Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Oct 2010

Vol. 717 No. 3

Priority Questions

Clamping Industry

Simon Coveney

Question:

93 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport if his attention has been drawn to the vehicle immobilisation regulation Bill 2010 that has been published by Fine Gael; if he intends to use this Bill as a basis for regulating the clamping industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35400/10]

I take the opportunity of welcoming Deputy Simon Coveney as transport spokesperson. I did not have the opportunity to do so before the summer recess. I welcome Deputy Tom Hayes as spokesperson on road safety and road matters generally. I look forward to what no doubt will be robust exchanges but also the level of co-operation that we have, particularly in regard to road safety matters.

I will allow the Minister injury time for that.

I am aware of the vehicle immobilisation regulation Bill 2010 published in August by Fine Gael.

The road traffic legislative code provides for clamping by local authorities or by companies under contract to local authorities as an enforcement tool in respect of parking on the public road or in local authority car parks. However, a fundamental principle under road traffic law is that regulatory provisions apply only to the public road. Clamping of vehicles on private land goes beyond the remit of my Department and I have no proposals to regulate it.

I, too, look forward to what I hope will be constructive dialogue. It will be critical at times but I will try to ensure that, where possible, we are constructive from this side of the House.

Fine Gael's bringing forward of this legislation is an example of that. We have looked at what is working elsewhere and what is not working and, therefore, what I launched some weeks ago is straightforward legislation which essentially states in simple terms that if someone intends to operate a vehicle immobilisation company, that is, a clamping company, he or she will have to get a licence to do that. If they are clamping people's cars in a private car park, whether that is in an hotel, a hospital, an apartment complex, a restaurant, a shopping centre or whatever, they will have a set of rules and a code of conduct that is legally enforceable applied to them. Unfortunately, there have been examples of companies abusing their position of power by using clamping to charge ridiculous sums of money, which is an unjust punishment for parking in the wrong place. This is about getting a balance between ensuring that clamping is responsibly used as a tool to manage car park facilities and protecting consumers from being abused.

I do not accept that the Minister's remit does not allow him to legislate for this issue. It has already been legislated for in many European countries which have simply put a regulatory mechanism in place to regulate this industry, in which, unfortunately, there are some cowboys operating. I ask the Minister to look at it again. This is supported by the legitimate parking industry in Ireland, which wants to see this industry cleaned up.

I am aware that some other countries in Europe had such legislation but not under the road traffic Acts. The United Kingdom Home Office, which is probably the equivalent of our Department of Justice and Law Reform, introduced it and it was used as part of a licensing system along the lines the Deputy is talking about. It must be noted, however, that the current UK coalition Government proposed to amend those arrangements it has in place to prohibit clamping on private land as it considers that regulation of that kind is not successful. It is in place in England and Wales also. While I do not disagree that cowboys operating in the area should be eliminated from it, it is not a matter for a transport Minister to do that. If they are doing something that breaks the law or is against consumer interests, it is probably other codes of legislation that should be used.

I have met the National Transport Authority on this issue. The National Transport Authority was set up at the start of this year by the Minister. It is the obvious office to deal with regulating this industry. All transport matters are being amalgamated into the National Transport Authority and it has said it sees no reason it would not have the capacity to act as a regulator and to provide an appeals mechanism for consumers who believe they have been abused by clampers. It is the obvious Ministry to deal with this issue and to have the Minister for Transport, who oversees the National Transport Authority, should introduce the legislation. If he is not the suitable Minister he certainly has the responsibility to ensure that an appropriate Cabinet colleague attempts to bring forward the appropriate legislation. The do-nothing approach ignores the fact that we have a segment within the traffic management industry that is unregulated and is abusing that position. Does the Minister find that acceptable?

I do not want to start off on a bad note with the Deputy but I do not regard clamping on private property as a traffic management issue and neither do I regard it as a priority for the National Transport Authority, eager and all as the Deputy might say it is to take on this issue. It will have enough regulation to implement when it takes on board taxi regulation, the regulation of bus licensing and various other responsibilities. I repeat what I said earlier. If this is a problem, and it is a problem in some areas, and if the public are being abused in regard to it, there are other agencies that can deal with it.

