Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We were discussing amendments Nos. 7, 8, and 67. Is that correct?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, those amendments are being discussed together.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

During the debate last week I outlined the reasons I felt that paragraphs (g) and (h) of amendment No. 8 should be placed on page 14 in the objectives of the new Dublin transport authority.

Amendment No. 67 also refers to the rights of workers. In particular, it seeks to ensure that the transfer of undertakings rights would apply to transport workers in relation to the operation of the new agency and the possible transfer of officials and salaried workers between different agencies.

With regard to the public service contract I seek, on page 41 of the Bill, between lines nine and ten, to include the following: "the obligation on the public transport operator to comply with all employment legislation is specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Law Compliance Act 2008 and any instruments specified in Part II of Schedule 1 of the said Act, and employment regulation Orders and registered employment agreements within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 2004". I attended a large meeting of transport workers last night organised by the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, TSSA. Grave concern was expressed about measures in the employment law consolidation Bill and about the possibility that the transfer of undertakings which is specified in the EU Transfer of Undertakings ( Protection of Employees) Regulations 2003, under SI 131/2003, would not apply to transfers between the existing transport agencies and the new DTA. The directive sets out the rights of employees very clearly. There is a fear among public transport workers that their rights and conditions of employment will be sacrificed if the DTA is set up without a provision such as the one outlined in amendment No. 67.

The amendment also seeks to add to the public transport service contract a further requirement that "the public transport operator shall be required to grant work staff previously taken on to provide services, the rights to which they would have been entitled if there had been a transfer within the meaning of Directive 2001/23/EC together with all pension rights and entitlements of the said staff with the previous public transport operator.". This paragraph seeks to further amplify the necessity to ensure that workers in existing agencies in the public transport area are protected when the new DTA comes into operation. It is quite clear from the many meetings I have attended on behalf of the Labour Party with stakeholders, including commuters, cyclists, pedestrians, public and private transport operators, chambers of commerce and so forth, that people are concerned that as the DTA evolves, it will become a very powerful body. It represents a major break with the past in terms of administration in Ireland, given that it will be a regional structure. The DTA will function almost as a regional government structure. That is why the amendments concerning accountability to which I referred on the Order of Business are so important.

It is also critical that the rights of workers are protected and clearly laid down. That is important, not just in the public sector but also in the private sector, given the concern that some private operators might cut corners and that it is harder to invigilate the protection of private sector workers, particularly those who do not belong to a trade union. We must try to lay down some basic ground rules for their protection and I have sought to do so in the aforementioned amendments.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to amendment No. 7, the objectives of the DTA include the provision of a safe public transport system. It is a normal duty imposed on any provider of transport that the service should be provided in a safe manner. However, that is not the same as providing the DTA with a regulatory role with regard to safety, which would be the effect of amendment No. 7. I do not intend that the DTA should be granted a safety monitoring role in this Bill. It would not be a good idea to do so. That role should remain with the existing bodies, including the Road Safety Authority, the Railway Safety Commission, the Health and Safety Authority and so forth. All these bodies have a specific safety remit which extends to transport, in some circumstances. Giving the DTA, as well as those other agencies, a role in safety could have the opposite effect to that intended by the Deputy. It could cause confusion as to who is responsible for what in an emergency. I do not think a safety monitoring role is a good idea in that regard.

I know the motivation behind the amendment is a concern to ensure that safety is a priority and I assure the Deputy that I share that concern with him. The DTA will be obliged under the existing road and rail safety framework, including the various Road Traffic Acts, the Railway Safety Act, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act and so forth, to meet obligations for the safety of workers and the public. That covers the issue more than adequately and, on that basis, I ask Deputy Broughan to withdraw amendment No. 7.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 67 propose to add to the Bill a very specific framework around the terms and conditions of employment. We had a very good debate on this issue on Committee Stage, discussing the pros and cons of it. During that debate, I explained to the committee that, arising from Towards 2016, the ten-year framework social partnership agreement, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is preparing legislation to give effect to a range of measures to enhance employment rights and compliance issues. These include the introduction of the employment law compliance Bill 2008, which will overhaul the State's employment rights framework and a proposed employment law consolidation Bill to simplify and codify employment law spanning more than 60 years. I also referred to discussions taking place in the partnership talks on the implementation of part two of Towards 2016 in respect of pay, the workplace, employment rights and compliance. In the context of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 to which the Deputy referred, I have pointed to the fact that Article 4 of the new regulation provides for mandatory content in public service contracts. While Article 5 recognises that collective agreements between social partners may be in place in individual member states, it also provides for the protection of the rights of workers through the inclusion of the appropriate provisions in the tender documents and the public service contracts. Article 6 also provides for the inclusion of national quality standards in tender documents and public service contracts.

The concerns of the Deputy are met in large part by what we already have in the Bill. In an effort to address the concerns that inform those amendments, I introduced an amendment to section 48 on Committee Stage to require that the public transport service contracts contain requirements relating to applicable law in respect of pay and terms and conditions of employment. That amendment now forms part of that particular section.

