Vol. 825 No. 3
6. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will implement the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications to introduce a point to point licence for oversized HGVs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54131/13]
The ban on oversized HGVs has huge implications for the agriculture sector. For example, it reduces the capacity for live exports by one fifth and the transport of fodder from the south east of the country to the west by approximately one third. It also increases vehicle movements on many substandard national secondary roads by up to 70%. I would like the Minister to review this issue.
The Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 set the maximum height limit of vehicles at 4.65 m. This maximum height limit was decided following a public consultation process undertaken in 2005. Originally, it was proposed that there be a two year derogation to allow for vehicles registered, licensed or in use prior to the introduction of the new limit to be withdrawn. Subsequently, following representations from the haulage industry, it was agreed that a five year derogation or wash-out period would apply. The regulations were signed on 14 September 2008 and came into force on 1 November that year. The derogation expired on 31 October 2013.
There is already an abnormal load permit scheme in place operated by the local authorities which allows vehicles that exceed statutory dimensions to operate in exceptional circumstances. The abnormal load permit scheme is not meant as an alternative to complying with existing vehicular mass and dimensions legislative requirements. Any attempt to undermine the intent of the scheme would result in those operators who are compliant with vehicle heights legislation being at a competitive disadvantage, while those that do not comply would benefit. On a broader point, it would send the message that regulations set in transport matters are not serious and subject to change on foot of last minute lobbying. This would incentivise non-compliance. This would only serves to create greater confusion in the industry in the long term and make investment decisions within the transport industry much riskier.
The Minister will be aware that there are flexibilities in the transport rules for the agriculture sector. Is he aware, as I know his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ring is, of a company in County Mayo, McHale, which produces balers? Because that company produces bales that are 6 in. bigger than the standard 4 ft. bale, it is not possible because of transport rules for it to transport three rows of bales from the south east to the west. There is no tunnel restriction on this route. If this rule continues to apply, McHale's will not be used by people in that part of the country because it will not be able to transport the bales across country. Will the Minister, in the context of this and the live export issue, review the rules and introduce a point-to-point system for these categories?
This law was introduced in 2008 and companies were given five years to comply with it. It is not a case of whether it is applied - it has been the law for several weeks now and I assume that it is being applied. I am not aware of the company that the Deputy specifically mentioned, but I am aware of other companies that say they can carry bales three-high in their vehicles because they have a lower trailer and have adjusted the wheels and tyres accordingly. They have complied with the legislation and can load bales three-high. There is an interesting letter in the Irish Farmers' Journal from a company in Carlow specifying that it can do that because it did comply with legislation and was prepared to do so.
The reason for this is not tunnels. Most of these vehicles do not go through tunnels and there are only three tunnels anyway. The reason is bridge strikes of which there have been 1,200 in recent years. Only two weeks ago, trains to and from Galway were stopped for an hour because a vehicle hit a bridge. Only last week, we had a bridge strike in Clontarf. Anytime a large vehicle hits a bridge, trains have to be stopped and Irish Rail has to investigate to ensure it is safe.
My understanding from Irish Rail is that the vast majority of bridge strikes are due to oversized construction transport, rather than point-to-point transport. I ask the Minister to do one thing which, if possible, would assist everyone in this situation. Currently, if someone is transporting something that is oversized, let us say from Rosslare to Ballinasloe, one must go through seven local authorities and obtain seven separate permits. Can a streamlined application system be put in place, with a uniform fee, whereby one permit could be obtained for all the relevant local authorities?
For example, one can get an annual licence to go through County Offaly for €300, but the same licence in County Waterford would cost €117,000. There is a major inconsistency in that regard. At the very least, the Minister should examine this matter and replicate the UK's uniform application system which is far more effective.
I will certainly examine that matter. I can see the Deputy's point that it is onerous if somebody with an abnormal load must go to seven or eight local authorities to obtain permits, particularly if the rules are different in each local authority. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the abnormal load permit scheme is in place for very large, wide or unusual exceptions, such as a wind turbine or generator. The scheme is not something that should be used for regular loads.
7. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will consider providing a capital grant scheme for mountain rescue organisations to enable the organisations, most of which are staffed by volunteers, to update or modernise equipment in view of the very welcome growth in adventure and activity related tourism which unfortunately at times requires the services of such mountain rescue organisations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54333/13]
I am asking the Minister to consider the introduction of a modest capital grant scheme for Mountain Rescue Ireland and various other subsidiary bodies, for equipment and the replacement of jeeps and vans. Such vehicles are used to transport hard-working volunteers to their mountain bases to carry out their important rescue work.
