Vol. 852 No. 2
1. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide an update on the industrial relations issues at the CIE group of companies; the cost to the taxpayer of the proposed tendering of 10% of public transport bus routes; his plans to improve bus travel times in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36860/14]
I welcome the Minister; I think this is our first Question Time with him in the hot seat, as it were. I wish him well in his role.
In his first days as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, he was faced with the transport companies, particularly Irish Rail, on the verge of industrial unrest. The strike went ahead and I was disappointed that he took so long to involve himself in trying to find a resolution. Notwithstanding that, I ask him to update the House on the status of the industrial relations issue at the moment with the entire group of companies. He might also deal with the cost to the taxpayer of the proposed tendering of 10% of public transport bus routes, and any plans he, the NTA or the transport companies have to improve bus travel times in the Dublin area.
I thank the Deputy for his good wishes. I look forward to working with him, Deputy Ellis and Deputy Halligan both here in the Chamber and in the relevant Oireachtas committees during the time ahead.
Irish Rail management, SIPTU and the NBRU recently engaged in further discussions with the Labour Relations Commission to avoid further disruption and damage to Irish Rail’s business. I am hopeful that the deal concluded on 3 September will be accepted by the employees and further disruption to services will be avoided. Cost-saving measures were agreed in Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in 2013, which included temporary changes to terms and conditions for their employees.
I am informed by the National Transport Authority that it expects the outcome of the tendering of 10% of public transport routes to commence in late 2016, with the same level of service at a reduced cost. In addition, competitive pricing of services will lead to benchmark pricing, which will inform the NTA on the appropriate cost of bus services.
The NTA has statutory responsibility for the strategic planning of transport in the greater Dublin area. In the performance of that role, I am informed by the NTA that it is working with Dublin City Council to undertake a transport assessment study of Dublin city centre. I understand they expect to complete that study in the coming months and that the joint report will contain extensive proposals for enhancement of public transport movement within the city. It is intended that the report, when completed, be made available for public consultation and for consultation in the House.
I will come back to the Minister.
I am also informed-----
Sorry, Minister; I will come back to you. We have to stick to the time limits.
I wish to make one brief point in response to the final point the Deputy put to me. I know that Dublin City Council is working with Dublin Bus to identify particular issues in bus transport, and perhaps I can go into that in more detail with the Deputy.
I appreciate that the question has a number of parts and it is difficult to get it done in the time; that may be an issue for the House at a later stage.
I have always raised concerns about the partial privatisation of certain routes within the network. We only need to look at the experience with London Bus. The Minister might not have had a chance to read himself into what happened with London Bus when it went down the privatisation route. On the face of it, it seemed like a good idea. It looked at the potential for reducing costs while maintaining the same service, but sadly that was not the case. While costs decreased, the service became degraded over time, and unfortunately, when the state had to re-involve itself to try to bring the service back to an acceptable level, it took a hell of a lot more money because, as a result of the poor delivery of service, notwithstanding the service level agreements, passengers effectively moved away from London Bus. We need to be careful to ensure that any action or misadventure by virtue of this privatisation will not result in such a modal shift away from public transport. I have real concerns about that and I ask the Minister to look at the London Bus experience to ensure he is satisfied that this policy decision is appropriate from his perspective.
I am very much aware of the experience with transport in the London area and the role of Transport for London in that regard. I am very committed to the continued development of a high-quality bus service for the city of Dublin and well beyond that through Bus Éireann and through the role of private bus operators. That is why, in the Dublin area at the moment, Dublin Bus is undertaking a number of pieces of work in conjunction with the city council to improve the availability and quality of the bus service. I point to two pieces of work in particular: the work taking place in the Thomas Street and James's Street area, and the works under way in Drumcondra to put in place improved bus access down Drumcondra Road and into the city centre.
On the future of the bus market in Ireland, I emphasise that what we propose is the tendering out for competitive contract of 10% of bus routes at the moment. I am committed to the role of a public bus service in the future. We are looking at 10% of those services. As those contracts are awarded, it will result in certainty over a five-year period for those routes and others. The sole reason this is being done is to ensure we have better availability, quality and diversity of services at the same or reduced cost to the taxpayer.