Regional Airports

Joe Costello

Question:

94 Deputy Costello asked the Minister for Transport the amount of subsidy paid to each of the regional airports by the Government annually; his plans for each of the regional airports in receipt of State subsidy; the number of persons employed at each regional airport; the way he proposes to deal with the partial withdrawal of an airline (details supplied) from Kerry Airport; if he will give a commitment that the public service obligation will be retained for regional airports going forward; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35229/10]

Simon Coveney

Question:

95 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport the level of capital subsidy that will be available to regional airports in 2010 and 2011; when he intends to provide certainty on the public service obligation levies available to airlines operating out of certain regional airports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35401/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 94 and 95 together.

The core airport management operational subvention scheme provides for an annual subvention to regional airports. The amount payable is based on projected losses by the airports in providing core services, after taking account of any surpluses from commercial activities or other income. This is in line with the view underlying the mandatory EU guidelines on state aid that, as a general rule, airports should be self-financing.

I have made arrangements for the table below setting out the amount of operational subvention paid to each of the regional airports in 2009 and 2010 to be provided to Deputies Costello and Coveney.

My Department does not collate details of the number of persons employed at the regional airports. I am very aware of the possible implications for Kerry of Ryanair reducing its services on the Kerry-Dublin route. This service is operated under the current public service obligation, PSO, contracts which run from July 2008 to July 2011.

In the case of the Kerry route, following an EU public tendering process, a bid submitted by Ryanair emerged as the winner. The bid met the specifications published in the EU Official Journal, which stipulated that three return flights per day would be provided. The bid from Ryanair also set out the compensation it required in order to operate the service. Based on that bid, Ryanair was awarded the contract and is receiving payments in accordance with that contract.

I refute recent claims by Ryanair in relation to the PSO contract. I have met my obligations under the terms of that contract. I have considered the company's notification to reduce frequencies on the route to one daily return service from 1 November on a commercial basis outside the PSO arrangement. A response has issued to Ryanair in the matter.

With regard to the PSO programme in general, the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes recommended that the public service obligations for air services should be discontinued when the current contracts expire. In addition, under updated EU legislation governing these services, more stringent conditions will apply to future PSO arrangements, having regard, for example, to the availability of other transport connections, and especially rail services, with a travelling time of three hours or less.

I have considered the recent value for money review of Exchequer expenditure on the regional airports programme. This was carried out to assist me in evaluating the appropriate scale of a regional airports programme in future years bearing in mind aviation policy objectives, the updated EU legislation, the improved surface links under the NDP and Transport 21 and the difficulties with our public finances. The review will be considered by the Government. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any likely PSO scheme beyond 2011 in advance of the Government decision.

With regard to the funding of capital development at the regional airports, because of the difficulties with the public finances, we decided in July 2008 that in so far as capital development projects are concerned, expenditure should be focused on project elements where the airports had already entered into contractual arrangements.

The provision in my Department's Vote to fund the capital expenditure grant scheme for all the regional airports in 2010 is €3 million. Grant aid for urgently required works at Knock and Donegal Airports was approved for this year together with the completion of projects which had been contractually committed. The amount available for 2011 will depend on the Government's consideration of the VFM review on the regional airports.

Operational Subvention paid to Regional Airports

Airport

2009

2010

Galway

962,000

582,576

Kerry

Nil

Nil

Sligo

313,000

152,256

Donegal

131,000

Nil

Ireland West Airport Knock

445,000

356,706

Waterford

1,494,000

604,965

Total

3,345,000

1,696,503

I thank the Minister for his reply. The figures on the page he has supplied only refer to the operational subvention and there is no reference to the breakdown of the PSO obligation that is being paid. Perhaps the Minister will distribute those figures as well.

I understand that the operational subvention for regional airports amounts to a total of €1,696,503 and that the PSO subvention amounts to approximately €50 million. Every unemployed person costs the Exchequer approximately €20,000 in terms of tax forgone and social welfare payments. Therefore, the €50 million cost to the Exchequer is the equivalent of what it would cost to support the 750 people who might be made unemployed by the withdrawal of the PSO obligation. The Border midland and western region carried out a survey which shows there are 400 people employed in the Donegal, Sligo and Galway region and Kerry Airport employs 150 people. Therefore, if the PSO obligation was withdrawn, we would very quickly reach a figure of 750 jobs lost. I am looking at the effect of this loss on the basis of the current cost-benefit balance in terms of employment. Is it not foolish, therefore, for the Minister not to take this into consideration when conducting his review and deciding whether to go along with the McCarthy proposals to withdraw the public service obligation?

