On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, this is the eight or ninth Question Time in a row that you have ruled out approximately ten of my questions, one of which relates to European Investment Bank funding of metro north. That was announced——
Priority Questions
Deputy.
I wish to make the point. It was announced on the Department of Transport's website and the Minister issued a statement on the matter. It is extraordinary that you, a Cheann Comhairle, are refusing to allow me to ask questions on all of the agencies under the aegis of the Department of Transport which are the nuts and bolts of the transport portfolio.
We may have to review Standing Orders. Deputy Broughan is aware of the difficulties we have in this general area. We will proceed.
Is there anything you can do about this a Cheann Comhairle because it is debilitating for the Opposition? Under Standing Orders, part of your role is to protect me and Deputy O'Dowd. You are not doing that.
We need a lot of protection right now.
And me.
I seek your protection a Cheann Comhairle and some guidance on the matter. I cannot ask important questions for my party. It is reducing Question Time to a bit of a farce.
We will not have a discussion on the matter but if Deputy Broughan calls to the office we can provide clarification.
State Airports
Fergus O'Dowd
Question:33 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Transport the discussions he has had with the Department of Finance regarding the selling off of the Dublin Airport Authority, and if he would make a statement on the matter. [27258/10]
I have not had any discussions with the Minister for Finance with regard to selling off any of the assets of the Dublin Airport Authority, nor do I have any plans in that regard. As an island nation, with a peripheral location, our access infrastructure is of vital strategic importance to our economy. Our airports have a critical role in supporting economic development by facilitating trade, tourism and inward investment. Their operation as State agencies, albeit operating to a commercial mandate, ensures that investment decisions take account of the wider national interest in a way that could not readily be guaranteed were they under private ownership. Any future consideration of the possible privatisation or part-privatisation of these assets would have to include the question of whether it would be possible to design a regulatory framework that could be effective in protecting the wider national interest.
The last part of the reply seems to indicate that the Minister would consider selling off the Dublin Airport Authority given certain guarantees on regulation. An article by Pat Leahy in The Sunday Business Post dated 13 June states that proposals for a broad asset sale are being drawn up in the Department of Finance without being discussed by the relevant Ministers. Is the Minister aware of any such report or has he read the article? If he has, what are his views on it? Serious issues arise about the Dublin Airport Authority, its monopoly and the fact that it has three airports under its wing. It has been suggested that they ought to be independent of the DAA. I would appreciate the Minister’s answer to those questions, especially whether he is aware of the report, has read it or if he has been consultedon it.
My answer to those questions is the same as the reply I outlined. I have not had any discussions on selling off State assets, especially not the Dublin Airport Authority. I do not have any plans to have any such discussions. I have not read the article to which the Deputy referred and I am not aware of it. The reference in the reply to future consideration was merely information for the Deputy. He should not read anything at all into it. I am not in favour of selling off an important State asset such as the Dublin Airport Authority. There are strategic national reasons we should own such strategic infrastructure. A privatised Dublin Airport, for instance, would have little incentive to pre-fund runway or terminal capacity or to provide a range of services to meet the needs of prospective rather than existing users, unless as I said, mechanisms were built into the regulatory framework that are not there at the moment. We should learn lessons from past events such as the sale of all of Eircom's then assets which left us in a poor position to implement State and Government policy. I would be very reluctant to go down that road with airports. I do not think it would be a good idea.
One of the criticisms parties such as Ryanair make of the DAA is that it is not competitive enough and that its price structure is not competitive enough. Issues arise also about terminal 2 which will now be run by the DAA. I accept that is part of a later question on a lack of competition. A significant number of international airlines that work out of Dublin have not as yet agreed to move into terminal 2. Serious questions arise about the DAA's monopoly. It is losing money hand over fist and it is not competitive. There ought to be some room for breaking up the company in certain respects. Does the Minister have a view on the breaking up of the company? Even if the company is retained in State ownership there could be different parts with separate accountability from the DAA.
I do not accept propaganda by Ryanair on the matter. Any objective assessment of the Dublin Airport Authority clearly indicates that the airport charges there are in accordance with the EU average and probably a little bit below that. The attitude of a private firm such as Ryanair is precisely why I would not like to go down the route of having a privatised Dublin Airport. As far as I can see the private sector would only be interested in profit. It would not be interested in the good name of Ireland and the impression that might be given to first-time visitors to this country. The airport is the first place they see in the country. That would not enter into the reckoning for a private sector company. It would be a case of how it could maximise the profits from the asset.