When looked at in detail, it is more of an ideological decision than anything else. The Minister's party, when in opposition, talked a lot about effectively privatising the public transport network as it applied to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. It was not possible with Iarnród Éireann, since it has no capacity to make profit. There seemed to be an agreement between Fine Gael and the Labour Party that at 10% everybody won. The Minister should be in no doubt that the hawks within his party want ultimate privatisation of the bus network. Ten percent, in terms of the cost savings, will be minimal. I have every expectation that the large companies that come in will meet their service level agreements for the five years and will carry any losses if necessary in order to do that. However, the long-term game here - this is what concerns transport workers - is about privatisation and the dismantling of a public transport network that has been built up over many generations. If the Minister continues with that policy decision, he is ultimately allowing a process to begin in which the endgame is very clear.
This is the second time this morning that the Deputy has described me as right-wing or hawkish in my actions or statements.
Not the Minister; his party.
I am not interested in implementing a policy based on being right-wing. I am interested in implementing the right policy, which is to put in place a mechanism regarding 10% of the bus routes with the sole objective of improving choice to passengers. As the Deputy is aware, under EU law we will be obliged to meet requirements regarding workers who will be affected by it. A series of rounds of discussion and structured engagement have taken place between the NTA and the bus unions on the matter. Before the summer, I wrote to the unions emphasising the importance of it, and three rounds of discussion have taken place. This is about putting in place an appropriate level of tendering to bring competitive tension into the market for the long-term benefit of everybody. Across the period of the difficulties in Irish Rail, I have made a commitment to go into the current round of budgetary negotiations and maintain subvention to the Irish Rail group, which we have not been able to do in recent years, in recognition of my respect for and understanding of the role of public transport companies. Where appropriate, we need to have a level of competitive tension for the benefit of passengers and everybody in the bus market in the long run.
2. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to extend the Luas to other parts of north Dublin. [37055/14]
I welcome the Minister to his new job and I look forward to dealing with him.
In the past week, media sources have said the NTA and some people in the Minister’s Department are considering a plan to extend the Luas line on the north side of Dublin to Ballymun, Finglas and other places. Are there plans to do so? The Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Varadkar, indicated that there were no plans in this regard. Could the Minister elaborate on the media reports that are appearing?
I thank the Deputy for his wishes and I, too, look forward to working with him. The National Transport Authority, NTA, has responsibility for the implementation and development of infrastructure projects in the greater Dublin area, such as the Luas light rail projects. The NTA is undertaking a technical consultancy study, entitled the Fingal-north Dublin transport study, to assess the long-term rail transport requirements of the north Dublin-Fingal corridor, extending from Finglas to Malahide and including Dublin Airport and Swords. This review is examining existing proposals, including the metro north, as well as other options for a rail-based transport solution to meet the area's needs in the long term. I expect to receive a report from the NTA on the outcome of the review by early 2015. I also expect at that time to receive the updated DART underground business case and the preliminary business case for the Swords/airport bus rapid transit, BRT, from the NTA. I will then consider the options for addressing key public transport deficits in the greater Dublin area, having regard to the outcome of the studies as regards costs, benefits, affordability and funding options, with a view to finalising a position by mid-2015.
Significant Exchequer resources will be required to advance any major project irrespective of the availability of private or EU funds. New projects cannot be funded within the existing level of resources available to my Department. The key priority over the coming years is to protect investment made to date and to maintain safety standards. If additional funds are available, which is not certain, there will be many projects competing for these scarce resources. I will prioritise any additional funds for projects for which there is a clear need and which are affordable, have a sound business case and add value to existing infrastructure.
While I welcome the NTA's study, it is clear that north Dublin has been the poor man of the transport system. We have a vital area, the airport, to which we need a link. That could be through Ballymun, Finglas or Swords, and it is extremely important. As the Minister knows, because it affects his area, the metro north has already cost approximately €165 million. When the so-called Celtic tiger was in full roar, we were told it would cost €2 billion. Now, it would cost much less. We need to consider such a link. There is a suggestion that the line would go underground from Cabra to Finglas. Could the Minister elaborate on whether this is the case? We have the new station, which is a vital cross-city link. Is there anything in this?
I am well aware of the need for improved public transport in that part of the city. As the Deputy knows, because his constituency is in the area, the population forecast for the region and the development already taking place indicate that public transport is needed now and that the need will grow in years to come. I am well aware of the social impact and economic cost of failing to provide it. In the study to which I referred, 20 projects for the north side of the city are being reviewed, which include existing options such as the metro north. With the amount of debate and contest that has taken place about which mechanism would be used and what it would cost, a study must be done to examine all the options and make a recommendation by way of a shortlist and a selected project. All of that is being done to bring clarity to the situation the Deputy has described.
