Vol. 568 No. 6
77 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Transport if he will clarify recent comments attributed to him suggesting that the Government was planning to sell off the Dublin Port tunnel and the M1 motorway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16892/03]
141 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Transport if he intends to sell off parts of the national primary routes and motorways to private operators; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16676/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 77 and 141 together.
Despite the greatly increased levels of investment in the national roads programme, the increased cost of the programme, combined with the more difficult economic and budgetary circumstances which limit the capacity to allocate more Exchequer funding, requires that we consider all possibilities for generating additional funding to accelerate the implementation of the national roads programme. Accordingly, a num ber of options other than the user toll-based PPP programme currently being implemented by the NRA have been identified for examination. These have the potential to generate additional funding for the programme. They include the extension of the proposed tolling regime for the Dublin Port tunnel and the sale of the facility or the securitisation of toll revenues from this and other routes such as the M1. Detailed analyses and studies will be carried out by the NRA in consultation with the National Development Finance Agency. These will take some time to undertake and complete and until they have been carried out, no decision can be taken. In the meantime, construction of the Dublin Port tunnel and completion of the M1 motorway is proceeding as planned.
A total of 12 minutes will be allowed for these questions.
Does the Minister accept that the Dublin Port tunnel was designed and approved by Dublin City Council on the basis of its being an alternative route to the docks? Does he accept that the EIS was carried out and that local residents, by and large, supported it on this basis and on the basis of its being toll-free for trucks? The Minister floated an idea in the media last week that he would consider selling it on the introduction of tolls for the trucks, which defies all logic and goes against the agreed truck management policies for the city of Dublin. It goes against what everybody understood the Dublin Port tunnel to be. I am asking the Minister to give a commitment that the tunnel will go ahead without tolling for trucks, the basis on which the tunnel was designed and accepted by everybody. I want the Minister to promise that under no circumstances will trucks have to pay a toll in the port tunnel.
I do not know how it defies logic, but I will think about it.
It defies logic if we are trying to ensure that trucks are taken off the city streets. The tunnel was intended to be a dedicated, toll-free route for trucks.
It is also logical to follow up one's own party's policy, which in the case of Deputy Shortall's party was to encourage the National Pensions Reserve Fund to invest in infrastructure. We cannot ask that the pension fund, which has the responsibility for future pensions, be invested in something without an income. This policy can only be followed through in the context of tolling in order that there is an income to pay pensions in the future. That is the logic of the Deputy's own party position with which I agree. I have asked the NDFA and the NRA to consider the possibility of tolling. We must examine every possibility in order that we can roll out the motorway programme at an accel erated pace. We need motorways from Dublin to Cork and Galway and on other routes. The Belfast one is nearly complete. We need to advance these projects urgently. We cannot allow an asset worth billions, with the potential to earn funds which could be used to alleviate traffic problems all over the country, just to sit there. It is in that spirit that we are examining these options. I am not in a position to give any guarantee of the type the Deputy wants.
Deputy Shortall is right about the logic of tolling vehicles using the port tunnel. Does the Minister agree that the only way the port tunnel can be sold is by bringing in tolls for heavy goods vehicles? Is it not also the case that under EU directives, an alternative route must be provided where there is a tolled route? In light of this, how does the Minister intend to ban heavy goods vehicles from the city centre? It does not make sense. The objective of the port tunnel was to take heavy goods vehicles out of the city, not to put them back on the city streets.
I agree with that. The Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, is developing some policies in the area of heavy goods vehicles and road haulage. It is not intended to put trucks in the city centre; it is intended to direct them through the tunnel.
If the tunnel is tolled, an alternative route must be provided. That is what the EU directive states.
There is no legal certainty on that issue, as I understand it. I am not saying there will be tolls on trucks in the port tunnel. The priority is to finish the tunnel as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, I make no apologies for examining every possible way of capitalising income, including via a securitisation process, in order to attract capital which will allow us to roll out our programme throughout the country. That is what is done in most other countries and it is a practical way of doing things. For the national pension fund to own infrastructure would be preferable to the private sector owning it, if I could find a way to do this. That is what I am working on.
