Vol. 831 No. 1
89. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he is concerned at the introduction of a heavy goods vehicle road user levy in the United Kingdom which will have a significant impact on Irish hauliers; if he has spoken to his British counterpart regarding this levy; his plans to apply a similar levy here on foreign hauliers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8056/14]
The Minister is aware that the authorities in the United Kingdom intend to introduce a charge for heavy goods vehicles travelling from outside the state and they have managed to find a methodology for doing so in a manner that does not breach European Union competition law. I understand the Minister's Department has been aware of this for the past three years. He will be aware also that the impact on owners of heavy goods vehicles in this State will be significant. The expectation is that it will render it quite difficult to compete with trucks travelling from the North of Ireland, and particularly the UK.
Under EU legislation, it is open to any member state to introduce road user charges if it wishes. Road charging is an important option for the funding of roads infrastructure, particularly in the context of ensuring that out-of-state hauliers contribute to the costs of a country’s road infrastructure. The new UK road user levy introduces a charge on all HGVs weighing 12 tonnes or more for use of UK roads, including those in Northern Ireland. This levy is planned to start on 1 April 2014.
I have expressed my concerns about the impact this levy will have on Irish hauliers to my UK and Northern Ireland colleagues. Furthermore, I have sought exemptions for some roads in Northern Ireland to reduce the impact on Irish hauliers. The issue has also been discussed at transport sectoral meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council in Armagh. I will be meeting Mr. Stephen Hammond, MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, on Thursday and I intend to raise this issue directly with him again.
Following consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, I have established a cross-departmental working group to examine the feasibility of introducing a road charging scheme for HGVs in the medium term. The group began its work in January and is due to report by the middle of this year. The development of a road charging scheme for HGVs is one of my priorities for 2014. Obviously, the introduction of any such regime raises a number of issues and will require input from a wide variety of Departments and agencies. These issues include the Exchequer impact of a road charging scheme, how it would work, the effect it would have on imports and exports, the technology involved in such a system, compliance with European legislation and how the system would be enforced.
I thank the Minister but he has not given me any confidence that he will find a solution or a resolution that will meet the concerns and the needs of the owners of heavy goods vehicles. He is aware that it is approximately €5,200 cheaper to operate the same heavy goods vehicle in the North of Ireland as opposed to the South. The Irish State has chosen not to police the visiting of Northern trucks in the State in a manner that would make it difficult for them to compete effectively against their Southern counterparts.
Trucks travelling from County Donegal to Dublin on a daily basis will incur this charge. I am interested to find out the routes that the Minister has sought to exclude from charges. This initiative will be helpful if it is successful.
He also indicated that he has discussed the matter with his counterparts in the North and the UK. Has he taken the opportunity to have a conversation with the leader of Sinn Féin in this House, Deputy Adams, given that he holds significant sway in the Administration in the Northern part of this country? Perhaps a discussion between Deputy Adams and the Minister would help to resolve this matter. I have every expectation that Deputy Adams and Sinn Féin will support the Minister in addressing the concerns of hauliers on this side of the Border. If he has not had that conversation, why has he not done so and will he agree to enter discussions at the earliest opportunity?
A number of issues should be borne in mind. At the end of last year, 307,849 goods vehicles were registered for tax in Ireland but only 9,500 of these were heavier than 12 tonnes. This charge will only apply to approximately 3% of Irish registered goods vehicles, therefore, although that is still a significant number. Britain has decided to introduce a relatively old-fashioned and time based system whereby out-of-state hauliers purchase tags on a daily basis. Most countries are opting for a distance based system, with some using GPS to measure distances travelled. We have to decide which option we want to take. The countries which have introduced charges generally have a considerable amount of through traffic, such as Austria. These countries want to capture revenue from hauliers passing through. That issue does not really arise for us because most hauliers in Ireland are delivering here. Furthermore, under European law we cannot levy tolls and road charges at the same time. With two minor exceptions, there are no tolls in the United Kingdom but Ireland levies tolls. That must also be addressed.
The Minister may not have had time to answer my question regarding whether he has had an opportunity to discuss with Deputy Adams the expected approach of the Northern Ireland Assembly to the charge. If he has had such discussions, perhaps he can outline their nature and, if he has not, I ask him to explain why he has not engaged.
