Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will start by answering Deputy Fitzpatrick's questions. He asked me if I was satisfied with the amount of funding going to local and regional roads. I am not. It is inadequate. What we are getting for all roads, local or national, is inadequate. We need more, particularly in terms of the figure I quoted in my opening remarks. We will not get up to steady State levels until 2020. That is unsatisfactory. It is something which would be intolerable in normal circumstances but we are not in normal circumstances. It is something we are already striving to overcome. The bid we made in our negotiations with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, yesterday would reflect that dissatisfaction. I do not expect that particular gap to be closed overnight because I understand the stringency that exists in respect of the public the finances. To answer the Deputy's question, I am not happy.

On the regional and local roads budget, the 2015 regional and local capital Estimate of €250.4 million was supplemented by the Government stimulus package in July 2015. There has been a record of Supplementary Estimates on this, and on the flooding issue in particular, Supplementary Estimate money is coming for local and national roads - mostly for local roads - which will be reflected in the discussion when I come back looking for the ratification in respect of the approximately €96 million involved.

A question was asked about A Fresh Start and Northern Ireland. Neither of the two main projects - the A5 road and the Narrow Water bridge - is in any sense off the agenda. The Deputy must realise that very little finance is available for them on either side of the Border. That is the reality. There is no provision in my Department for the €25 million that has been allocated to one of the projects. They are on the North-South Ministerial Council's agenda. The council was due to meet in June, but that was postponed, so it will be on the agenda for the next meeting. Officials are holding regular meetings and examining ways to progress the projects. As the Deputy knows, both are jointly funded. Neither Government has yet made the financial commitment to them that is necessary, but we will push for it. I am due to meet my counterpart in Northern Ireland, Mr. Hazzard, on the fringes of the next North-South Ministerial Council meeting to address this particular problem. It will probably be on the main agenda as well because the fact that the issue has been ongoing for so long is not satisfactory.

Regarding axles and weights, I am responsible for the derogation not being given again. The reason was twofold, the first being infrastructure. I was advised, and accepted that advice, that we were suffering as a result of the continuous use of these particular vehicles over a long period. Second, I believe I am right in saying that it was in 2008 that the derogation was first given. It may have been 2007. That derogation was repeated every year since. The drivers and the industry had been told on every occasion that they should prepare for the day, which was only a year away, that this would no longer be the case. They have been given seven, eight or nine extensions of the derogation. It was time to call a stop to it, and that is why I did it.

I hope that I have addressed Deputy Troy's points about local roads. I agree that they are not adequately funded, but the reasons are self-explanatory. We hope that there will be an increase next year and that we will have a steady state situation in four years' time.

Regarding the subvention, it has improved and I hope that it will continue improving in the years to come. We certainly intend it to do so. This was not an easy decision. It was cut because of the overall problems in the public finances. That has had an adverse effect on the three companies that were mentioned. We intend to increase the subvention in the coming years. It increased by 18% overall this year and we have put in for substantial increases next year. There is no wish to cut it further. The reasons had to do with the macroeconomy.

I will address the issue of the RSA before that of the industrial action. If I may, I will take all of the industrial action questions together because they were fairly similar. I would have no problem with taking further questions on it.

I was asked whether the RSA was funded adequately. I am not aware of a particular demand from the RSA for the funds. I was asked why there were unfilled places on the RSA's board. I am considering the issue of departmental boards generally. Some are too big. Had I appointed the three members to the RSA - it is still under consideration - the RSA would have had a board of 12 members up to approximately two weeks ago, which is the same size as the boards of the Dublin Airport Authority, daa, and AIB. It seemed to be getting top heavy. I was going to examine whether it was necessary to have such a large board for what was a relatively small body. It is a body with an important role to play, but I am not sure that it needs such a large board. I am not sure that any of the boards in my Department need to be as big as they are.

The appointments system under the Public Appointments Service - forgive me, Chairman, but I must answer this question fully, because that is only fair to Deputy Troy - comes up with weird results. The guidelines for appointing boards were necessarily reformed in November 2014 to avoid charges of politicians appointing people who were too close to them. What happens now, as happened in the case of the RSA, is that boards are appointed after a process that I regard as inadequate. Going from memory, I believe that approximately 60 people applied for the RSA positions as advertised. The result of that application process was the Public Appointments Service, PAS, selecting 21 people to go to the Minister. Those 21 were selected in a short time and, as far as I know, without any interview being conducted. In such a situation, it is difficult for me to be expected to appoint three people out of the 21 names when I know little about them and they have not been interviewed or subjected to anything except a cross-checking of CVs. I am considering other ways of selecting board members that do not put a Minister in the position of being confronted with people about whom he or she knows nothing and who have come through a process that does not include interviews or anything except very superficial checks. This is the answer to the RSA question. I am considering the issue in a broad way. The RSA is one of those bodies that has not devised a solution. It would be easier were there a further process and it was down to a minimum of two or three people, but the way that it is structured now - I will finish on this, as I do not want to labour the point, but it is important because it applies to other bodies under my Department - sees a large number of names coming to a Minister to be appointed in the dark. I am considering how to structure the RSA's board. I am not adverse to letting it have a few more members if expertise is necessary, but the process is flawed.

I am sorry, but there was a 13% increase in the PSO this year, not an 18% one. I read that wrong.

Was it Deputy Barry or Deputy Munster next?