In the past, particularly with regard to the metro north, we were mainly examining the underground option. That was obviously a very costly way of doing it, but there are other ways, and I am sure the NTA is examining whether the project could go overground. There is another issue regarding the metro north. Many people along the route paid levies of €4,000 to €6,000, many of which are outstanding. Will we go down the same road of imposing fees on the basis of whether a route might be put through a certain area?
We need to examine the transport infrastructure across the city to the airport. Ours is the only capital city that does not have a transport link to the airport, which is a shame. I look forward to the NTA's review. Although cost is a major issue, getting this link right and examining how we transport people across the city must be a priority. There would be major benefits if we could transport people by Luas or metro.
Our priority with the funding available is to maintain the infrastructure we have, including roads, and put our money into making them as safe and efficient as possible.
The future outlook is that, with the population growth we expect to see, particularly on the north side of the city, and the economic development taking place in that area, there will be a need for enhanced public transport in the future. That will require new funding from the Exchequer or the private sector, or both, as well as clarity on the best option for that part of the city.
To reply to the Deputy's specific question on development levies for metro north, that project has been deferred and is currently on hold. One of the benefits of this process is that it will allow us to evaluate what the metro north plans would offer in comparison with other routes. I am aware of the money that has already been spent on the project, but I have to make the right choices in regard to taxpayers' money now and in the future. Issues arising in regard to Swiftway, the rapid bus transport system, are also being investigated in the context of developments in that part of the city.
3. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in view of his clearly stated priority to keep road fatalities and injuries down and taking into account the fact that alcohol is estimated to be a contributory factor in at least one in three fatal road collisions, if he will undertake to examine the proposals of the Brendan’s Law campaign to introduce mandatory penalties for drink drivers in fatal accidents and to automatically suspend the licence of a driver involved in a fatal accident who subsequently fails a breathalyser test; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that several other countries in the European Union already follow these stipulations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37072/14]
I wish the Minister well in his well deserved appointment. In the light of his clearly stated priority to keep the numbers of road fatalities and injuries down and taking into account the fact that alcohol is estimated to be a contributory factor in at least one in three fatal road collisions, I ask whether he will undertake to examine the proposals of the Brendan’s law campaign to introduce mandatory penalties for drink drivers involved in fatal accidents and automatically suspend the licence of a driver involved in a fatal accident who subsequently fails a breathalyser test. Other countries in the European Union already follow these stipulations and I am interested in hearing the Minister's remarks on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for his kind words. Before I respond to his question, I offer my condolences to the families who have been affected by tragic deaths on the roads, specifically the family who were affected so tragically that they have dedicated their grief to doing all they can to ensure a similar fate does not befall other families. I acknowledge the grief and loss that lie behind the campaign to which the Deputy referred.
This is a matter I take extremely seriously. The key to reducing the tragic loss of life and serious injuries on the roads is to continue to change driver behaviour. To date this year, 135 fatal collisions have been recorded, resulting in 140 fatalities. While the number of collisions is down by five compared to this date last year and the number of fatalities is down by four, considerable work remains to be done to further reduce the number of fatalities on the roads and we can all play our part in achieving this aim. Huge strides have been made in legislation in dealing with drink driving offences. The introduction of mandatory alcohol testing has been a very effective intervention to improve road safety. We have also introduced a reduction in the blood alcohol content level for drivers and all drivers involved in road traffic collisions where a serious injury has occurred are now obliged to provide a preliminary breath specimen.
The proposal to automatically suspend the licence of a driver involved in a fatal accident who subsequently fails a breathalyser test in advance of a conviction in court cannot be implemented, given the rights of citizens to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. My Department and I are willing, however, to meet the families who have been affected by this horrific incident to hear their proposals in more detail and discuss their concerns. I recognise the legitimacy and the grief that are driving the issues the Deputy raised.