We have more or less agreed that two roads straddling the Border will be exempt. I would also like to exempt the A5 for exactly the reasons identified by Deputy Dooley, namely, because through traffic from the northern part of County Donegal travels through Northern Ireland along that road. I will be raising that issue with my UK counterpart in London on Thursday. I have not discussed the issue with the leader of Sinn Féin but I have raised it with the Northern Ireland Minister for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy, MLA, and the Minister for the Environment, Mark H. Durkan, MLA. As they are the line Ministers for transport and the environment, it makes sense that I have discussions with them rather than a Member of this House. However, it is worth noting this is a UK competence and, irrespective of how much sympathy the Northern Ireland Executive may have for us, this decision is being made in London on a UK basis. I am not sure of the extent to which Deputy Adams has the ears of Conservative Party Ministers in London.
90. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the strategy his Department has to invest in and upgrade national heritage sites to make them attractive to the domestic and international tourist markets. [7797/14]
Does the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ring, agree that we do not have enough heritage sites to attract repeat visitors to Ireland?
Responsibility for policy on national heritage sites rests with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, while the Office of Public Works is responsible for day-to-day matters, including investment, management and maintenance.
Nonetheless, my Department and the tourism agencies recognise that these sites are an important part of our tourism offering. In that context, significant amounts of the overall funding for tourism capital investment has been allocated in recent years to projects that optimise the tourism potential of such sites. These allocations have also included heritage sites not in the hands of the OPW, including other publicly-owned properties.
The Government's medium-term Exchequer framework for 2012 to 2016 includes provision for significant investment in tourism product development, in recognition of the contribution that capital investment in tourism can make to increasing visitor numbers in the medium term and to sustaining economic recovery. The allocation of funding to specific tourism capital investment projects is the responsibility of Fáilte Ireland, which operates the tourism capital investment programme, and final decisions in this regard are made by the Fáilte Ireland Authority.
Significant projects already funded or allocated under the programme in the area of built heritage include Derrynane House, Killarney House, King John's Castle, Russborough House, Castletown House, Garnish Island, Spike Island, Waterford Viking Triangle, the Dubline heritage mile, and the Kilkenny Medieval Mile, as well as a range of other investments. Fáilte Ireland has worked closely with the OPW, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, local authorities and other promoters in the development of these projects.
Given the level of commitments, there is little scope for any additional project approvals between now and the end of 2016, as the existing capital allocations will be required to fund these and other developments.
I thank the Minister of State for his answer.
Tourism continues to play an important role in our economy. It is our heritage and plays a role in linking the Irish diaspora with our country. That is the big attraction.
In 2011, Ireland was voted the world's favourite holiday destination by readers of Frommer's guide. Lonely Planet listed Ireland as the world's friendliest country and Cork city as one of the top ten cities in the world, and the Irish Tourist Board's website, discoverireland.com, was named the best tourist board website in the world. Will the Minister give a guarantee today that there will be a clear focus on and investment in the upgrading of national heritage sites to make them attractive to the domestic and international tourist market, and will he commit to a joined-up approach with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and Fáilte Ireland to attract tourists back to Ireland?
We appreciate the point, and that is why Fáilte Ireland, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, the OPW and all the agencies work together. Deputy McLellan is quite correct. We have proven the point in the past year, with a 7.2% increase in tourism. It has been phenomenal - the best increase since 2008, and from North America the best increase ever. Last year we received the most visitors from America ever and that, in itself, is an achievement. That is why Fáilte Ireland has put the investment into Derrynane House in Kerry, Garnish Island in Cork and Killarney House in Kerry.
As the Deputy will be aware, Fáilte Ireland makes the decisions on this funding. I am glad to see the spread of this funding, particularly for heritage sites all over the country, because many thousands of visitors who come into this country want to get the location of these sites to visit and it is important that the OPW, Fáilte Ireland and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht work together with the State agencies to ensure we keep this product at the top of the list.