I call the Minister to reply, but will call the Deputy again.

The figures I provided refer to the operational subvention and capital expenditure, which was the area referred to in the question. I will get the information on the PSO for the Deputy.

Not just the operational figures.

I will get the figures for the capital expenditure, CapEx, the operational expenditure, OpEx, and the PSO. With regard to the PSO, the airports are not dependent on the PSO alone. The PSO to which the Deputy referred is paid directly to the airlines rather than the airports. Obviously, it is a help to the airports because once there are passengers flying in and out, there is an income from that. However, the PSO is paid to airlines and not airports. The other two schemes in question are the OpEx and CapEx subsidies, which are paid directly to the airport. These are subject to a value for money review, but no decisions have been made in that regard yet.

With regard to regional airports generally, questions must be asked, particularly in the current economic climate. We have nine of these airports, from Derry down to Waterford — one State airport and nine regional airports — and must question the feasibility of keeping them all operational with PSO support. We must also question whether the limited funds we have available should be spread out over the eight regional airports and whether this will hasten the demise of all of them. Perhaps we should decide which are the more strategically important from the point of view of tourism, access and regional development and decide to support them.

People living in places such as Waterford, Donegal, Sligo, Kerry, Galway or Knock will not get any positive news from what the Minister has said today. I know that the number of people living in Knock is small, but a significant number from the broad surrounding area use the airport. The Minister has stated there are three sources of funding support for regional airports: operational funding, capital funding and the PSO. Even though the PSO money goes to airlines, Aer Arann, and Ryanair in the case of Kerry, it is because of the PSO that those airlines can continue to use the regional airports. Therefore, there is a symbiotic relationship between the PSO and the operating costs of regional airlines.

I would like to focus on the operational subvention, because we will have many more debates on the PSO levy and whether it should be changed or abolished. I do not think we should abolish the PSO, but we could change it to make it more effective to try to drive more passengers through regional airports. The Minister has provided the figures of the operational subvention paid to regional airlines for 2009 and 2010. The year 2010 is not yet over, but based on the figures the Minister has provided, the subvention for 2010 is less than half of what was paid last year. The effect of that will be to shut regional airports. Is there still a consideration in the Department for further operational subvention for regional airports like Waterford? The subvention listed for Waterford this year is approximately €600,000 although it was almost €1.5 million last year. Does the Minister expect airports like Waterford to stay open? Waterford Airport is one that does not have a PSO subvention. Does the Minister expect Waterford Airport to survive when he has more than cut in half the subvention under which it operates? Are there further operational subvention funds to be allocated to regional airports on a priority basis to ensure we keep them open?

The Deputy is right. However, I am sure it has not escaped his notice that there were severe cuts in the two budgets in 2008 and the budget in 2009 and that we will have severe cuts in 2010. The transport budget was cut by €60 million last year and while some of that cut fell on the regional airports, I tried to protect them as best I could. A major portion of the cut was applied to local and regional roads, but I then had to provide extra discretion due to the weather situation. I also cut provision to CIE in the public transport area. There will be further cuts in the transport budget this year in the coming budget. There is no way we can get out of our current difficulties if we do not have those cuts. This year ——

Does the Minister accept that Waterford Airport will close?

Please allow the Minister to answer the questions put.

The Deputy asked whether the money provided is all that is available. At the moment, that is all I have available for the airports. We try in so far as we can to pay it out as early as possible to assist the airports in meeting payments. As in every other area, we must cut our cloth to suit our measure.

We are over time and I want to take a brief supplementary from each of the Deputies. I call Deputy Costello to put his question. We hope it will be succinct.

Absolutely. The combined operational subvention, which has been halved to €1.6 million from what it was last year, and the PSO amount to less than €70 million. This amount will be lost to the Exchequer due to job losses, the contributions the State will have to make and the tax that will be forgone. How will the Minister build that consideration into the equation? My second question relates to Kerry Airport. The airport has lost two thirds of its services even though Ryanair had entered into a contract with it. Is the Minister pursuing Ryanair for breach of contract or is he in breach, as Ryanair says?

We have replied to Ryanair's letter about withdrawing and breaching its contract at Kerry airport. I do not want to elaborate on the basis that it may have to go further but we have made our views known on this. There is a procedure in the contract whereby six months' notice should be given by either side and that has not been respected in this case.

What about my other supplementary question? I have asked twice about the cost benefit analysis of the €70 million in the context of jobs.