The Minister is undoubtedly aware of the publicity generated by Christine Donnelly, a mother from Waterford who lost her son, Brendan, in 2009 at the young age of 24 years. He was tragically killed one night while travelling with another family to Cork Airport. His friend, Liam, was also killed in the collision. Both families are here today. A man was later sentenced to five years imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 15 years as a result of the crash, after admitting dangerous driving. The court heard that prior to the accident he had consumed 20 beers, vodka and Aftershock, as well as snorting a line of cocaine. Christine is campaigning for what has become known as Brendan's law, that is, a change to current drink driving legislation in order that the licence of a driver who fails a breathalyser test is set aside without prejudice once he or she is charged. Brendan's law would also provide for mandatory sentences on disqualification for drink driving and being involved in a fatal accident.
In the context of the Minister's commitment to improve road safety, is it reasonable that a driver who is involved in a fatal accident and fails a breathalyser test should be able to resume driving until the case comes before the courts? As I indicated previously, this is not the case in many countries in Europe. This is exactly what the families are seeking. I accept that the Minister cannot state he will change the law automatically, but it should be thought out and perhaps legislation might be introduced to amend the current law.
I wish to make three points in response to the Deputy's questions. The first is that under our legal arrangements and constitutional order, it is a matter for the courts to make a disqualification order preventing a person from validly holding a driver's licence for a period of time. The second point concerns the number of people currently disqualified on the existing statutory basis. Some 12,248 people were disqualified as drivers on 29 September 2014 under the various legislative provisions available to us, from the Road Traffic Act 1961 to the recent Road Traffic Act 2010.
On the presence of drugs and the influence they can have, particularly where combined with alcohol, it is my intention to address this specific issue in the forthcoming road traffic Bill. From my meetings with the Road Safety Authority and organisations involved in measuring the substances contained in drivers' systems at the time of accidents, I have come to believe this is a very important issue that we must address legislatively.
The families are not so much acting out of grief for those whom they have lost as making practical and common-sense proposals. Despite the reduction in the number of alcohol related fatal collisions, drink driving remains one of the biggest killers on the roads. Between 1990 and 2006, a total of 7,078 deaths occurred, of which a staggering 2,462, or 35%, were alcohol related. Behind each of these statistics is a broken hearted family who will never get over the tragedy completely. Irish law is inferior to that in other countries where penalties reflect the enormity of the offence. Successive Governments should be ashamed of a system in which criminals serve longer sentences for non-fatal offences than for killing someone through drink driving. The time for change is long overdue and I appeal to the Minister to consider this law. I am grateful to him for agreeing to meet the families. Perhaps when he hears what they have to say, he might consider amending the legislation at some time in the next few months or before the end of this Dáil.
If the families are present, I will meet them briefly after this debate and will also arrange a proper meeting at a time that is convenient for them to discuss the matter further.
On the track record of the country in regard to road safety, this and previous Governments have focused on dealing with the horrendous loss of life on the roads. I point to the setting up of the Road Safety Authority and the recent strategy established for it that has 144 actions. I meet the authority regularly to examine the implementation of these actions. Several weeks ago, I met with its board to discuss this very issue.
At the nadir of this horrendous loss of life on our roads, 115 people lost their lives in 2001. In 2014, the total number of deaths on our roads has come down substantially. Still, too many people lose their lives on our roads. I have explained to the Deputy the constraints of our legal and courts system within which we must operate. I will meet the family after this, and my Department will do so again. I understand the family’s intention is to reduce the chance that the grief they have experienced will be inflicted on other families.
4. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his reasons for directing the Commission for Aviation Regulation with regard to airport charges at Dublin Airport Authority; the capital investment plans proposed by the DAA; the latest developments with regard to solving the pensions crisis at the DAA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36861/14]
On 15 September, the Minister issued a directive to the aviation regulator on the levying of charges at Dublin Airport. Two days later, he received a communication from Ryanair which sought to challenge the Minister’s capacity and entitlement to issue such a direction. Will he outline his reasoning behind the issuing of this communication?
My direction to the Commission for Aviation Regulation was issued in response to statements made by the commission in its draft determination that it had not received any directions or policy statement notifications by or on behalf of the Government. Accordingly, it was necessary for me to formally clarify that ministerial directions issued previously to the commission remain in place. It is also important that the commission takes on board current government policy. I confirmed to it that the draft national aviation policy, currently being finalised, is to be considered as a statement of present policy. Essentially, this is to ensure the new aviation commissioner is fully cognisant of the Government’s plans for Dublin airport in delivering the overall objectives for the sector and for the wider economy.
