Vol. 591 No. 3
111 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport his views on the full or partial privatisation of Aer Lingus; the Government’s position with regard to the future development of Aer Lingus; when a final decision will be made on the airline’s future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27077/04]
As I indicated in response to Question No. 411 on 19 October last, my officials and I are considering the Goldman Sachs report on the future of Aer Lingus. The report has been circulated to the members of the Cabinet sub-committee that was established to examine all issues relating to the future ownership of the airline and to report to the Government. A meeting of the sub-committee will take place in the near future. The report relates primarily to the implications of maintaining the current ownership arrangements, to the airline's future funding requirements and to the strategic and public policy issues arising in the event of the State reducing its shareholding in Aer Lingus or exiting from the ownership of the airline. The report will form an input into my deliberations and those of the Cabinet sub-committee before the Government makes a decision on the future of Aer Lingus.
In accordance with the terms of Sustaining Progress, the Department of Transport and the social partners will discuss the future of Aer Lingus before the Government finalises its consideration of the matter. While I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the Government's consideration, I strongly believe clarity on the future of Aer Lingus is needed as soon as possible. It is important that the main shareholder clearly signals its intentions regarding the company to facilitate the essential future planning of the airline from an operational and financial viewpoint.
I understand the Minister cannot pre-empt any decision that may be made by the Government. What is the Government's response to Aer Lingus's immediate short-term request for funding? The airline wants the funds necessary to purchase the aircraft needed to allow it to continue its expansion plans and to pursue its business plan. I realise the decision cannot be taken outside the broader context of the future ownership and funding of the airline. Has the Government responded to Aer Lingus's request? Does it envisage a timeframe in that regard? The airline regards the allocation of funds as a critical short-term and immediate necessity, regardless of long-term and strategic considerations. I realise that the matters are connected.
All Deputies are aware of the problems Aer Lingus faced. It has had an extraordinary turn-around, for which I congratulate the trade unions, management and board. It is an extraordinary achievement when considered in the context of the national carriers that have already disappeared from our skies and those that are in serious trouble. Aer Lingus has put itself in a very good position. The aviation industry market is fragile, as we know. The Government's objective is to do all it can to ensure that Aer Lingus continues to grow and to be a major aviation player in the years to come. Therefore, the point made by the Deputy about Aer Lingus's funding requirements is crucial. I have received the Goldman Sachs report, which has been circulated to the Cabinet sub-committee. I am studying the report with my officials. We hope the sub-committee will meet soon to consider the matter.
I thank the Minister. While he was right to congratulate Aer Lingus on its turn-around, I am sure he appreciates that it is constrained in its activities. The airline sector is prone to jolts, which are often caused by matters outside its control. Given that things are quite rosy — options are open to the Government and the company — would it not be better to make a decision at this point rather than allowing things to drift? It may be that no options will be open to the Government or Aer Lingus when we find ourselves in a further crisis. I am anxious that a decision be made. I am conscious that Deputy Cullen is the third Minister in recent times to be charged with dealing with the future of Aer Lingus. The company is entitled to some clarity about its future.
I believe, as I am sure all Deputies do, that Aer Lingus has potentially significant opportunities in the European and American markets, particularly on the transatlantic route. The company needs to make substantial investment at this point, therefore. It will take some time to come on-stream because one cannot make a decision today and turn on the tap, in terms of the delivery of airlines, tomorrow. That is important. I am conscious of all the views and the need to get it right. The decision we take now will have a major effect well into the future on the company's ability to be a major and substantial player in the airline sector, as it has always been. We can make the necessary decisions, in conjunction with the relevant players, all of whom I have met, because Aer Lingus has put itself in that position.
I have had good discussions with the Central Representative Council, management and the chairman of the board. Everybody has praised the work that has been done to date and accepted that substantial investment is necessary for the company's future. We can study the contents of the Goldman Sachs report instead of a range of options. I have said that I do not want to create the impression that the report represents a Holy Grail or gives an obvious answer. A suite of options requires careful judgment as we consider the best way to proceed, which should involve a consideration of the best interests of the company, the flying public and taxpayers, who ultimately own the airline.
Did they make a recommendation?
112 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if his attention has been drawn to the recent report produced by IBEC which found that traffic congestion had got worse in Dublin over the past two years; the steps he intends to take to deal with this problem in view of the social and economic cost; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27200/04]
I am aware of the survey which IBEC carried out in May 2004 on traffic and congestion. Plans to tackle congestion in Dublin are being dealt with under two strands, the first being increasing the supply of public transport, strategic road construction and traffic management, and the second reducing the growth in travel through complementary land use and other policies designed to encourage a transfer of journeys, especially at peak periods, from private car to sustainable modes of transport, such as public transport, cycling and walking.