Arising from concerns relating to the certification of transport operators, a new paragraph (n) introduces the requirement to hold the appropriate national or international road passenger operator's licence, RPTOL, in the case of contracts relating to public bus passenger services. RPTOLs are granted every five years and the application criteria relate to a range of issues such as professional competence, good repute and sound financial standing. In circumstances where the spirit, if not the letter, of the Deputy's amendment has been met and having amended the legislation in section 48 on Committee Stage, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will be familiar with the differences that emerge between agencies in respect of transport safety, particularly in respect of the appalling tragedy at Kentstown in the Minister's constituency when it fell to the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, to initiate some of the major steps that led eventually to accountability in that instance. Inserting a section relating to the upholding of the highest safety and professional standards at the very heart of the objectives of the DTA is a reasonable request.

There are continuing concerns among transport workers, particularly in respect of Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007. The aspect of this directive which concentrates on competition and perhaps privatised competition within the transport sectors of the economy seems to be the hallmark of the framing of a large part of this legislation. If one looks at the directive, one can see that there are many elements in the preamble, particularly citation 17, which make it clear that the protection of standards and conditions among transport workers is also important given that they are among the most safety-critical workers in the economy. As I said before, at this very minute, the lives of possibly tens of thousands of our constituents are in the hands of skilful drivers and other staff. We should transpose citation 17 directly into the Bill.

Likewise, I make a final appeal to the Minister. I tried to set out in a new subsection (h) a provision whereby the Labour Court within two years of the establishment of the DTA would have a role in examining standards and conditions of workers across the sector given that we have set out a number of important requirements in respect of the strategic plan, implementation, the laying of plans here and so on. It seems reasonable that the industrial relations structure would also have a role within a specified time, for example, two years, if the organisation is up and running to see how it has carried out its remit in respect of the invigilation of transport operators.

Will the Employment Law Compliance Act, with which the Leas-Cathaoirleach is familiar, include transfers of staff from existing public service operators like CIE and Dublin Bus? Will the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) directive apply to staff and the protection of their pension rights and superannuation in this Bill as it exists? Otherwise, we need something like section 67.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know I am confined to two minutes so I will be brief. In respect of the Kentstown bus accident, the gardaí on the scene made it clear that they were going to prosecute that case. The HSA came in more on the roadworks element of it. Incidents like that can be dealt with either by the gardaí, the HSA or, in the case of railway safety, the Railway Safety Commission.

The spirit of this Bill incorporates Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007. The directive will come into force on 1 September 2009 and we will be subject to that through regulations so the Deputy's concerns in respect of preambles or anything else relating to railway or bus workers are being and will be fully met.

The other matters are really matters of national import. They are being dealt with at national level by my colleagues in Government and the social partners, and this is the best approach. As I stated on Committee Stage, in keeping with the Bill's provisions, if agreements are made that affect anything in this Bill in respect of terms and conditions of employment or anything else, they will be suitably transposed into a new piece of legislation.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 14, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

"(g) establish social and qualitative criteria to maintain and raise quality standards for public service obligations with regard to minimal working conditions, passenger rights, the needs of persons with reduced mobility, environmental protection, the security of passengers and employees as well as collective agreement obligations, and other rules and agreements concerning workplaces and social protection at the place where service is provided; In order to ensure transparent and comparable terms of competition between operators and to avert the risk of social dumping, the DTA should be free to impose specific social and service quality standards with due regard to recital 17 of Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 of 23 October 2007,

(h) maintain the highest standard of working conditions including fair and reasonable salaries for all transport workers including those established by collective agreement obligations. The Minister shall request every two years that the Labour Court undertakes a review of conditions of employment in the public transport sector and sets out its recommendations for the appropriate minimum conditions of employment for the sector which will be accepted by the Minister and laid as an order before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Following 21 days this order will take affect and the DTA will make arrangements to adjust the terms of their contracts with public transport operators to give effect to the order.''.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 14, line 33, after "fares" to insert the following:

"within the framework of Ministerial Directives under section 26 below".

This is part of a series of amendments to ensure full accountability to this House.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 11 sets out the principal functions of the DTA, one of which is to regulate fares. The effect of the amendment is to state the DTA may regulate fares subject to ministerial direction as provided for in section 26, which gives the Minister power to give policy directions to the DTA on the carrying out of any of its functions. The power is already in the Bill to allow me as Minister to give a direction on fares. It does not need to be restated.

One could state this amendment would not make much difference and I know it is not Deputy Broughan's intent but the amendment introduces uncertainty. One of the principal functions is qualified by this statement about ministerial direction and the other three are not. In the legislation, I want to make clear that all functions are subject to ministerial direction and this is what Deputy Broughan would also want because it is the tone of a number of his amendments.

