Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

At the outset I thank Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin spokespersons, as well as Independent Members, for their support of the Bill. I will address a few points raised by Deputies before I sum up. Deputy McConologue raised the issue of competitive tendering and asked if there is a difference between Fine Gael and Labour Ministers on the matter. Like many issues, there is a diversity of views in the Government and they do not always break down along party lines. I was disappointed that having asked the question, Deputy McConologue did not tell us the Fianna Fáil view, and I am interested in knowing the party's view, including what it thinks would be most of benefit to passengers or in the public interest.

I had a chance to examine the Fianna Fáil pre-budget submission, which although not fully costed was fairly detailed. It is interesting to note that in the pre-budget submission, the party proposed to increase spending in a number of areas but did not propose any increase in spending on public transport or CIE. I intend to hold Fianna Fáil to their proposal and will not listen to its Members criticising the level of subvention, as their alternative budget endorsed and supported cuts in subvention. It is there in black and white with Fianna Fáil headed paper. Fianna Fáil also proposed a 7% cut in free travel. We will not cut that scheme and I would like to know how Fianna Fáil would intend to bring about the 7% cut in the amount provided for free travel.

Deputy McConologue was concerned that I may be taking a hands-off approach with public transport and CIE but that is absolutely not the case. I have a very hands-on approach in the area and the CIE financial crisis takes up much of my time and that of the Minister of State and officials. We must bear in mind that CIE and subsidiary companies are not a normal part of the public service; although they provide public as well as commercial services, they are not the same as the Departments of Social Protection, Education and Skills or Health or the Revenue Commissioners. They are a State-owned enterprise with a board and management, so there is a certain separation. Certain logical and legal procedures do not allow a Minister to be as engaged in processes as he or she would be in the Department.

Deputy Ross indicated that this Bill is essentially throwing a lifeline to CIE, which is absolutely correct, and he questioned whether we should do so. It is a legitimate question. He also asked the rhetorical question of what would happen if we did not pass this Bill. There are two options. The first is putting another cash injection of taxpayer money into CIE in 2013; that will not happen as I do not have the money. The alternative is to allow the company to go bust or close down significant parts of the services it provides. That is not something I can countenance either, and that is why the Bill is before us.

The Bill has a number of important elements. It clarifies different measures under which CIE can engage in non-capital borrowing and makes a few changes with regard to the importance of State guarantees. It recognises that although Irish Rail is part of the State, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus are not. That derives from European law. The legislation sends a clear message to the CIE board, management and staff that if it runs behind this year, the company will have to borrow money. Any deficit will have to be covered through borrowing against assets, interest will be paid on the borrowing and the money must be repaid. There is no possibility of a further cash injection above what has already been given to CIE.

The Bill sends a clear message that shortfalls and overruns will be met by borrowings against the assets of the company. While CIE will not necessarily be required to provide collateral in all cases, borrowings will be made against the company and interest will be charged on any such borrowings. If it ever needed an incentive to implement its business plan, this should be it.

CIE is undergoing major reforms which have only recently commenced. The company has a new corporate structure, with four recently appointed non-executive chairpersons and new board membership. A Government decision was made not to dismiss board members appointed by the previous Administration. I chose not to dismiss board members for this reason, although I have appointed many new members. New financial management, with different systems and people, has been introduced at the company.

Deputy Ross referred to the Baker Tilly report, with which he was heavily involved. I commend the Deputy on his work in that regard and the extent to which he drove the report through committee. However, the report deals with events which took place in 2005 and 2006, which is the best part of a decade ago. Since coming to office, I have done a trawl in my Department to ascertain if many allegations of wrongdoing were made in CIE and if they stacked up. I found there were only a small number of such allegations and none of them stacked up. If anyone has any allegations about wrongdoing or corruption in CIE, I would like to see evidence for them. I cannot stand over an assumption that wrongdoing must be rife and ongoing because it was proved in one instance in 2005. I do not accept this view as there is no evidence that wrongdoing or corruption is rife or ongoing in CIE. If anyone has allegations backed up by evidence, I would like to see them by all means, however. I do not have any reason to believe CIE is not entirely proper in its dealings at management and worker level.

CIE chairpersons were appointed before they went before the committee, although I did not sign off on their orders for appointment or mandates until after the committee hearing in case any matter arose at the meeting that would cause me to change my mind. As it happened, the four chairs did very well in their hearing and their mandates were subsequently signed. Since then, the procedures have changed slightly and any chairperson who goes before a committee must do so before his or her appointment is confirmed and the order for appointment is signed. This procedure has applied, for example, in the cases of the new chairpersons of the Dublin Airport Authority, National Roads Authority, Railway Procurement Agency and port companies and in the reappointment of Mr. Gay Byrne as chairman of the Road Safety Authority. All the individuals in question appeared before a hearing of an Oireachtas committee before they were appointed or reappointed. This issue has, therefore, been addressed.

I thank Deputy Ellis for his support for the Bill and the commitment he expressed towards Dublin Bus in particular. I note his call for greater investment in public transport. All of us would love more investment in public transport and if I had more money, I would invest it in public transport. Sinn Féin recently produced a €7 billion stimulus plan and while the source of funding for the plan is questionable, that is a matter for another day. However, even if one gives the party the benefit of the doubt and accepts that €7 billion could be raised, I note its plan proposed to spend €400 million on a road located mainly in Northern Ireland, €74 million on an airport and €50 million on a port and that no funding was proposed for public transport, either buses or railways. Deputy Ellis should bear this in mind when he calls for more investment in public transport.

See this speech in context