A ten-year review of the Irish tourism sector in 2003 predicted that 10 million visitors would visit Ireland on an annual basis by this year. On 11 September 2011, the Department launched a wide-ranging review of Ireland's tourism policy. Views were requested by Friday, 1 November. This report is important for the future of the tourism sector. Does the Minister agree that the figure of ten million visitors can be achieved within five years if there is a supportive policy environment, a clear business strategy and appropriate investment in the tourism sector?
Deputy McLellan is quite correct. The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, and I attended a number of public meetings throughout the country, where we met all of the stakeholders. We covered much of the country and then we held a meeting in Dublin with all the State agencies.
I am confident about this report. We had Fáilte Ireland, Tourism Ireland and State agencies doing it, but this will be the first time there will be a policy from Government. We are currently going through the submissions and I thank and compliment all who made them. No doubt there is a great interest in tourism in this country. For example, thousands turned out in the middle of winter to support us in The Gathering and hundreds turned out for the meetings we held all over the country. Even last week, it was the same with the Wild Atlantic Way. Hundreds are turning up to meetings all over the country because they are interested in tourism and know that jobs can be created.
We set a target for The Gathering and achieved it. We brought communities and local authorities with us for The Gathering. People now realise, as does the Government, the importance of retaining the 9% VAT rate. That is why we put such funding into tourism. Last year alone we created 14,500 extra jobs in the tourism sector. It is all about bringing visitor numbers into the country, thus creating badly needed jobs. We will continue to do that. When we have this report we will publish it.
Deputy Clare Daly has informed me that she has had to leave the Chamber, but will be back soon. I propose that we proceed to the next Question No. 92. I call Deputy Dooley to introduce it.
92. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the actions he has taken to resolve the potential strike action at our national airports; his views with regard to the future of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8057/14]
The Minister is aware that SIPTU members at Aer Lingus and at three State airports have voted for industrial action up to and including strike action. The threat of strike action can have a damaging impact on our tourism industry. It affects sentiment towards Ireland and discourages people who might be looking at Ireland as a possible holiday destination. What action does the Minister propose to take to try to resolve the threat that now exists as a result of the SIPTU vote? The Minister is well aware that the situation relates to the Irish airlines superannuation scheme.
A resolution of the funding difficulties in the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, where there is currently a substantial and unsustainable deficit of over €700 million, is a matter for the trustees, the companies participating in the scheme, the members and the pensions board.
As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have continually encouraged all parties to continue to use the State’s labour relations machinery to resolve these difficulties. For some time, all parties have participated in discussions with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court to identify solutions. In May of last year, the Labour Court issued recommendations on the matter, including separate recommendations in relation to both Aer Lingus and DAA. A range of meetings involving the parties have taken place since then.
While I appreciate the frustration of staff in the companies, and indeed that of the employers, industrial action in DAA or Aer Lingus will not help to achieve a solution. It will, however, severely inconvenience passengers, including tourists and business travellers. It will also adversely impact on the financial position of the companies who are being asked to contribute more to solve the problem. A strike will obviously make it harder for them to do so, as it will have an affect on their profits.
On behalf of the Government, I appeal to all concerned to reflect carefully on the negative implications of proceeding with any disruptive industrial action. A resolution must be found. The trustees have recently published revised proposals to address the deficit in the IASS. They only did that a few days ago. I welcome this initiative as I believe it will assist the parties to refocus on the search for sustainable compromise solutions to the funding problems in the scheme.
I urge all parties to re-engage on the basis of these new proposals, using the State’s labour relations machinery which is available to them.
Yet again, the Minister is pleading the position of the hurler on the ditch. He rightly identified the involvement of the trustees, the pension board, the members and others. He also has some advice for them and is encouraging them to use the good offices of the State's industrial relations machinery. In addition, he has set out the case regarding the impact of such a strike. The only matter the Minister neglected to identify is that the State is the only shareholder in the three State airports, which is a significant component of the entire pension fund.
In addition, the Minister is a significant shareholder in Aer Lingus. I, therefore, do not accept his position that he is somehow a casual observer standing on the ditch. His role is far more involved than that. I would like to see him taking a more proactive role in trying to broker a solution to this crisis. The sooner the Minister involves himself, the sooner we can bring about a resolution.