In total there are 12 mountain rescue teams in Ireland. These teams, staffed by volunteers, are called upon to operate in all weather conditions and provide a hugely important service. As we approach the end of 2013, I want to thank them and all our volunteer rescue teams for the amazing work they do.
My Department, through the Irish Coast Guard, administers an annual grant scheme to Mountain Rescue Ireland, the umbrella organisation for mountain rescue teams on the island of Ireland. However, it is important to recognise that the Garda Síochána have responsibility for the co-ordination of mountain rescue teams under the framework for major emergency management. The Garda falls under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality.
In administering this grant, my Department meets Mountain Rescue Ireland and relevant statutory bodies each year to review grant requests in accordance with a framework agreed some years ago. The grants paid to individual teams reflect the level of operations and expenditure of the teams. It is a matter for individual teams to decide how it is spent, as each team at local level develops its own administrative and operational practices.
In the year to date, some €186,000 has been paid in grant assistance to Mountain Rescue Ireland and its constituent teams. I am pleased to say that it has been possible to retain the grant at this level over the past few years. I will do so again in 2014. Mountain Rescue Ireland, as an all-island organisation, also avails of additional supports in Northern Ireland.
I am open to considering the introduction of a capital grant scheme, as proposed by the Deputy, and will ask my officials to engage with Mountain Rescue Ireland on the issues involved.
I thank the Minister for his reply and concur with his remarks about the amazing work undertaken by volunteer mountain rescue teams. I recognise the current expenditure provided by the Department of Transport, which includes €7,400 to the Galway mountain rescue teams. I also acknowledge the Department's promotion of the hiking and walking sector which is growing. Volunteer rescue teams play an important role in this regard.
Current expenditure is hugely important but so is capital expenditure. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is open to the introduction of a modest capital scheme and that he will ask his officials to engage with Mountain Rescue Ireland. Other Departments, such as the Department of Health, have access to such funding. For example, the Galway Centre for Independent Living received €50,000 for a replacement mini-bus. I wonder if the Minister can get his hands on similar funding for mountain rescue schemes.
As far as I understand it, that applies to some of the existing grant schemes. In 2007, there was a funding scheme to support national organisations in the community and voluntary sector. There are one or two other schemes which have an arrangement with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I do not quite know the details of that, but there are some other things they can already apply for. However, what I have in mind, and what the Deputy is suggesting, is to allow for a certain number of minor capital grants from my Department, probably for equipment more than anything else. That money can be spent quite quickly. I will ask my officials to engage with such groups to see if we can do that for 2014.
I thank the Minister for his supplementary reply. While I will not say they are joined up, his Department, along with the Department of Justice and Equality, and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, are working to provide possible sources of funding. Perhaps there should be a more centralised funding system for voluntary groups so they can avail of €50,000 or €60,000 to replace vehicles.
I will certainly take the Deputy's comments on board.
8. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport his plans to designate Malin Head, Ireland's most northerly point, as the natural starting and ending point of the Wild Atlantic Way; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54403/13]
49. Deputy Tony McLoughlin asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position regarding the plans for investment along the Wild Atlantic Way; and the way he would see communities supporting its development to attract tourism to the Sligo-Leitrim and west Cavan areas which are in close proximity also to Northern Ireland. [54391/13]
My question concerns the Wild Atlantic Way and specifically the need for Malin Head to be identified as the northern starting point of that route. This is a welcome project and I commend Fáilte Ireland for the preparatory work it has carried out on identifying the route and bringing it to its current status. It offers great potential for tourism right across the country, including the potential to attract visitors to County Donegal. It is important to use Malin Head as the starting point of the Wild Atlantic Way to attract more tourists not only to the northern part of County Donegal but to the county as a whole, thus giving it a particular identity. I ask the Minister of State to give a commitment to doing so.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 49 together.
The Wild Atlantic Way will be Ireland's first long-distance touring route, stretching along the Atlantic coast from Donegal to west Cork. Budget 2014 included a specific provision of €8 million to support capital expenditure associated with the Wild Atlantic Way. The overall aim of the project is to develop a route that will achieve greater visibility for the west coast of Ireland in overseas tourist markets.