I can only spend money that I have or that I get. If I do not have it, I cannot give it to airports or other bodies. I have to divide the cake I have among the various areas of responsibility.

The PSO is worth more than €350 million.

No, it is not.

I respect the fact that the Minister's budget will be cut. We all face difficult decisions and responsible politicians on this side of the House understand that. However, his budget was not cut by 50%. Has the Department analysed how many of the regional airports will have to close as a result of a cut in their operational subvention of more than 50% in some cases? In light of the amounts involved, which are relatively small, for example, €600,000 in the context of a regional airport's budget, will the Department ensure that, although cutbacks are necessary, no regional airports will have to close before the end of the year because of the level of cutbacks it will apply?

We have conducted a value for money review of the regional airports. We took all their values and otherwise into account and recommendations, which have yet to be considered by the Government, were made on foot of that. I assure both Deputies that all aspects of the value of such airports and what they mean to local areas were fully analysed, as they were in the provision of greatly enhanced infrastructure such as road and rail to various parts of the country. The recommendations are based on a thorough review of all that.

Taxi Regulations

Joe Costello

Question:

96 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Transport progress on implementing Government policy for ensuring that 10% of the taxi fleet is wheelchair accessible by the end of 2010; how the new EU Directive 76/115 EEC, as amended, requiring new standards for wheelchair accessible vehicles, will be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35231/10]

I understand that the Commission for Taxi Regulation's new reform programme seeks to achieve a 10% target of wheelchair accessible taxis and hackneys. Since June 2010 new small public service vehicle, SPSV, licences are issued only in respect of wheelchair accessible vehicles and a new category of wheelchair accessible hackney was introduced. I have been advised by the commission that currently 6% of the fleet is wheelchair accessible.

The European Communities (Road Vehicles; Type Approval) Regulations 2009 (SI No. 158 of 2009) gives effect to Directive 2007/46/EC on type-approval of motor vehicles, trailers and components and includes a reference to Directive 76/115/EEC on anchorages for safety belts. All special purpose vehicles, including wheelchair accessible taxis, must comply with Directive 76/115/EEC since April 2009 for all new vehicles and by 29 April 2012 for all other vehicles.

I understand that the commission has put in place new standards for wheelchair accessible vehicles to improve overall standards, which take into consideration EC implementation of type approval — Directive 2007/46/EC.

This is something of a fairytale. A total of 6% of taxis are wheelchair accessible, yet the programme for Government states 100% of taxis will be accessible by the end of 2010. What has happened to that commitment? The taxi regulator is only seeking that 10% of the fleet be wheelchair accessible by the end of the year while the Irish Wheelchair Association is seeking a minimum of 20%. New European Union regulations will have to be implemented by the end of 2012. That means the 6% of taxis currently complying with the regulations will be put off the road since they will be unable to comply with the new regulations because it will cost an arm and a leg to do so. No hackney in the State is wheelchair accessible. What are the Minister's plan to meet any of the targets such as 10% of the fleet or to even retain the current 6%? His own target of 100% cannot be met.

This matter comes under the remit of the Commission on Taxi Regulation. The recently announced regulations in this regard provide for the 10% target and provide that new licences will only be issued for taxis that are wheelchair accessible. This will increase the percentage of wheelchair accessible taxis. In addition, the taxi regulator made a proposal for a scheme to assist those who want to provide such taxis but it did not find favour because of difficulties with VAT regulations and the EU. A further proposal is being considered, which might help. The new regulations and proposal should help to increase the supply of wheelchair accessible taxis.

No new wheelchair accessible taxis are coming on stream because it costs more than €40,000 to meet this requirement. Even though new taxi licences will be limited to such taxis, they are not coming on stream and, therefore, the Minister is not addressing the reality. There is also a requirement that all taxis older than nine years will be scrapped and most wheelchair accessible taxis are in that age profile. The taxi regulator made a reasonable proposal to the Minister. She has a kitty of €24 million, which she cannot spend, but the Minister can permit her to spend it in accordance with the proposal that 50% of the money in the kitty goes towards a subsidy or grant for the purchase of wheelchair accessible taxis to meet demand, given that between 10% and 15% of the population have serious mobility problems. The Minister has it within his powers to do so and boost the number of wheelchair accessible taxis. We are not doing justice to the people we serve, including the disabled and the elderly.