As the Deputy says, the State is the sole shareholder in DAA and Shannon, as well as being a minority shareholder in Aer Lingus. There is a further employee SRT which no longer exists, as the Deputy will be aware. I would not like the Deputy to think, however, that I am disengaged from this; I certainly am not. I have had meetings with the companies at the highest level and meetings with the unions. In addition, my officials have met with the trustees on several occasions, together with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, who also has some semi-State pension issues within his remit.
I met the Pensions Board; therefore, it is not the case that I am an aloof observer. It is something about which I am concerned. However, it is not in my gift to impose a solution. This is not a public pension fund and is not controlled by the State; rather it is a pension fund made up of its members and I am not in a position to impose a solution. However, the offices of the State are available to assist those involved in brokering a solution. At this stage this is best done by the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. It is a big problem, with the deficit now over €700 million. It was approximately €300 million two years ago and the failure to deal with it has made the position much worse. It is getting worse because the benefits being drawn from it are greater than the contributions being made. The basis of the solution lies in this.
I accept the bona fides of the Minister and do not doubt he is involved in discussions with the various actors, but it requires more than this. As the significant shareholder, he is required to bring forward a more comprehensive funding solution. There are many issues with the pension fund. Employees transferred from the Department to work at Shannon Airport in 1969 and 1970 and the commitments given to them at the time were not and still have not been honoured. I will deal with that issue through a Private Members' Bill or by an amendment to legislation pertaining to the promised amalgamation of Shannon Airport and Shannon Development. There have been problems with the pension fund for quite some time and it requires more direct action by the Government through the Minister. I would welcome him considering bringing forward a more comprehensive funding solution to meet the needs of the workers, the people who have retired and those with deferred pension expectations.
The Deputy is correct. There have been problems with the pension fund for a very long time, for longer than I have been in office, and I am determined to ensure the issue is resolved under my watch. I want to make sure people receive their pensions and that we do not face disruption at the airports. I must also protect the taxpayer as any contribution from the companies into the pension fund is an indirect transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the pensioners and the members of the pension fund, many of whom are better off than the average taxpayer. This must also be borne in mind. In the view of the Pensions Board it is a defined benefit pension fund and, as is the case with many other semi-State pension funds, the only way to address the problem is through the company putting in more and the beneficiaries accepting that they will not receive the benefits they had expected or that had been promised. That is how all other deficits such as this have been dealt with and I am sure that is where the solution will lie.
We will now return to Question No. 91 in the name of Deputy Clare Daly.
91. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in view of the recent report from the Irish air accident investigation unit into the Manx2 Cork crash, which identified serious concerns in relation to the regulation of aviation in Europe, if he will outline the Irish regulatory agency or body responsible to ensure that the terms and conditions under which aircraft are operated, or flight crew are employed and managed, will not have any adverse impact on the safety of passengers such as we saw evidenced in the Manx2 accident in Cork; and the steps he will take to ensure that companies in the aviation business will not be able to use aircraft or flight crew under commercial or personal contract arrangements that are not transparent about their potential impact on the safety of aircraft operations. [7995/14]
The question is about the Irish air accident investigation unit's investigation into the Manx2 accident in Cork, particularly the lessons that have been learned from the analysis. The report identifies concerns about the lack of regulation in the aviation sector in Europe. I wonder what lessons the Department has drawn from it in an Irish context.
I thank the Deputy for the question. As the third anniversary of the tragic accident at Cork Airport has just passed, I extend my deepest sympathy to the relatives of the six passengers and air crew who lost their lives and the six passengers who were injured. The investigation into this accident was conducted by the air accident investigation unit of my Department and I commend the work of the investigation team in producing a very comprehensive report. The team put an enormous amount of work into it in the past few years and has done a sterling job in its report.
The operator of the aircraft involved in the crash at Cork Airport was licensed in Spain and responsibility for safety oversight of its operations rested with the Spanish regulatory authorities under EU law. In Ireland the Irish Aviation Authority has statutory responsibility for overseeing safety standards of civil aviation in the State, including airlines and crew members licensed in Ireland and aircraft registered here.
The AAIU report on the Cork Airport crash made 11 safety recommendations. These were addressed to the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO; the European Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency, the Spanish civil aviation authority and the Spanish operator of the aircraft involved.
