Other Questions.
6 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Transport his views on the need to reopen the Cork-Midleton rail link; if further progress has been made in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15766/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra40 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Transport if it is feasible to extend the proposed new commuter rail service in Cork to Midleton and Youghal; and the steps he intends to take to progress such a proposal. [15937/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 40 together.
I was delighted to announce, on my visit to Cork last week, that the Government has approved the development of a commuter rail service between Mallow and Midleton to meet the long-term needs of the east Cork region.
The development involves the construction of new rail stations on the existing main rail line between Mallow and Kent Station and the re-laying of track and reopening of services between Cork city and Midleton. In all, five new stations will be constructed at Blarney, Kilbarry, Dunkettle, Carrigtwohill and Midleton. The proposals emanate from the Cork area strategic plan, CASP, which was commissioned by Cork City and County Councils in 2000.
The new rail commuter service is designed to meet the long-term needs of the rapidly expanding east Cork region, to alleviate traffic congestion into and out of the city at peak times and to attract industrial and commercial developers.
The CASP and the strategic rail review, commissioned by my Department, both supported the case for upgrading commuter rail services in the Cork area. A feasibility study conducted by Iarnród Éireann showed a positive economic return for the proposed rail developments.
Iarnród Éireann has already begun design work on the project and is concluding technical examinations of the new stretch of line between Glounthaune and Midleton. When the examinations are completed, I expect to receive from the company detailed costings for the infrastructure and rolling stock requirements. The funds will be provided from my Department's capital investment envelope, from the special contributions schemes established by the local authorities and from private developers' contributions. It is also hoped to secure EU funding for the project.
The approach taken by the authorities in Cork, through the CASP, is a model plan for the integration of land use and transportation strategies, and one which other local and regional authorities around the country would be advised to follow.
The CASP contains proposals for further expansion of commuter rail services, in the longer term, including extending the Midleton line to Youghal. These proposals will be examined further as development in the areas concerned takes place and demand for services grows to a point where additional capacity may be necessary.
Some of these questions were submitted before the Minister visited Cork. In light of the Minister's comments, what are the ballpark figures we are talking about? I am sure the Minister had to get some sort of approval from the Department of Finance prior to his visit to Cork. Human nature being what it is, there is concern that in light of the timing of the visit, the commitment may evaporate after 11 June.
With regard to the projected cost figures, what is the breakdown or ratio of the funding from the local authorities through the special development levies, from the private developers, from the State and from the European Union? Those figures are critically important if this project is to be used as a blueprint.
The estimated cost of the Mallow-Midleton suburban service is €89.7 million. That is broken down as follows: restoring the Midleton service track signalling stations — €56.3 million; new stations between Mallow and Cork — €9.4 million; and rolling stock — €24 million. This makes a total of €89.7 million.
The Deputy asked from where the funding will come. It is proposed the Exchequer will contribute €32.7 million from the financial envelope allocated to public transport, the European Union will contribute €23.5 million and the levies and private investment combined will be about €34 million. Some of the figures have yet to be finalised. The €34 million must be pinned down. That is a ballpark assessment of the figure. The EU funding must also be fully finalised in terms of the actual amount. Those discussions are advanced. These are the ballpark figures although there may be some tweaking of them.
I wish to pay tribute to the CASP organisation. The people involved in the plan went about their business professionally and in an organised way. That the local business community was able to offer more than €30 million meant the Government could examine the project. It is a template for any other part of the country that is thinking of reopening a rail line. This is an excellent model of how to approach the idea and assess it professionally. I pay tribute to all those who brought this project to Government and who made it an easy decision because of the professional approach and the manner in which they recommended it.
Am I to take it from the Minister's earlier reply that the extension of the line to Youghal will have to wait until the Department sees whether the existing line to Midleton is a success? Does he agree that the real key to success in the use of these new assets is the running of as many services as possible on the fixed line?
Given that we are investing in the renewal of the Cork-Midleton line, which I very much welcome, does it not make sense to proceed immediately with the construction of a line to Youghal, given that a large section of passengers travelling to Youghal would use the main line in which we are investing? Such an extension would bring further planning benefits to that major developing town.
