Vol. 610 No. 6
1 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport his views on the impact of the reformed bilateral aviation agreement between Ireland and the US on Irish airlines and airports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36200/05]
As I have stated in the House on many previous occasions, it is clear that an EU-US open skies agreement is inevitable and I am delighted with the successful conclusion of the negotiations in Washington last week that bring open skies even closer. I expect that all member states will find the contents of the draft agreement to be acceptable and that the only issue left to be considered before finally approving the agreement will be the outcome of US moves on revising its policy on control of US airlines by foreign airlines or investors. The final position of the US is likely to be known in the early months of 2006 and I expect this will allow EU-US open skies to come into effect in November 2006.
The impact of open skies on Irish airlines and airports will be positive. For Irish airlines, open skies will give them access to every city in the US and enable them to negotiate with different airports to obtain the best commercial deals for new services. Aer Lingus, for example, has stated that it expects to double its transatlantic passenger numbers in the first few years of open skies and that it has been approached by several US airports with a view to starting new services. The additional access to the US, as well as the increased numbers of US tourists into Ireland, will greatly benefit Irish tourism, aviation and business links generally.
This is the conclusion reached by a number of recent reports for the European Commission, the Minister of Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland, all of which support the move to open skies. Under open skies, each airport in Ireland that can physically receive transatlantic aircraft, including non-State owned airports, will be free to negotiate with Irish and US airlines for business. Another possibility the EU-US agreement will offer is that EU airlines will also be able to operate from Irish airports to the US and it will be a matter for Irish airports to draw in as many of the huge number of EU airlines as possible.
I have also been aware all along, however, that open skies will present challenges for Shannon and that transitional arrangements are needed to allow the airport to meet those challenges. I have at all times made it clear that Ireland's support for the EU-US open skies deal is contingent on a satisfactory transitional period for Shannon. For this reason, I travelled recently to Washington to secure such a transitional arrangement for Shannon, details of which I published on 11 November. That arrangement, which is folded into the EU-US agreement, will give Shannon Airport a total of two and a half years of Shannon stop arrangements before open skies is fully introduced in Ireland in April 2008. This additional time for Shannon will enable it to plan an orderly move to open skies and to explore how it can exploit the opportunities that open skies offers.
I have sought and obtained assurances from Aer Lingus that, in the context of a level playing field between the airline and its competitors, it will maintain the current level of transatlantic traffic, approximately 400,000 passengers per year, with regular year-round scheduled services between Shannon and Boston and New York.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
All of these transitional arrangements will allow Shannon Airport to plan the move to open skies in 2008 in an orderly way.
Over and above the transition secured for Shannon, the Government's recently approved €34 billion Transport 21 investment plan will greatly enhance the infrastructure of the Shannon region and broaden the catchment area of the airport. In addition to this, I propose to prepare an economic and tourism development plan in consultation with the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to ensure that Shannon Airport sustains and grows transatlantic air services.
Overall, I am pleased with the new opportunities that open skies will offer Irish airlines and airports. Open skies will mean even more prosperity for Ireland through increased services, tourism and trade links. I am convinced that the transitional arrangements secured for Shannon Airport means that, through its own proven resourcefulness, it will fully share in that prosperity.
I agree that open skies offers opportunities as well as challenges for airports and airlines in Ireland, the EU and the United States. We are most concerned about what is currently the State airline, Aer Lingus. If it is to compete for routes, it must be present from the outset or it will miss the boat. Aer Lingus hopes to capitalise on the opportunity for additional long-haul routes and is gearing up for this in terms of staffing.
Everything hinges on the availability of capital to buy new planes. Aer Lingus has lost value as a result of Government inaction and indecision in recent years but it is clawing its way back. It has the opportunity to prosper if it gains access to capital in time for the open skies opportunities. Can the Minister commit to a deadline of the third quarter of next year for access to capital and for privatisation by flotation or private placement? According to Aer Lingus, this is the last date possible if it is to capitalise on the opportunities.
I do not mind answering the Deputy but the matter about which she asks her supplementary is entirely different to that covered in Question No. 1. A question on capital investment in Aer Lingus will be dealt with later. This question is concerned with the EU-US aviation agreement.
My question concerns the implications for Irish airlines and airports. Aer Lingus is an Irish airline.