Reference has been made to Dublin Airport being a monopoly. There is only one airport in Dublin. It does not make much sense to think one can have three or four operators there. We tried to ensure that the terminals would operate as separate entities but that was not successful. We now have to depend on the regulation of the Commission for Aviation Regulation to try to ensure the situation is competitive. In fairness to the Dublin Airport Authority, it has produced a profit for the State on a regular basis. The details are provided in reply to a later question which I will not anticipate. The DAA has served the State well.
On the question of whether there should be one company or three companies, that is due for review in 2011.
Public Transport
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:34 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport if the T21 programme is now in crisis, with major delays to critical projects including the Dublin rail interconnector, phase 2 of western rail corridor; metro west; the Luas interconnector and the full Navan Rail line; if he will confirm his commitment to the necessary current and capital funding in Budget 2011 for these public transport infrastructure projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27040/10]
Substantial progress has been made on Transport 21 since 2006. The five major inter-urban motorways and the M50 upgrade will be completed this year. The Irish Rail fleet has been renewed. The Cork to Midleton line and the first phase of the western rail corridor have opened and the first phase of the Navan line will open later this year. The Kildare railway line has been upgraded and a number of new Dublin suburban stations have opened. The Luas docklands extension opened last December and Cherrywood and City West are well advanced. More than 500 buses have been purchased.
The Transport 21 investment framework runs until 2015. While not all of the projects originally identified in Transport 21 will be completed by 2015, no projects have been cancelled and Transport 21 continues to provide the strategic framework for capital spending on transport infrastructure into the future. The capital funding allocation for my Department for 2011 will be determined as part of the 2011 budget process.
Some days ago, serious concerns were expressed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, IBEC and representatives of the construction industry on the future of Transport 21 and key transport infrastructure projects. Does the Minister share their concern that funding simply will not be available from 2011 onwards?
During the last minutes of the Minister's last Question Time, he was very upset about a reported delay of three years that is to affect the interconnector. He had met the board of CIE that morning. Has he found out why the 3.5 year timetable for the interconnector has drifted to 5.5 years, thus postponing the completion date until 2018? What is happening in this regard? Is the Minister convinced Irish Rail has the capacity to deliver the interconnector, which is to be a major development for rail transport in the eastern region?
With regard to metro north, when does the Minister expect the tranche of €500 million from the European Investment Bank? Assuming metro north gets the green light in the next couple of months, as most expect, major funding will have to be provided for the preparatory works late in 2010 and throughout 2011. Has the Minister any estimates on this and what has he done about it?
What is happening with regard to phases 2 and 3 of the western rail corridor and the completion of the Navan line? Are they being put on the long finger?
With regard to capital spending under the transport Vote, the Minister secured €3.1 billion in 2008, €2.4 billion in 2009 and €2 billion this year. In 2008, 67% of the allocation was spent on roads. In 2009, it was 72% and it is to be 68% this year. Next year the roads programme, including the construction of the interurban routes, is coming to an end. We expected at this point to be able to direct the major funding towards public transport provision. Is it now the case that the money will simply not be available?
Has the Minister had lengthy discussions with the Minister for Finance about the necessity to maintain a major transport capital budget? We are told by the ESRI that if we spend €1 billion on infrastructure, it leads to an increase in GNP in the order of €0.5 billion. The cost benefit is quite clear. We should make the investment. How far has the Minister got in this regard and what can he tell us about these projects?
As the Deputy will no doubt be aware, to be able to spend money one has to have it. One has to make it and be in a position to borrow it. The Government's strategy over the past couple of years was to try to ensure we would be in such a position. We certainly do not have as much money now as we had two, three or four years ago. Within these constraints, we are spending this year €6.5 billion on capital infrastructure projects, a little over €2 billion of which is on transport projects. The budgetary process will determine what we spend on them next year.
I have laid out my priorities on transport. The two major projects I want to see advanced are the interconnector and the metro, which will take six years to complete rather than the three and a half years we talked about. Money is and will be required for both projects from this year on.