Does the Minister or the Department have plans for similar development of the public transport system on the south side of Cork where there has been massive population growth but there is no such public transport provision? What public transport provision does the Minister have to offer people on the south side of Cork?
The CASP study envisages all the developments to which the Deputy referred. The CASP contains proposals for extending the Midleton line to Youghal, but that will have to be considered in the longer term. It is not a project on which I can embark now. However, I will keep the proposal under close examination as we move forward to develop the Cork-Midleton line. The position is similar in respect of the proposal for the south side of the city. The development of the Cork-Midleton line is a major investment and has been identified as the priority by those involved in CASP. They indicated the other proposals are also important but that they would have to be considered in the longer term.
In the breakdown of the figures the Minister gave I did not hear him mention any figure for the provision of park and ride facilities. In that context and in the context of the Luas, which I hope will be up and running soon, are there plans to run shuttle services to some of these railway stations? It seems there is a blinkered approach to the provision of services whereby we consider only the transport needs of the people within the immediate catchment area of these stations. Should we not consider developing significant park and ride facilities in areas where there are major junctions between the rail and road networks?
Does the Minister agree that when the new motorways are constructed they will bring people into the cities much quicker but that traffic will be much slower moving around cities unless investment is made in public transport? If we can facilitate and encourage the development of park and ride facilities, it could alleviate some of these problems in the future.
Will the Minister explain why he cannot invest in the rail extension to Youghal? Is it because of a lack of money? If the development of that line makes such strategic sense, why are we not proceeding with it?
I am a strong supporter of park and ride facilities and substantial investment is being made in them. When I was in Cork last week I opened the Black Ash park and ride facility which is the first such facility in the country specifically tailor-made as a park and ride facility. I compliment everyone who made that happen in Cork. It will accommodate 700 cars and is located near the Kinsale Road roundabout. It is the first of many such facilities envisaged by the local authority in the area which received funding support from the Department of Transport.
Regarding Luas, Deputy Naughten and Deputy Ryan in particular will be aware of the number of park and ride facilities being developed along the Luas line. There are also tax breaks for anyone who wants to invest in park and ride facilities. I hope significant use will be made of those in the future.
It is too early to make a decision to extend the line from Midleton to Youghal. It is a matter of priorities. My priority is to do what we announced last week, namely, to re-open the Cork-Midleton line with new track laid. We will see how development progresses in those areas because such development would have to work up to critical mass.
We are developing commuter lines. We had 3,000 miles of rail track 50 years ago and we now have a thousand miles of such track. If we are to develop the rail network, and I am a believer in doing that, there is a strong case for the development of high-speed intercity and commuter services. I intend to push ahead with those along the lines of this proposed commuter service. The case for other such services is not as clear but that does not mean we will not invest in them. There is no argument remaining against the value of providing commuter line services to and from high-density areas. It is the way of the future and I intend to continue to invest in those.
Does the Minister have figures for the number of people who currently commute between Youghal and Cork city?
I will have to get them for the Deputy as I do not have them with me.
I would appreciate if the Minister could supply them to me.
I will do that.
7 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Transport his views on whether payments to families who suffered serious financial losses as a result of overnight deregulation of the taxi industry are sufficient to alleviate the hardship experienced by these families; if he has plans to increase payments to these families beyond that recommended by the Taxi Hardship Panel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15909/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe taxi hardship payments scheme is based on the recommendations and parameters set out in the Taxi Hardship Panel report, as approved by Government.
The Taxi Hardship Panel was an independent, three-person panel established to report in general terms on the nature and extent of extreme personal financial hardship that may have been experienced by individual taxi licence holders arising from loss of income as a direct result of the liberalisation of the taxi licensing regime. No prior parameters were imposed in regard to the recommendations the panel might make. It was, however, made clear at the outset that based on legal precedent there can be no legal duty on the State to compensate taxi licence holders in regard to open market licence values that may have existed prior to liberalisation. Some 2,000 submissions were received by the panel and the panel also met with taxi representative groups and with some individuals who made submissions before finalising its report.
