Pat Breen
Question:1 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Transport the position regarding the break-up of Aer Rianta and Shannon Development and the ending of Shannon Airport’s dual gateway status. [16011/04]
Priority Questions.
Future of Aer Rianta.
Róisín Shortall
Question:2 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if he will reconsider his plans for Aer Rianta in view of all of the expert advice available which suggests the airport charges will rise, that the future viability of Shannon and Cork will be jeopardised, and that Dublin Airport will be lumbered with significant debt which will prevent it from expanding its facilities as planned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16099/04]
Denis Naughten
Question:167 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Transport if his Department has resolved the legal difficulties surrounding the break-up of Aer Rianta; if he has satisfied himself that the three airports are commercially viable as stand alone entities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16014/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 167 together.
The work which has been done by my Department's advisers in co-operation with Aer Rianta management and its advisers has underscored the fact that there are some major challenges facing the State airports. These challenges need to be addressed.
In the context of the proposed amending legislation to give effect to the restructuring of Aer Rianta, I have had numerous Government discussions informing my Cabinet colleagues on the background issues as well as outlining the broad financial projections for each of the airports, compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Some issues of both a legal and financial nature remain to be finalised and I will be returning to the Government shortly when these issues are clarified. It remains my intention that the amending legislation can be enacted before the summer recess.
The new arrangements are designed to strengthen and expand each of the three airports and to give Shannon and Cork a fresh start. Through more focused commercial operation, all three airports can perform better and each can play a greater role in stimulating and supporting regional and national economic activity to the benefit of their customers, both airlines and passengers, and of Irish tourism, trade and industry. I announced the boards-designate for Dublin and Shannon Airports which bring together people of the highest calibre and combine considerable international and national aviation expertise with proven financial and business acumen. I will announce the full membership of the new Cork Airport board-designate shortly.
It is general policy that the three State airports should be in a position to provide cost competitive and appropriate infrastructure and to operate on a sustainable commercial basis in meeting the current and prospective needs of users. In the case of Dublin Airport, passenger traffic is forecast to grow to 30 million passengers per annum by around 2020. The Dublin Airport Authority must ensure the provision of adequate and cost-effective infrastructure capacity to cater for this growth and to make the appropriate case to the independent aviation regulator for the financing of this investment in the context of the next determination of airport charges.
I have made clear on numerous occasions that with a fresh start both Shannon and Cork Airports will be a commercial success and each will maximise sustainable employment within the airport companies and in their catchment areas. It is envisaged that the new airport authorities for Shannon and Cork will commence business free of legacy debt and this will have a major positive impact on the commercial viability of these two airports. It is proposed that those debts will remain with Dublin Airport which is effectively carrying the debts for the three airports. I have given repeated assurances to the ICTU and the Aer Rianta unions that there will be no diminution in the terms and conditions of employment of workers in the company on transfer to the new airport authorities. I have also made available key financial information on the three airports to the unions' financial advisers in the context of the current engagement process which is being facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission.
Responsibility for Shannon Development rests with my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who is in contact with the board of that agency regarding its role in light of the forthcoming decentralisation of Enterprise Ireland to Shannon, and the advent of the new autonomous Shannon Airport authority. With regard to the dual gateway status at Shannon, my officials, at a meeting earlier this month in Washington with US officials, emphasised the importance of Shannon Airport for the economy of the west of Ireland, in particular in the context of Ireland's national spatial strategy which aims to counterbalance the growth of Dublin by focusing economic activity on a number of other locations. My officials also outlined the Irish Government's decision to separate Dublin, Shannon and Cork airports into autonomous airport authorities to enable them to maximise their potentials. In that context, they indicated that Shannon needs some years in which to transform its business plans and marketing strategies.
The eventual effect of an EU-US open-skies deal, should such a deal emerge, would be to leave the choice of airports with the airlines. In the absence of special bilateral arrangements between Ireland and the United States in such a case, there is a risk that the open-skies arrangement could mean a sudden end to the current Shannon stop requirement, which could have immediate negative impacts for Shannon. I met the US Secretary for Transportation, Norman Mineta, at a meeting of European Transport Ministers yesterday and I re-emphasised to him that an acceptable arrangement for Shannon must be reached before I will be in a position to agree to any EU-US aviation agreement that might be put to the Transport Council on 10 and 11 June next.