Ironically, the fact that the interconnector and metro will take longer than expected to complete, for environmental and design reasons, will ensure that the next phases of the western rail corridor and the Navan line will proceed on time and perhaps a little ahead of time. It is an ill wind than blows no good.
I constantly stress the importance of capital investment, the capital programme and the transport programme to my colleagues. Deputy Broughan is quite right in his reference to the spread of expenditure. Next year will see the last of the payments. While the motorway schemes will be completed in 2010, some payments pertaining to them will come out of the 2011 budget. From then on and given the coming on line of the metro and interconnector and the continuation of the electrification of the Kildare line, the pendulum will swing back in favour of public transport rather than roads. That will continue until 2015.
I noticed in the 2010 Estimates that a payment of approximately €66 million is being made in respect of PPPs. The Minister's civil servants told us when considering the Estimates that it is expected the payment will rise to approximately €600 million per annum as the big projects are developed over the years until 2015. Given that PPPs will be involved in some of the major public transport projects informed by the Minister's policy, what impact will this have on the budgetary position for 2011? Journalists talk about costs of €3 billion to €5 billion for metro north. Must this be the annual impact or will the costs be spread over 20, 30 or 40 years?
The repayments will be spread over a number of years. Some of the earlier projects had a repayment lifetime of 25 years while those for some of the later projects can be up to 40, 45 or even 50 years. We obtained approximately €2 billion from private sector investment in the roads system. It must be repaid over time. The discussion that will arise, certainly over the coming years, will concern whether it will be part of the normal Estimates process in the Vote of the Department of Transport or whether we should devise a mechanism whereby the money would be paid from the central Exchequer. This has not yet been decided. Either way, the money must be repaid. If it is to be paid by the Department of Transport, in the way repayments are made by the Departments of Education and Skills, and Health and Children, it must be provided for in the Estimates each year.
Airport Development Projects
Fergus O'Dowd
Question:35 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Transport if the failure to decide on a charge for passengers using terminal two is having an impact; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27259/10]
The Dublin Airport Authority has statutory responsibility for the operation of Dublin Airport.
While the Government mandated Dublin Airport Authority to develop terminal 2 and undertake the other elements of the current investment programme as part of a long-term strategy for investing in the airport's capacity, airport operational issues such as the number of airlines that will use terminal 2 are the responsibility of the Dublin Airport Authority.
With regard to a charge for passengers using terminal 2, the Commission for Aviation Regulation regulates airport charges levied at Dublin Airport.
The key problem is that terminal 2 cost over €600 million to build. The Minister commenced an operation in his Department to have competitive tendering for the right to run the terminal. In that context, Dublin Airport Authority did not have to go through the initial phase. It entered at the second stage and was in a position to compete against any player successful in the first phase. At least three significant international players in airport management, many of whose airports are much bigger than Dublin Airport, entered the first phase but none of them came through the process. This meant Dublin Airport Authority had no competitor to take on the running of terminal 2. Will the Minister clarify whether he then decided that if a sufficiently strong business case could be put to the authority by the Department, he would fix or agree on an operational cost? The key point is this: there is no clarity about how many international airlines will use terminal 2 and we must get a return for our money. How can the Minister drive that agenda forward given the monopoly position of Dublin Airport Authority which, without competition, will decide what it will charge?
There is a fundamental misunderstanding in that Dublin Airport Authority, much as it would like to, does not decide what it will charge.
It must present a plan.
It presents the plan. The regulator forensically goes through the plan and decides, on the basis of it, what he will allow to be charged against the cost, what expenses are allowed, whether it is being operated in an efficient manner or whether there is "fat" in the system, etc. After every determination — I have been in this position for a couple of them — the airport is never satisfied and the airlines are never satisfied. At this stage, it is probably reasonable to argue that the regulator gets it reasonably right. If Dublin Airport Authority is inefficient or ineffective, the regulator is there to ensure that it does not get rewarded for that.
In fairness to Dublin Airport Authority's management and union, they have sat down and agreed new fairly radical work practices, changes, etc., which make their operations much more effective and they will be carrying those practices into terminal 2. In a situation where there is only one airport, it is regulated and the regulator looks after the competition element.
On the competition that was run, the method chosen was to ask the Dublin Airport Authority to give its price, to ask others to bid and if another's price was cheaper than the Dublin Airport Authority, if the other had a legal bid in, then the other would get it automatically.