The report of the panel recommended the establishment of a scheme to provide payments to individual taxi licence holders who fall into one of six categories that the panel assessed as having suffered extreme personal financial hardship arising from taxi liberalisation. The payments range from €3,000 to €15,000 depending on the category of hardship involved. The Government approved the implementation on a phased basis of these recommendations. The payments in question do not represent compensation but rather compassionate payments in respect of extreme personal financial hardship.
I have no proposals to re-open either the terms of the Taxi Hardship Panel report or the Government's decision in regard to it in so far as the recommended payment levels for each category of hardship are concerned.
It is generally accepted there is a category of licence holder who was not adequately catered for by the Taxi Hardship Panel. It is those families who invested in taxi licences before deregulation. Those licence holders find it difficult enough to make a living, given the flooding of the taxi market, let alone make the repayments on what, in some cases, are substantial loans they would have taken out. Some licence holders would have taken out loans up to €100,000 on which the repayments are in excess of €900 per month. They are the real victims. The numbers involved are not large, but they are a category of people who are suffering serious hardship as a result of the Government's action.
Will the Minister explain how the hardship a family in those circumstances is suffering will be alleviated through the payment of €13,000? Does he accept such a payment is wholly and utterly inadequate in alleviating such hardship? Will he again reconsider this category of licence holder because they are experiencing real hardship. The families concerned are experiencing great difficulties. Some of them have to sell their homes, some are experiencing marital difficulties and some have to cope with alcohol abuse because of the enormous stress they are under as a result of deregulation. I appeal to the Minister in the strongest possible terms to reconsider this category and how they might be further assisted.
As the Deputy is aware, we had this discussion at a recent committee meeting. Whatever personal sympathy I might have for the category to which the Deputy referred — one would have to have sympathy for the case she laid out, assuming she has put forward a factual case — I have been presented with an independent report by Bill Attley, Kevin Bonner and Ann Riordan, three independent persons who came before the relevant committee recently. They went about their work diligently and professionally and produced a report. They met the groups and went through an entire process and recommended to Cabinet what type of compassionate payments might be made. The Cabinet accepted that recommendation without changing it and has stuck to it ever since.
Some €8 million has been paid out to date to more than 660 applicants. As I said at a recent committee meeting, that figure is expected to double or even treble depending on how it works out in the end with ADM which is operating the scheme. It is best to proceed to make the payments as quickly as we can so that we can help as best we can those who have suffered hardship. The independent three-man panel made clear that the hardship payments scheme is not meant to remove hardship but to make a contribution to alleviating it.
Will the Minister confirm that the figures that have been set by the taxi hardship panel are the maximum amounts to be paid out? Will he confirm that people will be paid less money as a proportion of the hardship involved? If it is the case that someone who paid €127 for a licence will be eligible for a payment of up to €13,000, whereas someone who paid up to €100,000 will be eligible for up to €12,000, how does the Minister square the circle? It does not seem to tally with his definition of extreme financial hardship. That is part of the discrepancy, as is the fact that people receive €5,000 for dependent children. The figure seems to be the same regardless of the number of such children.
Does the Minister not agree that there appear to be serious flaws in the hardship report? I refer to the manner in which the calculations are made to determine extreme financial hardship, as well as the criteria used to decide who should receive hardship payments.
Does the Minister agree that there is a great deal of hardship, especially in the Dublin taxi market, as a consequence of the number of taxis that are operating, many on a part-time basis? Does he agree that the problem would be solved if some type of entry standards were set? I would prefer if one of the standards was that taxis should be accessible to wheelchairs. An entry standard would, at least, help those full-time professional taxi drivers who have been in the industry for a long time.
There is a need for some regulation of the numbers rather than allowing anybody to enter the industry to work on a part-time basis, as is the case at present. Does the Minister consider that such a system could be used as a means of ensuring that working as a taxi driver is seen as a full-time and well-paid profession rather than something people take up as an additional or second job?
Deputy Naughten asked if the figures set by the hardship panel are maximum figures. I will check it again, but I think they are recommended payment amounts rather than maximum amounts. I think the panel recommended that the figures of €15,000, €13,000, €3,000, €6,000 and €8,000 be paid.
Does that mean that if one fits into a certain category, one will get the relevant payment?