Significant progress has been made in recent years under those two strands. Major increases in the capacity of the public transport system are being achieved. With the coming introduction of new DART cars, the fleet will have doubled since 2000. Some 80 new diesel rail cars were introduced earlier this year on suburban commuter services, and a further 36 are to be delivered next year. The capacity of Dublin Bus has been extended, with an increase of over 25% in capacity at peak times. Bus Éireann has increased its services by around 40% from commuter towns such as Drogheda, Navan and Naas to the city centre.
To facilitate buses, my Department is funding a major programme to expand the quality bus corridor network and improve traffic management in the greater Dublin area, or GDA. The Luas is now in operation on the Sandyford, or green, line and on the Tallaght, or red, line. Major road improvements are also under way in the GDA. In addition, the Dublin Transportation Office works closely with the planning authorities to influence land use policies in the GDA to favour more sustainable forms of transport at the planning stage. That is being achieved through integrated land use and transportation plans at local level and commenting on major planning applications and appeals which are of strategic transport importance.
There is expected to be a sustained increase in the population of the GDA over the coming years and increasing levels of car ownership. Good progress has been made to date in countering the growth in car ownership in that public transport, walking and cycling have increased their share of all journeys in the city centre.
I am confident that measures such as those that I have mentioned, together with the opening of the port tunnel and the completion of the south-eastern motorway section of the M50 in 2005, will go a long way towards addressing Dublin's congestion problems.
I thank the Minister for the theory behind what is supposed to be happening. However, I am sure he will agree that the reality regarding traffic congestion is completely different from what he suggests. Does he accept that transport and traffic congestion are now the major source of stress in most people's lives, especially in the Dublin area where the working day is lengthened because of journey times and the fact that the current provision of public transport is completely inadequate to meet demand? I do not know how much the Minister travels around the city, but it seems that evening peak traffic problems are now starting at approximately 3.30 p.m. and going on until approximately 7.30 p.m. It is increasingly difficult for people to do business in the city centre or even to move around or conduct daily business such as going to work, shopping or visiting people. They are faced with congestion both in the city centre and in the suburbs throughout the day.
The findings from IBEC are extremely stark regarding the impact on business. It says that 95% of its members are adversely affected by traffic congestion and that many report increased production costs of up to 20% as a result of the congestion they face. What specific steps will the Minister take to relieve that congestion which, irrespective of what he is reading from the answer before him, is worsening by the day, as we can all tell him?
I blame the Minister of State, Deputy Callely.
I understand and appreciate the Deputy's point. If the Government or I thought that the public transport network in the city, and access to it, were adequate, the sort of investment that we make would not be necessary. By implication, we recognise that serious, substantial and sustained investment in all forms of public transport and roads in Dublin is clearly necessary to deal with its population base in future.
As the Deputy knows, neither I nor anyone else can resolve Dublin's infrastructural problems overnight with a click of the fingers. That is not possible. However, we must make a sustained impact on the difficulties of the city and the greater Dublin area. I would not dismiss — as I am sure the Deputy was not doing — the investment that I have laid out which is part of the process of making a contribution. I would hate to think how much worse it might be if that investment had not been made. I view Dublin in three different specific ways, the first being the internal dynamics of the city centre area itself and those parts that interact with it, with an internal transport solution. Essentially, one wishes to reduce the need to bring cars into the city centre area and make all parts of the city centre as accessible as possible. The second phase is suburban Dublin access and how we deal with it. A substantial amount of resources is going into that. The Luas is but one cog in the big wheel of the ongoing rolling out of infrastructure. The third element is the connectivity from the region around Dublin, which now reaches out to Kildare, including Maynooth, and up to such areas as Drogheda.
Putting the necessary level of infrastructure in place for the future of Dublin will take several years. We can take some decisions that I am examining and discussing with current operators such as Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and the Rail Procurement Agency to see how we might consider other ideas in some areas to add to what is being rolled out or enhance the network in whatever way that we can.
The time for this question has expired. I will hear a brief supplementary question from Deputy Shortall.
There are two serious structural problems regarding Dublin traffic. The first is that more than 20 organisations have a role in traffic and transport, rendering matters completely unwieldy. Does the Minister accept that there is a strong case for a single transport authority for the Dublin area? Second, owing to the problem of people breaking the traffic laws by parking in clearways, driving in bus lanes and so on, is there not an urgent need for a traffic corps? At Christmas, when there is a special initiative, we see the difference that it makes when gardaí are out on the street. Does the Minister accept the need for a full-time traffic corps to keep traffic moving in the city centre?