We did not get beyond the first stage of that, as I explained previously in this House. Deputy O'Dowd is correct that there were quite a number of operators who applied for this, but none of them met the financial or other criteria laid down. I had no choice but to make the decision to allow Dublin Airport Authority confirm to me that it could do this within the regulated price, and at this stage it has done so.
The point is encapsulated in what the Minister stated. He acknowledged, as we all do, that there were international players and it does not make sense that they failed the test they were put through. I am not saying there was anything but a bone fide assessment of that. It does not make sense that people who run multiple international airports right around the world did not pass an assessment. None of them passed it. That does not make sense when they are already doing the job elsewhere. I am not suggesting there was anything mischievous or wrong in the assessment or the tests themselves.
It does not make sense that none of these guys could get through. We do not know the prices they quoted. We do not know whether or not these major international companies would have been cheaper than the DAA. That is the crux of the issue, that after all of this process there is no competition and we do not know why these major international companies fell at a particular fence. As I understand it, although I do not have full knowledge of this, it was not on their ability to run an airport, their financial structure or their organisational capacity that they did not pass. It does not make sense.
I would be concerned at the present situation. Notwithstanding the regulator, how can one benchmark a company that is a State monopoly? Against what is the regulator benchmarking the DAA, except the operation of these private companies in other international airports? It is a mess and the problem is there is an inadequate number of other airlines who would use it for international travel and they are not committed to going into it as a result.
To my knowledge, there are no legal contracts entered into in the case of terminal 2 but that is only because discussions have not terminated.
On Deputy O'Dowd's other point, this process was an unusually one, not one on which people have a firm grasp. We had independent advisers advising us on this. We set down a certain number of criteria which bidders had to meet in order to be able to submit a tender. It did not get to the tender stage. They had to satisfy what was like an expression of interest for the tender.
While some of the companies of which we speak were involved in running airports in other countries, in some cases the financial backup was not being provided by these international companies to the companies or sub-companies which were bidding, and financial criteria did play a large part in this in that we were not satisfied.
Some of them were among the biggest companies in the world.
It is no good that they are the biggest companies in the world if one has no recourse to their finances. If one of the big international operators submitted an expression of interest in this, and it was the international branch of the firm that did so, I am sure it would have met the financial criteria, but that is not the way they did it. They had subsidiary companies bidding and some of them did not meet the financial criteria. The criteria they had to meet were clearly laid out and none of them met the criteria. There was no choice in this. Deputy O'Dowd is not privy to the detail of it, but they did not meet the criteria. Particularly with the strong advice that I got, there was no way that I could ignore criteria set down that were independently adjudicated on. Once the criteria were not met, one could not go ahead with the tender.
Public Transport
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:36 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport if he has been briefed by Dublin Bus on their Network Direct project to revise the bus network in the greater Dublin area; if he is concerned that the revised network and loss of a further 90 buses from the Dublin Bus fleet may leave some commuters particularly senior citizens and communities who are very dependent on the bus service at a serious disadvantage; if he will review the impact of the cutbacks to Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus services and routes on commuters and bus dependent communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27041/10]
I have been briefed by Dublin Bus on the strategic overview of the bus network review.
The objective of the redesign of the Dublin Bus network is to provide current and future bus customers with a service that will be modern, accessible, integrated, easy to understand, punctual and frequent.
The redesign, which will commence in July 2010 and proceed on a phased basis at two to three month intervals, will deliver real and tangible benefits to the vast majority of bus users. These benefits include: an improved traffic flow in the city centre; a doubling of the number of services with a frequency of ten minutes or better; 60% of customers will be served by high frequency services as opposed to 23% at present; a reduced layover of buses in the city centre resulting in improved traffic flows and an enhanced city centre environment; increased interchange opportunities with DART, and heavy and light rail; and more cross-city services.
The redesigned network will be supported by complimentary measures such as integrated ticketing and real-time passenger information.
These measures will result in the provision of high quality and efficient public bus services and reflect the commitment of the company to deliver better services at better value to the customer and taxpayer.
It is a matter for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, within the resources available to them from fare revenue and from the National Transport Authority for loss making public service obligation services, to decide on service levels and changes to services.