None of the safety recommendations was directed to an Irish agency. It is important that all of the safety recommendations made in the report are addressed by the organisations concerned.
Ireland has an excellent record and reputation in aviation safety and the report does not bring this into question. The IAA regulates the sector on the basis of international standards set down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, and on the basis of EU regulations. It is audited regularly by both the European Aviation Safety Agency and ICAO. These audits ensure that the IAA operates to the highest standards, and I have every confidence in the IAA's effectiveness in ensuring that Irish aviation is and will continue to be one of the safest in the world.
As the Minister indicated, there was much work put into this incredibly comprehensive report which identified the lack of regulation that existed in Spain. It also pinpointed a very complex arrangement of companies with apparent responsibility for operating the aircraft, as well as the circumstances under which some of the crew had to operate. The Minister is aware that some of the contributing factors were the tiredness of flight crew and the inadequate oversight of remote operation by the operator and the state.
In an Irish context, who oversees such issues? There are airline staff operating under contracts of employment that may be zero-hour contracts; some contract pilots must fly to earn money. That would incentivise these people to report for duty even if they are sick or under stress. Who regulates similar contracts as applied in the Manx crash in an Irish context?
It is important to reiterate that no recommendations were made to Irish authorities or bodies at all, and I would not like to see people bringing Irish industrial relations issues into what was a really tragic incident for which Irish authorities had no responsibility. The purpose of this and any associated investigation is not to apportion blame or liability. A safety recommendation in no case shall create a presumption of blame or liability for an occurrence. A number of entities had safety recommendations made to them, which I mentioned, and under EU law they are required to respond to them within 90 days. We expect them to do so.
There were four recommendations made to the European Commission regarding flight time limitations, to which the Deputy referred; the role of the ticket seller; the improvement of safety oversight; and the oversight of operating licences, which relates to virtual airlines. Three recommendations were made to the European Aviation Safety Agency relating to successive instrument approaches that can be conducted in certain meteorological conditions; the syllabus for the appointment of the commander; and the process by which the air operator certificate is granted. Two recommendations were made to the operator, Flightline SL, regarding its operational policy and training. One recommendation was made to the Spanish agency regarding the oversight of air carriers such as the one in question. One recommendation was made to ICAO regarding the inclusion of the approach and the capability of aircraft, flight crew and plans. It is fair to say that everything from instrumental issues to training and flight time limitations are addressed in the report. In each case, recommendations were made to the appropriate bodies, none of which was Irish.
The Minister is correct that none of them is Irish, and it is an incredibly comprehensive report which is not about blame but very much about learning lessons. The complex arrangement and crew conditions were identified as a contributing factor to this tragic accident, as the Minister has indicated. I am not interested in blaming anybody. In an Irish context, does the Irish Aviation Authority or somebody else oversee the contracts of flight crew in Ireland? There have been reports of some Norwegian companies seeking air operator certificates from Ireland and using this State as a flag of convenience in that regard. In such a context, is the IAA responsible for overseeing the contracts of flight crew?
That depends on circumstances and there are variations from case to case. In this case it was not the IAA but rather the Spanish authorities that were responsible.
The Irish Aviation Authority is responsible for regulating Aer Lingus and Ryanair. There are some exceptions, however, because IASA and the ICAO have a role also. The entire sector is governed by international conventions and European laws.
Norwegian has already been granted a licence to operate from Ireland. It intends to establish a real operation in Swords, a town with which the Deputy is familiar. It is to be a very big investment. The company intends to base its transatlantic services in Ireland and they will be subject to the exact same safety regulations as Aer Lingus and Ryanair. The Deputy will agree that both Aer Lingus and Ryanair have excellent safety records that are among the best in the world. In addition, Norwegian will be bound by all the labour regulations that apply in all parts of the European Union.
93. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the key issues for Dublin Port; his further views on the ports package and the port services directive; if he will protect union involvement and support worker protection; and his views on the need for stability for those companies who have invested in the port. [7994/14]
My question concerns plans for the future of Dublin Port. I wish to ensure security and stability for those who are currently working there and the companies that have invested in it.