The Minister should be brief in his reply.
The Garda places considerable emphasis on traffic, to which it has people assigned. I agree with the bigger question of a traffic corps which the Deputy raised and which is being examined in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in consultation with the Garda Commissioner. There is no doubt that the presence of gardaí, especially in the areas that the Deputy has highlighted, helps enormously with traffic movement around the city.
What about——
In the time that I have, I will turn my attention to delivering decisions on infrastructure. It is no longer possible for me to spend my time trying to reorganise the structures around me.
113 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Transport the position regarding the construction of the Dublin Port tunnel, particularly regarding the height of the tunnel, delays in construction, the concerns of local residents and public safety issues. [27226/04]
I announced on 21 October 2004 that the operational height of the Dublin Port tunnel would not be changed. My decision was based primarily on safety grounds, but cost and time delays to the opening of the project were also factors.
The options for increasing the height of the tunnel were considered by the National Roads Authority, independent consultants, Atkins, and Dublin City Council. In addition, the contractor, the NMI consortium, priced the work that would be involved in increasing the height of the tunnel. It was clear from that work that raising the height of the tunnel would not be justified having regard to safety considerations and additional cost and delay factors.
The safety issues concerned reducing lane widths, which would, in the context of a tunnel carrying a very high percentage of heavy goods vehicles, including fuel tankers and other hazardous cargoes, constitute a reduction in overall tunnel safety. It is intuitively apparent that wider traffic lanes offer greater vehicle separation than narrower lanes. As for increasing the kerb height, it is apparent, on both an engineering and intuitive basis, that a 150 mm kerb must represent a safer provision than one of 200 mm. It is the NRA's position that the lower kerb height is preferable from a safety perspective. Also considered were overheight heavy goods vehicles, HGVs, on the existing national road network and the implications of facilitating higher vehicles through the tunnel than the national motorway and road network can safely accommodate. Bridges and other structures on motorways and national roads are not designed to cater for vehicles higher than the current tunnel height, and safety concerns would arise over the discharge of such vehicles from a revised tunnel onto the national road network. Increasing the height of the tunnel would mean substantial potential additional costs of at least €33 million to €65 million, and at least a seven month delay to the completion of the tunnel.
I understand from the NRA that the construction of the tunnel is expected to be complete in December 2005. Extensive arrangements are in place to meet the concerns of local residents about the impact of the project. These were of particular value during the tunnelling, which is now complete. These arrangements included pre and post construction property surveys, the use of vibration monitors to monitor vibration from the works, and settlement surveys. Any damage attributable to tunnelling works is covered by the property protection guarantee issued by Dublin City Council. I am informed that over 176 claims have been received, of which 155 are subject to ongoing negotiation, claiming in most cases minor damage to properties. An independent loss adjuster has assessed or is in the process of assessing these damage reports and I am advised that any verified damage connected with the tunnelling will be made good by Dublin City Council.
Is the Minister genuinely aware of the concerns of local residents about the Dublin Port tunnel project and does he understand them? Is he aware of the recent relevant statistics? He mentioned 176 cases of property damage reported by residents. This damage is not minor. There are 117 cracks in houses, 35 hairline cracks, 12 jammed doors and windows, three damaged roofs, four major plumbing problems, four glazing problems and 11 other problems. That is a total of 176 homes damaged, while there are hundreds of other complaints about noise, vibration and disruption.
Will the Minister comment on the recent consultants' report which stated the tunnel's entrance and exits are unstable, that water has been seen leaking into the massive tunnel through openings and that experts say the tunnel has design deficiencies? These are major health and safety issues which need to be addressed.
The Minister said he had to take health and safety issues into consideration with regard to the large trucks not using the port tunnel. These massive trucks will be driving through residential areas. Will the Minister explain how this will impact positively on the safety of local residents?
The trucks the Deputy refers to make up somewhere between 0.6% and 1.7% of the total traffic going to Dublin Port, a very small percentage. Dublin City Council is also putting in place a very specific traffic management plan for HGVs, while the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, will soon launch an important consultation report on the height of vehicles in the country.
Another report. The Minister's predecessor launched such a report two years ago.
This is not the same one. This is the one which will lead to a decision being made on the issue. The decision on the tunnel has already been taken.
Regarding Deputy McGrath's contribution, I do not dispute that there have been difficulties for residents in the area. That is normal when huge projects are involved. There is naturally going to be some disruption and one can only ask for the forbearance of those directly affected when such projects are being put in place. Everything possible is being done to mitigate interruptions to the quality of life of people who might be directly affected. That is the stated position regarding the cases whose numbers the Deputy has confirmed. These are minor issues with regard to the houses. There is a proper process in place with Dublin City Council to deal with these problems and the council should be left to go through that process with the residents.
The allegation that cracks and water are appearing in the tunnel are quite unfounded.
They were noted in an independent consultants' report. The Minister is rubbishing genuine concerns.
If the Deputy intends to heighten concerns, to scare-monger in his constituency——
It is the residents who are objecting.
If the Deputy wants to bring forward the benefit of the facts, and to lessen people's concerns and reassure them that all of the systems are in place to deal with their concerns, he should listen to what I am saying.
I object strongly to the way in which the question is being answered. Many residents have major, genuine concerns. They have tried to be very pro-active and work with Dublin City Council and local councillors but every time they raise the issues, they are not treated with respect. For example, when they telephone the advice helpline, there is no-one there to answer it. The Minister should not say that the people of Marino and Fairview are getting a fair crack of the whip. They are not.
I do not accept that.
The Minister does not know the reality.
The Deputy appears to know more than any other Deputy in the House. We all share the same concern for the people we represent. Nobody has a monopoly on concern regarding any particular matter. The Deputy should not present matters in that way.
I have the right to represent my constituents.
I, the Government and other Deputies share the concerns equally. We want these projects dealt with quickly and in the fairest way possible for the residents.
Public Transport.
114 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he will bring forward legislation before the end of 2004 as promised to allow for the break-up of CIE into three separate companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27078/04}]
The Government is committed to reform of public transport. A considerable amount of work on the detailed technical aspects of the restructuring of CIE has taken place in my Department and this work is ongoing. I am reviewing this work as well as consulting with stakeholders. When I have completed the review and my consultations with key stakeholders I will consider how to proceed generally and with regard to legislation.
I have a sense of déjà vu because I recall asking the same question of the Minister before the previous one. With the metro project gone down the tubes, if the pun can be excused, the future of buses has taken on a new urgency. I know the Minister has not said the metro project is definitely gone, but it has certainly been set back by ten years. Even if a decision was made in the morning, we would not have a metro or even a new Luas line within ten years. Buses therefore take on a special importance in the future.
Previous Ministers have said that we cannot have competition without breaking up CIE. Is that still the case or was it merely a distraction in order to postpone a decision? Can we have competition and still leave the Transport Act in place? It seems this is always the excuse for nothing being done. Dublin Bus is currently screaming for buses. It built a garage for buses it never acquired. It was promised 150 buses under the national development plan but they never arrived. Dublin Bus now has so much garage space that it is closing garages, though the promise under the national development plan was that the company would be fully resourced. Either Dublin Bus provides the buses, or competition must be allowed. There is currently a great need for extra buses, not merely for new routes but for existing routes.
Is the legislation responsible for the hold up or is there a lack of will to engage with CIE? What is the Minister's thinking in this area? Do we need to break up CIE in order to provide competition and put a few extra buses on the roads in Dublin? That is the only way in which a complete clogging up of the city can be prevented.
The Deputy raised many issues beyond the scope of the question. I have had very good discussions with the various trade unions and the management involved in the various aspects of transport in Dublin. All accept the terms of opening up the market in the future. There is only one matter on the agenda. What decisions can we make in this House which will improve the delivery of public transport to the customer in Dublin? It is that simple. I have no ideology in this area and am not interested in it. I am interested only in trying to reach a decision in conjunction with the different components involved in the public transport sector.
Many people have said to me recently that the improvement in Dublin Bus services in the past few years in terms of quality and increased service has been remarkable.
I want to be in a position to make decisions. I do not intend to involve any more consultants and I am engaged in direct discussions with the people involved in the delivery of the system.
The Deputy is correct that the 1932 Act is out of date and needs to be overhauled. The relevant legislation is being prepared. Not to proceed with reforming the legislation would be a serious mistake and we should proceed to do so.
I want to reach conclusions relatively quickly in respect of the market and Dublin Bus. I also want to see where investment can be made in the market. I am aware that Dublin Bus is seeking investment for itself and we want to see the best possible transport service put in place for the citizens of Dublin and for those from the rest of the country who visit the city on a regular basis.
Is the Minister stating that he is committed to competition but not necessarily to the legislation, the lack of which we have always been informed provides the barrier to competition? The legislation has been in preparation for at least five years and we were informed that there could not be competition until it was introduced. Is that the barrier?
Is the Deputy asking if the legislation is the barrier?
Yes.
