Vol. 722 No. 1
43 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport if his Department plans any asset sales from within the Dublin Airport Authority to assist paying off its debt; the level of debt now being serviced by the DAA; the strategy planed to reduce airport charges and drive up passenger numbers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42988/10]
The Dublin Airport Authority has statutory responsibility for the operation, management and development of Dublin Airport.
As such, it is responsible for developing a strategy for increasing passenger numbers and I know that it is very active in this regard. It also operates under a clear commercial mandate and is not in receipt of any Exchequer support. Accordingly, issues such as the scale and management of its debt is the sole responsibility of the company and I have no function in these matters
On airport charges, the Commission for Aviation Regulation regulates airport passenger charges levied at Dublin Airport. Again, I have no function in the matter. The Deputy will be aware that the question of any possible sale of State assets is one that is currently being considered by the review group on State assets and liabilities, headed by Mr. Colm McCarthy.
In the light of terminal two, T2, being opened on Friday, will the Minister say whether he considers it is value for money to open a terminal that has cost somewhere between €600 million and €700 million, at a time when passenger numbers going through Dublin this year will be less than 18 million, and each terminal has the capacity of up to 15 million?
I understand this was a long-term investment committed to at a time when passenger numbers were on the rise, and it is easy to look at these figures in hindsight. I should like to ask the Minister about an area that is his responsibility, that is, aviation policy generally. Does he believe it is appropriate that there is no competition between airports in Ireland and that one State-owned company is managing the country's three main airports at a time when passenger numbers over the past two years have fallen by almost 30%, despite the fact that in most European countries passenger numbers are increasing? In France, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Germany, Spain and Finland passenger numbers have increased——
The Deputy is giving information.
That is the context of the question.
The Deputy is required to eventually put a question.
I have already asked two or three questions——
Exactly.
——and I am just finishing the last one, if that is all right.
In the context of passenger numbers increasing in the vast majority of European countries, does he consider that it is time the Government had a fundamental review of aviation policy in Ireland, to increase passenger numbers?
As regards the Deputy's first question about value for money, the cost of the terminal two building is just over €300 million. The figure of just over €600 million that he quoted relates to ancillary services and buildings that were provided at the airport prior to T2 arriving on the scene at all. I regard it as value for money. The Deputy rightly and fairly has indicated that this decision was made in 2005 or thereabouts when passenger figures were increasing exponentially at Dublin Airport, and indeed at the other airports around the country. The projections at that stage, before any economic downturn, indicated that the terminal was needed.
I can remember that in my predecessor's time at every Question Time there were at least one or two questions about the delays at Dublin Airport, and about getting through security, as well as the delays being faced by people when collecting their baggage on returning from holidays and so on. There was no question that there was a need to put new facilities in place, and they will be there, as in fairness, the Deputy has acknowledged.
As regards competition in airports in Ireland, the Deputy will be aware that the State Airports Act was put in place in 2004 to separate the three main airports, to allow them to compete. Due to the downturn in the aviation sector in 2008-09, the airports requested me to defer a final decision on that until next year, which I will do. In light of the situation next year, depending on passenger numbers etc., we shall review that in consultation with the airports.
I have two specific questions. Could the Minister explain why the Government did not follow independent advice, when the building of a second terminal at Dublin Airport was being planned, to have it built and operated by an operator independent of the Dublin Airport Authority? Has the Government considered the option of either leasing or selling one of the terminals at Dublin Airport, in order to have competition between the two terminals and to get prices down and services up?
The Government attempted to follow the independent advice the Deputy has mentioned. In so far as we could we went to the stage of actually tendering for an operator for services at the terminal. We had to abandon the tendering process, specifically because we could not get a suitable tender to provide the services there.
That is not true.
It is true, and I went through the process myself. We got independent advisers to go through the whole tendering process, which was the subject of questions in the House before. The current position is to the effect that the DAA will now operate that terminal. It has a four-year period in which it can operate it. As we come to the end of that period we shall establish what the market conditions are and determine whether it is possible for the terminal to be operated, independently.
44 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Transport if he will outline the range of airport charges applied to air travel here at present; if he has satisfied himself that these charges are properly applied by the airlines; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43024/10]
The Commission for Aviation Regulation is responsible for the regulation of airport charges at Dublin Airport and I have no function with regard to their determination or application.
