Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 2011

Vol. 737 No. 4

Priority Questions

State Airports

Timmy Dooley

Question:

21 Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the steps he has taken to provide practical assistance to both Galway and Sligo airports in order to ensure their survival before funding for both airports, under operating expenditure and capital expenditure, ends in 2012. [18897/11]

The question relates to practical assistance for Galway and Sligo airports. As I announced on 7 June, the Government has agreed to provide practical assistance in the form of additional funding to Galway and Sligo airports in 2011, along with the other four airports at Donegal, Ireland West at Knock, Kerry and Waterford. This involves providing an additional €5.9 million on top of the €13.4 million already allocated to the regional airports for this year by the last Government to cover operational and capital expenditure.

The Deputy will be aware that when I took office, I discovered that the previous Government had left my Department with just €600,000 for operational funding at all six airports. This was in spite of the disingenuous Government decision last February to fund all of the airports for the whole of 2011 without allocating the necessary funding. The €5.9 million allocation reverses the cut made in funding by that Government and involves making reductions on a once-off basis in other areas within my Department.

As the Deputy is aware, I will not be in a position to provide operational or capital funding to Galway or Sligo airports from 2012 onwards. This decision was necessary to make best use of scarce Exchequer resources and to ensure the efficient use of taxpayers' money. The aim is to ensure that Ireland has an adequate network of regional airports while taking into account significant improvements in road networks, shorter journey times by road and rail, and the collapse in passengers flying domestically. The additional funding being made available to Galway and Sligo airports in 2011 is to provide the airports with the time and space to engage with various parties, including business interests, investors and local authorities, to secure their ongoing viability in some form. I urge the airports concerned to make best use of this time to plan for their future.

I thank the Minister for the reply but it will come as no surprise to him that I am particularly disappointed about the decision not to continue a level of operational expenditure for Galway and Sligo. With particular reference to Galway, the chamber of commerce and the business and tourism interests in the region have put forward a strong and compelling case to retain a level of funding. The Minister will be aware from the various presentations made to his Department that the ongoing requirement is in the region of approximately €1 million. I do not want to suggest that €1 million is not much in the current climate, as it is, but it can be considered in the overall context of the significant spend of the Department at €600 million in the course of a year.

Does the Deputy have a question?

I am trying to work towards it. If the Department is not prepared to fund the airports on an ongoing basis, it is important that it provide some practical help. In that respect, the provision of some consultancy or mentoring services would allow people within the airport to consider the potential to gain alternative funding from some other source.

In asking the question I put on the record of this House that we are talking about a relatively small amount of money in return for the level of foreign investment in the region. Has the Minister had any further discussions with the IDA or Enterprise Ireland and how do they intend to mollify the concerns of the companies supported by foreign investment who are large employers? They have indicated it will be difficult for companies to compete for future rounds of funding and it will be more difficult to be competitive with regard to other operators in the sector.

What level of engagement has the Minister had with the business community, and the tourism industry in particular, or State agencies with responsibility for job creation and retaining foreign investment?

The airports should first make contact on their own behalf and have probably already done so. In Sligo, airport authorities should talk to the Coast Guard and the search and rescue helicopter contractor. They should also have discussions with the local authorities, as the two authorities own the airport. Officials at Galway should have discussions with the airlines, particularly Aer Arann, and I am sure discussions are under way. They should also speak to potential investors and the local authority, which in contrast to Sligo does not provide any support to the airport. The business community and the chamber of commerce are the owners of the airport and could be in a position to fund it, if they so wish, with resources from the business community in that region.

No request has been made to me regarding support relating to consultancy or advice. There will be no change to the decision on operational expenditure and capital expenditure next year. If the airports are seeking some form of non-financial support I will consider any request in that regard.

The Deputy made a point regarding savings, and this cut saves quite a bit more than €1 million as the operational expenditure requirement for neighbouring airports is reduced. The saving is probably closer to €2 million on an annual basis in the case of Galway alone. The Deputy is correct to say that this is small in the context of my budget of approximately €800 million per year; unfortunately, it works the other way as I am required to remove approximately €100 million to €150 million from my budget. In that context the removal of support to Galway and Sligo is a small cut compared to others I must make.