As the Deputy is aware, Dublin Port Company is responsible for the State’s largest port and handles over 40% of the total tonnage in any given year at Irish ports. The company’s importance is recognised in the national ports policy, which designates the company as a tier 1 port of national significance and includes the continued commercial development of the company as a key strategic objective. The company has published a master plan, which is available on its website and outlines its view of the challenges and opportunities for the period 2012 to 2040.
As the Deputy states, there is a proposed regulation on port services and the financial transparency of ports, published by the European Commission in late May 2013 and currently under consideration by the European Parliament’s transport committee and also by member state officials at Council level. My Department published a regulatory impact analysis in August 2013 outlining the regulation’s proposals and circulated it among the relevant stakeholders, including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. My Department's analysis, supported by submissions received during the consultation period, was that the proposed regulation would have little impact on how port services are provided in Irish ports. As part of my Department's consultations, no specific or general concerns were raised about the impact of this proposed directive on union involvement or worker participation in Irish ports; nor have any such concerns been raised in response to the national ports policy, published in 2013.
In late November 2013, the Competition Authority published its review of competition within the ports sector This report states that competition is working well in some areas, but the authority makes a number of recommendations for consideration that it believes will further improve competition in the sector. In regard to Dublin Port specifically, the Competition Authority has made two specific recommendations. As stated in National Ports Policy, I am committed to issuing a reasoned response to the Competition Authority’s recommendations within six months of the publication of the report.
The company recently published on its website a franchise review consultation document that outlines its views on the future management of port service operations within the port, which my officials are considering.
Those who favour competition will say it will lead to more jobs and growth, whereas those considering liberalisation will say it could result in job losses and a deterioration in working conditions. There is a fear that profitability margins dictating policy and procedure will have negative effects on those companies that have been working at the port over the years and which have invested heavily therein.
The issue of the workers also arises. I am from a dockland community and know the way in which workers' rights, conditions, health and safety and a proper working wage have been fought for and negotiated down through the years. I can remember a family who were involved in the button system and all the abuses that occurred at that stage. I acknowledge the work of some of the unions, particularly that of the Marine, Port and General Workers' Union under the late Jimmy Dunne. There are fears.
The Competition Authority is pushing for more licenses. This will bring in other companies that could bring in workers at the minimum wage or lower. How can the traditional companies and traditional dockland families who have been doing their jobs year after year and handing down the tradition compete with that? The wages and conditions of those in this group are seriously compromised, as could be health and safety.
It is worth pointing out that Dublin Port is now a very lean operation; it has only approximately 100 staff. Effectively, the port is now a landlord and estate management company. The terminals are operated by three different private companies, all of which are competing with one another. I am satisfied with the level of internal competition in the port. I do not recognise any major need for increased competition at the port, although I acknowledge that the Competition Authority makes some valid points about the length of leases. In some cases, they are very long. The authority's view is that leases for as long as 90 years are inappropriate.
At the same time, we all know about property rights and I suspect it would be very hard to untangle those leases. Even when it comes to issuing more licences, and the port is open to doing that, one would have to ask where those additional people would base themselves on the port estate. I do not know how that will work out.
As regards the national ports policy, I refer to the view of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on our national ports policy, which is the Government's policy, not the Competition Authority's report, which is a different thing. It states that ICTU welcomes the broad thrust of the policy. With regard to the regulation to which the Deputy referred, ICTU says its understands that this regulation is now under active consideration. It says that it has studied the proposed regulation and at this point does not see any policy emerging that is likely to result in the requirement to fundamentally change the organisation of the ports in the Republic of Ireland. It has asked the European Transport Workers' Federation to keep it up to speed on any emerging developments so that it might offer a further view on this matter.
We remain engaged with ICTU on this issue. There is no agenda from the Government to drive down terms and conditions or wages at the port.
I wish to acknowledge the positive response from Dublin Port, the extent of the community engagement and the community liaison person who works directly with local communities, in addition to the way in which it is involved in middle management training with ports in certain African countries. The other aspect is its engagement with a dockers' museum, which I hope will be realised. It has been very supportive of it. However, is there a strong role for Dublin Port and for the Minister in the EU social dialogue committee, which was established last June?
I am not aware of that committee nor am I a member of it, but I will be happy to reply by correspondence.