Yes, that is my understanding.
A person who paid €127 for a licence will receive €13,000.
If one falls into the category, one will receive the level that has been recommended by the panel. They are not maximum amounts. Nobody should get less than that. I will double-check it for the Deputy. That is my understanding of what it means. The Deputy has made the case for those who paid a substantial amount of money for a taxi plate and will receive compensation of just €13,000. The panel must take account of all such cases in assessing hardship. Attempts have been made to help on a case-by-case basis along the lines recommended by the report. The payments will not alleviate hardship, but are intended as a contribution.
I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments about entry standards. The regulator has been identified by the Civil Service Commission. A name will be sent to me shortly for confirmation, which I will do. After holiday details and transitional arrangements have been worked out, the person in question is expected to take office in July or August.
The regulator will take office three and a half years after deregulation.
The regulator will be able to use powers under the Taxi Regulation Act 2003, which was passed by the House last year to establish an entire new regime. Successive Governments over the years spoke about introducing such a taxi Act.
In fairness, that includes the Government of which the Minister was the Chief Whip.
Indeed.
Will the Minister direct the regulator to use wheelchair accessibility as a means of assessing vehicle standards?
The Deputy is attempting to widen the scope of the question.
Will they be properly wheelchair accessible?
It is one entry standard, but not the only one.
Will the Minister seek to establish it as an entry standard with the regulator?
Absolutely.
Will it be a proper standard of wheelchair accessibility, as opposed to the standard used at the moment?
I have asked the National Taxi Advisory Council to discuss the matter, about which the taxi industry has strong views. We have asked the council, which represents consumers as well as providers, to indicate how best to proceed in that regard.
8 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Transport if he has satisfied himself with the procedure for the location of bus stops; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15776/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra61 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Transport if he has satisfied himself with the procedure for the location of bus termini; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15788/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 61 together.
The Garda Commissioner has the power to determine locations for bus stops and termini. Under section 85 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, the Commissioner may issue a direction to a bus operator, identifying the specific location of bus stops and termini for any bus route. He may determine that certain stops may only be used for passengers boarding or leaving buses. I understand that the Garda engages in a consultation process with local authorities and bus service providers before it issues a direction under section 85. Section 86 of the 1961 Act empowers the Commissioner to make by-laws relating to the use of bus stops and termini. Such by-laws have been in place since 1962.
The Road Traffic Act 2002 introduced a number of significant changes to the provisions established in the 1961 Act. Section 16 of the 2002 Act provides that responsibility for the determination of the location of bus stops and termini will be transferred from the Garda Commissioner to road authorities. This new approach reflects the evolution of policy and the development of the role of local authorities in traffic regulation and management since the passage of the 1961 Act. Section 20 of the 2002 Act provides that the Minister for Transport will provide for the regulation of the use of bus stops and termini. This ensures that the controls to be applied to the use of facilities will be contained in the same statutory framework that applies to traffic regulation generally.
Investigations have been conducted by Dublin Bus and the Garda Síochána into the tragic accident at Wellington Quay on 21 February last. We await the reports of the investigations. Dublin Bus has concluded its investigation into the circumstances of the accident. The investigation will establish causes and contributory factors and will make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. The publication of the report of the investigation into the tragic events at Wellington Quay has been deferred, however, as a result of recent correspondence received from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Dublin Bus has informed me that it is committed constantly to improving safety throughout the organisation. Its commitment has been brought into sharper focus by the Wellington Quay tragedy.
The Department of Transport has written to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to ask them to undertake a review of all bus stops from a safety perspective and that is under way. Suggestions which refer to the location of bus stops and termini or to the use of such facilities will inform the development of the new statutory arrangements envisaged under the Road Traffic Act 2002, as will any matter that arises from the Garda investigation.
The Department of Transport has written to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann about the locations of bus stops and termini. Why has it not written to other bus operators? Given that it issued the licences, the Department should be well aware of who the other bus operators are.