Airport charges at Cork and Shannon Airports are set by those airport authorities and again I have no responsibility as to how they are applied. Similarly, airport charges at the six regional airports, which are owned and operated independently, are a matter for each airport concerned.
Given that Dublin Airport Authority will have a substantial bill, namely, the €300 million he mentioned as well as other costs, does the Minister not consider it strange that the National Consumer Agency report last week indicated that the airlines were ripping off the consumer to the tune of €28 million annually, by refusing to refund the taxes, charges and administrative funds while not refunding cancellations, as well? This means a healthy sum of money is being lost, both to the DAA and perhaps, in some cases to the Exchequer. Has the Minister any plans to ensure that the airports and airport charges are recouped by the airport authorities so that we do not see "Rip-off Ireland" continuing into the recession, with the airlines simply taking all that money for themselves?
Again, the question the Deputy raises is one specifically for the airport authorities and perhaps for the Department of Finance, as regards the airport taxes that are paid and subsequently not transferred to the appropriate authorities. I did not have any real notice that this was the intent of the question, but I shall raise it with Dublin Airport Authority and attempt to ascertain what action it is taking to ensure that it does not incur revenue losses in circumstances such as these.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I would have thought this matter was more appropriate to the Minister since he is responsible for the overall policy. It would seem appropriate to have a code of conduct operating in the aviation industry in relation to refund of charges that are appropriate to the authority itself and appropriate to the Government if somebody has cancelled or there is a no show. Some airlines have their own adiministrative charges which incorporate this area and some make one level of return and others make none. There is no policy. The Minister should impose policy in this area and it is appropriate that we have a code of conduct that extends to all airlines. The sum of €28 million is a sizeable sum. The National Consumer Agency has determined that the only way it can deal with this matter is to go to the High Court. I would like the Minister to intervene in this matter.
There is a policy in that anyone who owes taxes to the State must pay them. Deputy Costello correctly pointed out that there are varying practices in the airlines. One method some airlines use to avoid paying taxes is to say that the administrative charge in respect of refunding money to passengers equals the amount of tax outstanding.
That is a sleight of hand.
Yes, I agree. The National Consumer Agency, which is a Government agency, has taken up the matter and is seeking a determination in that regard from the High Court. It is hoped the outcome will be positive and will clarify the situation.
45 Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Transport his view on the French and the Australian State of Victoria’s mechanisms for testing for suspected drug driving; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42989/10]
Driving under the influence of intoxicants, drugs and alcohol, is one of many key issues in road safety. Testing of drivers in respect of drugs is already provided for in the Road Traffic Acts. Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 2004, provides that where a member of the Garda Síochána is of the opinion that a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place is under the influence of a drug or drugs to such extent as to be incapable of having proper control of that vehicle, he or she may require that person to go to a Garda station and there submit to a blood test or provide a urine sample.
The issue of roadside drug testing was discussed as recently as August 2010 at the International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. It is agreed that there are scientific and legal issues to overcome in respect of roadside drug testing. Some of the issues include, the limitations in the choice of drug for detection, the level of detection of each drug class and the amount of specimen required.
The Medical Bureau of Road Safety is aware of the mechanisms for testing suspected drug driving operated by the French and Australian State of Victoria. Both jurisdictions are operating limited roadside saliva testing using the technology that is currently available. The bureau is aware that some other Australian States and other European jurisdictions, including Belgium, are preparing for the introduction of saliva testing and the bureau will continue to review the forensic options available as the technology develops.
In the meantime, the Road Traffic Act 2010 includes provisions for "field impairment testing", namely, non-technological methods by which the Garda can make a preliminary assessment about the possible presence of drugs.
The Medical Bureau of Road Safety carried out a survey in 2001. Is it not time another survey was undertaken? In excess of €650 million is being spent annually here on illegal drugs. People are extremely concerned about this issue. Is it not now time that another survey be undertaken with a view to discouraging young people from engaging in drug misuse or driving cars while such substances are in their bodies? It is important this information is updated. Perhaps the Minister will consider having another survey undertaken.