A Cheann Comhairle, how much time is allocated to these three questions?
There is just 12 minutes. Two of them are oral questions, one is written.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He said that he has given assurances to the unions and he knows what is going on. Is he aware that over the past week while negotiations continue with Aer Lingus personnel over staff cuts in Shannon, Aer Lingus has removed ground-handling equipment from Shannon Airport? Is it not a disgrace that this is happening while these negotiations continue? Is there a five-year plan for the airport or has the Minister instructed Aer Lingus to submit a plan for it?
Is the Minister aware that Aer Lingus management has refused to handle Lufthansa Cargo's equipment although it flies into Shannon once a week, 52 weeks a year, in off-peak hours? Aer Lingus management has told Lufthansa to go to Servisair because it does not want to handle the equipment. What is going on? I believe that the Minister does not know what is happening there. This is the real picture. He said in his reply: "Shannon needs some years in which to transform its business plans and marketing strategies."
That is not appropriate, the Deputy should confine himself to questions.
All right, I was just quoting what the Minister said. Is the Minister aware that Heathrow Airport authorities have asked for a derogation until 2015 for the open-skies agreement? How many years has the Minister asked for so that the bilateral agreement can stay in place? These are the important questions. Is it not irresponsible of the Minister to allow this to go on? Has he commissioned an impact study on the effect this would have on Shannon? The PricewaterhouseCoopers report shows that Shannon could lose up to €125 million by 2008. Does he have a management plan or impact study in place? In what direction does he feel the airport will go? What analysis has he done? With regard to the decentralisation of Enterprise Ireland to Shannon is it not a fact that only two staff have applied for transfer to Shannon? Will Enterprise Ireland consume Shannon Development's briefing although it has done good work in the region?
I met the central representative council for all the trade unions in Aer Lingus which expressed concerns similar to those which the Deputy expressed today. I conveyed my view to the council, which I also conveyed to the board of Aer Lingus, that in the context of the future of Shannon Airport, Aer Lingus must do more and be more specific about precisely what it will do in an open-skies connection. It is a commercial organisation and I have no alternative but to let it make commercial decisions, which I have done consistently since I took this post, but I said that as we move to open skies and Shannon prepares for the future it needs to know clearly and crisply the best Aer Lingus can do in the couple of years from now in terms of numbers of transatlantic flights available, to which destinations and their frequency.
In other words Aer Lingus needs to spell out its commitment to Shannon. I will encourage it to do that and I have asked it to let me and my Department know what its plans are as I negotiate the bilateral agreement, which we are negotiating, and as we negotiate the open-skies agreement, which as EU President we are involved in negotiating with the United States. As soon as I have definite information from Aer Lingus I will give it to the Deputy.
Eight minutes of our time has now gone. Will the Ceann Comhairle tell me whether I have six minutes to speak on my priority question?
I thought I was entitled to six minutes.
There is 12 minutes allocated for the two questions.
It is the Ceann Comhairle's responsibility to ensure that is shared fairly.
The Chair's responsibility is to make sure the question does not go beyond 12 minutes and I suggest that the Deputy submit questions to the Minister and not use up her time on this.
I will take it up with the Ceann Comhairle later because I do not want to waste any more time.
When the Minister announced his intention to break up Aer Rianta last summer, I forecast that there was no way he could meet the timetable he had set, and I am still of that view. In recent weeks we have seen further consultants' reports which confirm earlier reports that there is no business case for proceeding with the break-up of Aer Rianta. Arising out of those findings, will the Minister confirm that if he goes ahead with the break-up of Aer Rianta it will entail a substantial capital reduction to pay the dividend to the Minister for Finance and that will essentially devastate the Aer Rianta company as we know it? Does the Minister intend that if he goes ahead with these proposals it will entail Dublin Airport retaining a significant shareholding in Shannon which cannot survive on its own?
Has it been confirmed, and does the Minister accept, that Cork Airport cannot stand alone and that Dublin must remain as the landlord for Cork Airport which will become a subsidiary of Dublin Airport? Does the Minister accept that if he proceeds with his plans they will result in mass redundancies in Shannon Airport, and wage cuts? Does he also accept that if he proceeds with these plans, they will result in significant airport charges at all three airports, especially in Dublin where a 50% increase is forecast?