Obviously, the management of Dublin Bus has briefed a number of Deputies and the Minister on these changes. The public generally is still gravely concerned. First and foremost, it seems difficult to imagine that one can run a better service with the loss of 90 buses and 150 drivers.
The cutbacks this year are on top of cutbacks that the Minister forced on the company in previous years. For many, understanding how this could happen is difficult if there are to be fewer buses——
Could we have a question, please? Supplemental questions are not about imparting information.
How can this be done? For example, the Nipper service is being withdrawn from different parts of the city. Is the Network Direct project — I have the first three corridors in mind, namely, Dún Laoghaire, Blanchardstown and Lucan — not influenced by the fact that the PSO has been cut back by the Minister so significantly? This is an attempt to dress up the cutback.
The first direct route networks, located in the Finglas area, were proposed by Deloitte. I expressed a concern about the Deloitte report at a meeting of the transport committee, namely, that some commuters would be left with a significant walk to a bus. Instead of being five or seven minutes away, one could be ten or 15 minutes away. Being significantly further away from a route is a serious disimprovement for seniors and parents in Dublin's districts. Is it an attempt, at least in part, to dress up as improvements further significant cutbacks to the PSO imposed by the Minister? Has the Minister made any proposal so that lower income communities, those most dependent on buses, will not have a less valuable service? While a direct route might run through the community, the bulk of the community could have a disimproved service. Is this not a great matter of concern?
It would be if it were true but it is not. We are going to double the number of routes with a frequency of ten minutes or better. This is a considerable improvement. Some 60% of customers will be carried on high-frequency routes, these being the ten-minute routes in each direction. With the extra buses, some 23% are currently being carried.
It is difficult for people to imagine that things can be done more efficiently and effectively. In this country, we are slow to change and we like to stay with the tried and trusted. However, this system will be better. The aim is to ensure that, on average, no customer will be more than 300 metres from a bus stop. This is due to the way in which the routes will be laid out.
These are not just cutbacks dressed up. They comprise a genuine effort to provide good value for the taxpayer because the PSO money is tighter than it was. We cannot ask people to pay increased fares and we cannot subsidise an inefficient service. We want to make it more efficient. According to Deloitte, the estimated savings on the first corridor referred to by the Deputy will be as much as €3 million. There are 14 corridors around the city and one would not save up to €3 million on each, but one could certainly save some money. This would stay with Dublin Bus to provide an enhanced service.
In fairness to them, management and unions at Bus Átha Cliath did everything they could to try to provide an effective service once the decision was made. They believe that Deloitte's estimate on the Finglas route is slightly on the high side but they are confident they can save approximately €2.5 million on that route through the types of action we are discussing while simultaneously improving the service. It is win-win for everyone.
I wish to raise other points with the Minister regarding integrated ticketing and automatic vehicle location, AVL. Will we see them in 2011 at long last?
A significant number of commuters may be 12 or 15 minutes away. Did the Minister specify a target? The British Government used to have targets for cities and the whole of the UK in terms of how long it took people to walk to a bus. Has the Minister asked Dublin Bus for such a target? In many parts of the city, including mine, one will be that bit further away on some routes. If one is a senior or a parent walking kids to a bus, the additional inconvenience could be significant. Dublin Bus's PSO is small relative to similar companies throughout the EU, so one can see why people are trying to make savings and be more efficient. We all want Dublin Bus to be as efficient as possible but there is still concern that disadvantaged communities might be left worse off.
Real-time passenger information will shortly be available via mobile telephone and on 500 on-street signs. The initial phase will be delivered by the end of this year.
The integrated ticketing project, integrating smartcards for Irish Rail, Luas, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and private bus operators, is progressing well. A rigorous testing regime has been put in place and the project is being tested in every way possible. We do not want to leave anything out because, if the system does not work from day one, there will be serious difficulties and the system could lose all credibility, which we do not want to occur. Subject to successful testing, Dublin Bus and Luas annual passholders will be migrated to integrated smartcards from late summer of this year, followed by a similar exercise involving an e-purse or pay-as-you-go system, like a mobile telephone system, in respect of Dublin Bus and Luas services when the scheme has been sufficiently tested.
