Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will begin with questions for Iarnród Éireann. I noted that Mr. Allen's opening statement made no reference to the budget. Given the dire financial circumstances in which Iarnród Éireann finds itself, he did not refer to there being no specific additional capital investment announcement in the budget. The additional public service obligation contribution was 8%, which is a paltry amount in the circumstances.

Has Iarnród Éireann applied any pressure on the Minister in any way? Mr. Allen said that Iarnród Éireann is confident that funding will come. His statement to the committee referred to the rail review but the one thing it flagged was that Iarnród Éireann was in dire financial circumstances to the point where serious safety issues had been raised and it would require €500 million over the next five years. We have just had the budget and the Minister has made no reference to that whatsoever and has given no clear indication regarding additional capital allocation or otherwise. The additional funding for the public service obligation is minimal when one considers the extra work for which it must pay. Mr. Allen seems comfortable that there may or may not be something coming down the road.

It is as if the seriousness of the financial position has not sunk in. What representation has been made to the Minister? How many meetings did the witness have before the budget with the Minister to argue the case for funding? Why has the Minister thus far ignored that call?

The possible industrial action coming down the road is exactly the same as what happened with the Bus Éireann workers. In Iarnród Éireann there has been a decade or more of gross underfunding. The company refers to it as deferred maintenance but it is a lack of funding in infrastructure that would keep a safe standard. The company again seems to be ignoring the fact that funding has issued and the same scapegoat seems to be targeted. It is the workforce and the change in management. Is the witness of the opinion that workers, ten years on and having taken pay cuts over that period, are entitled to the pay rises they seek? Do they have a right to ask for that, regardless of the lack of funding and investment over decades? That is not the fault of workers. The same as the witnesses or any of us, they are entitled to a pay rise. Does the witness accept that? The passenger numbers have increased so much that the company is back to 2007 levels. Passengers are coming back. As with Bus Éireann, the people singled out for changes and to bear the brunt are workers.

I have a question on rail operations and profits. Do operational profits go to infrastructure or where are they spent? Will the witnesses give some detail as I am sure they are aware of exactly where they go? There are a couple of other matters, including the safety concerns in the rail review and the lack of funding. It goes everywhere from signalling to the possibility of line closures and speed restrictions. There was an incident in Cork involving signalling problems and the station was closed for a number of weeks. There is overcrowding on carriages and problems with disability access. None of these has been addressed. I am at a loss as to what has been done by Iarnród Éireann other than making reference to it in the statement.

What is the opinion of the witness on the fact that the Minister, thus far, has given no real commitment? He certainly made no announcement in the budgetary measures. If the witnesses know of the commitment, what exactly is it? Will the company be happy if it gets funding for an extra couple of dozen carriages? The rail review clearly states that €500 million over the next five years is needed, but will the company settle for less?

Is the company is involved with public-private partnerships etc? If investment was made in the rail network, particularly carriages etc, would it be to prepare it for privatisation down the road, outsourcing etc.? Have there been discussions with the Minister, the Department or the National Transport Authority on privatisation or outsourcing, which is the other word we have seen in conjunction with Bus Éireann?

Although it is minor relative to the bigger issues, we are seeing overcrowding on trains. In my county of Louth there is serious overcrowding on the Dundalk to Dublin train and vice versa. There are intercity trains, such as the train from Belfast to Dublin, but it does not get into Dublin before 9 a.m. I cringe with embarrassment as there is no other service across Europe like that which would not get workers in before 9 a.m. on a work day.

There is also the question of disability access. I will come to Bus Éireann in a moment but as part of the plan to deal with workers and pending strike action in Iarnród Éireann, is there a plan to leave stations unplanned or have certain stations closed and services shut down? If there is a plan to leave stations unmanned and put staff on trains, how will it affect the 24 hours' notice that wheelchair users must give to use public rail services? If a person is working in a train station and a person arrives who needs disability access, the worker would be able to get out a ramp and assist the person on to the train. How will this work in future?

What is the opinion of the representative of Bus Éireann on what has been happening with regard to Bus Éireann in County Meath? I asked a parliamentary question on how many bus drivers have sought redundancy in the past 12 months and since then I have asked how many drivers have left the organisation in that time. There was mention of the changed management and how rosters were being implemented. Is the witness confident that is the case? From what we hear on the ground it is not the case and there is much discontent among workers. They were previously working an eight-hour day and now it will be a 13 hour shift, with half-hour breaks and no toilet facilities. I hear from across the board there is much resentment or discontent. Will the witness explain what exactly is happening in Meath? Will we see a recurrence of those actions across the board?

The witnesses indicated their confidence in a significant improvement in the subsidy, which has been 47%. That was not announced in the budget and no commitment was given. The witnesses have clearly been given a commitment so what are the figures in that commitment?

Deputy Bríd Smith asked questions about the tendering process for the 10% of Dublin Bus routes that went to tender and specifically the competitor, Go-Ahead. Every question she asked received a reply indicating she was seeking commercially sensitive information. Was the tender made by Dublin Bus cheaper than Go-Ahead and what was the basis for Dublin Bus not securing the tender?

If this is going to be the start of the outsourcing of our public network, would the witness agree that rather than saying that things are commercially sensitive and that nothing can be disclosed until after a contract is awarded, when there is no recourse, it is more appropriate that this information be put in the public domain? We have seen contracts awarded, for example, for the toll bridges, which have been for 30 years and with compensation if there are insufficient cars on the road or if there are any changes. It should be explained in the public interest why the contract was awarded to somebody else, when it will be officially awarded if it has not been already, and why the Dublin Bus tender, which was cheaper, was not awarded the contract.