There will be another question on investment in Aer Lingus and I suggest that we wait until it is asked. We want to move quickly to secure investment for Aer Lingus because this is important for the new fleet. Three criteria are always required when a public or private company goes to the market: that the market is in a good position, that the sector is healthy and that the company is in a good situation. My expectation is that all three criteria will be fulfilled next year.
I do not accept Deputy Olivia Mitchell's assertion that the value of the company has decreased substantially as a result of Government inaction. If we had been obliged to privatise the company three years ago, the value would have been much less. Good work has been done by management and unions over the past few years compared to other national airlines, many of which have closed and more of which will do so. Aer Lingus is probably the most successful of the traditional national carriers in the way it has turned its business around.
I am confident about the future of Aer Lingus, its staff and the potential customers in Ireland who would like to fly to destinations in the United States. A number of destinations in the United States are interested in having direct flights to Ireland with Aer Lingus. All of this is made possible through open skies. The conclusion of an EU-US open skies agreement enhances the value and attraction of Aer Lingus.
Has the Minister given his advisers a deadline for an interim report on the means of attracting equity capital?
That matter will arise later and I suggest we wait until the relevant question is dealt with.
I have no guarantee that the question will be reached. Priority Questions should be a priority. To what question is the Minister referring?
I will check.
Priority Questions Nos. 2 and 5 on today's Order Paper are shown in the name of Deputy Shortall. The Deputy is unavoidably absent and Deputy Broughan is substituting for her.
2 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if he will report on the implications for the banning of so-called super-trucks in view of the November 2005 European Court of Justice ruling on such bans; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36250/05]
The question refers to two different issues, namely, the super-truck, or super-cube, and the November 2005 European Court of Justice ruling. Although the Deputy does not quote the reference, I presume the question refers to the weight issue. There is a distinction between height and weight.
EU law permits member states to have national weight and dimension limits for road vehicles provided they are not in conflict with European law. I understand the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice, to which the Deputy's question refers, relates to the prohibition by the Austrian authorities on the use of certain motor vehicles over 7.5 tonnes in weight on a section of motorway in the Tyrol region. I understand that this limit was lower than that the weight limit specified in the relevant EU directive on vehicle weights and dimensions.
The issue I am considering relates to the possible reintroduction of a statutory maximum height for vehicles in excess of a limit of four metres which is the current threshold at or below which the free circulation of vehicles within the European Union must be permitted by member states. In the event that it is decided to reintroduce a statutory height restriction for vehicles, it will be necessary to submit the draft regulations to the European Commission for consideration and for referral to other member states in accordance with the Technical Standards and Regulations Directive 98/34.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister and the Minister of State for agreeing to allow me to substitute for Deputy Shortall who could not be in the House today.
The Minister of State has said he is giving consideration to a regulation on statutory weight and maximum height. His predecessor, Deputy McDaid, told the Labour Party, in answer to a parliamentary question three or four years ago, that the Government was drawing up proposals to regulate the maximum height of vehicles. Much research has already been done on this issue. Why have we not seen that research and why are we having this debate? Is it the case that the Minister and Minister of State have caved in to lobbying by specific interest groups to prevent such regulation being brought forward?
The recent EU ruling on the Austrian, Italian border issue clearly indicates that restrictions may be justified by imperatives relating to the protection of the environment and the court stressed that point. Therefore, does the Minister of State agree that he has power, both at Irish and EU level, to bring forward necessary regulations in this regard?
Will the Minister of State inform the House how many EU countries have regulations on the height and weight of vehicles and what they are? What is the general pattern across Europe?
The Taoiseach was reported in the media as saying that the contents of the EU ruling do not apply to us. Did the Minister, Deputy Cullen, or the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, discuss this matter with the Taoiseach before he made his remarks?
What does the Minister of State believe should happen with the types of vehicles that will be permitted on the roads of our capital city? Both the Minister and I have served on Dublin City Council and I am interested in his view on the numbers of axles, weight and height allowed following the opening of the Dublin Port tunnel.
Deputy Broughan has asked a series of questions and I will try to answer them as best I can.
On the Dublin Port tunnel and the proposal for a HGV management plan, Deputy Broughan is quite correct in that the matter rests with Dublin City Council on which both of us once served. The office of the director of traffic is working on proposals for an appropriate HGV management——
Will the Minister of State ask the new director of traffic, and I presume there will be a new director of traffic, to bring this issue forward urgently?