During the second half of 2012, Fáilte Ireland together with all the local authorities along the west coast, and also the Leader companies, Údarás na Gaeltachta and the Western Development Commission, examined a range of route options for the Wild Atlantic Way. In November 2012, Fáilte Ireland published a route identification report, detailing a preferred route which had been identified, and sought the views of stakeholders during a month-long consultation process.
Fáilte Ireland also held a series of seminars in every county along the west coast, to seek the views of tourism businesses and communities in relation to the preferred route. Malin Head formed part of the Wild Atlantic Way route from the outset. The northern start point for the route begins at Derry, where it joins the Northern Ireland causeway coastal route.
The development of the Wild Atlantic Way is an operational matter for Fáilte Ireland, and I do not have a role in designating any particular location on the route. However, selecting Malin Head as the natural start or end point of the Wild Atlantic Way would have excluded the north east of the Inishowen Peninsula and the western side of Lough Foyle from the route, which would not be beneficial to the tourism sector in the areas concerned.
I do not agree that designating Malin Head as the starting or end point of the Wild Atlantic Way would exclude any part of the Inishowen Peninsula. It would actually help to attract tourists to the peninsula. There is great potential for developing Malin Head as a destination in the county. A great deal of tourism work has been done in the county recently. For example, there has been investment in the Slieve League cliffs, where tourist numbers have increased markedly in the past two or three years. However, we will miss out on an opportunity if we do not make Malin Head the starting point of the Wild Atlantic Way. While linking it to the causeway coastal route makes sense, in that they must work together, setting a starting point to the Wild Atlantic Way that is simply a point on the Border represents a missed opportunity.
I must call the Minister of State to reply. I will call the Deputy again.
I ask that the Minister of State engage with Fáilte Ireland to reassess this proposal.
I will make two points. First, is the Deputy saying that we should exclude Derry? This is one of the cross-Border initiatives. Remember the Good Friday Agreement.
Second, Fáilte Ireland has told me that the Deputy's proposal would cut off the east of Inishowen, which would be disastrous. Perhaps he should discuss the matter with Fáilte Ireland, as he seems to have misunderstood the route. I hope he is not telling me that we should not have cross-Border initiatives with Derry, but perhaps we could set up a meeting with someone from Fáilte Ireland to discuss the matter with him.
I would welcome the opportunity to have that meeting. Perhaps the Minister of State might also attend it. I have met and exchanged correspondence with Fáilte Ireland regarding this issue. I am raising the matter on the floor of the Dáil to engage the Department.
The Minister of State's approach is to ensure the route works well. His bona fides are good in that regard. However, there has been a missed opportunity. We must reconsider the issue, as making Malin Head the main starting point provides a great deal of potential. In no way would it disadvantage any part of Inishowen or Donegal. Rather, it would enhance the overall tourism potential of the Wild Atlantic Way.
I will organise a meeting between the Deputy and Fáilte Ireland. It has told me that his proposal would exclude the east part of the Inishowen Peninsula, which I am sure he does not want.
I do not want arguments to develop about the Wild Atlantic Way. It is the country's greatest initiative. It will be like the Green Way in Mayo, in that people will be talking about it for the next 30 years. I want everyone in Inishowen, Donegal and the west and north coasts to buy into it. This will be a great initiative for the coastline. I was delighted that we were able to secure €8 million in funding for the way in the recent budget. We have advertised it all over the world. People are excited about it. We want people in Inishowen, Mayo, Sligo and Donegal to promote and explain it to tourists. This great opportunity should not be lost.
9. Deputy Alan Farrell asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide an update on the National Transport Authority’s plans to tender out 10% of the publicly subsidised bus routes currently operated by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. [54331/13]
32. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the likely impact of the privatisation of certain bus routes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54395/13]
45. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the timeframe for the open market tender process of bus routes of both Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus; if a similar process will be considered from Iarnród Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54398/13]
The National Transport Authority, NTA, recently announced the privatisation of some bus routes in the south east to and from Dublin. During the consultation period, there was opposition to that privatisation. Does the Minister of State not agree that the evidence of privatisation from other jurisdictions highlights the human, social and economic costs of having a public service delivered by private companies?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 32 and 45 together.