The Government laid down a 12 month timetable for the completion of the process, from July 2003 to July 2004. It is May 2004 and I am still of the view that it can be completed within the 12 month schedule envisaged by the Government.
Regarding consultant‘s reports, the PricewaterhouseCoopers assessment is a series of working papers. I did not ask it to give me an assessment of whether restructuring was a good idea; I asked it to lay out on a factual basis the financial information available to it.
Does that mean there is no business case?
It has done that.
Will the Minister explain——
Allow the Minister to speak without interruption, please.
I want to make one issue clear. When the Government made this decision in July 2003, all the information that is now available was, in substance, available to it. There is nothing new in the reports of any of the consultants employed by the trade unions or in other financial analyses, either from the board, the new boards designate or from consultancy houses.
There is nothing about shedding assets.
I want to answer the Deputy's questions. There is nothing new in any of it. All the financial information was put before the Government in July 2003 when the decision was taken. It was put before the Government again in October 2003 when the Government took the decision for the second time. The information that appears to be emerging selectively was available to the Government. There was nothing new in the information. The board of a public limited company like Aer Rianta, with its directors coming from different walks of life, including the trade union movement, would have been aware of the full financial position.
Why then did the Minister employ two consultants?
The Minister should be aware that the time for this question has concluded.
Regarding the dividend to the Minister for Finance, the Deputy is not correct. The dividend to the Minister for Finance this year was about €7 million out of profits of €20 million. This is a technically difficult area. The Deputy may be referring to the financial mechanism that has been recommended by solicitors to allow the revenue reserves in the plc to be of such a scale as to dividend out Shannon and Cork. For that to happen, internal dividend movements would have to take place. We have engaged Matheson Ormsby Prentice, who for four months——
For capital reduction purposes.
No, it is not.
I ask the Minister to conclude. We cannot continue with interruptions. We have gone over seven minutes on this question.
It is not a capital reduction. Since the beginning of this process I have been determined that, in future, the people of the Cork and Shannon regions will have the facility of autonomous airports. My faith in the people of those areas to develop those airports remains stronger than ever. I visited both facilities and met people there on several occasions.
Will Dublin still be a shareholder in Shannon, and still the landlord of Cork? Is that not right?
Deputy Shortall, on a point of information——
The answer is "No".
There are four minutes for supplementary questions, not six.
What about the substantial number of redundancies at Shannon?
If the Deputy wants a straight answer, it is "No". It will have an interest in the transition period.
The Minister should read his consultants' report.
There are four minutes for supplementary questions, not six. Deputy Shortall appears to be under a misapprehension.
It is six minutes in total.
It is the responsibility of the Chair to keep time and I ask Deputy Shortall to allow other Deputies who submitted questions to receive an answer from the Minister.
Public Transport.
Seán Crowe
Question:3 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Transport his views on whether the privatisation of Dublin Bus will be likely to open the doors to transnational, foreign companies that will take over the market here; and the timeframe in which he will amend the Road Transport Act 1932 to introduce proper safety regulations for buses run by private companies. [16012/04]
I set out my policy proposals for public transport reform in statements to the public transport partnership forum in November 2002 and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport in June 2003.
The principal elements of my proposals are the establishment of an independent procurement and regulatory authority for transport on a national basis, and the introduction of controlled competition in the bus market in the Dublin area in the form of franchising as the primary means of procuring bus services. I have no plans to privatise Dublin Bus.
As I stated on a number of occasions before the House, I am firmly of the view that franchising is the most effective means of achieving genuine market opening in the Dublin market. I have formed this view on the basis of international experience and major independent studies carried out by bodies, including the European Commission and the public transport partnership forum, which have shown franchising to be the most efficient and effective way of procuring urban bus services. Franchising will allow for genuine market opening, with operators other than the existing State-owned companies having a role to play in the delivery of services.
Where markets are opened to competition, it is an important principle of European Union law that undertakings throughout the Union should be free to compete for the award of contracts. I have no plans to depart from that principle, which has been to Ireland's great benefit throughout the economy.
While recent public discussion on public transport reform has focused almost exclusively on organisational issues and public monopoly provider concerns, the focus of my reforms is primarily on delivering a better service to the customer and greater value for money to the taxpayer.