The Deputy is right, in that there is no way to ensure everywhere currently in receipt of a service will have a better service. A service might be a little further away in some areas, but I assure the Deputy that the certainty of when buses will arrive, the information available on them and so on will make the service a good one. This is the way forward.
Road Network
Shane McEntee
Question:37 Deputy Shane McEntee asked the Minister for Transport if additional funding has been made available to local authorities or the National Roads Authority for road maintenance following the bad winter weather; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27263/10]
The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is the statutory responsibility of each local authority in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on those roads are funded from local authorities' own resources and are supplemented by State road grants paid by my Department. Each year, as Minister for Transport I announce the allocation of grant funds to local authorities. This year, a total of €411 million is being provided to local authorities for the maintenance and improvement of regional and local roads.
Local authorities provided details of exceptional road-related costs that fell outside the normal financial provision for winter maintenance. I took account of this information when deciding on the allocations for 2010. My priority was to protect the significant investment of €6 billion in the regional and local roads network since 1997. I decided to defer the planned rehabilitation works on regional and local roads in 2010 in order to provide greater flexibility to local authorities. I requested that they carefully target resources to address, on a priority basis, the most urgently required repairs resulting from the extensive damage caused by the prolonged severe weather.
The Exchequer grants are a supplement to expenditure by the local authorities. I have repeatedly stressed the importance of local authorities allocating sufficient own resources for the improvement and maintenance of the regional and local roads network. In recent times, I have received representations from a number of local authorities and public representatives seeking an increase in the funding for regional and local roads in their particular areas. However, I must point out that all of those grants have been allocated. In view of the current Exchequer position, no further funds are available from which additional allocations could be made in 2010.
I am always hopeful there are a few pounds somewhere. I will still fight for that. I take this opportunity on my behalf and on behalf of my party to congratulate the Minister, the Department, the Road Safety Authority, Mr. Noel Brett, Mr. Gay Byrne and everyone involved in road safety for receiving the award yesterday in Brussels. The Minister accepted this on behalf of the people and he excelled in pushing things forward. We always said our aim was to be number one and that will be the case with the support of everyone.
However, on a daily basis we see a number of people on the sides of roads with punctures. That is due to what is happening on our roads. I saw one on the M3 the other day. Local authorities have done everything to mend our roads after the winter but it remains a serious problem. This will lead to serious road trouble and deaths if we do not get extra funding to continue the work done by the councils over the past four or five months. The Minister said he looked for money. Is it true he sought €25 million but was not given it? Can the Minister go back for money? Unless we fix this problem, we will go backwards in terms of progress on the number of road deaths. I do not like to hear the Minister saying the door is closed. Drink-driving and speed are being dealt with but road conditions are not improving. A sum of €25 million will go a long way at the expense of any other Department. It would be wrong for us not to seek it. We know we cannot bring back anyone who died but we owe this to them if they died as a result of speed, drink-driving or careless driving.
I ask the Minister to go back to the drawing board. If the Minister has to rob any Department to do so, I will support him in every way. I know what is happening and that is a major problem.
I thank Deputy McEntee for his congratulations and comments on the road safety award. I received it on behalf of everyone involved in road safety. I thank Deputy McEntee, his party and other parties in the House, who have a share in this award. It is important to say that and that was why I thought it was important to go and receive the award on behalf of the people of Ireland. Everyone played a part in this — the Deputies opposite, the RSA, the Garda Síochána, officials at the Department of Transport and drivers on the roads who have changed their behaviour significantly. I acknowledge that on their behalf.
I will always seek more money if there is any hope of getting it. I always ask the Minister for Finance for funds. Unfortunately, we are in a financial situation that means there is no extra money rolling around in the State coffers. The €25 million to which the Deputy referred was not a request but an estimate of the amount of damage done to national roads. The NRA provided that estimate of damage. Local authorities were also asked to provide estimates and submitted estimates of €180 million in damage between the floods and the severe weather. An additional €9 million was estimated for gritting during that long period. From the sum of €411 million, I allocated €240 million to local authorities to use specifically for the improvement of those roads. The Deputy has acknowledged that local authorities have done a good job so far in getting to repair the roads. I accept Deputy McEntee's point that some roads are still causing difficulties but these must be repaired from the resources of the local authority or from the allocation provided. There is no point in holding back in the hope of getting more money because I cannot see myself getting any more money for that purpose during the course of this year.