The direct award contracts for the provision of public service obligation, PSO, bus market services held by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann expire late next year. The awarding of subsequent contracts is a matter for the NTA. On 5 December and in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, the NTA announced that up to 10% of publicly subvented PSO bus services would be tendered out, with the new services commencing in the summer of 2016. Tendered services are due to commence in August of that year.
There are a number of trade union concerns about potential tendering for PSO services. These include the impact on industrial relations and cost savings measures within CIE at a general level and the specific implications of transfer of undertakings legislation, TUPE, and related issues. However, it must be recognised that the proposals outlined in the consultation process are relatively modest and there will be a long lead in before any tendering takes effect. Furthermore, it is of course open to the two incumbent companies to compete for any tendered route. Sometimes, this point is lost. It should not be assumed that there will be any reduction in staff numbers or that TUPE will even arise.
Following the announcement by the NTA on 5 December, these issues need to be addressed by it and the bus companies through constructive engagement with the unions in the course of the procurement process over the next two years. Following a meeting in recent weeks that the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, and I attended with all of the trade unions involved, including SIPTU and the NBRU, the chairman of the NTA has been asked to carry out such a structured engagement.
The winning tenderer will be required to deliver a specified service under which the timetables, fares and standards of service will be set down by the NTA. There will be no cherry-picking. The State, in the form of the NTA, will be determining frequency and routes of these services. The intention is that a better service can be procured for the same PSO subvention that is currently provided or that the same service can be provided for a lesser cost to the taxpayer.
Regarding the Irish Rail market, the European Commission announced a package of proposals last January aimed at delivering better quality and more choice in railway services across Europe. Among the proposals is the opening of domestic rail passenger markets from 2019 onwards. The package also contains a proposal that would lead to all PSO contracts being awarded by means of a competitive tender process from December 2019. The discussions on these latest proposals have not yet commenced. The proposals are being scrutinised by my Department and the approach to be taken will have regard to the views of interested parties. As the House will be aware, Ireland has specific rail issues, given the fact that we are surrounded by water.
Most Deputies would agree that the Thatcherite legacy of privatisation of rail and bus services was shocking. Shortly after the privatisation of British Rail, British Government subsidies increased from £1 billion in 1980 to £6 billion in 2006. Likewise, the privatisation of bus services saw similar consequences, with bus fares increasing by 40% within eight years. Tendering on a route-by-route basis meant that there was no integration of services and the number of operators increased drastically.
Does the Minister of State not agree that, if certain routes are privatised, the providers will be geared towards making money rather than creating a service? Is this the way we should be going?
I thank the Deputy, but I wish to point out something. This is opening up for tendering, not direct privatisation per se. This week, I met Dublin Bus and spoke with the chief executive of Bus Éireann. I will speak with the chief executive of Irish Rail today.
The Deputy is right about the mixed results in other countries that underwent full privatisation of services. How the process is managed is the important issue. This is a modest opening up of the market, up to 10%. Basically, it involves orbital routes in Dublin's commuter areas and some routes in Waterford city. This is the decision of the NTA.
The way in which the service is managed will be crucial. It is the National Transport Authority that will dictate and decide the service level, routes and frequency of services. It will not be decided by the company that has been successful in the tender process. That is critical and something about which we are adamant.
That is classic; opening up for tendering is not privatisation.
Not necessarily.
I wish the Minister of State well in selling it to his colleagues in the unions. That is his job. He has taken a decision to begin the process of privatisation. As a member of the Labour Party, he is responsible for that act. I do not care how he minces his words about opening up for tendering and in referring to the role of the National Transport Authority. It is a Government decision. The NTA is an independent agency, but when it comes to a significant policy shift such as this, the decision must be taken at Cabinet level. Fine Gael’s ideology has always involved the privatisation of the public transport system. It is a decision with which I fundamentally disagree. I agree with Deputy Mick Wallace that the privatisation of London Bus and the rail system ultimately cost the state a hell of a lot more money in an effort to get people to go back and utilise the services. What happened was that as the companies drove to gain more profits for themselves, services deteriorated and the good work done during the years in achieving the modal shift of moving people out of their cars and onto public transport was reversed. That is my concern about what will happen in this country.
The Deputy has said he is not in favour of opening up the markets. That is amazing, considering that he voted in the legislation that guided the process. The legislation that guided us was prepared by a previous Minister, Noel Dempsey.
Things have changed a lot since.