Yes, it is my understanding that work is ongoing on this issue. The Deputy will appreciate it is my desire and that of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, to have the plan in place for the opening of the tunnel, which we hope will be in the early part of 2006.
With regard to the issue, as Deputy Broughan put it, of Government withdrawing regulations on HGV——
I referred to the drawing up of regulations and that Deputy McDaid, the former Minister of State, said he would do so.
My good colleague and friend, Deputy McDaid, was doing a number of things in the Department. I am not too sure if he was in the Department at the time, but a HGV order was made in 1991 which had to be revoked in July of 2000. The Deputy will appreciate that where we put in place a regulation, whether on height or weight, we want to ensure we do not find ourselves in a situation where we bring forward a regulation and revoke it at a later date, as we have done previously. I want to ensure we proceed appropriately, correctly and consider related issues, including business competitiveness, rail safety, road safety, environmental considerations and the protection of our existing, costly infrastructure.
What of our European colleagues?
I have a list of 18 or 19 countries. The maximum height allowed in countries such as Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey is four metres. Having said that, I should draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that the UK which, as one would appreciate given its proximity, is one of our bigger trading partners, does not have a height restriction. These are the issues I am trying to consider.
3 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Transport when he intends to implement a single body with ultimate responsibility for road safety. [35795/05]
The road safety authority will be the single body with responsibility for road safety. Work on the process of establishing the authority is well advanced in my Department.
The authority's functions will include those undertaken by my Department relating to driver testing, driver licensing, vehicle standards, certain functions relating to the road haulage industry, the road safety functions undertaken by the National Safety Council and certain functions relating to accident research and statistics undertaken by the National Roads Authority. The authority will also have responsibility for the regulation of driving instruction, the introduction of compulsory basic training for motorcyclists and the introduction of vocational training for professional drivers in the transport industry.
The Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill 2004 has completed Second Stage in the Dáil. Amendments to the Bill are being drafted to give effect to the wider functions being assigned to the authority and the Bill is to be renamed the Road Safety Authority Bill 2004.
A project team is in place in my Department to progress the establishment of the authority. Issues relating to staffing, the organisational structure and the financial arrangements for the new authority are being dealt with by the project team in consultation with the staff associations and the Department of Finance.
I expect that the authority will be established on a statutory footing in 2006. However, in the interim I am arranging that the necessary structures be developed with the support of the acting chief executive who has already been appointed. Pending the establishment of the authority, I propose to appoint an interim board shortly to facilitate the transitional phase of the establishment process.
The Minister referred to 2006 but can he tell us whether the authority will be established early in that year? We are all conscious, particularly at this time of the year, of carnage on the roads and in recent weeks there have been a high number of road deaths.
In bringing all the bodies together, we must be conscious of the need to target different types of road accidents. In that context, the Minister has spoken in the past of a dedicated traffic corps. Does he see that as part of the bringing together of various road safety bodies? Will the road safety authority have any role in the proposed dedicated traffic corps?
There is more traffic on the roads and people are more stressed as a result. How does the Minister see the authority functioning? How many people does he envisage will be on the board, how often will it meet and to whom will it report directly? Will it be a separate body and will Deputies be able to ask questions of the Minister relating to the authority?
The Deputy asked if we will see the road safety authority early in 2006 and the answer is "Yes". The amendments are with the Parliamentary Counsel. I hope the process is completed as soon as possible and it is my intention to return to the House with all of the amendments in 2006, prior to which I will forward them to all Opposition spokespersons for their perusal but their content has been well flagged.
A project team is working through some of the issues of scale and resources raised by the Deputy which will become clear when I receive the report and introduce the Bill. I also want to set up the board on an interim basis to begin working through some of the issues involved. I also wish to complete the discussions on the backlog in driving tests in the next 18 months.