Taxi Industry

Dessie Ellis

Question:

22 Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will review the appointments to the taxi review steering group to ensure fair representation for all stakeholders. [19189/11]

I do not propose to review the composition of the steering group for the taxi regulation review. In my announcements of 8 June and 24 June respectively I have clarified the terms of reference for the review and the membership of the review steering group in line with the commitment in the programme for Government. The review will provide a basis for the necessary further reforms of the sector to allow consumers to have confidence in the taxi system while ensuring that legitimate and competent operators and drivers can be rewarded fairly by operating under a regulatory framework that is adequately enforced. It will address a wide range of issues relating to the taxi sector, including the current regulatory policy and practices, licensing systems, enforcement and future dialogue with the taxi sector.

The diverse membership of the review steering group will allow an appropriate contribution from stakeholders, including dispatch operators, drivers, consumers and the regulatory and enforcement agencies. The consultation on the review extends to all interested parties and stakeholders through an invitation for written submission to be made before the end of July and further consultation opportunities will be presented from there.

Unlike the previous Government, I have spent considerable time consulting the various taxi representative groups and gave them considerable time so that I could hear their views. I met the representatives on a number of occasions. Also unlike the previous Government, I have undertaken to chair this group to demonstrate the importance Government is attaching to it. I have stated publicly on numerous occasions that I believe the taxi sector should be based around full-time owner drivers.

However, representation in the taxi sector is far too fragmented and this suits neither policymakers nor taxi drivers. If there is evidence of consolidation of taxi driver organisations into one constituted organisation, I may look at membership of the review group again.

I am disappointed that the Minister of State has made it clear he will not review the matter. As somebody who welcomed the steering group, I see it as a very important step. Previously, there was an elitist attitude on the part of the regulator who would not meet taxi men or public representatives even though many requests were made. I ask the Minister to consider the fact that the ordinary taxi man with a single licence is not represented on this group. It appears some of those represented on it hold multiple plates. It is not fair that the ordinary taxi man with a single plate is not represented. There is scope for officials from the Department of Social Protection, the Revenue Commissioners and, possibly, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service to be represented. I urge the Minister of State to consider including them in the group, as they could make a big contribution to examining all aspects of the taxi industry. There is a good deal of anger among ordinary taxi men who hold single plates. They constitute the vast majority of taxi drivers. I, therefore, ask the Minister of State to re-examine the matter.

There will be no elitism in the operation of the review group. I am taking on board the Deputy's comments in a very sincere way. There is somebody with multiple licences in the review group because this is one of the core issues with which we have to deal. I am absolutely determined to deal with the issues that have arisen, with which we are familiar. The process of managing, renting and hiring multiple licences, one of the reasons issues such as fraud and criminality are arising, will have to be addressed. That is why there is a requirement for someone who operates multiple licences to be in the group. Obviously, I am casting no aspersions on any individual. There is a full-time taxi driver in the group. Such drivers are represented.

I would welcome further consolidation of the representative associations. The fragmentation of the industry groups is not helpful. It is difficult to get a hold on the extent to which each association is representative. If all the figures were added up, the final figure might exceed the number of drivers in the country. I repeat what I have said previously — I will reconsider the composition of the review group if there is consolidation of the associations.

The first meeting of the review group took place yesterday and it was very successful. I was very happy with the manner in which it was dealt with. Deputy Ellis made a valid point about the Department of Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners. I have put in place a process that will allow subgroups to work with officials from these bodies to address the issues raised by the Deputy. As chairman of the group, I am conscious that the income of drivers is an issue. I repeat that I want to ensure it is worthwhile to work in the taxi industry. That is a very important aspect of the work of the group.

Road Network

Mick Wallace

Question:

23 Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide details on the amount of funding to be allocated to Wexford over the next three years for the improvement of the national secondary roads network following the findings of the National Secondary Roads Needs Study; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19295/11]

The Deputy's question relates to the roads funding to be allocated to County Wexford in the next three years. As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding under the national roads programme. The construction, improvement and maintenance of national primary and national secondary roads are matters for the National Roads Authority, under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. The assessment and prioritisation of individual projects are matters in the first instance for the NRA, working within its capital budget, in accordance with section 19 of the Roads Act 1993.