I accept that the Commission on Taxi Regulation has endeavoured to put a scheme in place. The first scheme it put forward was not acceptable or workable and the second is being considered. I will consider it as urgently as I can in light of the finances available over the next few months.

The finances are available.

Light Rail Project

Simon Coveney

Question:

97 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport the full cost of the Metro North Project and if he will commit to publishing the full detail of the feasibility study and cost benefit analysis of Metro North before making the decision to go ahead with the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35402/10]

Since 1 December 2009, the implementation of metro north has been a matter for the National Transport Authority. However, as the business case will inform the final Government approval for the project, it is appropriate to address this issue. My Department's policy on the release of cost and economic information on transport projects is designed to protect the taxpayers' interest but a balance must be struck between transparency and value for money in this regard. The project cost estimates in a business case provide an indication of what the State is prepared to pay. Bidders involved in the project may then focus their final bids at that level, instead of at the lowest price at which they can deliver the project. It is, therefore, best procurement practice not to reveal what one is prepared to pay in advance of or during a procurement process or during construction prior to the settlement of final accounts. Metro North is currently at a critical stage in the procurement process. Best and final offers will be sought by the RPA from the two short-listed public private partnership bidders once An Bord Pleanála has made a decision on the project. That decision is expected at the end of this month.

Given the reasons I have outlined, it is clear that it would not be in the public interest to release any information which has the potential to increase the cost of delivering this project. However, I should advise that an updated Metro North business case was submitted by the RPA to the National Transport Authority in July last. The NTA has reviewed this business case and has confirmed that the cost-benefit analysis for this project remains strong.

With regard to the feasibility study referred to by the Deputy, the Dublin metro alignment feasibility report, city centre to airport, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Limited in 2004, is freely available and accessible on the RPA website, www.rpa.ie.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I had to fight to ensure that this question was answered because up to now in this House the Minister has simply been saying it is not a matter for him but is a matter for the National Transport Authority. However, to approve public expenditure of somewhere between €2 billion and €5 billion is a Cabinet decision and therefore, it is the Minister's responsibility, in my view. I accept what he says with regard to the procurement process and the difficulty in giving an exact cost estimate at this stage to the House. I understand that despite claims by various people in recent days, the figure is closer to €2.5 billion than €5 billion.

My question is whether the Minister and the Government are willing to publish the business case for Metro North. This will be the biggest capital expenditure project we are likely to see approved over the next two to three years by any Government, whether this Government or another Government. For that reason we need to ensure that we calculate the opportunity cost - in other words, how else the money could be spent and whether we could get a bigger bang for our buck if we were to spend €2.5 billion elsewhere. It is Fine Gael's view that Metro North is justified, that it is value for money and will create many thousands of jobs. We are not willing to give a green light to a project until we see a clear, up-to-date business case which is on the Minister's desk and which he has not published. Will the Minister publish the business case or at least make it available to Opposition parties so that we can make an accurate assessment of the Metro North project?

I thank the Deputy for his support for the project as it is important. A number of cost benefit analyses have been carried out on this project. The latest analysis gives an indication that the benefit to cost ratio of the project is approximately 2 to 1, when the wider economic benefits are taken into account and to which the Deputy referred, rather than just the provision of the metro alone. The ratio is in excess of 1.5 to 1, using the traditional economic appraisal methods. It stands up from the point of view of a cost benefit analysis. As the Deputy correctly said, it also stands up from the point of view that it would generate much needed employment during the construction phase, amounting to approximately 4,000 direct jobs and 2,000 indirect jobs. Fingal County Council produced a separate independent report on the project which showed that it will support up to 37,000 jobs in the Fingal-north Dublin city area. This is an extremely important project. As the Deputy said, it will probably be the biggest public infrastructure project. We will make as much of the business case available as is possible so that people can make their own judgments on it. The Deputy will understand there will be some commercially sensitive information which cannot be released.

I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Coveney.

It is sometimes necessary for Opposition to be positive during Question Time. As an Opposition party, Fine Gael wants to be involved in this decision. This is a massive project which will be serving tens of thousands of people living in north Dublin. This is not just a link between the airport and the city centre, as some people would have one believe. It is much more than that. Fine Gael cannot support anything on this scale, considering the costs involved, unless we are given access to full information. We will be insisting on getting all that information so that we can make a responsible decision about Metro North.

I welcome the Deputy's statement. The Government will be as forthcoming as possible, subject to information being commercially sensitive.

Top
Share