With regard to the issue of safety, all bus operators, both private and public, are subject to the same body of safety legislation and this position will continue in the reformed market. It remains my intention to proceed with legislation on public transport reform in 2004.
It is interesting to note that a number of today's questions are on public service companies. We already discussed the situation in Aer Rianta and there is also a problem with CIE. Difficulties are also apparent in public transport in Dublin, especially in regard to Dublin Bus.
I accept that opening up the public transport market will give people choice, but people are concerned that if new companies come into the market, they will be operating on the same routes as Dublin Bus. How will that improve transport for people in these areas?
Another concern is that many private buses are not wheelchair accessible. We have seen the debacle with regard to taxi deregulation where we had an opportunity to ensure taxis would be more accessible to people with disabilities and so on. Will new operators coming in to the bus market have to be accessible to people who are wheelchair-bound or have other disabilities?
Significant investment has been made in public transport. People do not understand why the services that have been built up by those companies are being opened up to private operators. It is not even the case that new routes are being opened up, the Minister intends tendering existing routes. Does he have proposals to open up new routes? We have heard of possible cutbacks in Dublin Bus routes rather than new services being on offer.
The bus market in the Dublin area is growing dramatically. I hope to at least double the number of quality bus corridors in the next year or so. This will attract more people to public transport. The passenger numbers are already impressive on existing bus corridors as people realise buses are a more reliable way to travel. The 1932 Act is very restrictive and needs to be updated, which is what we are doing. New routes will be added throughout the city and county, not just in the core areas.
I have never seen my proposals as taking bus routes from somebody who owns them. Bus routes belong to the people. The service is provided to the consumer. No company, as such, owns the bus routes. It is a duty and privilege to serve the public on these routes. They do not belong to a particular corporate structure but to the people.
I am trying to open up the market to offer more choice to the public and give people a better and more transparent service. That does not imply any criticism of Dublin Bus which I have said on many occasions is a very good company.
The Deputy is correct in regard to buses being wheelchair accessible. Dublin Bus has received significant investment from the taxpayer to bring the fleet up to wheelchair accessible standards and the majority of buses are now in that category. The company is moving fast to complete the upgrading of the fleet so that all buses will be wheelchair accessible.
It is my intention that any private sector companies, be they international, national or local operators, will be required to meet the same high standards as their counterparts in the public sector. I would not tolerate a situation where the standards of a private company would not match existing high standards regarding wheelchair accessibility or any other consideration. I expect them to operate to the same standards and for there to be a genuinely level playing field in this area.
Rail Network.
Denis Naughten
Question:4 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Transport the projected cost of the airport metro; if he has received Cabinet approval for the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16013/04]
The programme for Government contains a commitment to develop a metro with a link to Dublin Airport. I have received the revised outline business case for line one of the metro from the Railway Procurement Agency, which involves a line from the airport to the city centre. The estimated direct cost of physical construction in 2002 prices is €1.2 billion. This excludes financial costs.
The timescale, precise cost and route, number and location of stations and arrangements for a connection to the green Luas line will depend on a number of factors including: the Government's decision; geo-technical surveys; negotiations with bidders; and railway order processes, including the public inquiry. In preparing a submission for the Government on this matter, the merits of all alternative solutions and routes will be considered.
I am currently finalising my proposals on the metro in the context of the wider transport needs of the greater Dublin area. In advance of the Government considering these proposals, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matters raised in any great detail. However, I expect to bring my proposals to the Government before the summer.
With respect, the Minister is like a broken record. He has been saying for the past 12 months that the metro proposals will be going before Government shortly. However, nothing appears to have been finalised in respect of this matter. Will he provide a revised estimate on when he expects the metro to be completed in line with the commitment in the programme for Government. Would 2010 be a more accurate date for its completion?
The Minister stated that the projected cost of the metro is €1.2 billion. Does he have any realistic idea of what will be the actual cost? Is he going to bring forward proposals to Government to address the serious cost creep that is affecting infrastructural projects in this country? This matter has been highlighted by the ESRI in the mid-term review of the NDP. There does not appear to be competence within the Government to address the cost creep that has been taking place in construction and infrastructural projects throughout the country. Will the critical infrastructure Bill be published before the metro goes to tender?