The direction I issued is very general in nature, confirming the status of Government policy and the need to protect the financial viability of Dublin Airport in order to implement that policy. However, it is within the commission’s discretion to decide how that is to be accommodated in the final determination. The capital investment plans proposed by the DAA are an operational matter for it in accordance with its statutory responsibilities.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Resolution of the funding difficulties in the IASS is primarily a matter for the trustees, the companies participating in the scheme, the scheme members and the Pensions Authority. The process currently under way involves all of these stakeholders. I understand that the trustee and the principal employers have recently issued documents in respect of the proposed changes in pension arrangements. These communications mark the commencement of the formal consultation process which the trustee is required by the Pensions Act 1990 to undertake in respect of the reduction in benefits that it is proposing. Each member will also shortly receive a personalised illustration of future pension benefits that it is proposing. The target date for implementation of the proposals remains 31 December 2014.
Huge efforts have been put in by all concerned over many years in an attempt to resolve the scheme's funding problems. A set of proposals has now been put forward which offer the best chance to resolve the long-standing problems of the scheme and give the members certainty about their future pension entitlements. I urge all concerned to accept them.
I understand the notion of the Government setting out a broad aviation policy to apply to all airports in the State. A regulator is needed in a sector where there is no effective competition. Accordingly, the regulator adjudges and makes determinations to ensure a balance between the big and the small. I cannot understand, therefore, why the Minister or his Department would have found it necessary to issue a direction, a communication or a policy statement that got into the minute detail of the operational plans of one particular airport. I believe that is an overreaching of the Minister's and his Department’s powers. It is not just Ryanair, as Aer Lingus has indicated its concerns about the Government’s involvement in the day-to-day operations of Dublin Airport.
Will the Minister explain further why the Government wants to get involved in the minutiae of the operations of one particular airport rather than the sector in general, an area in which I believe the Government, of course, has a role in setting a broad framework?
The Deputy needs to make up his mind about me. On the one hand, he said I overstepped the mark when I got involved in the Irish Rail dispute, despite my recognising that there are industrial relations mechanisms in place which I must respect and allow to do their work. Now, on this matter, he claims I am getting too involved when I am acting inside the legal scope and parameters available to me.
For the benefit of the record of the House, in the letter in question I referred to the role of Dublin Airport as an international gateway for Ireland, the desirability of terminal and runway facilities to promote direct international air links, and the sustainable operation of the airport on a commercial basis without recourse to Exchequer funding or an equity injection by the State. These objectives are laid out in our draft aviation policy. My ability to do that is recognised under section 10 of the Aviation Regulation Act 2001.
In case the Minister was confused by my request and thought that one did not match with the other, my suggestion on the strike at Iarnród Éireann was that he needed to get on the record much earlier on providing subvention and increasing it in line with growth in the economy in accordance with demands. That is the Minister’s role and all that I suggested he do. I did not expect him to go to the Labour Relations Commission to resolve the issues. There are individuals in place to do that, but the Minister needed to participate in it for quite some time. The former Minister did the same in the past. In fairness to him, he put his hands in his pockets and commented from the sideline.
As there is no direct subvention from the State to the airport sector, I thought it was inappropriate for the Minister to involve himself at a time when the DAA is challenging the aviation regulator on the amount of the charge it can levy and setting out its own stall without necessarily living within the envelope provided to it. Taken in tandem with the Minister’s communication, it can only be seen as undue interference. Ryanair, its legal advisers and Aer Lingus clearly believe that to be the case, which is regrettable.
The Minister will also be aware that Aer Lingus believes that an increase in charges in line with his suggested policy may actually kill off the benefits created by the Government’s decision to axe the €3 travel tax. That is a direct statement from Aer Lingus and one which should give concern to all who have seen the upturn in tourism over the past several years, which has benefitted the State and the economy in general.
The Deputy states that I should intervene in one area but not in another. The guiding principle I have is the legislation. I must act firmly within it and recognise and respect the structures and bodies that exist.
In the last correspondence I had with Ryanair, it subsequently wrote to me interpreting the directions I issued as “pointless” and having no impact on the CAR’s draft determination. I am a child of Ryanair. When I moved over to the United Kingdom first, the cost of flying home to see my family and friends was prohibitive. I understand the positive effect and benefit it brought to our air travel sector.
