I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey; the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern; Mr. Dan Commane and Mr. Maurice Tracey. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Supplementary Estimates for Vote 32 for the Department of Transport. A proposed timetable has been circulated to all members. It allows for an opening statement by the Minister and Opposition spokespersons, to be followed by an open discussion in the form of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.
Vote 32 — Department of Transport (Supplementary).
This year my Department requires a net technical Supplementary Estimate of €1,000. This has arisen because of a requirement to reallocate funding within my Department's Vote, which is not unusual, especially within a Vote of €3.2 billion. The gross requirement in respect of the Supplementary Estimate is €11.747 million. This figure is offset by savings of €11.746 million, leaving a net requirement of €1,000.
The additional funding is required for the following areas: incidental expenses; the Road Safety Authority; vehicle and driver licensing expenses; regional airports; subscriptions to international organisations; and miscellaneous services. The savings arise in the following areas: road improvements; public service provision payments; the public transport investment programme; and public transport agencies and expenses.
I will outline the reason for the Supplementary Estimate. Under the incidental expenses subhead, a wide range of general administration costs are met, but it also includes provision for payment of legal settlements and costs which may arise. During 2008 additional expenditure has arisen from unanticipated legal fees and court settlements. These fees and settlement payments arose largely from cases involving uninsured drivers in which the victims were unable to recover damages and costs from any other source. Payments have been made following legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General.
I ask my colleague to deal briefly with the Road Safety Authority.
This relates to an amount to be transferred to the Road Safety Authority. The funding could not be used by the authority in 2007 and is being transferred back. It was transferred to the roads subhead in 2007 and is being returned from that subhead to the authority this year. Further information is given on the authority and how well what we are doing is working.
Responsibility for the national vehicle and driver file, NVDF, and associated systems was transferred from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to my Department from 1 January this year. The moneys collected under the system are in excess of €1 billion. As well as the NVDF technical environment, the allocation also covers ongoing expenses associated with the delivery of NVDF-based services, including the on-line motor tax service and postage charges associated with motor tax and driver licence renewal reminders, vehicle registration certificates and penalty points notices. I will not delay members by detailing the information given in the presentation on the on-line service and how it has been extended. The revised expected outturn for 2008 of €20.234 million represents less than 2% of overall motor tax revenue and the additional funding proposed will make good a once-off shortfall in funding which arose this year.
As members will be aware, my Department provides a direct financial support for regional airports under two schemes, one relating to operational expenditure and the other to capital investments. A new scheme was introduced in 2006 in regard to operational expenditure. We pay a subvention each year based on projected losses at the airports in providing core services, after taking account of any surpluses from commercial activities such as catering, car parking and any other sources of income. This is in line with EU guidelines. The additional funding proposed under subhead D2 is required to allow full payment of the operational subvention to the two airports which qualified for the subsidy in 2008, namely, Waterford and Galway airports.
My Department's subscriptions to international organisations are fixed with the organisations concerned. It became apparent during the course of the year that the original subhead provision would not be sufficient to cover the final quarter payment, hence the need for the additional funding. The subscription is subsequently recovered from the Irish Aviation Authority, as provided for under the relevant Act.
On miscellaneous services, funding for the Transport 21 communications strategy was included in the capital envelope. It has been changed such that it is to be funded from a current subhead. On roads, an amount of €922,000 which is being returned to the RSA, as my colleague explained, came from the national roads subhead.
In regard to public services provision payments, the subhead makes provision for expenditure under six headings, one of which is the rural transport programme which promotes the development of community-based public transport services. It is managed by Pobal on our behalf. Expenditure in 2008 has been programmed in order that all of the existing rural transport schemes and all new ones inaugurated this year can continue for a full year in 2009. That results in a saving of €665,000.
The public transport investment programme has a budget of €986 million in 2008 during which there was a budget underspend on the following projects: property acquisitions for metro north; the Luas extension to Cherrywood; and the purchase of intercity railcars. Nothing further arises in that respect.
A saving of €2.5 million arises under the public transport agencies and expenses subhead. It arises from a refund by the RPA of the unused element of the Luas deficit payment recurring on its books. When Luas commenced operating, it was expected it would have operational deficits for the first seven years. A payment was made to the authority to cover this. Luas started making operational profits in the second year of operation and the money advanced is now being paid back to the Exchequer.
I hope I have not missed any vital point, as I have tried to get through the presentation as quickly as possible.