As the Deputy is aware, the national recovery plan published by the previous Government in November 2010 envisaged that investment in the road network would be significantly reduced for the duration of the plan. Therefore, the scope for proceeding with significant projects is very limited. The capital investment review under way across all sectors will form the basis of a new national development plan for the period between 2012 and 2016. The plan is scheduled to be published in September. The review will examine the costs and benefits of capital projects against a range of economic, social and environmental criteria. Among the key considerations in the transport sector will be the need to continue remedial safety measures. When the funding framework for capital expenditure has been determined, it will be a matter for the NRA to prioritise projects within its funding envelope. Therefore, I am not in a position to provide the specific detail sought by the Deputy.

I can understand why there will be less money to spend on roads in the next couple of years. I would be the first to admit that people from less well-off sectors of society are probably more in need of the money available. I wrote to the Department two months ago to ask for an explanation of the relationship between the Minister and the NRA, with specific reference to the division of authority between them. Like many others, I have the general impression that the NRA is a very powerful body. I do not know whether the Minister has total control over it. Is it given guidelines within which it should work? Who decides the number of years over which the cost benefit analysis of a project should be worked out? One of our problems is that we have to pay over €110,000 a week to private operators because we over-estimated the volume of traffic that would use developments such as the M3 and the Limerick tunnel. Who made the mistakes in these cases? Most people are aware that many of the motorways built in recent years were developed to too high a specification. Is there a line of responsibility that can be traced in such cases?

I do not have total control over the NRA. Similarly, I do not have control over the local authorities which take the lead in planning new road projects. I appoint the board of the NRA and provide funding for it in the context of the overall Government budget. I can also issue policy directions to it, although I have not done so to date. However, I will be in a position to do so after the capital spending review has been completed. It is likely that I will prioritise maintenance, road restoration and safety works. New projects will be considered thereafter on the basis of cost benefit analyses. It will be difficult to do this until I know how much money will be in the roads envelope. As the Deputy said, the developers of two PPP projects are being compensated because traffic volumes are lower than anticipated. Such an approach was not taken in most PPPs, but it was taken in a number of cases. Compensation is being paid in just two cases. The reason for this is the major reduction in traffic volumes that resulted from the 20% contraction in the economy. In fairness, none of the doomsayers of five years ago predicted an economic contraction on that scale.

Some of the those who have analysed the matter have said we would need a population of approximately 10 million to justify some of the traffic volume projections made. Perhaps the Minister would not agree, but that is the feeling. I would like some serious research to be conducted into what has gone on in the last ten years. We need to examine the developers who were getting the work on major projects. We should analyse the amount of money they were receiving per kilometre, by comparison with that paid elsewhere in Europe. Part of the equation was that the jobs for the boys became bigger and bigger as a result of over-specification.

I agree that there was over-specification. If one examines the files, one will find much of it was politically driven by politicians and Ministers who decided a motorway was needed, even though a dual carriageway might have done. Many State companies were put under pressure by the previous Government to build bigger and greater things than were necessary. I do not share that kind of "if you build it, they will come" view. The specification has to be appropriate. I have had discussions with the transport unit of the ESRI with a view to looking back at whether the major interurban motorways built could have been done better, as suggested by the Deputy. We have to learn from what happened in the past. A significant proportion of the high cost of the roads built can be attributed to the payments made to land owners and the arrangement reached with the Irish Farmers Association on land costs. It is fair to say that arrangement would not be made now. They got a very good deal. The files confirm the political pressure that a deal needed to be cut with the landowners.

Air Services

Timmy Dooley

Question:

24 Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the specific commitments which he has received from air carriers to open new routes and expand capacity as a result of the removal of the remaining €3 of the travel tax. [18898/11]

In line with the commitments in the programme for Government, the Government announced a three-pronged strategy to encourage in-bound tourism as part of the jobs initiative. The first element is the proposed suspension of the air travel tax, the second is a new growth incentive scheme which has been introduced by the Dublin Airport Authority applying to all of the three airports under its remit and the third is more targeted and co-operative marketing of new routes from key source tourism markets by Tourism Ireland, the DAA and airlines to encourage more tourists to fly into Ireland.