In light of the Wellington Quay incident and the impending publication of the report, does the Minister not think it would make sense to introduce common bus stops in Dublin and elsewhere? Bus stops should not be located higgledy-piggledy all over the place, one after the other, simply because different operators are involved. Is it not the case that this issue needs to be addressed, not only from a safety perspective but also, more critically, from the perspective of the Minister's proposals about deregulation and competition?
The Minister gave a commitment in the House that the families of the victims would be fully briefed about the progress of all investigations, but part of the report was published in a national newspaper yesterday. Does the Minister not feel that it was a gross insult to the families that they had to read about this in a national newspaper, rather than hearing about it from the company itself? Is an investigation taking place into how the document was leaked to a national newspaper?
I did not write to the other bus stop operators, but I will certainly do so. Perhaps my failure to do so was a symptom of an assumption that all bus stops are operated by CIE. There are not many other operators, but I will plug the gap by writing to them.
I have been informed by the chairman that the company has been in touch with the families on a consistent basis. In recent weeks, the chairman personally visited a number of the families to inform them of developments in this regard. I want the company to keep the families fully informed at all times, within whatever legal constraints there may be, given the view taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I agree with the Deputy it is imperative that the families involved in this terrible tragedy should be kept fully informed. My understanding is that they are being kept so informed, but I will restate the position to the company.
After the Wellington Quay tragedy, we asked the Minister to carry out a review of all the bus stops and termini in the city centre. At that stage, the Minister assured us that he was satisfied because they are kept under review and their locations are selected by the Garda Síochána and the city council. He is now telling us that, arising from the reports that have been produced, all the stops are to be reviewed. Will the Minister indicate whether terms of reference or other criteria have been established in respect of safety at those stops? Presumably, Dublin Bus was of the view that all the stops were safe so what measures will now be used to assess their safety?
The only terms of reference I gave were to instruct Dublin Bus to undertake a review of all bus stops from a safety perspective and for the organisation to satisfy itself that they were safe for pedestrians and for the operation of buses. There is no second check on that, if that is what the Deputy is suggesting. At this point, I do not have an independent authority that can second-guess Dublin Bus on the matter. Dublin Bus operates the buses and has told me in strong terms that their bus-stops are safe. We have had one terrible tragedy, which is being investigated, and Dublin Bus will now review all bus stops again from a safety perspective before letting me have the conclusions. That is the best way to proceed. If we had a separate safety organisation that could second-guess Dublin Bus, it would still be difficult to undertake a review of all bus stops throughout the city or, for that matter, the country.
At the time we discussed the Wellington Quay tragedy, the Minister stated that he had asked Dublin Bus to undertake a review of its bus stops and termini in and around Dublin. Did the Minister talk to other bus operators in Dublin? Is it not the case that some bus operators in the city do not have official bus stops or termini? Does the Minister think that is acceptable in light of the Wellington Quay tragedy?
Will the Minister give a commitment that all bus operators will be contacted and that the relevant points that emerged from the Dublin Bus investigation, regarding bus stop specifications etc. will be made available to all operators throughout the country?
What investigation is being conducted by Dublin Bus on behalf of the Minister's Department, concerning how this report, which the DPP requested not to be released to the public, got into the hands of a national media outlet which published part of it? This is a critical issue, in light of the commitments the Minister gave to the House and the fact that Dublin Bus is answerable to the Minister and his Department.
Because this tragedy involved Dublin Bus directly, the focus was on ensuring that the company reviewed its safety procedures. Very few other bus stops are serviced by private operators.
If the Minister walked around the block he would see a significant number of such bus stops.
I was just going to come to that point. I accept the Deputy's premise that private bus owners require a better deal, more certainty and a more formal role in our transport system, rather than the marginal role that has been allocated to them up to now. That includes providing bus parking space for them, as long as private operators provide a transport service of good quality. Part of the problem is the 1932 Act, which I am trying to reform.
As regards leaks, I do not think the entire report has made its way to the media. The more sensitive parts of it concerning the issues on which the DPP took some views did not feature. There were broad references in the media as to what may be contained in the report, which led the DPP to take his view. Although I do not know for sure, my opinion is that the report is not in the hands of the media but that certain aspects of it have found their way into the media. I will not be able to get to the bottom of it from inquiries I might make in that regard.