As it is drafted, the language is clear and unambiguous since the powers in section 26 apply fully to all of the functions listed in section 11, including the fare regulation function. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment because if I were to accept it, it would dilute what he is trying to achieve.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had the pleasure of shadowing the Minister in his previous portfolio when we had a situation with the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER. The DTA will become the regulator of fares on which the Minister had a direct say last year and his predecessors in every year prior to then. How do we know we will not have the same situation this autumn because next month, when we are out of session, gas and electricity prices will see a major jump? Deputy Durkan and I went through this dance of despair every summer when we followed the energy portfolio. Is the Minister establishing the DTA to be another CER so he will be able to state it was responsible for introducing higher fares and it had nothing to do with him despite what he stated about the reference to himself under section 26?

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to CER, I had no say and the Minister has no say. CER is an independent regulator and the DTA is a different animal. The Minister with responsibility for energy has no say and cannot interfere in the price mechanism established with regard to the Commission for Energy Regulation. This Bill gives the Minister the power, if he or she chooses to exercise it, to give policy direction on fares. The Minister will not set individual fares but he or she can decide that as a sustainable transport or travel policy we should encourage people to leave their cars and use public transport. To encourage this, a fares policy might be put in place. It is in this way the Minister can exercise his or her functions. CER is a horse of a different colour. No ministerial intervention is allowed and it is statutorily barred. The Minister will not have the power to intervene.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not how it looks.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not how the Deputy presented it.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Broughan is correct. We had occasion in the past to reach the conclusion that certain policy directives were leaked to the regulator in the instance to which the Minister referred and as a result action was taken by the regulator who had no accountability to this House. We were in no position to question the regulator.

To come back to this amendment, I support Deputy Broughan on the basis that we had this debate previously. One of the saddest aspects of the past couple of years was that at every hand's turn a provision was included in every Bill to ensure an autonomous body was created. I do not know who creates these notions but effectively the most important element in such legislation was that the Minister did not have to account for a body's actions, particularly if they were controversial and provoked a public reaction.

I know what the Minister stated but I do not accept in its entirety his comparison with CER. However, we have many amendments to discuss and we must forge ahead.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As far as I am concerned no leaks occurred. I made clear very publically on a number of occasions that I did not agree with the policy being pursued by the regulator. I thank the Deputy for giving me credit for the fact that the regulator saw the wisdom of my approach and reduced prices.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely, we will always give the Minister credit even when we do not agree with him.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 15, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(f) provide and issue licenses under the Road Transport Act 1932 for public transport operators operating within the GDA.".

The amendment was debated on Committee Stage and I ask the Minister for a response.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is correct that this was debated on Committee Stage and we had a good discussion. This is a matter for reform of the Road Transport Act 1932 and the Transport Act 1958. It is my intention to include proposals for an entirely new bus licensing regime in a public transport regulation Bill and I hope to bring that to Government and the House quickly. It is early to be too precise on the detail of the proposal but the new Bill will deal with the replacement of the Road Transport Act 1932 and the Transport Act 1958, which relate to the provision of bus services by the State bus companies with the 1932 Act relating to private transport operators. The new licensing structure will apply in respect of all commercial bus services, including those provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, and the powers to grant licences in the GDA will be given to the DTA. The new Bill will also encompass provisions relating to the subvented bus market outside the GDA and those have to be consistent with the PSO directive mentioned earlier. Acceptance of the amendment would mean the DTA would be given responsibility for the licensing system under the 1932 Act and, in advance of the pursuit of the replacement provisions I will promote in the proposed legislation, that is not a tenable position. I assure the Deputy I will move on the reform of the 1932 and 1958 Acts quickly to meet the requirements of the amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the Minister's reply and his comments on Committee Stage. I am worried that, while the opportunity presents itself now to address the issue, the Minister might wait to introduce the legislation relating to the other Acts. However, sudden changes can take place in the GDA and transport requirements pop up almost overnight with new developments and so on. Recently, in my constituency, the Circle Line Company ceased its services and this caused problems and inconvenience for many commuters. This happens throughout the GDA. How soon can we expect the new legislation, given it is almost as difficult to extract legislation from the Government as it is to extract hen's teeth? More assurance is needed, given that we are into a recessionary period and the economic impact on the transport sector has not been experienced previously because of increased costs, including fuel costs, which may have an impact on the business plans put forward.

Commuters' transport requirements must be met and there is no sense in allowing scenarios to develop such as that which developed in more recent times. Will the Minister clarify whether he will be enabled to pre-empt issues provided for in this legislation or will they fall to be dealt with in the proposed legislation to which he referred?

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be good if the Minister clarified the scenario regarding the DTA later this week when his amendments are dealt with by the Seanad and the President signs the Bill in order that what happened to Deputy Durkan's and Deputy Stagg's constituents in Celbridge a few weeks ago will not happen again. The DTA will be the operator of last resort and will prevent a dedicated and valuable transport service from disappearing.