If decisions are made within the timeframe in which I hope and intend them to be made, I am informed by the RPA that the metro should be operational by 2008 or 2009, depending on how quickly it can move in terms of proceeding to tender stage.
It depends on how quickly the Minister can move.
The RPA is ready to go. The costs stand at €1.2 billion but this figure excludes financial costs and only relates to the direct cost of physical construction. I would, therefore, expect the final cost to be substantially more than €1.2 billion. The RPA focused on the physical construction costs because, in terms of obtaining bids and sorting tenders, it needed an indicative figure.
The critical infrastructure Bill is being brought forward by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I have been involved in a number of discussions with him about the legislation. It is my intention, however, to introduce a separate critical infrastructure (metro) Bill to deal with metro related issues. The start-up of any metro would not necessarily have to await the introduction of such legislation and could happen in parallel.
The Minister stated that the start-up of the metro would not be reliant on the legislation already being in place. Professor Melis and many other experts considered this issue and that of the serious cost creep that has taken place in respect of the Luas project. On foot of their findings, does the Minister not agree that it is critically important to have such legislation in place prior to the commencement of work on the metro?
What discussions have taken place with the Department of Finance regarding the establishment of an independent infrastructural review unit? Does the Minister agree it is not acceptable that the Department which is in charge of putting forward the proposals for the metro is also responsible for project management and the final outturn and that it does not seem logical that one arm of the State is supposed to police itself? Does he also agree this is part of the reason for the significant cost creep in infrastructural projects?
The Minister will need to be more specific with regard to figures if he is bringing them to Cabinet. I understand — perhaps the Minister will clarify the position — that in providing the figures, the RPA was quite specific as regards the number of stations that should be included.
The advisers engaged by the RPA have estimated that the cost of the various options for phase 1 of the project is €1.2 billion in terms of total direct construction costs at 2002 prices. These figures increase substantially when one estimates a final cost which takes account of expected inflation during the period between now and the date on which services commence, VAT, fees, interest charges, the cost of risk transfer and a provision for risk and contingency. A more accurate cost can only be determined when the final structure of the project is decided and, more importantly, when competitive bids are received from the interested parties. I would seek to move on that as a matter of urgency.
Transport Patterns.
Eamon Ryan
Question:5 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Transport the analysis his Department has carried out on the effect of the doubling in oil prices over the last two years on future transport demand patterns; if he has carried out an analysis on future traffic demands on the road network other than the 1998 roads needs study; the assumptions for the long-term price of petrol that were used in the 1998 study; if his Department has such projections for the price of oil in five, ten and 15 years time; and if he will review predictions of future traffic growth in view of the changing predictions on the future long-term price of oil. [16044/04]
Eamon Ryan
Question:18 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Transport the analysis his Department has carried out on the likely effect of the doubling in oil prices over the past two years on future transport demand patterns; if the Government has carried out an analysis on future traffic demands on the road network here other than the 1998 roads needs study; the assumptions for the long-term price of petrol which were used in the 1998 study and if his Department has such projections for the price of oil in five, ten and 15 years time; and if the Government will review predictions of future traffic growth in view of the changing predictions on the future long-term price of oil. [15934/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 18 together.
General responsibility for energy policy is a matter for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. In August 2003 the National Roads Authority published updated road traffic forecasts for the period 2002-40. The forecasts were based on: a review of the growth factors published in the national roads needs study 1998; estimates of vehicle kilometres travelled in the year 2001, derived from a programme of manual and automatic traffic counts covering local and national roads; population and vehicle fleet forecasts; and forecasts of gross national product. Overall, the forecasts project an increase of 67% in car and light goods vehicle traffic and 86% in HGV traffic over the period 2002-40. These compare to projected increases of 124% in car and light goods vehicle traffic and 88% in HGV traffic in the national road needs study in 1998 for the period 1995-2020. The lower projected growth in car traffic in the road forecasts reflects the major growth that has occurred in the period 1995 to 2001.
The impact of oil price increases was not specifically taken into account in the methodology used in the NRNS or in the more recent forecasts. It is generally recognised that the demand for transport is highly price inelastic and that increases in the cost of fuel will not lead to proportionate reductions in travel demand or road traffic volume. Trends in actual and projected traffic will be kept under review. Sustained changes in traffic volumes and patterns arising for whatever reason, including the impact of a sustained high level of increase in oil prices, will be taken into account in transport planning generally and the planning and design of road projects.