It was that threshold we had to meet, in conjunction with the European legislation that also guides us in the area.
Positions have changed.
It is Fianna Fáil legislation that is guiding us in this area, which the Deputy voted through. He is contradicting himself completely. He said one thing at one time and he is now saying completely the opposite.
That is what the Minister of State did, too. He opposed it.
I am happy that this is a modest proposal. Following meetings with them this week, I am confident that the bus companies will be in a position to submit very good tenders for those services being put out to tender. They are in a very good position and I hope they will win some of the routes. We do not know what the circumstances will be post-tender. What is happening is that there is a very modest opening up of routes. There are those inside and outside the House who have an ideological belief more routes should be opened up. I do not believe they are happy with the small change taking place.
The Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, is extremely happy. He has had the door unlocked.
I do not know about that.
The door is widening by the day.
The Deputy could not be more wrong.
I am only happy because it is Christmas.
Does the Minister agree that consecutive Governments have done very little for public transport in Ireland? By international standards, public transport services are weak, while rail services have been allowed to disintegrate. If one lives in the countryside, the bus service leaves too much to be desired. Most people have to have a car in order to get from A to B. Rather than follow in the footsteps of other Governments, would the responsible Ministers not be tempted to leave their mark and do something serious in terms of investing in public transport in a major way? What is being done is further watering down public transport services by putting some of them out to tender. It would be positive if the Minister were to put a serious effort into improving public transport in Ireland, which is something that has not happened in a long time.
It is most disappointing to hear a Labour Party Minister defend the privatisation of part of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The wording “opening up to tendering” is, without doubt, opening the door to privatisation. The Government’s attitude seems to be to blame it on the NTA, but the decision was an ideological one taken at Cabinet level.
Will the Deputy, please, ask a question?
I would like to know whether a cost-benefit analysis was carried out. The PSO subsidy is in place. Will savings accrue from it? As far as I can see, that seems to be one of the issues involved. Will it lead to a reduction in passenger numbers? A significant effort has been put into Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to increase passenger numbers and put a proper public system in place. That has been working. Will there be an analysis of the impact that it will have on communities? How does one assess various routes that help people who are affected by a disability or who have bus passes? These concessions have all been hard fought for and won and we are going to throw them away.
I thank both Deputies for their questions. On Deputy Mick Wallace’s generic question, given the financial and other constraints on the Department, a considerable amount has been achieved. Like me, the Deputy represents a rural area. Rural transport services have been completely upgraded. An entire new structure is in the process of being delivered which will further integrate public transport services. The previous Administration wanted to get rid of them under the McCarthy report. Previously, rural transport services were not joined up with other public transport services. That issue is being addressed. For the first time, the school bus service is being integrated with public transport services. School buses travel in and out of towns and through villages and previously could not pick up anyone on the way back, even though fuel was being used and people were paid. A recent change means that they are now allowed to pick up other passengers. The first service to be provided is in Waterford and a new rural hackney licence will commence this week. I urge every Deputy to promote it because it is something that has universally been welcomed. Much work has gone into co-ordinating the services. It takes time, but I made a commitment to do it.
Deputy Dessie Ellis failed to acknowledge an important fact - the National Transport Authority will decide the routes and frequency of services. Whoever wins the competition will not decide. The NTA will decide on the service delivered to ensure the people mentioned by the Deputy, whom we wish to protect, will still have the services they require. That is a critical point which many people do not seem to get. The NTA will decide the routes, service levels and frequency of services for the company that wins.
As Deputy Pat Deering is not present, Parliamentary Question No. 11 will not be taken in the House.
11. Deputy Patrick O'Donovan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide an update in respect of proposed works at Foynes Port, County Limerick, including the possible re-opening of the Limerick-Foynes railway line to convey freight and other cargo to and from Foynes Port, and the construction of new jetty facilities at Foynes; if EU funding has been applied for in respect of these works; if he or his Department has been in a position to support any such applications for funds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54250/13]
The question relates to the recent designation by the Government of the Shannon Foynes Port Company as the only tier 1 port in the west and specifically connectivity from the port by road and rail.