The major problem is legislation was passed when most of the population travelled on bicycles and horses and carts in 1932. Eighty years later, we are trying to deal with a totally different world. Fianna Fáil Government after Fianna Fáil Government refused to address the key issues, in particular in the past 11 years. We have waited six or seven years for clarity on bus licensing in the GDA and nationwide. The Minister and his predecessors, Deputies Brennan and Cullen, have been abject failures in facilitating public transport. What has happened is totally unacceptable. In addition to losing private sector services that were up and running, the Government has handicapped the current public service operators. These companies often came forward with valuable plans. For example, Dublin Bus came up with a plan for the greater Swords area while Bus Éireann drivers suggested that a service between Dublin and Tullow, County Carlow, was feasible, but company management was unable to progress it because officials in the Department of Transport felt they could not make a decision on licensing.

This has been an incredible failure of Government. What does the word "quickly" mean when used by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats? The Government has introduced only nine Bills this session. Over the first year of this miserable Government, which is turning into a massive cutback Government, public transport has been the greatest failure. The existing dedicated operators have been handicapped and other operators have been prevented from entering the market. It is deplorable and disgraceful. The way the Minister is going, we will not even see this authority by this time next year, which is appalling.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If ever.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment is fundamental to the future success of the DTA and I do not understand why he cannot accept it. If at a later date he introduces legislation to replace the 1932 Act, all he has to do is amend this Bill to incorporate it in the new legislation. In the meantime the DTA could get off to a good start and deal with localised transport needs. The Department must handle the transport needs of the entire State at a time when we are trying to encourage commuters out of cars on to public transport but localised issues need to be addressed. It is proposed the DTA should deal with a limited area, where the bulk of the problem lies.

The Minister will be well aware of the massive 260% increase in transport emissions since 1990 and the targets the State must meet. I refer to linking services. If one lives between the DART station and the QBC in Dún Laoghaire, one may wish to use this public transport system, but how does one get to them? People drive to the DART station and the QBC stops and clog up church car parks and housing estates. There is a desire to use public transport. The DTA should introduce an Imp bus service that would connect people to the stations and bus stops. This is also relevant to the integrated ticketing proposal. I fail to see why this cannot be provided for in this legislation and it can be amended if new legislation is introduced to repeal the 1932 Act.

I have been writing to the Minister about the Patton Flyer, an important service that links Dalkey with Dublin Airport. Letter after letter returns from the Department stating that an operator has already been appointed for the service. With the greatest respect, whoever is advising the Minister does not know the locality. For €7, the Patton Flyer leaves Dalkey, goes through Glasthule to Dún Laoghaire, Monkstown and Blackrock village, continues along Ailesbury Road, turns into Sandymount, crosses the East Link bridge and goes through the tunnel to Dublin Airport in 40 minutes. Anyone who would drive a car to the airport from the Dalkey area would be a lunatic.

When I inquired into the identity of the alternative operator, I realised that the Department's letters were referring to Aircoach, which provides a new service from Greystones. That service takes the N11 through Stillorgan, goes along Mount Merrion Avenue and joins the Dún Laoghaire Road. Given that it does not go near Dalkey, Glasthule, Dún Laoghaire, Monkstown or Blackrock village, those areas have no service. Obviously, the person in question does not know the area, as no one knowledgeable would write a letter to tell someone that an alternative service was available.

That large commuter area could be saved and Dublin Airport could avoid having so many cars parked at it for a fortnight. The cars should be taken off the road, particularly along the route in question. I appeal to the Minister to set an example to show how serious we are about achieving our transport emission targets. The situation does not make sense. If the Minister sees fit after the enactment of this legislation, he could amend it via a new Act to remove power from the transport authority. In the meantime, we should continue providing a public transport service that will encourage people to get out of their cars and into public transport. Many people would be prepared to provide services were they authorised to do so.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If any of the Deputies opposite believe that I will defend the 1932 Act, he or she has another thing coming.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not our intention. We want the Government to take action.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have embarked on a necessary reform of the Act, the first stage of which will be the establishment of the Dublin transport authority. Deputies Broughan and Barrett asked about how quickly the 1932 Act can be changed. The answer is "as quickly as possible".

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How quickly is that?

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As quickly as I can possibly make it.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Have the heads of a Bill been drafted?

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On an Order of Business before Christmas, Deputy Barrett raised the question of this Bill and made it clear that, if I introduced it, I would receive every co-operation and support from and invigilation by Fine Gael, which would not block the Bill. Deputy Broughan reiterated that commitment at a later stage. Both men have lived up to their words, as have their parties. That the Bill will be concluded in the House this evening, be——

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the guillotine.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——before the Seanad tomorrow and be signed into law means that we can try to introduce another Bill in the House during the next session. This is my aim.

Regarding the other Bill, we have been concentrating on the DTA. A certain amount of prior work in respect of the 1932 Act can be built on in light of this legislation. I do not intend to delay that Bill and, if I receive the same level of co-operation from the Deputies across the floor, we can get through it quickly.