My officials and I have engaged with the Dublin Airport Authority and with the four main Irish airlines about these initiatives and I wrote to all of the other airlines operating services to and from the State airports. Some proposals for additional capacity and new routes put forward are being examined by my Department and by external consultants to assess their potential impact. I await the outcome of that assessment and responses from other airlines before making a recommendation to my Cabinet colleagues on whether to suspend the tax. The recent enactment of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2011 has provided that basis for the suspension of the air travel tax if we decide to do so.

Is it the case that the €3 travel tax will remain in place until the Minister has received what he or the Cabinet believe to be an adequate assurance from the bulk of the airlines that they will come forward with a proposal that satisfies the Minister?

The tax remains in place. The order has not been signed. In the jobs initiative it was pencilled in for 1 July. That date has passed because I have not been comfortable in advising the Minister for Finance that the responses have been sufficient. There are meetings ongoing with the airlines. There will be another meeting on Monday next. I hope in the next few weeks to be in a position to give advice to the Minister for Finance. Where it may arise, is that some airlines may increase capacity and others may cut it. That creates a certain dilemma. I do not wish to punish the ones that are increasing capacity but one cannot apply one tax to one airline and another to the other one. I should be in a position to make a determination at a later stage.

Certainly, I do not want to take away the travel tax and then find that most or all of the airlines end up cutting routes in the winter. That would be a mistake.

I do not want to gild the lily or overstate the obvious, but it is clear at this stage that we are well into the tourism season. While I welcome elements of the Minister's initiative in a focus on attracting tourists to Ireland, in terms of the capacity to assist in that regard we are nearly past the date that it would be of benefit for this year. I urge the Minister, and particularly his officials in their interaction with the airlines, to bring this matter to a head.

I note the Minister's comments that while they have engaged, they have failed to get broad agreement or agreement that the Minister finds acceptable in order to lift the tax. That is something with which we all were familiar in that some of these airlines in the past have made public comment about what they would do if certain conditions were provided to them and they are relatively slow or tardy in ‘fessing up to that on the other side. I would like to see it progress as quickly as possible because we need to enhance in whatever way we can the level of tourism coming through.

The discussions are ongoing. They certainly have not yet concluded. The real issue arises around the schedules for the winter and for next spring. It is in the next few weeks that the airlines will determine their schedules for the winter. What they do will be the best test of whether they have responded, not what they say.

In the event that it does not go ahead for the winter schedules, there is always the possibility of doing it in the spring or using the moneys to promote tourism in another way or to promote flights in another way. I definitely do not want to give the airlines something for nothing. I am not prepared to do that with taxpayers' money.

I welcome that approach.

Public Transport

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

25 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will agree to a meeting with a group (details supplied) recently established to campaign against the cuts to Dublin Bus as a result of network direct; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18994/11]

As the Deputy will be aware, I do not have an operational role in Dublin Bus. As such, a meeting would be more appropriate with the management of Dublin Bus rather than with me and I am happy to facilitate that for the group.

I generally support Dublin Bus efforts to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness under the Network Direct programme. The Deloitte report on the cost and efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann identified significant scope for the redesign and more efficient operation of the Dublin Bus network to provide a more attractive service to existing and potential users. The redesign would achieve more frequent, streamlined and reliable services. Following the publication of the report, Dublin Bus undertook an extensive review of its bus network and announced plans for the reorganisation of routes and timetables.

Given the losses recorded by Dublin Bus in 2010, and further reductions in the PSO subvention due over the coming years, it is important that the Deloitte report and the Network Direct programme are fully delivered upon to ensure the viability of the service.

During the review Dublin Bus has consulted key stakeholders, customers and local representatives. The redesigned routings are being introduced on a phased basis to allow for a manageable and orderly process to take place and are expected to be completed by late summer of this year.