No one disputes that.
There is no secret agenda. It is quite open.
Can the Minister give a commitment that when he says he is considering selling this asset, he wants to sell it to our own pension fund rather than to international financiers? It would help a lot if he could clarify whether that is exactly what he is talking about. In terms of making use of the revenues from any such sale, the Minister gave a long list of roads we need to build, but he seems to have no interest in the capital requirements for public transport pro grammes. Does he see the revenue from this asset being used in his arguments with the Minister for Finance with regard to funding a metro project, a western rail line or any of the myriad other public transport projects waiting in the wings?
My preference, which I think I share with all parties in the House, would be that the pension fund takes a stronger interest in infrastructure. I do not know anyone who has dissented from that view. However, it cannot take an interest in an asset purely in the national interest because under the legislation, it is required to be independent and to look after the future pensioners. They can only make investments if the trustees are satisfied it is a good investment for future pensioners. There is no question of my doing anything other than suggesting to the pension funds that they look at these projects. It is their decision, not mine. My preference would be to make the numbers stack up. It would be right for the country to consider putting some of these infrastructures in the hands of the pension funds.
There is significant investment going into public transport. The Luas is almost finished. I hope to bring proposals on the metro to Government shortly. I believe I will be able to make solid progress in that regard. Some €400 million a year for the last couple of years, and for the next couple of years, is being invested in railways, buses, rolling stock, safety, signalling and track.
I do not think anyone would object to the Minister looking at ways of raising revenue to ensure greater investment in infrastructure. However, what he appears to be proposing in respect of the Dublin Port tunnel is a complete reversal of existing policy. The residents of north Dublin, who have put up with a significant amount of inconvenience, and continue to do so while the port tunnel is being built, deserve to have the position clarified. They have been prepared to put up with that inconvenience on the basis that heavy goods vehicles will be removed from their streets once the tunnel is opened. These trucks will only be removed if the port tunnel remains toll free.
The policy in respect of the management of heavy goods vehicles in Dublin city has been based on that premise and it is not acceptable to consider reversing the policy mid-stream. Will the Minister clarify Deputy Naughten's point? How can one compel trucks to use a dedicated route if it will be tolled? My understanding is that one cannot do so. I would welcome clarification in that issue.
As the time is running out, I will ask Deputies Naughten and Eamon Ryan to put their final supplementaries.
Following on from what Deputy Shortall said, is it not the case that the reason the EU introduced such a rule is that Irish exporters will not be penalised when travelling throughout the Continent of Europe? The Minister is now questioning whether this is a valid argument in relation to alternatives to tolls. There is an EU rule which proposes that the Minister must provide an alternative and he cannot implement a ban on heavy goods vehicles in the city while that rule stands.
On the financing of roads, has the Minister looked at the implications of the tax system in the United States where there is a financial incentive for international investment from the US to invest in projects within the European Union?
Has the Minister received legal advice which is contrary to the advice given to Deputy Naughten today, that it is possible to provide a tolled route and not provide an alternative city centre route? Has he received legal advice to back up his comment that he did not think there was legal certainty on the issue?
No decision is taken in this area. We will consider the matter in the period ahead. I have no problem reversing policies if it is the correct thing to do. I believe we should all be flexible in that regard. I want trucks to go through the tunnel and not through the city centre. They will not be permitted to go through the city centre. The legal issue lacks certainty and I will study it further. I will also consider the issue of tax breaks. The Deputy must remember what we are talking about here. Are we saying that trucks may use free of charge valuable infrastructure which cost hundreds of millions of euro, if not billions, regardless of whether they belong to Smurfit, Guinness, multinational companies or well-off firms with a big fleet of trucks? Are we saying to these large multinational companies that they can use free of charge valuable infrastructure provided by Irish taxpayers? That is the other implication of what is being suggested to me. I will reflect on what Deputies are saying because no decision has been taken. However, there are two sides to the story. This is valuable infrastructure, supported by taxpayers, and the argument put forward is that large multinational companies, and other big companies, can use it free of charge.
What about the benefit to residents of north Dublin?
Big companies have lots of money.