I agree that the more information collated and published the better. I assure the Deputy that the medical bureau continues to analyse blood and urine samples received from the Garda Síochána under any of the road traffic Acts not alone for alcohol but for drugs. Much of the data obtained from research and testing is used. Under a roadside drug testing assessment project, the levels of drugs in blood, urine and saliva, using a range of drug screening devices, in approximately 3,000 cases have been examined. A Rosita-2 project was carried out from 2003-2005 to evaluate the usability and reliability of on-side saliva testing. However, following research, it was determined that none of those tests were sufficiently reliable as to allow us legislate for their use on a regular basis.
I assure the Deputy, whom I acknowledge is as concerned about this matter as am I, that as soon as a robust mechanism is found we will be in a position to move on it.
Is the Minister in a position to set out a timescale in respect of putting a mechanism in place? There has been much research in this area and we are aware that people abuse the situation. When does the Minister envisage progress in this area? Can he indicate a timescale? Will a test be in place in six months, 12 months or two years time? It is important to address this issue. Speed cameras have been put in place, as is testing in respect of drink driving. However, there is wholesale abuse in the area of drug driving.
The question of a timescale does not arise. We must first come up with a device that will prove robust in terms of testing. The Rosita-2 project was carried out. Nine different devices were evaluated across six countries in Europe, including Belgium, Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain and France and five States in the United States through a series of laboratory and field based evaluations, six of which had a failure rate of 25% or greater. It is a matter of research and science coming up with a suitable device, in respect of which I cannot give a timescale.
46 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport following the severe winter weather of 2009/2010, his plans to ensure that there will be no shortage of salt and grit; the structures of responsibility to deal with gritting on national and non-national roads; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42651/10]
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. In January 2010, my Department established a review group to carry out a review of the transport response to the severe weather during the period November 2009 and January 2010. In this review, my Department has recommended that local authorities and the National Roads Authority should work together to put in place framework contracts with a number of salt suppliers and that local authorities should draw down their supplies under these framework contracts and should continue to be responsible for the implementation of the response on the ground. The National Roads Authority has put a framework contract in place, providing for 80,000 tonnes of salt with scope to draw down additional salt supplies as required.
The review also recommended that local authorities should draw up lists of priority routes for treatment during severe weather. Local authorities were asked to publish their winter maintenance plans on their websites in advance of December 2010. This would allow the public to be aware of what routes will be treated in the case of severe weather and the type of intervention envisaged.
The Minister will recall the lack of leadership from himself and his Department last January, which surprised many people involved in this area. I am somewhat reassured that plans have been put in place to ensure there is not a repeat this winter.
I have two specific questions for the Minister. How much salt, which it is appropriate to put on the roads, is currently in storage here? If there is a big freeze next week, are we ready for it?
Has the Minister prioritised essential roads? What are the criteria for doing so? Do they include traffic numbers or the motorway system? Following the report last January, what was the estimated volume of salt and grit that should have been in place and required to deal comprehensively with the big freeze last winter? Is there enough in storage currently or will we have to rely on imports like last year when we were not able to bring in enough?
I remind the Deputy that no local authority ran out of salt and grit during the more than 20 days of sub-zero temperatures.
That is simply untrue.
The incident last year, which went on for more than 20 days, caused a problem. Arrangements had to be put in place to move salt and grit from county to county in a number of instances.
How much salt is stockpiled?
That was done successfully. Up to last year, 61,000 tonnes of salt was available annually. This year, as a result of what happened last year, there is a framework contract in place that provides for 80,000 tonnes of salt to be drawn down
How much salt is stockpiled?
I will call the Deputy again.
Additional salt is available under this contract.
The priorities are clear and they do not change from year to year. The hierarchy is the motorway system, the national primary system, the national secondary system and local and regional roads of importance.
Will the Minister repeat his answer to the question about whether local authorities ran out of salt last year? Is he suggesting no local authority in Ireland ran out of salt last year during the big freeze when it is a fact that Cork County Council had to supply Kerry County Council with significant tonnage of salt? The Minister should rethink his reply to that.
How much salt is stockpiled in Ireland currently to prepare for the possibility of a big freeze next week or the week after? I do not ask about January; I ask to ensure we are ready for next week.