9 Mr. Murphy asked the Minister for Transport the plans he has to introduce seat belts on buses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15811/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraRequirements on the use of seat belts in buses under EU law and national regulations apply to the driver and each passenger in a forward facing front seat of a bus up to 3,500 kg maximum weight, where seat belts are fitted.
Directive 2003/20/EC, which was adopted in April 2003, provides, inter alia, for the compulsory wearing of seat belts by all occupants of vehicles, including buses where seat belts are provided. Under the directive, special provisions apply in respect of children under three years of age. Member states are required to transpose this directive into their national laws by 9 May 2006. However, it will be necessary to adopt a number of supporting proposals on type-approval standards concerned with the mandatory fitting of seat belts before the directive on the compulsory wearing of seat belts can be implemented and enforced.
In this regard, last year the European Commission published proposals to amend a number of directives relating to the type-approval requirements for safety belts and restraint systems, anchorages for safety belts and seats, their anchorages and head restraints. The proposals provide, inter alia, for the mandatory fitting of seat belts in all buses and coaches at manufacturing stage, other than those used on staged-stop urban services. Under the proposals, it would be a requirement for the sale, registration and entry into service of new buses and coaches, from 1 January 2006, that their safety belts and restraint systems, anchorages for safety belts and seats, their anchorages and head restraints, would conform to the technical requirements specified in the proposed directives. It is expected that the proposals will be considered by the Council of Transport Ministers shortly, with a view to the adoption of a common position by member states. For practical engineering reasons, I have no proposals to require existing buses to be retro-fitted with seat belts.
As the Minister is currently president of the EU Transport Council, will he consider the mandatory fitting of seat belts on all school buses that come into service? In the United Kingdom all school buses must have seat belts following the introduction of a mandatory regulatory system for all new buses providing school transport. Will the Minister consider introducing such a scheme here, given that a report published by the Oireachtas in 1999 called for such measures?
I share the same objective as the Deputy in wanting to see every bus fitted with seat belts on every seat, apart from local buses such as those used on staged-stop urban services. All medium and long-distance buses should be fitted with safety belts. That matter will be sorted out for new buses and coaches from 1 January 2006, assuming we can get some changes in type-approval standards.
The assessment of the Department of Transport to me on the retro-fitting of buses, such as school buses, which are already in service is that it presents substantial engineering difficulties. The Deputy is probably making a distinction between school buses which come into service as opposed to those already in service. The buses which are in service provide virtually all the capacity at present. Not many new buses are coming into service and, when they do, they tend to be the older type of bus. The Department informs me that there are practical engineering reasons for requiring them to be retro-fitted and that starting with new buses is the most practical way forward.
If the Deputy can suggest a way around this problem, I would be interested in pursuing it because I would like to see seat belts on every school bus from tomorrow if it were practical. Recalling them all or refusing to allow them on the road from a certain date could be considered, but there are substantial financial implications for the owners of these buses.
A number of solutions were proposed in the Oireachtas report of 1999. I suggest that the Minister speaks to his colleagues in the UK who have put in place such a system. Is it not the case that, under the current and planned regulations, it will be at least 2021 before any school buses have seat belts other than those for special needs children? Does the Minister not agree that it is unacceptable that school buses will not have seat belts for the next 15 years, even though they will be obligatory on passenger services in the intervening period? He should consider the introduction of a regulation whereby any bus which is commissioned for the school transport service would have to have seat belts fitted to them retrospectively.
This is the issue of whether the Government wishes to insist on retro-fitting these buses.
What about fitting them in new buses entering the service rather than existing buses?
There are not many of those. The school bus fleet is practically complete. Every child in the country who needs it is being transported by an existing bus. This would only apply to a handful of buses.
It could happen over a period of time, unless the Minister wants to wait until 2021.
I do not.
That is what the Minister is saying at the moment.
From 1 January 2006, new coaches and buses will be required to have seat belts. That will commence the process and I have asked the Department to examine whether there is any way forward in terms of requiring school buses to have seat belts from a particular date. If we were to embark on this, the best thing would be to select a date and require all school buses to have seat belts fitted by that date. We are examining that proposal closely to see if it is possible.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