To be helpful I will dispense with my speech. I have a few questions. The incidental expenses arose from unanticipated legal fees and court settlements in cases involving uninsured drivers in which the victims were unable to recover damages. Will the Minister summarise the implications?
The Deputy will be aware of the MIBI scheme in cases involving uninsured drivers.
Sure.
Claims were received under two categories. The MIBI contested whether it was liable in that respect. The matter went to court and it was decided that it was liable. I must be careful in what I say about this, as it is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. There is no legal argument about whether the expenses should have been met. The argument concerns who should meet them, but that is a separate issue. That has been resolved and the legal expenses in that were divided evenly between ourselves and the MIBI.
There is a sum of €6.2 million for the vehicle and driver licence expenses. There was a criticism in an English newspaper report about the accuracy of the driver file. I believe it was about penalty points but I am not sure if it was related to driver licences or the driver file. They are not the same, are they?
No. I know what the Deputy is talking about.
According to the report, even if one merged the penalty points North and South or between Britain and Ireland there was still a serious issue as to whether the information we had was accurate in terms of who owned the car at the time the penalty points were incurred.
That was an issue and it is being addressed.
How? Has the sum I mentioned anything to do with this?
No, this arises because of the transfer and estimating what might have been the charge and the costs. It is just an adjustment because an insufficient amount was provided. With regard to the case the Deputy mentioned, speaking off the top of my head, there was a difficulty that was overcome. There was a need as well for joining up the systems here rather even than across the sea. I will get details on that and organise a note for the Deputy on the matter,
We have all been patient with the division bells calling us to vote in the House. There are important questions that must be asked about the last section. The Minister did not get a chance to address them. Can I ask them now?
When the Deputy finishes his contribution I will call Deputy Broughan, after which we will have questions.
With regard to the administration of the penalty points system, the Minister referred to money to set up an on-line system of payments for penalty points. There is a very serious issue, which might have more to do with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform than the Department of Transport, with the administration of the system whereby people automatically default into court after 56 days. In other words, if one does not pay one's fine, one must go to court. The Minister was due to address that administratively. Has it been addressed? For the first six months of last year there were almost 90,000 summonses before the district courts relating to penalty points. Of those, fines issued in only 14,000 cases. A significant number, approximately 23,000, were not proceeded with, in some cases because the summonses were not served. We do not know what happened to them. Perhaps the Minister can explain it.
We are observing that ourselves. It is an issue for the Courts Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We have seen the figures——
The Minister was going to change the regulations to ensure that would not happen.
It is a fact that, unfortunately, too many people are not paying their fines in an administrative way. For good or bad, too many people want to have their day in court. Perhaps they hope the summons will get lost on the way. We would like a system where more people paid their fines——
The position was that the Minister intended to change the regulations to provide that the person would have to opt for court in the first instance, otherwise they could not go to court and would have to pay. There was a process the Minister was to go through.
That has not happened. The fine is imposed and if the person does not pay, it eventually goes to court.
One cannot stop that.
The number of people who are paying is not enough. Perhaps they feel it is worth their while going to court. We are looking for data because we see and hear of these reports and things do not appear to be adding up.
The cost is great.
The Courts Service is under a great deal of pressure. We want to introduce more penalty points offences and so forth but the courts are having difficulty——
If the Minister changes the regulations, fewer people would be able to go to court. The position is that if one does not pay, one ends up in court. It should be the case that unless one opts to go to court——
We cannot deny people their right to go to court. Perhaps we have to offer them a better carrot and a better stick, so to speak.
Yes, by increasing the fines or giving them an extra period of time. Between 56 and 90 days it could be €150, after which it would increase again. That is the only way.
Something like that will have to happen because the existing carrot is not deemed to be enough.
I have some questions about the savings. The Minister says this is just a technical exercise but it is striking that much of the money available here comes from subhead C2, public transport investment programme. It is nearly €8 million. It is due to delays in property acquisitions for metro north, delays in the Luas extension and the failure to purchase enough intercity railcars. Is that not a disappointing aspect of what we are doing? We have sums of money but a large chunk comes from the public transport investment programme. I note again that in budget 2009, some 6% of the budget is still for roads and there is under €1 billion for the public transport sector, which is disappointing.
Likewise, a large sum, almost €1 million, comes from the subhead B1 budget for road improvement and maintenance, while almost €700,000 comes out of the rural transport budget. Given the fact that the Minister provided for an increase in it and people were asking us to work very hard on this area, with a view to giving people in rural areas some type of public transport system, is it not regrettable that the funding was there in the first place?