What occurred in the Circle Line service was not acceptable, but one cannot do much if the penalty for breaching the 1932 Act is approximately €52.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Was it in punts or sterling?

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Given that it is a 1932 Act, it was probably in pounds.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Greenbacks.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The equivalent is €52, although the stated amount is much less. Legislating piecemeal is not the way to handle this matter. I respect the amendment's intent, but doing it the right way would be to do as we have laid out throughout this process, namely, establishing the DTA and its operations while working on the reform of the 1932 Act. This is what the Government will do.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am anxious to make progress.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 12 arises out of Committee Stage proceedings.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 16, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(j) specific measures to ensure direct lines of ministerial and DTA responsibility, a transparent scoping process, a public information campaign and a comprehensive traffic management plan for the major construction works for Metro North, the Dublin Rail Interconnector and the Luas link up in Dublin,

(k) a comprehensive departmental drink and drug testing policy for all safety critical transport workers in public and private transport companies in the GDA,

(l) a comprehensive departmental psychological testing policy for all safety critical transport workers in public and private transport companies in the GDA,".

In amendment No. 10, I sought to extend the principal functions of the DTA by inserting a reference to a new subsection (f). The principal functions run from (a) to (e), but I wanted to extend them to (f), particularly in respect of an important issue.

The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, seems to have been appointed the "Minister for Cutbacks". A Fianna Fáil backbencher kindly showed me the relevant press release. The Minister of State has a particular role in slashing expenditure right, left and centre.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The "Tipperary Slasher".

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is welcome that, so far, metro north, the interconnector and other important Transport 21 projects, including the western rail corridor and the Navan railway, have not been cut back. I hope the Minister will confirm at the earliest opportunity that vital transport infrastructure projects will not be savagely cut back in the bloodletting to be apparently co-ordinated by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh.

The first subsection in my amendment refers to the greatest occurrence in the city since 1916 and 1922, namely, the "Big Dig". Major traffic re-arrangements will need to be made on foot of the construction of metro north and the interconnector. They are important and will occupy a great deal of media and public debate in the next decade or longer. I hope the Minister will not back down on these key projects. He could easily delay them during the preparatory work without mentioning it. Metro north is at first tender stage, tenders have been received and the Railway Procurement Agency will move to second tender stage next year. Construction is due to start in approximately 18 months to two years. I hope that, within the Bill, the Minister will have the confidence to leave the metro north project and other major transport infrastructure works unscathed. I ask that he accept my new subsection (j).

The other proposed subsections refer to a comprehensive drink and drug testing policy for all safety-critical workers in public and private transport companies. Among the Minister's other legislative failures, he has not introduced the promised road safety Bill. The Minister heard me ask the Taoiseach about this on the Order of Business today. Seven or eight major road safety issues have not been dealt with in existing legislation. My amendment proposes that the Dublin transport authority be given a role in regard to the invigilation of alcohol and drug-testing policy for the drivers of our transport fleet, who are safety critical workers. All the services which originate or end in Dublin would be subject to this invigilation.

The third part of this amendment, paragraph (l), proposes a "comprehensive departmental psychological testing policy for all safety critical transport workers in public and private transport companies in the GDA". This is an issue constituents and members of the public have raised with me via e-mails and telephone calls in recent months. I presume psychological testing is a key element in the recruitment of safety critical public transport workers. However, a shocking case was before the courts in recent days where a public transport driver apparently went berserk, resulting in the tragic loss of life of a female passenger in a car involved in the incident. My amendment proposes that the Dublin transport authority be given a role in this regard. This is particularly important in the case of new companies in the private sector which may not have the same long-standing systems, which I assume are in place in CIE, Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and the Railway Procurement Agency in respect of Veolia and the Luas.

I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of this Bill is to alleviative traffic congestion and provide alternative means of transport, which is a particularly sensitive issue in commuter areas. The problems in this regard have been obvious for some time but it took ten years to unravel some of the serious traffic congestion problems on the M50 and other routes. I hope the Government has learned from that experience.

The proposals in amendment No. 12 will be of benefit in achieving the objectives of this legislation. At times of economic flux such as we are currently experiencing, decisions can be made which have the effect of delaying necessary projects not for two or three years but for decades. Unfortunately, this is what happened on occasion in the past. The Minister should take the opportunity to examine the proposals before him, review the Bill and ask himself whether now is the opportune time to proceed or whether he can afford to delay and leave unchecked some of the gaps in service and infrastructure which have required action for many years.