Will the Minister confirm that the key point in his reply is that we have taken no account of the possible projected price of oil in 2040 and that we have no view in that regard in terms of managing future traffic demand? While he states that the demand for transport is highly price inelastic, does he not agree that the real issue is that most people do not have a choice? It is inelastic, first, because corrupt planning procedures have led to the building of housing estates without the provision of other facilities around our cities and, second, because the Department and the Government have refused to invest in public transport. Does the Minister agree that most of the inelasticity is not because people want to drive their cars everywhere but results from the fact that they simply do not have a choice in that regard?
Does the Minister also agree that the one area where choice possibly exists is that of long, interurban journeys because it is possible to choose to take the train from Dublin to Cork, Galway, Waterford or Limerick? Does he further agree this is the one area where we could take into account increasing oil prices and possibly decide to invest in intercity rail links rather than in the motorways on which he is spending the entire transport budget?
I have no idea of what oil prices will be in 2040 and certainly will not plan for them.
There may not be much oil, but that may give the Minister a clue as to what prices may be.
I do not know what oil prices will be at the end of this year, not to mind in 2040. While I know where the Deputy is coming from on this, if we concern ourselves with future oil prices, there will be little else of concern to us.
We have had much discussion on investment in public transport. Between 2004 and 2008 the sum available for investment is €3.5 billion. One billion of that is an operational subsidy investment in the CIE group while the rest is capital investment. The Deputy is aware of the substantial investment now in public transport. A few days ago we announced the opening of the Midleton line. The completion of continuous welded track of the inter-urban lines has brought us to a situation where almost the entire track in the country is new. A substantial amount of new rolling stock and carriages are on order and being delivered on a daily basis. The upgrade of the DART is an enormous investment which is going ahead, particularly at weekends. The Luas is also coming to fruition. An enormous amount of taxpayers money is going into public transport right across the system, in buses, trains and quality bus corridors.
I make no apologies for linking the main urban centres of the State by motorway, although the Deputy and I will never be in agreement on that. This is what the taxpayer and the public would want along with first class rail services between those areas.
The Minister is spending four times more on new roads than he is on public transport in our capital budget. While I agree with the Minister that I do not know what the price of oil will be in 2040, does he not agree it would be appropriate for the Department of Transport to include some analysis of fuel projections given the billions being spent every year on future transport patterns? Does he agree that such an analysis, if it showed a massive increase in the price of oil, might lead him to change his investment patterns from the pattern where we invest four times more on inter-urban motorways to one where we would invest more on urban and inter-urban rail systems that might be cheaper to run in 2020 or 2040, based on oil price predictions? I agree I do not know what the price will be but I would have a good bet that it will be a multiple of what it is now. For the Minister to disregard that fact completely in his planning seems reckless.
When Ministers for Finance prepare their annual budgets, they take a view of oil prices 12 months ahead.
The Minister is investing for a 20 year forecast.
My point is that no matter what country we are talking about, Ministers take a cautious stab at what oil prices might be in the next 12 months. They do not care to go beyond that because that would involve total conjecture. I understand the Deputy's point that if oil continues to rise in price over the long term, we might be better off investing more in trains and less in cars. I understand the Deputy's political view on these matters and respect it.
I have not decided to build roads instead of railways but to build both. I must get on and do that. We hope to have more high speed inter-city trains and more commuter trains such as the Midleton one over the next few months and more investment in modern rolling stock. I look forward to us continuing to develop our rail and bus systems and to investing more in them. The reason the spend on roads is so high is that the spending is peaking now. We did not have a good road network and have had to catch up. We must get to a certain stage.
It is not a competition between road and rail. We must have modern motorways and high-speed inter-city trains between our major urban areas. This country can achieve both if we approach the issue in a determined manner. That is what we are doing. It is not an either-or situation. We need both. If people want to go to Cork or Galway, they must be able to get on a good value high-speed comfortable train, and if they want to drive, they must be able to drive on a motorway. I do not accept it should be an either-or situation. We must press on with both as urgently as we can.