be able to control the price of the service.

The Deputy is right to the extent that this should be done by means of design, build and operate. It is worth pointing out that the RPA went to the marketplace and received over 30 submissions and expressions of interest from all over the world, mostly from international firms, though also from some with Irish connections. The exciting ones, as explained to me by the RPA, were those which stated that they would design, build and operate the project and that the State would commence payment only from the day the first train runs. From that period on, if the figure of €4.8 billion sticks - as far as I am concerned, it will not - the kind of payment envisaged is of the order of €300 million per annum from the date of the first train, for maybe 20 years, though these are just ballpark figures.

The Deputy is correct that the RPA will sign a contract, once the Government gives approval, with one of the firms or consortia after they have gone through a tender process. The contract will be design, built and operate and the intention would be that the State would make payments. That is only fair as the generations using the facility would pay towards it, rather than having previous generations presenting it to them as a gift.

If that were the case and whenever that contract is drawn up, it will be important that it is in line with the number of passengers to be carried. No doubt, as time goes on, the number of passengers carried would rise. While we would not want to end up with the toll bridge scenario, it has to be made attractive enough for somebody to make the initial investment. That is the other side of it.

The expressions of interest that reached the RPA did not include any financial estimates, which was one of the first matters on which I inquired. The financial estimate comes from the RPA's professional advisors. Time is money in regard to such projects. If we can focus on trying to get the time reduced, we will automatically reduce the money required. In that regard, we are considering infrastructure legislation.

Were all of the expressions of interest submitted on a design, build and operate basis?

I cannot confirm that all of them were. Certainly, the RPA told me that the most robust and sensible ones were. An occasional one had a different approach.

The committee intends doing a great deal of work in the context of the metro and spiralling costs. We are at one with the Minister in looking for the most cost-effective way of doing it. The RPA will come before the committee shortly. I understand it has presented the outline business case to the Minister. Would he circulate a copy of that to us so that we are in possession of the full facts and can deliberate on the matter?

I will prepare information for the committee in advance of its meeting with the RPA.

I would also like to clarify something I told the joint committee yesterday when replying to Deputy Eamon Ryan on the metro proposals. He asked me if I would consider publishing the report and he said it was about time I published it. I told him that there was no report, as such, and made other similar replies. The outline business case on the metro was delivered to the Secretary General of the Department in November 2002 and could be regarded as a report. I want to be careful not to mislead the committee on that issue. It is not a report as such in the consultancy sense. I did not interpret the outline business case as an actual report but as a case put to me. I wish to clarify that for the record of the House.

The outline business case contains sensitive commercial information. The RPA did not envisage it being in the public domain and, therefore, available to potential bidders ahead of the completion of the competitive process. I ask the committee to let me review that position.

A number of us on the committee heard the representative of the RPA giving an extended interview on the radio but could not make head nor tail of his figures.

I will review that. I favour the release of the maximum amount of information possible. I have no hidden agenda on this. I will review that advice to find if I can make the outline business case available.

We must ensure, if we get as far as having an open tender, that the RPA will not have the right to produce a short tender list of the companies it wants. The process must be open and transparent. A preferred bidders list is sometimes prepared and this is wrong in any open competition where State funding is concerned.

Absolutely. It would have to be open and transparent. I would expect a large number of international players on this.

I am disappointed that we have not been able to move much faster with regard to the traffic corps. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I have discussed the matter in recent weeks. We will have a special meeting next week with our respective officials to discuss it again. We are now considering introducing the corps in a selected area to start with, rather than nationwide. There are many issues involved.

Which Department is responsible for it?

That is another issue.

Has it been decided yet?

When I considered the matter, I discovered many issues. One is with regard to which Department looks after it, another is whether it will be completely dealt with by the Garda and who has the power of arrest. Another issue is with regard to traffic wardens. There is also the question of funding, and there are capital costs involved.

We are talking about fairly substantial powers, not something to be given lightly.