My duty, though, is to look at what the policy objectives are for Dublin Airport and to make the right decision in terms of the powers that are available to me, which I have done. That is the spirit within which I have acted at all times. As I stated, the direction that I issued set out clear objectives to the Commission on Aviation Regulation while recognising totally its independence and discretion to implement them.
5. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport further to Priority Question No. 3 of 26 June 2014, if the land purchase for the runway and safety areas at Waterford Airport had been delayed and the CPO process had been referred for arbitration on 26 August 2014; the outcome of the said arbitration; if it has been successfully completed; if the land purchase is now scheduled to be undertaken; if so, when will the CPO process begin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37073/14]
Further to my previous priority question to the then Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, which was for answer on Thursday, 26 June last, he had indicated that the land purchased for the runway and safety areas of Waterford Airport had been delayed and that the CPO process had been referred for arbitration on 26 August. Can the Minister confirm to the House the outcome of the said arbitration? Has it been successfully completed and is the land purchase scheduled to be undertaken? If so, when will the CPO process begin?
In November 2011, under the regional airports programme capital expenditure grant scheme, funds were allocated by my Department to Waterford Airport for the construction of a runway end safety area, RESA, which involves the purchase of land at the southern end of the airport to facilitate this work.
As indicated previously, the CPO process for the purchase of this land is already under way. As part of this process, the matter was referred for arbitration with a hearing scheduled for 26 August 2014. That hearing was postponed for reasons not relating to the airport and a new date has yet to be set.
Waterford Airport is making every effort to conclude the arbitration process. However, there are steps to be carried out under the CPO process which are outside their control. Once completed, the airport has confirmed that the land purchase and consequent creation of the RESA will be undertaken without delay.
I listened with great interest to an interview with Mr. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair on Today FM last week in which he was asked why Ryanair does not fly from Waterford Regional Airport. By the way, that is the airport which launched the airline, Ryanair. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that Mr. O'Leary replied that the runway is too short for commercially viable jets. For instance, it is not capable of landing a Boeing 737, of which model the whole of Ryanair's fleet is comprised.
I asked the previous Minister the status of the compulsory purchase order of the 18 acres of land to facilitate the €150 million extensive works at Waterford for which the Department pledged upwards of €400,000. I note he previously told me that the board and management of the airport and the local authority had been engaged in a fund-raising exercise with the private sector to raise the necessary balance of €850,000. Has the Minister any news on that? Has that process advanced?
I am aware of the challenges Waterford Airport faces. Its passenger numbers last year were 28,169, which is a notable decrease on where they had been historically. Currently, the airport operates two services a day to Birmingham and Manchester with Flybe. I also note that it has suffered the withdrawal of some services, which provides the background to why this issue is being examined.
Waterford Airport has advised my Department that the airport board is committed to providing the necessary funds from local sources to fund the laying of an additional 150 m of runway and indications we have received from the chairman are that its target is €500,000 in relation to all of this. In light of the efforts that are being made in this matter by the airport board and by private sector stakeholders and local authorities in the region, my Department has confirmed to the airport our commitment to fund this piece of work and the associated purchase of land. As background, I should say that between 2013 and 2014 more than €900,000 in Exchequer funding has already been allocated to the airport for safety and security related projects.
What is vital in securing the long-term viability of the airport is a direct service to London. While this piece of infrastructure is limited, it will facilitate direct flights to London.
I note that a major report prepared not so long ago found that Waterford Airport supports up to 560 jobs, with 85% of businesses in the south east stating that direct access to the region was crucial for their operations. Based on the circumstances in Waterford which has a high unemployment rate and our attempt to attract businesses into Waterford in the long term, it is crucially important that all of the infrastructure, particularly the airport based on the assessment by businesses in and outside Waterford, is upgraded and, essentially, looked after by the Government.
I re-emphasise to the Deputy that €900,000 was provided via the Exchequer to the airport over recent years. On the specific purchase of land to which he refers, I understand that due to some of the difficulty that was involved in this land the local authority played the leadership role in trying to facilitate this through the use of a compulsory purchase order. That compulsory purchase order was then referred to arbitration, as is the right of anybody involved in that process. My information is that on 26 August an arbitration meeting was due to take place in this regard and for a number of reasons, that meeting was not held. On completion of this arbitration process, which must be respected because every stakeholder and party involved has a right to initiate it, the airport has confirmed that the land purchase and consequent creation of the piece of infrastructure to which we refer will be undertaken.