Subhead F2 relates to miscellaneous services. We are still spending a great deal of money on publicising Transport 21. I accept it is meritorious occasionally to look at our current position and the delivery situation, but in current circumstances is it not a little ludicrous to have so much funding from the transport budget being spent on publicising things most people are aware of anyway, particularly the glossy television advertisements that ran earlier this year? Why should more money be allocated to that? The Minister circulated an eight page circular on Transport 21 which was informative on the main elements of Transport 21. Why do we need more glossy advertisements telling us about it? I was on the N9 and N10 at the weekend and it is still surprising to discover we still have so much to do, even on the Dublin-Waterford road link. What is being done is welcome but why spend so much money on public relations?
I also have a question on the regional airports. Six weeks ago, Mr. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair was before the committee, probably sitting in the same seat on which the Minister is now sitting, and lashed the regional airports. He said he would close the lot of them. My colleagues from rural areas were flabbergasted but did not confront him on the matter. He basically told us that he would keep Dublin and possibly Cork and Shannon airports. Knock Airport was almost a non-runner. Will we have a serious discussion about the situation with Ryanair and Aer Lingus? I sought such a discussion yesterday in the House. I am aware meetings are taking place and the Minister might have met Mr. O'Leary. I am aware he wishes to meet the Opposition as well. Does the Minister have grave concerns about the network of regional airports and regional connectivity given that Mr. O'Leary more or less told the committee that the airports were a waste of time and space?
As regards licensing, I note the change that has been made regarding the NCT test for imported vehicles, but what impact will it have in monitoring the national car fleet? As I understand it, they must all have the NCT from early 2009.
The increase for the Road Safety Authority is welcome. Due to the archaic procedures of Dáil Éireann, however, we are discussing this technical Estimate but we will not get a chance to discuss the major Estimate for next year until mid-2009. Earlier, we heard that many driving testers have been let go by the independent testing agency, although we still seem to be light years away from having a fully graduated driving system in place. For example, one must be a driver for two years to sit beside someone with a provisional licence, but a driver can get a PSV licence to drive a taxi within two years. That is an incredible anomaly. Deputy O'Dowd outlined a number of other anomalies in the system. I am concerned that the RSA's budget for 2009 is being slashed.
I thank the Minister and the spokespersons for Fine Gael and the Labour Party. I now call for questions from other members.
I welcome the Minister, the Minister of State and their officials. The Estimate acknowledges the work of Transport 21, including the Luas extension in docklands and Cherrywood, as well as other rail routes to Kildare, Clonsilla and Dunboyne, in addition to the DART underground project. I understand that the tender documents for the metro north order will be submitted in February or March, when two preferred bidders will be chosen to proceed to the next stage later in 2009.
I am somewhat disappointed about Irish Rail and the intercity railcars. It is stated at the top of page 9 that it did not make the application in time and there was a delay involved. I find it galling that, when there is money to spend, any State agency should fail to apply for it. The Minister and other Deputies are continually making the case for a better public transport system, but I find it extremely galling to read in this report that Irish Rail did not make the application in time and therefore railcars will not be delivered on schedule. Somebody in that organisation should be rapped over the knuckles. We fight long and hard enough to get money for public transport, so when we have the money, such a report seems ridiculous both to us and the commuting public. Clearly, somebody sat on his or her bum and did not do the necessary work. I would like to hear the Minister's comments in that regard.
Deputy Broughan referred to regional airports. We invited representatives of the four western airports — Shannon, Galway, Knock and Sligo — here and expressed concerns about a certain amount of duplication. That is particularly the case with Sligo and Knock where two expensive PSOs operate 45 minutes apart. There is an issue of rationalisation and increased synergy in that case. Is anything happening in the context of the changed economic climate and threats to Aer Arann and Ryanair's continued presence in Shannon? Perhaps the Minister could comment on the money being made available to regional airports this year.
I forgot to mention one matter. I agree that the on-line motor tax service is an outstanding success. I use it myself and it is very efficient. There is one aspect that worries me, however, which reverts to my previous business as an insurance broker. An applicant can slot in any insurance company and any policy number, but there does not seem to be a check. Earlier, we discussed the fraudulent use of insurance certificates in the taxi business. In essence, one can get 12 months' tax once one has a visa, laser or other credit card to pay the bill. One does not have to verify one's insurance because it just asks the applicant to name an insurance company. There is a panel of insurers and one can click on any of them and make up a policy number. One can also make up the renewal date and as long as one says that the renewal date is after the tax expiry date, it lets the applicant receive a valid document. It is efficient because the tax disc is issued within a matter of days, but I would like to know if the Minister has a view on the concerns I raised.