There is another issue about which we must be very careful. There are Garda traffic units at present in many areas. I want to make sure that, if we have a specialised traffic corps, the other 12,500 gardaí do not take the view that it is not their job anymore. We need them all involved in this. Therefore, we must work out the relationship between those gardaí in the traffic corps and those outside it. There are many issues and I am determined to unravel them. I will move on them as fast as I can.

On the western rail corridor and the development of the necessary infrastructure to facilitate it, I pointed out to the rail people some figures estimated at up to €500 million. We could not rush out and do that with only the hope of development. County councils and regional authorities must ensure that they align their land use and settlement strategies so as to facilitate the development of railway lines. Both areas can then be moved on in parallel. As I have said to county councillors, it is no good demanding a railway line in one place and carrying out zoning and settlement strategies 50 miles away. We will have to take the hard decisions. If we want transport infrastructure, we must align the policies, which is an important point. The CIE rail plan, the strategic rail review and the spatial strategy are in sync. All three have been reconciled and are saying the same thing.

Will they be reconciled?

They are reconciled.

They are not reconciled. Will they be reconciled?

They are reconciled as plans. The plans are consistent with each other.

That is not true. The strategic rail review is not in sync with the spatial strategy.

It absolutely is.

It is not.

I can give the Minister an example.

It is in sync. Some of the investment in Dublin is for the benefit of people who travel to the south and the west. Some €130 million is being invested in Heuston Station at present, substantially for the benefit of the railway lines going to the west. Platforms are being upgraded.

The railway lines in question go from Dublin to the west and the south. The investment is not taking place in the regions.

Yes, but when looking at investment in the west - I come from the west so I know about it - one must bear in mind that some of the money spent on facilities in Dublin is for the benefit of the west. One has to add that in. I would argue that some of the money being spent in Heuston Station is as much for the benefit of Galway as it is for Dublin.

The Minister is referring to radial routes only.

Yes, radial routes.

There is no proposal for a strategic rail corridor on the line between Ballina and Castlebar, for example. It is in the strategic rail review, however. The strategic rail review makes no proposals to develop services in the Mullingar, Athlone and Tullamore areas, which is mentioned in the spatial strategy. There are no proposals in the rail review regarding Tuam, which has a railway line going in and out of it. I can give numerous other examples. The various plans are at variance with each other.

The fact that there is no proposal does not mean that the Government of the day should not develop the lines if it can make a business case for them. I have made it clear all along, including yesterday, that the strategic rail review is an input into rail policy. It is not the final word or a set of handcuffs on rail policy - I would not permit it to be so. It is an input into policy.

It provides for radial development, which is contrary to the spatial strategy. They are blatantly at variance with each other. The service advocated in the strategic rail review has been called "Pale rail" and that is what it is. It deals with services into and out of Dublin. The spatial strategy is supposed to be something completely different.

I could argue about that with the Deputy.

Can I ask the Minister to wrap up?

The Chair asked me about the second terminal, regarding which I will shortly finalise proposals in conjunction with the Cabinet. In the programme for Government, we undertook to examine the possibility of a second terminal. We asked those in the marketplace what they thought and we received 13 expressions of interest. We then appointed the former Secretary General of the Department of Finance and other experts to look at the matter and they concluded that it was viable. The Government will discuss the matter shortly and decide where it will go from there.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending this meeting. I propose that a message be sent to the Dáil by the clerk to this committee in accordance with Standing Order 85.

I presume that the reference should be to the Estimate, as amended. There is no point in placing the message before the House about the Estimate for the toll roads. The least that should be done is that the reference be changed to say, "as amended".

The figures are for 2002.

This Estimate is what is being put before us.

The Estimate the House is being asked to consider is not the outturn for lastyear.

I am sure the Minister will correct it.

The official document that is to be laid before the House is inaccurate.

Is it agreed that the message be sent?

The House's approval is being sought for the 2003 Estimates.

Is the message agreed? Agreed.

Barr
Roinn