There is enough salt to cater for anything that could happen over the next few days. The way this works is that the salt is brought in over time as needed. The contract last year was for 60,000 tonnes, which had been more than adequate every year for decades before that. Stockpiles are maintained but the salt is generally bought as needed over time. There is not a great deal of sense in stockpiling the 80,000 tonnes of salt in case it is not needed. It does not keep well from year to year. That is the method used in providing the stockpiles but the contract is for 80,000 tonnes. The difficulty that arose last year in many respects was we were reaching our 60,000 tonnes limit, there was a need for salt elsewhere and we faced competition. Cork County Council had its own supply and it was asked to make salt available. The same happened in one or two other local authorities and if the Deputy wants to refer back to the blacks, he will see that I said that individual local authorities had to be helped by other local authorities. That is why the NRA came in to organise it. That is why we are now suggesting that the NRA should continue that in one form or another.
47 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport his plans to proceed with a strategy to place new road toll collection points on motorway and national road infrastructure in the near future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42991/10]
The local government efficiency review group recommended the introduction of new tolling schemes on national roads, both new and existing, based on an equitable distribution of tolling points across the national network, with a proportion of revenue being used to invest in local and regional roads. The infrastructure investment priorities document for 2010 to 2016 also refers to the introduction of further tolling on national roads and recommends that additional income generated through tolling should be retained by the National Roads Authority, NRA, to help fund ongoing road investment. In light of these recommendations, the NRA was asked to examine options for a new tolling strategy. I have just received a report from the NRA on options for a future tolling strategy, which I am now considering. At this point, however, no decisions have been made on additional tolling on specific national roads.
That is convenient. There is a great deal of concern that additional tolls will be placed on our motorway infrastructure and it would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether he intends to use additional tolling to raise revenue, whether that be for infrastructure or for the Exchequer. There is potential for a huge waste of money because he has asked the NRA to put considerable work into designing tolls, for example, on the Jack Lynch Tunnel adjacent to my own constituency. What is the Minister's thought process in this regard? Does he plan to introduce additional tolls on motorways that have been paid for, or are being paid for, by existing tolls to raise additional revenue for his Department or the NRA? Is that likely to be a feature of the upcoming budget?
All I can do is repeat the answer I gave the Deputy. The suggestion was made by the local government efficiency review group. It was mentioned in the capital programme 2010-16. In light of those recommendations, the NRA was asked to examine the options for a new tolling strategy. The authority has completed a report, which I received at the back end of last week. I will have a look at the report and, on foot of that, a decision will be made on whether we will go ahead with tolls, whether they are necessary and what design might be used, if we proceed. There are conflicting recommendations in the two reports. One says some of the money should be available to fund local authorities while the other says the money should stay with the NRA. We do not, and will not, have the same funding available for maintenance or repair of roads as we had over the past decade. That is why this is being considered. When one gets such reports, one must consider the pros and cons. When they are discussed and decided by the Government, I will bring the news to the House.
Will the Minister consider whether it makes sense to charge people and, in doing so, discourage them from using the safest, quickest, most direct infrastructure on which we have spent a fortune constructing, thereby increasing traffic on secondary roads and sending it back into towns and villages, which is contrary to the motorway strategy in place? If he is considering introducing new measures, whether they be levies, tolls or taxes, to raise additional revenue from transport, there are more straightforward and effective ways of doing so to ensure we can afford to pay for the infrastructure that will be required over the next number of years.
I am more than wiling to listen to suggestions the Deputy has about more effective ways to raise finance and so on. There are two sides to this argument. It can be argued on the one hand that the most effective way to ensure sufficient funds for the maintenance and upkeep of roads is to ask those who use the roads to pay for them rather than asking the taxpayer to do so.
This is not about maintenance but the building of new roads.
There is not much evidence to suggest people have significant difficulty in paying for the convenience of top quality roads and diversion rates are quite small for current toll roads. Tolling or congestion charges can also be used in urban areas to enhance the environment and health benefits for people in certain areas. There are pluses and minuses. Tolls can be an expensive way to raise finances and put infrastructure in place.
I can understand the rationale of a congestion charge.
That is a separate issue.
The issue surrounding the tolling of bypasses, tunnels and major infrastructure is that the opposite effect will be achieved, with traffic being diverted into towns and villages. That is the point. If tolls are to be in the form of congestion charges, people should be encouraged on to motorway infrastructure, which makes much more sense.
We are not talking about any structure currently because we have not finalised any decisions regarding tolls. There are pros and cons.