Shannon Foynes Port Company, SFPC, with the ports of Dublin and Cork, was designated as a tier 1 port of national significance in the national ports policy published earlier this year. The tier 1 ports are also designated as core ports in the trans European network - transport, TEN-T, thus making them eligible to apply for EU funding under TEN-T and the connecting Europe facility, CEF. There is no State funding for port infrastructural development as it could be illegal under state aid rules, nor is there any capital funding available within the port or Iarnród Éireann for reopening the Limerick to Foynes railway line owing to budgetary constraints.
A number of studies have been carried out by Shannon Foynes Port Company of necessary jetty improvement works and future development. These proposals are outlined in the port's 30 year master plan, Vision 2041, which I launched last February.
The railway line between Limerick and Shannon-Foynes port is being maintained on a care and retention basis. Iarnród Éireann states it needs investment in the order of €10 million to reopen it for traffic. That can only happen if it is clear that sufficient volumes of freight will be transported on it and on foot of private sector investment. Meetings took place in 2012 between the SFPC, Iarnród Éireann and a number of potential line users.
The TEN-T executive agency provides funding towards the cost of studies and projects under the TEN-T programme. In November 2012 it launched a call for funding proposals which closed in February 2013. The European Commission makes the final decision on applications.
The SFPC submitted an application in February 2013 relating to preliminary works for the rail line reinstatement and certain jetty improvements.
My Department endorsed the application and a ministerial letter of support was included with the application. The project is costed at almost €13 million and the funding sought amounted to nearly €1.3 million. However, the application was not successful.
Shannon Foynes Port Company has since met with the Trans-European Transport Network executive agency, TENT-T, and the Commission to clarify any shortcomings in the project application. I understand the company intends to reapply for funding under the next round expected later in 2014. It is my intention to again issue a letter of support.
I also met with Siim Kallas, European Commissioner for Transport and the TEN-T agency on 5 December 2013 where I reiterated the Government’s support for several of Ireland's TEN-T CEF, Connecting Europe Facility, projects.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Given there are three ports of tier 1 status, Dublin, Cork and Shannon Foynes, will he accept the latter is the one with the greatest disadvantages in connectivity? Given its strategic importance on the west coast, along with its proximity to Moneypoint, Tarbert and Aughinish Island, there is a need for an overall plan for infrastructural connectivity to be developed. I know the Minister travelled the N69 recently from Limerick to Foynes and will be aware of the poor road quality and the number of towns it passes through. It takes a long time for hauliers and other port users to travel on the road and the traffic levels do have an impact on local communities.
What avenues are the Department, the National Roads Authority, NRA, and the Rail Procurement Agency, RPA, looking at with private equity to deliver improved road and rail infrastructure for the port? It is probably the best positioned port in the country with its shelter, depth and location. No other port can accommodate the size of vessels it can. However, it seems to be hamstrung by its road and rail connectivity.
Five ports are designated as being of national importance, Dublin, Cork, Shannon Foynes, Rosslare and Waterford. Within that, there are three tier 1 ports, Dublin, Cork and Shannon Foynes. All of them have their challenges. Dublin Port is a great port but it is in the middle of a city and its main channel needs to be deepened. Cork needs improved road access to Ringaskiddy. Shannon Foynes has challenges as the N69 provides substandard access to a port of its kind.
I see the potential for enormous growth in Shannon Foynes in the coming years. It is a deep-water and bulk port, meaning it can carry much cargo. However, it will need the existing road upgraded or a new road connection. The railway to the port can be reopened if there is sufficient business to justify doing so. The key step on that point is to secure the European funding. I am working with the port company in achieving that.
If there is to be a follow-up stimulus package of capital investment by the Department through the NRA into the road network, will he prioritise the N69 connection to Shannon Foynes as it is of strategic importance to the deepest port in the country? There has never been an opportunity before to see a port of this importance connected by rail into the national rail infrastructure. Will the Minister support efforts looking for investment in the port’s connectivity through public private partnerships and European institutions?
A proper study needs to be undertaken of routes and constraints for a road upgrade. Limerick County Council has gone out to tender for reports on upgrades to the N69 and Adare bypass. These will help us make a decision in this regard. Connecting the port to the national network is not just a political priority but also a European regulatory priority because of the TEN-T CEF project.
I am enthusiastic about the reopening of the rail connection at the port and am open to considering any potential investors. The key point, however, that creates market concern is that it is not yet clear what cargo would run on the railway if it were reopened. No one wants to spend €10 million reopening a railway for it not to be used. There would need to be more certainty about what bulk would be going into and out of the port on the railway.