The Garda traffic corps is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and an integral part of the road safety strategy. I announced yesterday that the Garda Commissioner intended to increase the number in the corps by 50% in 2006, which I welcome. The corps will make a significant contribution to road safety but has no functions directly related to the Road Safety Authority. In their primary function as gardaí, members of the corps come under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
4 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport the progress made by his Department in developing a public transport commission; the date same will be operational; the functions and duties of the commission; if the introduction of competition into the Dublin bus market will be prioritised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36201/05]
At the launch of Transport 21, I said I was convinced that we needed a new approach to transport in the greater Dublin area, delivered through a single authority with the power to ensure joined-up thinking and delivery across all transport modes. In pursuit of this objective I have appointed a team chaired by Professor Margaret O'Mahony to finalise the remit, structures and human resource requirements of the proposed authority. When considering the remit of the authority, I have asked the team to have regard to the importance of timely and effective implementation of the Transport 21 investment programme in the greater Dublin area, delivering an integrated transport system and ensuring effective inter-agency co-operation and co-ordination.
In modernising the regulatory framework governing public transport there is also a need to ensure proposals in that regard are coherent with the institutional arrangements being made for the implementation of Transport 21, particularly in the greater Dublin area. I will review how best to proceed with public transport reform and the proposal for a public transport commission after Professor O'Mahony's team has reported and the Government has made decisions on the proposed transport authority for the greater Dublin area.
I am thoroughly confused. I received a reply from the Minister to a parliamentary question a couple of months ago to the effect that he had moved away from the idea of a Dublin transportation authority. He mentioned a transport commission and then announced a Dublin transportation authority. I wonder what is in and what is out. Will the remit of the Dublin transportation authority merely be to deliver Transport 21, the driving force behind infrastructural projects? Who will organise the competitive tendering process for the liberalisation of the bus market and provide public service contracts? Every time there is a problem a new body seems to be set up. We now have the promised transport commission, the Dublin transportation authority, the RPA procuring rail services, the Dublin Transportation Office and the Quality Bus Network Office, apart from local authorities and everybody else who organises the delivery of transport services. Is there any chance of rationalisation? What plans are in place to liberalise the bus market and when?
The Deputy is correct about what I said some months ago but that was related to a structure proposed a few years ago for a greater Dublin authority. What I am now proposing has no connection with it whatsoever.
Which is what?
The proposal of my predecessor, which he ultimately decided against, was to set up to a greater Dublin land use authority. I will not go down that road.
What does the Minister now propose — a transport commission or a Dublin transportation authority?
I am answering the Deputy's first question about a question I answered some time ago.
The Minister is proposing two things.
It is consistent with what I am now saying. The Deputy is correct to say there is a range of bodies involved in all aspects of the delivery of transport services in Dublin. Everybody was agreed it was time to rationalise that state of affairs. That is why I invited somebody with the skills and international standing of Professor Margaret O'Mahony to look into it. She has discussed many of the issues with me and did not want to be restricted in any way. Accordingly, I gave her a blank sheet of paper and asked her and her three-person establishment team to adopt a holistic approach to all the issues involved and report back to me. I was open to this because she had good ideas and a deep knowledge of all the issues involved. I do not want to pre-empt what the establishment team will come back to me with on the future delivery of all aspects of public transport services in Dublin.
I am as confused now as I was before the Minister started to speak. Who will be in charge of liberalising the bus market in Dublin? The Minister and his predecessors have promised this for at least nine years, during which time negotiations with Dublin Bus have been ongoing. When will he stop negotiating and take action? It will be years before Transport 21 will deliver its major infrastructural projects but buses can be delivered quickly, at minimum cost and with minimum disruption. They are not a total but an interim solution. A decision must be made. Is the new body headed up by Professor O'Mahony to deliver infrastructure or will she be, in effect, the regulator for Dublin Bus?
All of the issues about which the Deputy has asked me and more are being looked at by Professor O'Mahony and her team to see if all the bodies involved can be amalgamated into one. This may or may not be possible but Professor O'Mahony rightly asked not to be circumscribed in what she could look at. There are many inter-connecting issues in trying to deliver an integrated public transport system. I will not pre-empt the outcome of Professor O'Mahony's report but all of the issues raised by the Deputy and more are part of the pofessor's remit and she will report back to me in a short time.
If he does not know what the body will do, can the Minister, at least, say if he is committed to a competitive tendering process for the acquisition of buses in Dublin? If so, when?
I am committed to opening the market in Dublin and have made this clear to all stakeholders. In fairness to them, they all accept that the time has come for the market to be opened. To give further weight to that statement, over €529 million will be provided for the acquisition of additional buses in Dublin alone, with some €250 million being provided for the rest of the country. A significant capital amount will also be allocated under Transport 21 for the same purpose.