The Minister has said that he intends to bring forward further legislation shortly. As an Opposition Member, I am not convinced by this assurance. One need only consider the number of Bills that have been on the Order Paper for the past 12 months. Only four or five of these have moved and nothing has been done in regard to the remainder. I foresee a situation where three, four or five years might elapse before anything is done. This is a particularly sensitive issue for people in the commuter belt. Anything that impacts on that in a positive way, such as this amendment, should be carefully considered.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I share Deputy Broughan's concerns to ensure that in implementing major infrastructural developments, everything should be done to ameliorate any difficulties that may arise. That is why the Bill sets out an entire series of requirements in terms of who is responsible for what in the context of traffic management planning. For example, section 64(3) states: "A traffic management plan shall in particular identify the actions to be taken to ameliorate the impact on the movement of persons, goods and vehicles arising from construction works and other works in relation to the provision of transport infrastructure and utility works, whether carried out by a road authority or a third party." Likewise, section 65(3)(a)(ii) provides that the local plan shall specify the "measures to be taken to manage utility or other works, whether carried out by the road authority or a third party, on roads in the functional area of the road authority to ameliorate the impact of such works on the movement of persons, goods and vehicles". In addition, section 65(3)(b)(i) provides that the local traffic plan should identify the actions to be taken to "ameliorate the impact on the movement of persons, goods and vehicles arising from construction works and other works in relation to the provision of transport infrastructure". I am satisfied, therefore, that the intent of the first part of Deputy Broughan's amendment is adequately dealt with in the Bill.

On safety issues, as I said, road and rail safety are dealt with in other legislation, as are drink and drug-testing and psychological testing of safety critical transport workers. Appropriate agencies are already in place to deal with such matters under the appropriate legislation. We have heard a good deal, and will probably hear more in coming weeks and months, about the functions and purpose of various agencies. There is no point in establishing agencies with specific functions in regard to road or rail safety, for example, only to establish another body with the same functions at a later stage. This merely gives rise to confusion and turf wars as to which agency is responsible for a particular function. In some cases, a particular body may claim additional jurisdiction for itself while in other cases, where the task in question is not so pleasant, a particular agency may seek to step back and blame somebody else.

We must ensure that such a scenario arises in this case. We already have agencies with responsibility for road and rail safety and adequate legislation is in place on both of these issues. In addition, we should not forget that the Garda Síochána has wide powers in regard to issues affecting the safety of the public. I am satisfied that the legislation dealing with road and rail safety is the appropriate place to deal with the substantive issues addressed in this amendment.

Deputy Broughan recently tabled a parliamentary question on the issue of drink and drug-testing of public transport workers. As I stated in my reply, section 88 of the Railway Safety Act 2005 requires rail companies to draw up a code of conduct for safety critical workers in regard to intoxicants, that is, drugs and alcohols, and the sampling procedures in this regard. Veolia, as the operator of the Luas, has put forward a code of conduct and the Railway Safety Commission has accepted that as part of the approved safety case for Luas. Iarnród Éireann is implementing its draft code of conduct pending clarification of some outstanding issues with the Railway Safety Commission.

In regard to bus services, it is illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs to such an extent as to be incapable of maintaining proper control of the vehicle. Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 prohibits the driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle by a person while under the influence of an intoxicant. Enforcement of the law on drink and drug driving is a matter for the Garda Síochána. When a garda suspects a driver of a vehicle is under the influence of an intoxicant, the garda may arrest the suspect under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. In addition, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are considering the introduction of drink and drug testing as envisaged in section 13 subsection(1) of the Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. I support and very much encourage that position. It should be done without further delay.

The psychological testing of transport workers was discussed on Committee Stage. That is a matter for the recruitment policies and practices of individual transport companies. In the railway sector I am informed that Iarnród Éireann uses a psychometric testing programme as part of its recruitment and promotion processes. As part of its recruitment and selection processes, Veolia Transport requires all Luas tram drivers to be assessed fit for driving by the company's independent medical doctor. In respect of bus passenger services I am informed by Dublin Bus that the company conducts a comprehensive pre-employment medical examination of all employees. I am also informed that in Bus Éireann psychometric testing forms part of the selection process as does a stringent pre-employment medical examination.

In light of all of those measures that are in place and which are enforceable by various agencies, I ask the Deputy to withdraw those amendments.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am disappointed the Minister has refused to accept a new amendment in which paragraphs (k) and (l) respectively deal with safety testing for drink and drugs and psychological testing policy. There is a dearth of modern legislation in this Bill. It is clear we will not get to my amendments. In my amendments Nos. 95 and 99, I tried to insert into the Bill some of the missing major points of current safety legislation. For over a year, the Minister has refused to address the issue as his predecessors did for over a decade. I commend my Fine Gael colleague and spokesperson on road safety, Deputy Shane McEntee, who has pursued this matter vigorously.

Amendment No. 91 deals with mandatory testing for alcohol after a collision. The Minister has refused point blank to bring that kind of amendment forward through a road safety Bill. Members of the civic group campaigning on the issue for the past number of years, Public Against Road Carnage, PARC, were in the Public Gallery last week during the previous discussion. My intention was to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 which is almost half a century old in order to make it address critical safety issues. The Minister has failed absolutely in respect of important safety matters, particularly in this area of public transport.