With regard to the latter point, the NVDF and insurance systems are being linked. The insurance companies were reluctant for a long time to allow that kind of access, so there was a difficulty or gap in that regard. Obviously, the vast majority of people going on-line are legitimately insured, but there are some others who use that system. It is being linked and the new system is being put in place.
While not wishing to be discourteous to other colleagues, I will stay with Deputy Kennedy's point on railcars, which is really only a timing issue. When Iarnród Éireann applies to the Department for any public expenditure, such applications are analysed. We sought clarification on a number of issues from Irish Rail, which delayed the process. The clarification is now in and will be dealt with. We are allowed to carry over such a deposit into 2009, so the order for railcars will be placed early next year. It concerned the system rather than somebody not doing his or her job.
As regards regional airports, Michael O'Leary runs an airline and his interest is in making money for himself and his shareholders, which is a perfectly legitimate business aspiration. He does not particularly have to worry about regional development policy or connectivity within the island. From the viewpoint of the business model that Ryanair uses, there is not much point in having regional airports. They are only a nuisance as far as an airline is concerned, but the Government has responsibilities to the regions, which are reflected in regional policy. For that reason, regional airports are supported.
From a commercial viewpoint, Mr. O'Leary is absolutely right — there would not be an airport in every western county, except Roscommon, if one was working purely on commercial lines. We do not operate that way, however. We try to facilitate the regions by supporting regional development as much as possible.
At some stage the committee may exercise its mind on this issue. It is getting increasingly difficult to justify PSOs to regional airports because of the other improvements we are making in transport — new roads, new rail services, etc. It will be difficult in the future, except for the most remote of the airports, to be able to justify continued subvention of the regional airports given the criteria set out in law, directives, etc. However, we have this three-year window. We indicated total expenditure, between capital and OPEX, operational expenditure, of approximately €86 million. There were many late starts in the programme for this year and next year and that is why the provision is as set out. Next year, because of the constraints on the public purse, we will just finish those contracts. There will not be a great many new works, except where they are necessary for safety or whatever.
Rural transport was mentioned by Deputy Broughan. We increased the amount from €9 million in 2007 to €11 million in 2008. We made it quite clear that we did not want people undertaking commitments that could not fit into an ongoing programme. From the point of view of the operators, through Pobal, they acted very responsibly. They expanded their services and we went into every county during the course of this year. There is a slight mismatch in that regard. It just means that the €11 million sum we had in place will be available again next year because I was particular about providing that funding, and we will have routes on which to use it.
On the public transport programme, Deputy Broughan is correct that 60% of the funding under Transport 21, or a little less, is going on roads. That is because we are still doing the big motorway schemes. However, the balance is changing. By 2010, it probably will be almost at equilibrium and then public transport will take a bigger chunk of it. The important point is that there is not a significant amount of discretionary funding in the 2009 budget but 90% of the new funding, the non-contractual funding for Transport 21 for 2009, is for public transport, not roads.
I hope I did not miss any of the issues raised.
Deputy Broughan asked about the allocation to the Road Safety Authority, RSA, next year. It is €36.5 million. It is a decrease of approximately €3.5 million but, in fact, we did extremely well because last year we got once-off funding of approximately €10 million to work off the backlog. That, coupled with the fee income which the RSA itself will make, will allow the authority to carry on and do all that is outlined in the strategy.
Deputy Broughan mentioned that he saw something about driving instructors being laid off. This time last year the average waiting time for a driving test was 36 weeks and that is why we got some of the extra funding for SGS. The waiting time has reduced to an average of eight weeks. We will be using SGS next year, but to a lesser extent. I presume SGS does not need the same number of driving instructors as previously but we will be using it, perhaps to two thirds of the extent we did previously.
Deputy Broughan also asked about the graduated licensing scheme. The items he mentioned were introduced last year. The RSA is working on a consultation document on how we advance that matter. That will be issued in the next couple of months and we will take it from there.
There is a vote in the House. I will let Deputy O'Dowd——
I have a few questions on how Transport 21 is affected as a result of the budget as has my colleague, Deputy Broughan. I suggest the Chairman leave it for another day to be agreed in conjunction with the Minister, even if it is not this month. Is that acceptable?
Yes.
Agreed. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting.