Vol. 599 No. 7
5 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if he is committed to open road tolling; the steps he has taken to expedite this matter; when the necessary legislation will be published; the cost of its introduction at the West Link toll bridge; and the timescale proposed for the new system to be in place. [9823/05]
Open road tolling, that is, the collection of tolls by automated means in a barrier free environment, is the optimal means of toll collection where the traffic volumes and toll revenues justify the investment required. The only route where a move to full open road tolling, that is, no manual collection and barrier free, is being considered, however, is the M50. The move from the current toll arrangement on the M50 to a barrier free facility would be completed over a number of stages, involving a phased reduction in the cashier-coin basket lanes with a corresponding increase in payments by automated toll collection methods. The objective on other toll schemes, where the traffic volumes and toll revenues would not justify full open road tolling, will be to continue to provide a mix of manual and automated toll collection facilities.
The legislative changes necessary to facilitate the implementation of barrier free tolling on automated toll collection lanes on other toll schemes through the implementation of appropriate deterrents for non-payment of tolls have been the subject of consultation with the National Roads Authority, the National Toll Roads and other companies with an interest in the operation of toll plazas. I anticipate, subject to the other priorities on the legislative programme, that the draft legislation will be introduced in autumn of this year.
I understand from the NRA that the cost of implementing barrier free tolling on the M50 has yet to be determined and will depend on the outcome of negotiations with NTR. The NRA is aiming to complete the move to barrier free tolling to coincide with the completion of the upgrade of the M50.
My question has been superseded somewhat by the comments of the chief executive of the NRA yesterday to the Joint Committee on Transport. He indicated that the NRA is examining the possibility of buying out the NTR contract, removing the tolls on the West Link bridge and replacing them with demand management tolls on the approach roads. It is an interesting proposition which has much merit. Does the Minister wish to comment on it? Is he aware that the NRA is examining this matter? What is his opinion of that approach to tolling on the M50?
I am aware of what the new chief executive of the NRA said yesterday. However, I believe there has been an over-interpretation in the reporting of his remarks. The impression has been given that there is an immediate prospect of the toll plaza being bought but that is not the case. The income stream from the toll plaza is funding the upgrade of the M50. It is an important stream of finance.
In the future there will be issues surrounding traffic into Dublin and demand management will legitimately arise in the context of how the M50 is used by consumers. However, it is not an immediate prospect. That should be made clear because I got the impression today that this is a matter that is under negotiation in a detailed way. There are no proposals on my desk or in the Department of Transport.
I met NTR recently and told its representatives in unequivocal terms that I am anxious to move to barrier free tolling as quickly as possible. I do not accept that a timeframe of four or five years is necessary to achieve it.
I agree that it should not take that long. I asked the Minister to comment on the proposal which is emerging from the NRA. It is a cost neutral proposal. The NRA is not talking about removing the tolls but about facilitating free flow on the M50 and replacing the existing tolls with demand management tolls on the approach roads. There would be no cost to the State. Is the Minister well disposed to that proposal? It appears to have much merit. Buying the NTR concession would be expensive but the Minister could maintain a revenue stream and recoup the cost of buying the NTR concession through new tolls on the approach roads. Obviously, it is a complex legal issue but if the NRA can resolve that, it would hope to bring firm proposals to the Minister quite soon. Is the Minister well disposed to that approach and does he anticipate supporting it in the future?
I am aware of it in the context of the general issues being considered to make Dublin a more accessible city and how to manage its traffic. In that context, it is a legitimate part of that process. However, to be fair to people who use transport, be it public transport or private cars, to reach that point it will be necessary to have the new public transport infrastructure in place before making such a dramatic change. I am not convinced that doing it in isolation would be an immediate success. It would if the investment were already in place and much of the——
It frees up the M50.
The solution to freeing the M50, and I am open to correction on this, is badly needed investment in public transport facilities. That is my focus at present.
The Minister is dodging the issue.
I am not.
The Minister's approach is at variance with that of the NRA.
It is not.
It is.
The wrong impression was given yesterday.
No——
Deputy Shortall, we must proceed to Question No. 6.
Would the Minister object to buying out NTR?
If it is a good deal for the State, I would not.
In fairness to other Deputies, we must move on to the next question.
It would have to suit the Exchequer and the taxpayer.
The Minister must reply to Question No. 6.
6 Mr. English asked the Minister for Transport the work which has been undertaken or is planned by him and his officials to advance a rail connection from Navan to Dublin city centre, via Dunboyne; when this project will be operational; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9714/05]
Iarnród Éireann, in conjunction with Meath and Fingal County Councils, recently completed a feasibility study into the possibility of providing a spur off the Maynooth line at Clonsilla to Pace on the N3 beyond Dunboyne. The provision of a park and ride site at Pace to cater for Navan traffic has been included in the feasibility study.
It is now a matter for Iarnród Éireann, in the first instance, to consider the results of the study and to decide how it wishes to proceed. The views of Iarnród Éireann and the results of the feasibility study will be considered by my Department as part of its preparatory work on the proposed ten-year investment framework.
The Minister gave me the same answer a month ago. There is no progress.
It was before the election.
The following day the Minister came to Navan where he was able to speak about the Navan rail link in more detail. He confirmed it would be provided. The Minister's party candidate in the by-election confirmed in his election material that the rail link had been secured for Dunboyne.
He is a great guy; he was pushing hard.
He would be embarrassed if he were present today to hear that reply. Iarnród Éireann has stated that it is happy to build the line. However, two things are required. It is seeking a commitment of funding. Can the Department ring-fence funding to deliver this rail link? I accept that it is affected by what happens in Dublin but the Navan to Dunboyne link should be built at the same time the work is being done in Dublin rather that one waiting until the other is completed, which is crazy. That is a decision for the Minister through the allocation of funding.
Second, the Minister was most encouraging a month ago with regard to providing the money to complete the second part of the feasibility study on building a link from Dunboyne to Navan. He agreed with me that it would be sensible to have it ready. We should consider doing it.
When I asked the Taoiseach about this matter he said he saw merit in the rail link being built parallel with the M3 motorway. He also agreed that it had not been considered. I am sure it was not considered because nobody can confirm that it was. Will the Minister examine this? Is it possible to construct the rail link in line with the motorway given that land is being compulsorily purchased for the road? Other countries do it so why not this country? It is a shame it has not been considered. It would save a great deal of money for the Exchequer.
The Deputy should ask a question.
It is a question. Please give us the money. It would be worthwhile doing this now before the process goes further.
When will a decision be made about the Spencer Dock development? That has a major effect on the rail link to Dunboyne and Navan. I hope when this question is asked again in a month that there will have been progress.
Ask the Minister of State. He will have an answer.
At least I get letters from him.
We are ad idem on most of this. Clearly, the indications are, although I have not seen the final decision, that the Dunboyne spur is sensible. I did not make my remarks last month simply because the by-election was taking place. It also seems obvious that if one is to manage the strategy of housing density and the facilities that go with it, public transport must be an essential element. In Navan, I highlighted the experience of Midleton, where they planned the land use strategically to make a rail link inevitable. The same thing applies to the extended spur to Navan. It is a logical extension of what should be there. I have urged the county council to start working on those plans now. I will not take this Dunboyne project on its own. There is a range of very interesting projects in Dublin, the suburbs, the commuter belt and inter-city. We are getting near completion on the overall picture.
Can the Minister lead in providing money?
I call on Deputy Ryan. If there is time left, I will call Deputy English.
Does the Minister think the feasibility rule may be affected by the nature of the road connections to Navan? With regard to the ten year framework, of which this is one example, does the Department of Finance give the Minister an indicative budget for ten years time? Does the Minister for Transport then allocate resources accordingly? How does he decide between different projects? Are there any projects that fall outside the scope because of the lack of possible funding?
The Minister said that he spoke to Meath County Council. However, his Department can lead on this. If the Minister puts up funding for the feasibility study, we will continue with it. He should not always have to go back to Iarnród Éireann as he is the one with the money.
If local authorities are serious about public infrastructure, then they should have the money to fund a feasibility study.
The Minister might not realise how much a study costs.
The Deputy must let the Minister reply.
The Minister knows quite well that a study costs €1 million. The local authority is €9 million in debt because of his Government.
We need orderly questions as we must get through as many as possible.
We were quite willing to lead on this. We put the money up last year, but the Department did not.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
I will if the Minister admits he was wrong. He knows the cost of a feasibility study is €1 million.
The Deputy cannot interrupt the Minister. He is entitled to make his reply and the Deputy is entitled to ask a question. I remind the Deputy that the purpose of question time is to elicit information from the Minister.
Correct information.
We have spent most of this question hearing information from the Deputy. The Minister should be afforded a chance to respond.
I want the correct information. I do not want the same answer.
He must have sent Deputy McEntee off in the wrong direction today.
He went in the right direction.
In answer to Deputy Ryan's question, it is clear the Department has a financial envelope for five years. It will now be a financial envelope for ten years. We are looking at the scale of projects from a financial and physical perspective. That is a great physical challenge for those in the construction industry, along with the different players such as Iarnród Éireann, the RPA, the NRA and the other stakeholders.
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle said that question time was about eliciting information. I asked the Minister if the road would take from the feasibility study of the rail, but I did not get an answer to that.
The Chair has no control over the Minister.
I have not got my hands on any feasibility study, but I do not think it will take from a rail study. Given the volume of traffic, there is a need for both.
7 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Transport his views on the decision by the European Commission to send letters to those member states which have air service agreements with the United States; the action he will take following the European Commission’s statement that Ireland’s agreement with the United States in this regard is a flagrant breach of European law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9689/05]
On 16 March 2005, the European Commission decided to send infringement letters to 20 EU member states, including Ireland, that have bilateral air transport agreements with the USA. Ireland received that letter on 21 March 2005.
In the letter, the Commission expressed the view that, due to certain aspects of the EU bilateral aviation agreement with the USA, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the treaty establishing the European Community. The Commission has asked for a response within two months of receipt of the letter. This is a complex matter that will be examined carefully before a reply can be issued. Until that consideration is complete, I will not be in a position to comment on the matter.
I asked the Minister for his opinion on the decision. It is a straight question and it is unacceptable for him to say that he is not prepared to respond until his Department prepares a reply. What is his response to the Commission decision?
The Commission is clearly preparing an open skies policy. It does not like the existing agreements in 20 different countries, so we are not alone on this. It is in preparation for the EU-US summit next month on open skies. The EU is entitled to take that view. I am taking legal advice on the implications of the letter. I will not put Ireland, particularly Shannon, in a weakened position by sitting back and doing nothing while the EU and the US come to a new agreement. We must position Ireland in a positive light. We must make sure we can do business with the US so that we can develop Shannon and air traffic between Ireland and the US.
Does the Minister accept there is room for side deals?
I do not want to be put in the position in which the Deputy is trying to put me. I am in a negotiating position at the moment. I am fixed on what we are trying to do. I respect the EU, but I am also a Minister in the Irish Government. I want to make sure Shannon and Aer Lingus get every opportunity to develop.
Is the Minister interfering with Government policy when he interferes with the current bilateral agreement? The reports we hear from Washington and Dublin mention a three year lead-in period for the ending of the agreement. Can the Minister comment on that?
I have no idea where that is coming from. I am in a negotiating position at the moment. Deputies should expect that I do not show my cards in the House. I would not expect them to do it if they were in my position. I want to make sure that we get the best possible deal. There are great opportunities for Shannon and I will ensure that it gets the benefit of those opportunities.
Does the Minister believe there should be direct flights between Cork Airport and the US?
People I met in Cork believe there is a possibility of direct flights from Cork to the US. That is the point of the independence granted to Cork and Shannon airports. For a long time, they did not want to be restricted by Dublin. There are great opportunities in many different directions, one of which is the transatlantic route. Cork will surely benefit from that.
What timescale does the Minister envisage for the conclusion of the open skies negotiation between the EU and the US?
I cannot comment on the EU agreement, because I am not party to those talks. Indications make it clear that both parties want to get an agreement in place. I would like to see a good outcome from the Irish perspective within a month or so.
8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Transport the new technical checks that have been introduced as part of the driving test; the reason these technical checks were introduced; if he plans to introduce further reforms of the driving test procedure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9683/05]
The technical checks, which have formed part of the driving test with effect from 14 February 2005, were introduced to meet our obligations under EU Directive 2000/56/EC on driver licensing. The technical checks involve candidates being asked to explain how he or she might carry out three out of a number of checks on the vehicle. If, for example, a person is asked to show how oil levels should be checked, it will be necessary to open the bonnet, point to the oil dipstick and explain how oil levels should be checked. A test candidate will not have to carry out the procedure but should know how to do so.
Additional technical checks relating principally to trucks and buses will be introduced when suitable off-road compounds become available at selected test centres throughout the country. The Office of Public Works, in consultation with my Department, is in the process of providing such compounds.
In tandem with the introduction of technical checks, the motorcycle driving test has been enhanced by the use of a radio link between the driver tester and candidate. This will allow for a better test experience. While the content of the driving test is kept under review, no further reforms of the driving test procedure are envisaged at present.
Is the Minister saying Ireland is now fully in compliance with EU guidelines in this regard?
Yes.
I thank the Minister for his reply.
While we have more technical checks as part of the driving test, is this slowing down the process as a result? Will the waiting list for driving tests become longer? If so, will the Department of Transport employ more testers in future to compensate for that?
I am concerned to ensure that the driving test backlog is cleared. Where jobs might be at stake, especially for young people, it is important for them to be able to take their driving tests as quickly and efficiently as possible. The additional checks are good for safety and are helpful in engendering an understanding of vehicles but they will not necessarily slow down the testing process. Driver testing legislation is going through the House which will bring about positive changes for those seeking tests in future.
9 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Transport when the 120 new rail carriages that have been ordered by Iarnród Éireann will be operating on the rail system; the precise routes these carriages will serve; when the new hourly services between Dublin and Cork and Dublin and Limerick will commence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9681/05]
I understand from Iarnród Éireann that 120 new intercity railcars, ordered at the end of 2004, will begin entering service in 2007. The railcars will operate on the Dublin-Westport-Ballina, Dublin-Galway, Dublin-Tralee, Dublin-Waterford and Dublin-Limerick-Ennis routes. Their introduction into service will allow Iarnród Éireann to provide hourly services on the Dublin-Limerick route with a mix of direct and shuttle services to connect with Cork trains.
With the introduction into service of 67 new carriages later this year, which are additional to the 120 I have just mentioned, Iarnród Éireann expects to begin hourly services on the Dublin-Cork route before the end of this year.
What other additions to the fleet are proposed? Are there other additions in the pipeline for the remainder of this year and into next year or is that the end of the current allocation?
The current order is the largest ever placed. I do not have any plans before me for further orders this year. The major event this year will be getting the 67 new carriages into service on the Dublin-Cork route. That is Iarnród Éireann's priority, along with getting the other order on stream. When this order has been completed in 2007-08, the rail fleet in Ireland will be the most modern in Europe. That is a dramatic transformation from recent times.
The intention is to upscale continually. The fleet will deal with all the main intercity routes. For example, the Dublin-Cork service will be hourly all day, Dublin-Limerick will be hourly with a mix of some trains connecting with the Cork service, Galway will be hourly at peak times and two-hourly off-peak, Waterford will be every two hours all day, Sligo will be every two hours all day, and Westport will have existing services plus additional shuttle services between Athlone and Westport to connect with the Galway services.
My understanding is that Iarnród Éireann wants to sort out all the main intercity services. There will be other investment in rail facilities into Dublin. When the ten-year framework is announced shortly, it will be indicative in that regard.
Will the new rail carriages be larger than the existing ones? Currently, at peak times, particularly on the Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Limerick routes, there is standing room only. This is so at 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. Will Iarnród Éireann increase the number of carriages or will the carriages be larger? How old is the existing intercity fleet? Have these carriages passed their sell-by date and, if so, will that rolling stock be sold to another country?
Many of them are very old. I do not have the specific technical details to hand. I agree with the Deputy, however, that it is unacceptable for passengers to have to stand while travelling on a modern public transport system. The purpose of introducing the new carriages is to remove that problem. I do not have statistics for the capacity per coach but the new stock will represent a major improvement in services, including hourly and two-hourly departures to and from all major cities. There is no question but that we will overcome the unfortunate position whereby some people have had to stand on long journeys.
It is important to recognise the progress that has been made on the railway services, including the rail lines and rolling stock. Is there a programme to replace mainline stations? Waterford, in particular, requires upgrading fairly quickly and some other stations are in poor condition.
The Minister referred to his public transport plan, which we all await, but has he brought it to the Cabinet sub-committee? He said he was going to do so in early March. Has he received Cabinet approval for the plan? When does he expect to announce details of the plan?
The query concerning railway stations is probably outside the scope of this question.
We have just completed a €100 million upgrade of Connolly Station but the Deputy is correct in stating that a number of stations throughout the country are in need of refurbishment. Planning is ongoing within Iarnród Éireann to upgrade such stations. It is only right because people should have a good experience in using public transport — not just the vehicles but also the facilities with which they interact. The investment programme will continue. I subscribe fully to the Deputy's views on Waterford Station which badly needs upgrading.
Let us deal with Dublin first.
What about the public transport plan?
I brought the broad outline of the plan to the Cabinet sub-committee where it was discussed. I have not gone back to Cabinet with it but I plan to do so soon.
10 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Transport the position regarding recent developments at Aer Lingus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5537/05]
29 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Transport when a decision on the future funding options for Aer Lingus is expected; his views on whether the delay in taking this decision is having a negative impact on the future financial viability of the airline; the outcome of his recent discussions with Aer Lingus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9705/05]
125 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Transport the position in regard to the future of Aer Lingus; if recent arrangements have been entered into in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9924/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 29 and 125 together.
I refer the Deputies to my reply to Question No. 2 today. Last Tuesday, I briefed my Cabinet colleagues on a number of key aviation issues, including the future of Aer Lingus. In the interests of the airline, I am anxious to move forward on this issue as a matter of urgency. Aer Lingus must be provided with the flexibility to grow and compete on a level playing field.
The current situation is not sustainable and restricts the airline, particularly with regard to profitable growth opportunities on long haul routes. To fund that growth and provide financial security, Aer Lingus must have access to the full range of funding mechanisms and equity capital is a critical element in that mix. Early clarity on realistic options for accessing that equity is crucial and I will bring specific proposals in this regard to Government shortly. I will continue to consult stakeholders as I move forward on this issue.
If the Government decides to embark on a sale of all or part of Aer Lingus, I will set out for the House, in accordance with the provisions of the Aer Lingus Act 2004, the general principles of the proposed sale as well as the basis for the Government's decision and the arguments for and against such a sale. I will also set out how the Government proposes to deal with important strategic issues.
First, does the Minister accept that Aer Lingus has made a major contribution to the economy and the country generally as an island nation? Does he accept there is a danger that we might lose that contribution? Second, does the Minister agree that the staff of Aer Lingus made considerable sacrifices to contribute to the company? Does he agree that they deserve support and credit, and that it was not just one person who turned the company around? Third, does the Minister accept that Members of the House and elected public representatives, particularly in north Dublin city and county, as well as nationally, have major problems with privatisation? They are concerned that others want privatisation for its own sake rather than dealing with the real world.
With regard to aviation policy, who is the Minister talking about when he refers to the stakeholders?
I put on record the answer to a number of the Deputy's questions when answering Deputy Shortall. I accept that Aer Lingus has made a significant contribution to Ireland, nationally and internationally. As the Taoiseach, the Government and I have stated on many occasions, the unions, the board, the former chief executive and others have achieved the turnaround of that airline. It was the result of much hard work and is an ongoing process.
My job is to make sure we progress Aer Lingus into the future. All of the stakeholders — the social partners, trade unions, the management, the board and the Government — are ad idem in accepting that Aer Lingus needs substantial investment quickly to take advantage of the huge opportunities that exist. There is no disagreement on any side with regard to this fundamental point.
The issue is not just about investing and then walking away. Aer Lingus needs to compete on a level playing field with other airlines, which it is not in a position to do at present. I want to correct this. Aer Lingus has an opportunity to become a far more substantial airline, achieving far more for this country, if we make crucial and correct decisions now about placing it in the right shape for the future. I have been having discussions on this with the stakeholders for the past five months. I am glad these have been positive, open discussions.
Does the Minister consider the Airbus A330, which is used on transatlantic routes, a suitable replacement for existing aircraft given that many carriers are choosing smaller aircraft for those routes? For example, Continental Airlines uses a Boeing 757 with much less capacity.
The Minister stated there were opportunities for Aer Lingus to open new routes to 20 different destinations in the US. Are these year-round routes or seasonal? Given that Aer Lingus is a relatively small airline compared to US carriers, Lufthansa and British Airways, of which the former Aer Lingus chief executive is now chief executive, will it be able to compete against such mega-carriers on transatlantic routes?
The question on the operational matter of the type of aircraft is outside the scope of this question.
The Minister might get through it.
He might want to answer.
It is an operational matter on which I have no view. I trust those charged with that responsibility will make the best decision in the interests of the airline and passengers in terms of volume, scope and potential growth.
With regard to the final question, I am not presenting Aer Lingus as some kind of mega-global player trying to compete all over the world. I have identified specific markets where there are excellent opportunities for an Irish airline. I want that airline to be Aer Lingus, operating out of Ireland. I am determined that these opportunities be taken up by Aer Lingus and not any other airline. On that basis, it can compete on transatlantic and other routes. However, completion of all of the business planning, within the company and other companies, is crucial to that success.
The Minister stated in his initial reply that when Cabinet takes the decision he will bring all the information to the House on the basis for the decision and the arguments for and against. However, the arguments for and against should be provided at this point. The Minister speaks of being involved in negotiations with the stakeholders. All the Members present, as public representatives, are stakeholders; we represent the public interest and the taxpayer who currently owns this successful company.
The Minister has a responsibility to make the arguments in the House for and against any proposed change in the ownership structure of Aer Lingus. The main purpose of my Priority Question was to draw out the Minister on this point and get him to make the arguments. Let us have a discussion to try to establish the company's needs into the future, the best ways of meeting those needs, the most appropriate structure for this and how the strategic interests of the country can be safeguarded. That discussion should be in public. There is a range of views on this issue and much merit in the different proposals.
A question, please.
The Minister should consider allowing time for this matter prior to any final decision being taken by Cabinet because we all have a legitimate interest, as representatives of taxpayers, in discussing this in an open and objective manner.
The Deputy should confine herself to the question.
Will the Minister provide an opportunity for us to do this?
The Deputy might accept that I have gone a long way to putting as much of the information on the record as I can.
The Minister has not put any of it on the record.
What I cannot do is undermine the opportunities for Aer Lingus by airing them all over the place.
The Minister should stop hiding behind that excuse.
Deputy Shortall should allow the Minister to answer without interruption.
There are serious commercial opportunities and financial mechanisms sensitive to Aer Lingus, including the value of the company. We all accept that Aer Lingus should maximise these issues.
The Minister is hiding. Let us have a public debate.
With all due respect, it is of no benefit to the workers and management to have Members speculating on speculative figures that may be completely meaningless until we get to the crunch point of getting the company into the market. I must listen to staff, management, other experts and the market. There is much evidence on this issue. The Deputy is experienced and well read in these matters, and she knows the opportunities that exist. I want to make sure we create opportunities for the company to seize. The chairman of Aer Lingus, the trade unions directly involved and the social partners all accept there are huge opportunities for the company and that it needs substantial capital to begin this process immediately.
There are different views on this.
There are.
The Joint Committee on Transport heard the basic argument for a private sector investment on the basis that long-haul aeroplanes had to be replaced. There was no business secrecy; it was a simple fact. It would cost about €1 billion and we questioned from where the money would come.
I support Deputy Shortall's point. The Minister said he had talked to the stakeholders — the unions and social partners in the partnership process. We live in a democracy. The Members of this House represent the people. We are the representative stakeholders. If the Minister can talk to the unions and social partners, and if there is a basic question about funding for replacement of the long-haul fleet, regardless of any commercial sensitivities--——
A question, please.
Deputy Shortall is correct. In those circumstances, why should we not debate the basic principle, as stated by Deputy Finian McGrath?
Perhaps my maths is poor but it was reported we would get perhaps €300 million for selling the company, a figure that could be wrong by perhaps €50 million either way. We know that roughly €1 billion is required for the replacement argued for at committee by the chairman of the company. This leaves a gap of €700 million. Would private sector investors borrow to pay for the long haul aircraft? If so, where is the benefit? Are we doing all this for €300 million? Could we not borrow the full €1 billion ourselves? The Minister says the airline is threatened with becoming uncompetitive due to operational problems. It is one of the most profitable and successful airlines in the world. Why are we selling a stake for €300 million when the company needs €1 billion? Will the gap be bridged by private lending and why do we not borrow the money ourselves?
If Aer Lingus ends up only investing that much, it will have failed in its opportunities. That goes nowhere near what the potential opportunities for the company are.
I will correct one item which may be misunderstood. There are 21 airport destinations in North America interested in having Aer Lingus flying in to them. I have not said that Aer Lingus wants to fly to all 21 destinations. There are subtle differences involved which I will not go into because clearly there are commercially valuable routes which I will not flag to other airlines which are equally interested in them.
The following is very important. Before we give opportunities to other companies which are competitors to Aer Lingus, I want Aer Lingus to have those opportunities first. That is what we should all be striving to achieve. This is not about playing with figures. It is about positioning one of the most important companies in this country for significant growth in jobs and in the Irish economy.
It will need more than the €50 million——
Deputy, there were 12 minutes allowed for this question and we went to 14 minutes.
11 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he has satisfied himself that his Department’s road safety strategy is operating successfully; if not, if he is considering introducing additional measures in view of the increase in the number of road deaths in 2004 and 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9709/05]
The Government's Road Safety Strategy 2004-2006 sets a primary target of a 25% reduction in road collision fatalities by the end of 2006 over the average annual number of fatalities in the 1998-2003 period. Achievement of the target will result in no more than 300 deaths per annum by the end of the period of the strategy. This is an ambitious target and one which will require a strategic, integrated approach by all of the road safety agencies.
Unfortunately we have seen a greater number of road deaths in 2004 than the previous year with provisional end of year figures for 2004 showing 380 deaths on the roads. So far this year we have seen an increase in the number of road deaths with 89 deaths on the roads as at 21 March compared with 85 for the same date last year. The recent increase in road deaths is a cause of concern to us all. This places the challenge of meeting the target set for the end of 2006 into stark focus. If we are to realise that target, a significant reversal of the worrying trend that has been noticeable since early 2004 must be achieved.
Achievement of the target depends in the first instance on a continued emphasis on the approach that underpins the strategy. A major independent review of the previous strategy confirms that basing the primary target on the achievement of progress in the areas of speeding, drink driving and seat belt wearing remains the correct approach and these remain the key areas of the new strategy.
The strategy proposes a range of measures in the enforcement, engineering, education and legislation areas in order to target further reductions in deaths and injuries. An integrated strategic approach will ensure that the road safety agencies work together to achieve the targets set out in the new strategy.
A critical initiative that will have a significant impact on road safety is the establishment of the new Garda traffic corps. The establishment of a dedicated corps of gardaí, as announced late last year by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, under a distinct management structure within the overall force will provide for the significant enhancement of the deterrent effect that emanates from high levels of traffic law enforcement.
Will the Minister outline if funding is allocated this year for the Garda traffic corps? Can he comment on the AGSI conference held yesterday where some gardaí said there was significant pressure on them to produce high levels of speeding offence detections? Does the Minister think gardaí are catching the right people? Does he think they are catching the culprits?
I thank gardaí for all the work they do in road safety but the specifics of the questions are clearly a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