With regard to paragraph (f) in the amendment, for the past nine or ten months I have been trying to get the Minister to give us information on the big dig in Dublin. This will have such a profound impact on the centre of the city that it seems incongruous not to have it in the Bill. Perhaps it is not there because this Government is not going to go ahead with these projects. A question mark has been placed over metro north and the interconnector. Why is the Minister not brave enough to put metro north into legislation so we would know that these related major traffic management matters and infrastructural developments would go ahead? That would give the capital city a public transport system similar to those in the allegedly poor Eastern European countries that joined us four years ago. The public transport systems of those countries, even in provincial cities, put us to shame. This is an opportunity for the Minister to act. I ask him to be courageous in this regard, to put the provisions into the Bill and hold the Taoiseach and the Government to account.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should be brave and push out the boat. I do not know how far he can push it in two minutes.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The only people who have put a question mark over metro north since I came into this job are in the Labour Party. Deputy Burton was at it last week and I am sorry if she was disappointed this morning and this afternoon. Deputy Broughan has constantly raised the question about whether the project was to go ahead. I respect his interest in the matter. Along with several people in the media, the Deputies have been the only ones placing question marks. The RTE website has it that, according to informed sources somewhere, metro north is one of the projects that will definitely be deferred. I do not know where they have those informed sources.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are such things as informed sources.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to tell the Deputy that much to some people's disappointment, metro north is not——

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad the Deputy is delighted. I am sure he is.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure of it.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should never doubt the sincerity of the Opposition.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy would be more delighted if he had the opportunity to have a go at me because the project was not to go ahead. That is one point. A second is that I am not in charge of traffic management in Dublin city. Dublin City Council is responsible. It is bringing all the agencies together and is working towards a traffic management implementation plan with regard to all of these matters. The Council is holding discussions with the various stakeholders. I have initiated a series of meetings, the next of which will take place over the coming week or so, to ensure all stakeholders are fully informed. I am sure Dublin City Council will inform people also. Work is taking place but it is not my job to come into this House and start dictating what the traffic management plan should be. It has been carefully worked out by the council.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If O'Connell Street is in shambles in 2016 we will know who is responsible.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Dublin City Council will have responsibility for that.

The Deputy is quite wrong. I have not refused to introduce mandatory testing at accident scenes. It will be part of legislation for the Road Traffic Act. I have told the Deputy this but he seems to mishear or misinterpret or, perhaps just for mischief, has decided he will have a go at the Taoiseach. I told him the relevant legislation will be before this House in the autumn session.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 13 in the name of the Minister arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. Amendments Nos. 13 and 17 are cognate and will be discussed together.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 16, line 23, before "local" to insert "the Garda Síochána,".

This amendment adds the Garda Síochána to the list of consultees in section 12 subsection(7). It is there for the avoidance of doubt and ensures the Garda Síochána will be consulted in the same way as other authorities mentioned in subsection 12(7) when the authority's transport strategy is developed. Similarly, amendment No. 17 adds the Garda Síochána to the list of consultees regarding the preparation of the integrated implementation plan under subsection 13(5).

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 14 in the name of the Minister arises from Committee Stage proceedings. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related. Amendment No. 16 is a technical alternative to amendment No. 15. Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 will be discussed together.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 16, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:

"(11) (a) When submitting a draft of its transport strategy to the Minister under subsection (9), the Authority shall send a copy of that draft to the Joint Oireachtas Committee.

(b) Whenever so requested, the chairperson and the chief executive shall appear before the Joint Oireachtas Committee to discuss the draft strategy.

(c) The Joint Oireachtas Committee may, within 4 weeks of its receipt of the draft transport strategy, submit a report to the Minister containing recommendations on it.

(d) In this section "Joint Oireachtas Committee" means a Joint Committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas to which the Oireachtas has assigned the role of examining matters relating to transport.".

This amendment is designed to give the Joint Committee on Transport the opportunity to engage with the Dublin Transport Authority prior to the Minister for Transport's approving its transport strategy. Deputies will recall that members of the committee expressed the view on Committee Stage that they should have the opportunity to comment on the draft strategy in advance of it being approved by the Minister for Transport. This amendment inserts the new subsection (11) into section 12, specifying that when submitting a draft of its transport strategy to the Minister the authority shall also send the draft to the Joint Committee on Transport. The committee may request an appearance by the chairperson and chief executive of the authority to discuss the draft strategy and shall submit a report to the Minister containing a recommendation on the draft strategy before the Minister decides on the strategy.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the point the Minister has made about his amendment No. 14, which provides for consultation with the joint Oireachtas committee. Amendment No. 15, in the name of Deputy O'Dowd, refers to the Minister. There is a presumption that Ministers are accountable to the Oireachtas. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, is splitting hairs. Implicit in his remarks is the suggestion that sending a report to an Oireachtas committee is the same as sending it to the Oireachtas, but it is not the same. The work of committees is part of the parliamentary process. The most important aspect of that process is the degree to which Ministers are accountable to the House during Question Time.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A similar degree of accountability cannot be associated with Oireachtas committees. It depends on how the committee in question operates. Some Ministers see Oireachtas committees as appendages of their Departments. We have had that experience in the past. Oireachtas committees are part of Parliament and as parliamentary bodies, their role is to safeguard the interests of the public and, ultimately, the Minister. Deputy O'Dowd's amendment is much better than the Minister's amendment. It gives the Minister short and succinct instructions. Having received the draft strategy, the Minister's options will be to:

(a) approve the draft,

(b) approve it with modifications,

(c) instruct that it be resubmitted to him or her in a modified form for approval, or

(d) refuse to approve it.