The legislation is necessary and I am not stating that we do not need it. However, I do not want to present the matter in a way that would make it appear that it is merely about an ideological point of view. This matter involves the Dublin bus market and the delivery of services therein.
I understand that but we were previously informed that there cannot be competition until the legislation is passed. Is the Minister now saying something different?
No, I am not saying that. I said that there would be competition and that there will be an open market in Dublin.
115 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Transport the research which has been done on the impact of supercube trucks on roadways. [26992/04]
Supercubes and other similar height vehicles can, in comparison to lower vehicles, present additional challenges, particularly with regard to road safety, rail safety and environmental damage. However, they differ essentially from road haulage vehicles in general only by reason of their greater than usual height. This difference gives rise to concerns that the use of such vehicles, combined with certain height constraints such as those imposed by bridges, tunnels, street lighting etc. on certain routes, poses inherent safety risks. As a consequence, the research to date is mainly concerned with the nature and extent of that risk by establishing the current number of supercubes in use and likely future penetration of such vehicles into the overall haulage fleet.
Two vehicle height surveys of HGVs using Dublin Port have been carried out by the Dublin Port Company and the National Institute of Transport Logistics, respectively. The results of both surveys indicate that only a limited number of trucks, between 0.6% and 1.7%, are over 4.65 metres in height. I will arrange to provide a copy of the report of each survey for the Deputy.
As a result of its geographical base, this research may not be definitive in terms of national use of high vehicles. Nevertheless, it provides a good basis on which to extrapolate the national usage by reference to the share of national imports and exports handled through Dublin Port. In this regard, it is the view of both Dublin City Council and the National Roads Authority that most of the vehicles using Dublin Port will be no higher than 4.65 metres. On that basis, the overall proportion of the national road haulage fleet accounted for by supercubes is unlikely to be substantial.
The collection of statistics on the transport of goods in, into and out of Ireland is done on a weight basis rather than a volume basis and records of vehicle dimensions such as height are not collected. I understand that researchers and policy-makers face similar constraints with research on vehicle characteristics in other jurisdictions. I have met a number of road hauliers who have provided statistics which differ greatly from those to which I referred.
In a reply to a number of parliamentary questions today on the matter of a vehicle height limit, I am committed to early public consultation on the subject with a view to bringing forward measures to deal with the risks involved in using supercubes and vehicles of similar height. To this end, a consultation paper is being prepared by my Department which will deal with a range of issues, including road and rail safety, business competitiveness, environmental considerations, implications for infrastructure, alternatives to a specific height limit and legal options for dealing with a specific height limit.
I thank the Minister of State for his detailed response. I gather from it that very little research has been carried out in respect of these vehicles because they are new to the market. How many supercubes or super trucks are in operation in Ireland? As a result of the debate on the Dublin Port tunnel etc., concerns have arisen. Do these vehicles represent the way forward? Is the Minister of State aware of recent media reports regarding a ban on super trucks and so on? He referred to the fact that a review is taking place. Is there a timescale for that review? There will be a collective groan when people hear that another report is on the way.
The Irish Road Haulage Association argues that there is no significant difference between the weight of supercubes and other trucks. I am aware that these vehicles are more prevalent on the Continent and in Britain. A British professor who carried out a study on these vehicles referred to the positive effect of their use on the environment and stated that it would lead to a reduction in the number of trucks on the roads. Statistics show that the State's haulage business grew by 220% in the past ten years, with an increase in vehicles from 30,669 in 1993 to more than 81,000 in 2003. Does the Minister of State or the Department have a view as regards the way forward? Will there be more trucks? Will it be the case that larger will be better? The current position is unsustainable. I have a view as regards the use of rail transport but that is a matter for another day.
Deputy Crowe posed a huge number of questions and, in view of the time constraints, I will not be able to answer all of them. He asked about the number of trucks currently operational in the haulage fleet. I draw his attention to the surveys carried out by the Dublin Port Company and the National Institute of Transport Logistics, one of which relates to the period from October 2002 to July 2003 and the other to May 2003. I concur with his view that there have been major developments in the area of transport. Supercubes are relatively new and we do not have statistics available as regards the actual number in the fleet.
We can address the issue of supercubes. On how we would go about doing so, all stakeholders would be asked to place their chips on the table to see if consensus can be reached as regards the best height. In that context, matters such as road and rail safety and the various issues relating to infrastructure to which I referred would have to be taken into account.
The former Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, has been doing that for the past two years.
On whether there are matters other than height restriction to which consideration could be given, as a person who thinks outside the box, I believe there are. In the coming weeks, the Department and I, working with the stakeholders, will be in a position to commence consultations on reaching consensus and a conclusion that will be satisfactory to all concerned.