I am extremely disappoint with that answer. It is the same script that the communities that have been affected by these bus cuts have heard since the swingeing cuts in the provision of bus services across the city have been ripping through the bus service.

The Minister should meet the people affected. It is astonishing that we get this stuff, which we got from the previous Government, about the Minister having no operational control. As I understand it, and the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, he must sign off on any route changes. It would be incredible if he did not have to sign off.

Ask a question please.

If the Minister does not, it seems he should.

Will the Minister meet the users of bus services — pensioners, those with disabilities, young people, and so on — who have been affected by these cuts and they will explain what is going on. If he met them, he would discover that the line being spun by Dublin Bus is disingenuous and akin to the logic of the United States in the Vietnam war that we must destroy our bus services in order to save and improve them. The Minister should take that back to Dublin Bus and do something about a situation where elderly persons in this city are being made prisoners in their homes because their bus services are being withdrawn. One does not improve bus services by taking 200 buses out of the Dublin Bus fleet.

Has the Minister read the Deloitte report? The Deloitte report points out that the Government provides a lower level of subvention for public transport than most of its European counterparts. It does not recommend cutting the number of buses in the bus service, but under the language of so-called reform and streamlining, cuts are what are happening.

I have read the Deloitte report. I acknowledge that the subvention for Dublin Bus is lower than that for other European cities but they are not in the financial position in which this country finds itself where we must cut spending significantly. Certainly, if Deputy Boyd Barrett's policies were pursued, by sending the IMF home and pulling out of the bailout, we would probably have to close down bus services and train services altogether as there would be no money to subvent public transport. We would have to make €18 billion in cuts in one budget rather than only €3.6 billion to €4 billion, as we must do at the end of the year.

I have no role in routes. They are signed off by the NTA, which is the independent regulator for public transport and which works in the same way as the CER or other regulators work.

I meet people all the time about bus services — certainly, public representations and my constituents. The Minister of State, Deputy Kelly, has had several meetings on bus routes. I meet the users all of the time. I am disinclined to meet campaign groups set up by political parties, but there have been other campaign groups. The most important aspect of all of this is that there is a public consultation process. None of these changes was made, and Network Direct was not established without a full public consultation process.

The changes were advertised, there was proper consultation and the matters were considered. It is not true to say that network direct is some sort of stealth cutting mechanism. Network Direct has been applied to my constituency and I am aware of how it has affected my area. In many places it has involved improving services and making services more frequent. In other areas it has involved a reduction in services because the routes had to be straightened out in cases where there were too many routes with too many legs and too many spurs and where services were too irregular.

I put it to the Minister that there is a contradiction in his statement. On the one hand he maintains it is about a review and streamlining services but then he admits that the constraints are all to do with the EU-IMF deal and the package of budget constraints that follow from it. I suggest this is the truth of the matter: it is about the EU-IMF austerity package but it is glossed over with the language of a review.

Is it not the case that if one takes 200 buses out of the Dublin Bus fleet one does not get a better service, one gets a worse service? I call on the Minister to meet these people. Although public representatives played a role in organising and facilitating some of the meetings, I assure the Minister this involves hundreds or thousands of ordinary residents throughout the city who wish to meet the Minister. There need not be any public representatives present at the meetings. These are ordinary citizens who wish to meet the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to explain to him how they are suffering as a result of these cutbacks. I appeal to the Minister to meet their request.

It is about efficiency. We are in a situation whereby Dublin Bus must do more with less not simply because of a cut in Government funding, but because of a fall in the number of passengers as well. The numbers are down significantly because of the success of the Luas. This programme is about using the resources more efficiently and delivering services in that way. Essentially, this is what Network Direct is about. I remind the Deputy that if the policies of his party or those of the public representatives who set up the group were pursued, it is probable we would have no bus services at all.

By not giving €9 billion to the ECB.

Were it not for the money coming from the EU and the IMF we would have to balance the budget this year.

We are giving it to them.

We would have to reduce the deficit to zero in one year. Can the Deputy imagine the effect of that on bus services? The only bus and train services in the country would be those which turn a profit, of which there is virtually none. That would be the effect of the Deputy's policies.

Top
Share