5 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport the way in which he proposes to open up the rail freight market to competition; his policy in relation to the subsidisation of rail freight operations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36251/05]
The rail freight market is to be opened to competition from 1 January 2006, in the case of international freight, and from 1 January 2007 for domestic freight operations. Liberalisation is in accordance with the terms of Directive 2004/51/EC on the development of the Community's railways. Significant progress has been made on the transposition of this directive and I will be finalising the matter in the coming weeks.
My Department has already transposed a number of EU directives as preliminary steps for the liberalisation of the rail freight market. These include mechanisms for the licensing of rail operators and the allocation and charging for track access. While no formal applications have yet been received for a railway undertaking licence or track access, my Department has received a communication from an operator stating its intention to establish itself as a freight operator in Ireland. I welcome this development.
In respect of the subsidisation of rail freight, my policy priority remains that additional Exchequer funding should be focused on the expansion of passenger services. For example, a significant additional subvention will be required to expand bus services in Dublin and provincial cities under Transport 21. Expanding public transport passenger services to address increasing travel times and relieving road congestion provides better value for Exchequer funds. However, I am open to considering proposals for interested parties on any innovative or new approaches to rail freight which offers value for money, where a real and tangible return on Exchequer investment can be demonstrated and which compares favourably with investment in passenger services.
Is it a fact that the 2003 strategic rail review set out four policy options for the development of rail freight? Is it also the case that throughout the time the Minister has been in the Department he steadfastly refused to set out which of the policy options he favours? Is it also a fact that less than 2.5% of the country's freight is transported by rail, even though rail freight is four times cheaper in its overall impact on the economy than other modes of transport? The Minister has been lethargic in this area. He said that he wants to put resources into passenger rail transport but he has no plans for freight.
Is there a percentage target for rail freight transport in the future because it is time to take a proactive approach in this regard? The Minister said there is one expression of interest in this area. Given that Iarnród Éireann is the operator of the network — this refers to my Fine Gael colleague's comments on Dublin — how does the Minister see this operating? Is he considering the establishment of a transport regulator? Is this what Professor O'Mahony suggested? Is there a conflict of interest between the incumbent operator and any new operators?
How will charges for rail freight and the pricing framework be worked out under SI 643 on liberalisation? Will we end up in the same boat as bus licensing? The Minister said there has been an expression of interest in this issue. How can he avoid the danger of an operator getting a profitable piece of network or a slot in a busy network, selling his or her interest and making a pot of money and the operation ceases? The Minister of State, Deputy Callely, who represents the north side of Dublin will be aware of a major bus company which got valuable road space, disappeared off the network and no longer operates a transport service.
The Minister who has a grave responsibility to the House to provide a dynamic policy in this area has been incredibly lethargic. Up to now his policy has been a message in a bottle policy to the industry. He has not been proactive and he is not doing his job in this regard.
While the Deputy made a great speech, I am not sure what he asked me.
I asked five difficult questions.
The Deputy misunderstands how rail freight operates. There is a problem in this country in this regard. In terms of freight going onto rail, it usually works over long distances carrying heavy bulk, which is not Ireland. This is part of the problem.
I will give the Deputy an example. In the past 12 months, a major shipping company persuaded Iarnród Éireann to put on extra rail journeys to carry a substantial amount of cargo to a port. In fairness to Iarnród Éireann, it decided that as it was a very innovative and excellent request it would provide the service in a cost-efficient manner. This was all said publicly by the private operator. However, the private operator had to admit that the project was an entire failure because the private sector companies were not interested. They could not persuade private sector companies to put their product on rail freight, even though Iarnród Éireann provided the service at great cost. We must not say that Iarnród Éireann has not been innovative in trying to provide new services.
I am talking about the Minister.
By EU agreement and under law, the market is being deregulated. In 2006, the international services carriages will be deregulated, and from 2007, the Irish market will be deregulated. A significant player has already indicated that it is interested in entering the Irish market, which I welcome. My role is as a regulator. I would not like to have that role in the future, whereas Iarnród Éireann has control of the access to the hard infrastructure. This must be and is being worked out well in advance of deregulation.
I would be pleased to see an increasing amount of goods off roads and being transported on rail. However, it is not as simple as it is presented and international experience confirms this.