Amendment No. 15 goes on to make it clear that in all cases "the Minister shall present the draft transport strategy to a Committee of the Oireachtas for approval". It sets out its intention in a more precise manner than the Minister's amendment. I know this matter was discussed previously. The Minister's amendment represents an attempt to alleviate the concerns that have been expressed previously by Deputy O'Dowd. The Deputy's amendment is better because it is more concise. It anticipates to a greater extent where responsibility is most likely to begin and end if there is a major tragedy. I hope such a thing will not happen. Will the relevant Oireachtas committee deal with it? No, it will not. The Minister will deal with it in the House, where it is supposed to be dealt with.

This issue has arisen on many occasions in the past. I believe the relevant committee is important. We accept the frailties of Ministers in terms of making time available etc. I presume Ministers attend committee meetings wherever possible. However, business is conducted on a daily basis in the House. The four-week period provided for in this legislation could expire during the holidays and the committee would be able to do little or nothing in such circumstances. I ask the Minister to re-examine the possibility of accepting Deputy O'Dowd's important amendment, the contents of which were discussed previously. I do not want to delay the House this evening. The amendment reiterates the eminence of ministerial responsibility, from which ministerial accountability to the House automatically follows.

Unfortunately and tragically, there has been a tendency in recent times to avoid issues that are deemed to be the responsibility of some external agency. That has been evident in responses to parliamentary questions. It seems that it is part and parcel of Government policy. Nobody ever refers to any given matter as being the responsibility of the Joint Committee on Transport. The Minister will say from now on that certain matters are the responsibility of the Dublin transport authority. It is right that the committee can discuss various matters — it can debate amendments to legislation etc. — but it does not have specific responsibilities of this nature. I ask the Minister to consider whether he can accept this amendment.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the few minutes remaining to us before this debate is guillotined, it is appropriate that we are focusing on what is probably the key problem with the Bill as it stands. Amendment No. 14 in the name of the Minister does not resolve the problem in question, which is the lack of responsibility to this House. The Labour Party, with Fine Gael, helped to establish the previous Dublin transport authority over 20 years ago. I was hoping to be in a position to express the support of my party for the new authority, but I cannot do so because the legislation establishing it does not provide for enough accountability and democracy. I would be interested to know how soon the Minister expects to be in a position to appoint the chief executive and the board of the authority. When will it be up and running? That is the big question the transport workers asked me when I met them last night.

Will we face the same kind of nonsense in our dealings with the Dublin transport authority that we have to endure when dealing with the National Roads Authority and other bodies? The Health Service Executive is the best example of a body that is cited as an obstacle when we want the Minister to give us information. I do not refer to operational information or information about individual cases, but about certain aspects of major policies. The Ceann Comhairle rules that we are out of order when we challenge Ministers on their failures to give us such information. We have had a dismal and unacceptable experience with the HSE and the NRA in the past four or five years. Deputy O'Dowd's amendment seeks to ensure that the Oireachtas committee will be able to make some input into the major strategic transport plan which will affect the future of a whole generation of people in the greater Dublin region, the east Leinster region and the whole of the country. The amendment adds to the Minister's amendment, which I welcome as a little step forward in involving the joint committee in these matters.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a tiny timorous step forward.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, it does not give the joint committee a fundamental role. The committee should be able to add its ha'penny worth to the debate. Its view should be referred to the Minister for a final invigilation. I think Deputy O'Dowd is trying to achieve a real engagement of that nature. We are used to such engagement on constitutional grounds at the Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member. Deputy Durkan is a long-standing and distinguished former member of the committee, which has a role in signing off on important investigations, some of which we have discussed in the past six or nine months. The other Oireachtas committees do not have such a fundamental role. The Oireachtas has a very poor committee structure, in general and it will be necessary to address that in the context of Dáil reform. This Bill should be amended so that it gives the Joint Committee on Transport an elevated role in fundamental strategic transport planning in the seven or eight counties in which the authority will be involved in the coming months. I support Deputy O'Dowd's amendment. The Minister should go a step further and give the Joint Committee on Transport a real role and teeth.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have gone as far as I can on this matter and I do not wish to rehearse the arguments again. Deputy Durkan's point in all of this was that in the event of a major tragedy who would be answerable for it. Certainly the Joint Committee on Transport would not be answerable, it would be the Minister. On that basis we have got the balance right. I acknowledge what Deputies acknowledge that we have moved a good deal but it is as far as we can go.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A message shall be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.