Vol. 872 No. 2
6. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to implement the recommendations made in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht's report on River Shannon flooding published in 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11649/15]
In 2012 an all-party group was established which produced a report. Many of its members were from within the catchment of the River Shannon. We made eight specific recommendations on steps that could be taken immediately to address the ongoing problem of summer flooding within the River Shannon catchment. To date, one of these proposals has been implemented by the Office of Public Works. It relates to dropping water levels in Lough Rea, which havs had an impact in the management of these waters. We have yet to see action being taken on the other seven initiatives recommended.
The July 2012 report of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht on River Shannon flooding included eight proposals to tackle the issue. These proposals covered a number of issues across a range of Departments and State agencies. The Office of Public Works, OPW, responded to the committee by way of a letter in September 2012, welcoming its report and outlining its approach to addressing the specific matters within its area of responsibility. The main issue addressed in the reply was related to the OPW’s proactive approach to flood risk management through its catchment flood risk assessment and management programme, CFRAM, and how it was addressing flood risk on the River Shannon in the context of the CFRAM.
The OPW is the lead agency in flood risk management. Its CFRAM programme is in line with Government policy and will give us a clear and comprehensive picture of the flood risk in areas at significant risk of flooding, as well as setting out how the risk can be managed. I am confident that the River Shannon CFRAM programme will prioritise effective and sustainable measures to manage the flood risk on the river. I am advised that good progress continues to be made in implementing the programme. A total of 66 locations potentially at risk of significant flooding along the River Shannon have been identified for further assessment under the programme. To ensure the draft predictive flood maps are fully informed and accurate, the OPW is rolling out an extensive public consultation process on the maps at each of the 66 locations. Further details of the public consultation process and the River Shannon CFRAM programme are available on the website www.cfram.ie. Following the finalisation of the flood mapping and the assessment of appropriate flood risk management options, the final output from this important project will be integrated plans containing specific and prioritised measures to address in a comprehensive and sustainable way the significant flood risks along the River Shannon. At that stage, I will be expected to find the resources needed to address this important issue.
I take issue with the Minister's last comment, that he will be asked to find resources. With all due respect, he will be long retired and have his feet up somewhere warm and dry by the time that happens.
God forgive the Deputy.
The sunny south east.
The difficulty is that everything is being kicked down the road while we await the CFRAM programme report. The joint committee's report was framed in the context of the CFRAM programme. There are far more extensive things that could be done while we await the CFRAM programme study. There are eight practical measures that could be put in place and that will have to be put in place. Do we not need to have a single agency with authority for the River Shannon and the management of its waters? We have seen the implications, whereby matters on which decisions are required fall between stools.
On the face of it, that sounds like a logical proposal, but I understand a previous Oireachtas committee came to a different conclusion. Each of the agencies involved, whether it be the OPW, the local authorities, the fisheries board or the ESB, has a different statutory function. What is needed is proper co-ordination, rather than somebody call all the shots. As we saw in Cork, for example, sometimes a decision by one agency can have a detrimental effect on the risk of flooding. Charging one agency to make directions is probably not what is required. I am open to taking a view on that issue, but it would not fall to me to make the decision.
Better co-ordination is required and something I have asked the OPW to ensure. Undertaking proper mapping through the CFRAM study will give us an important understanding of where the pressure points will be in the future, as well as mapping the effects of climate change into the future. There will be resource implications, but, please God, I will be in a position to allocate the resources required and will not have my feet up by then.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept the point he is making, but the previous and current committees recommended that there be a lead agency to co-ordinate matters. No one is in charge; there is no single Minister answerable to the House. We already know, in the context of the Asian clam problem, that a lack of co-ordination and indecisiveness among the agencies involved led to a situation where no action was taken for months. We do not have months where we have a flooding problem to deal with. One of the recommendations made was that work be undertaken immediately on the River Shannon and its tributaries to clear the peat silt that had accumulated during the years. As the Minister knows, the big problem is that the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, prevented such work from being carried out in the past. Will he ensure humans will have equal priority with flora and fauna, along with the impact of flooding on human beings, families and their homes? I ask that an assessment be carried out of the failure to date of the OPW because of the blockage by the NPWS to carry out maintenance works on the river.
I will raise the points made by the Deputy with the OPW directly and the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, who is not able to be here today. There is certainly an understanding that human habitation and human beings take priority.
No, there is not.
The Minister should tell that to the NPWS.
I am quite certain it is the view of the OPW and would be astounded if it was not. As I said, I will pass on the views of the Deputy to the Minister of State and the OPW directly.
7. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on current public sector pension liabilities; the way pension entitlements can be secured across the full range of the public service into the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11699/15]
I ask the Minister to outline his views on the current public sector pensions liability. The bill for public sector pensions for many years to come is enormous. I also ask him to give his views on how pension entitlements can be secured across the public sector. I am not just referring to his own Department or the Civil Service but also to the entire public sector.
As part of the ongoing public service pension analysis, an actuarial valuation was carried out last year by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to estimate the accrued liability in respect of public service occupational pensions. The key result of the exercise is that the total accrued liability in respect of public service occupational pensions is now estimated at €98 billion, as at December 2012. This compares with the previous estimate of €116 billion for 2009 which was arrived at by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Therefore, in the three years 2009 to 2012 the liability fell by €18 billion or 16%. The main reasons for the reduction in the total accrued liability were the pay and pension cuts under the Haddington Road agreement and the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. The figure of €98 billion represents the current value of all expected future superannuation payments to current staff and their spouses for service up to December 2012, plus the liability for all future payments to current and preserved pensioners and their spouses. The pension payments to discharge this liability will, therefore, be spread over the next 70 years or so. In particular, it should be noted that both the €98 billion and the €116 billion figures assume that future pension increases will be in line with pay parity. The Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012 permits the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, with the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas, to link future pension increases with the consumer price index. Were this to be done, the accrued liability would reduce by a further €16 billion to €82 billion.
The introduction of the single public service pensions scheme on 1 January 2013 is also of relevance when considering pension liabilities. While the new scheme does not have an immediate effect on the liability figure, it is expected over time to generate substantial long-term reductions in the annual cost of pensions for former public service workers.
I believe I understand everything the Minister has said, but I ask him to clarify that the legislation he introduced to set up the single public service pensions scheme which will link pensions with the CPI rather than pay increases will reduce the amount payable to pensioners by €16 billion, in addition to the €16 billion reduction since December 2012. This represents a further reduction in the pension payments people will receive. Under the Haddington Road agreement, pension reductions were agreed to, but the pensioners were not allowed into the room when the issue was being discussed. That was wrong and grossly unfair. The Minister recently met some of the people affected and I hope this mistake will not be repeated. The pension-related deduction introduced under the FEMPI legislation is resulting in a significant net saving to the Exchequer. Is it the Minister's intention to continue this? There are reports in several newspapers today on the Waterford Glass pensions fund and the fact that the State is having to come up with funds for it. In that context, I highlight the position of Bord na Móna pensioners whose pension contributions have been frozen for many years. In some cases, it is those waiting for their pension entitlements, that is, deferred pensioners and those in payment, who are suffering the most.
The Deputy has asked numerous supplementary questions. If the CPI provision was activated, it would have the effect to which the Deputy referred. However, it has not yet been activated. I have not commenced it and it is not my intention to do so in the near future. I left the provision in the legislation to be considered at a future date. Obviously, at a time when there are no increases it makes no difference whether one links pensions with pay increases or the CPI. The issue will fall to be considered in the future when we see normal increases.
Regarding pensioners, there was a formal, established process for the negotiation of a public sector pay deal which was followed in the way it had always been. However, as I was conscious that pensioners were not directly involved, I advised them to form an organisation and, in fairness to them, they did so. I have met that organisation twice, most recently earlier this month. I have assured pensioners that they will have a channel into the next round of discussions through my officials.
I am pleased to hear it. I ask the Minister to address the issue of pension-related deductions under the FEMPI legislation. As I understand it, the gross cost of pensions, as a percentage of pensionable remuneration, is about 20%, but the net cost to the Exchequer is only approximately 8.5% because of the superannuation payments made which amount to a figure of approximately 6% and the pension levy which also amounts to about 6%. The fact is lost on those outside the public sector that public servants are paying an enormous amount every week or month to fund their pensions. People give out about gold-plated pensions - admittedly there are some public service pensions which are excessive - but the vast majority are paying substantial amounts towards their pensions. Will the pension-related deduction be up for discussion and what implications would this have for the public sector pension liability down the line?
I am glad to hear the Deputy make that point because there is something lost in translation in the commentariat that does not understand the contribution public servants are making to their own pensions. That is not confined to people outside the House. There are individuals inside this House who also make assertions which are not based on reality. Current Exchequer annual pension contributions by public servants amount to approximately €500 million per annum. This figure does not include non-Exchequer pension contributions made, for example, in the local authority sector. It is a very significant contribution to the pension pot and Deputies are aware that pensions are paid from current income. The pension-related deduction, PRD, is part of the FEMPI legislation architecture and will have to form part of the discussions.
8. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if consideration will be given to the raising of a Government bond to fund the provision of critical infrastructure as a means of providing funding for vital areas, in which investment might otherwise be postponed because of the requirement to keep such expenditure off the Government’s balance sheet, in view of the fact that it would have the added benefit of utilising savings already available on which the Government can only receive DIRT at a low rate owing to current interest levels; if a particular examination has been carried out of the areas of the economy that require infrastructural investment which might benefit from such a provision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11691/15]
This question raises the prospect of the use of a Government bond to fund the cost of particular elements of critical infrastructure without affecting the Government's balance sheet.
As the Deputy is aware, the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, issues Irish Government bonds which attract investment from institutions and individuals. Other financial investment options are also available to those who wish to direct their savings to help to support the Government's work in promoting economic growth, including the national solidarity bond, savings bonds, savings certificates and instalment savings. All moneys raised through Government borrowings are paid into the Central Fund and used to fund Government spending as approved by the Oireachtas. It has never been the custom to link borrowing with specific projects as to do so would limit the flexibility of the Government in managing the State's finances. That said, the public private partnership, PPP, programme allows for private sector investment and risk-sharing in the provision of specific public infrastructure projects. Because of their funding and risk profile, the up-front costs of these projects are not included in the calculations of general Government spending and thus this approach has allowed the Government to supplement its traditional Exchequer capital programme.
The Department of Finance and the NTMA which lead in financing the State have considered other possible approaches to increasing funding sources. One of the Government's recent initiatives in this regard has been the establishment of the Irish Strategic Investment Fund which will harness public and private sector sources of funding to provide commercial investment, including in public infrastructure projects.
As the Deputy will be aware, my Department undertook a review of the public capital programme last year. The review sought to assess all areas of public capital investment and refresh the existing investment strategy and multi-annual envelopes to ensure critical infrastructure deficits were identified and addressed. We need also to ensure our limited resources are focused on the areas that can best support continued, sustainable and equitable growth.
I thank the Minister for his positive reply. Is consideration being given to utilisation of the approximately €90 billion in personal savings on which DIRT tax is chargeable, which tax yields no great return for the State, to fund the critical infrastructure projects referred to by the Minister? If not, will he consider that prospect, particularly in the context of the current shortage of housing which also forms part of critical infrastructure?
I thank the Deputy for his suggestions which I take on board. Borrowing by the Government does not present a difficulty at this time. The Deputy will be aware that for the first time in the history of the State the Government this year issued 30 year bonds at the unprecedented low interest rate of 1.8%. Our treasury bill - three month roll-over money - issued last week had accrued a negative interest rate. In essence, people are paying us to hold on to their money. This is the first time that this has happened in the history of the State. This stems from the confidence of international lenders in the state of the economy.
On the Deputy's specific point about housing, €2.2 billion has been allocated and a bespoke funding mechanism is being created. I have allocated some of the resources derived from the sale of State companies to this mechanism which will be leveraged by other investment to ensure there will be a sufficient pool of money to deal with the housing problem, one of the real structural deficits in a growing economy.
Is the Minister prepared to examine every possible aspect of funding to ensure the maximum amount of funding will be made available in this area in the shortest possible time, given the urgency of the issue? Will he also ensure equal treatment for the need to address other infrastructural deficits in various areas throughout the country to better facilitate economic recovery?
I can give that assurance to the Deputy. A meeting of the board of the NTMA held yesterday was attended by the Secretary General of my Department. I have met the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, on a number of occasions to ensure there will be in place a robust mechanism to fund critical infrastructure. This side of the summer I will be publishing the new multi-annual capital investment programme. While it is proposed to expand the volume of money to be spent on the capital side, there are, unfortunately, restrictions on us in this regard. It is not proposed to return to the level of spend during the boom times, when at one stage €9 billion was being spent on capital works annually. We will not be able to reach those dizzy heights again for a long time. However, whatever is done will be done in the context of prudent budgeting. I want to ensure critical infrastructure deficits in the economy, in particular, housing, as mentioned by the Deputy, will be fully addressed.
9. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the timeframe for the draw-down of funds by Ireland under the European Regional Development Fund; how his Department will ensure Ireland maximises its draw-down and that project targets are met in full; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11700/15]
What is the timeframe for the draw-down of funds by Ireland from the European Regional Development Fund and how will the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform ensure Ireland will maximise the benefits of this draw-down and that the project targets keenly identified are being achieved?
In the context of the 2013 agreement on the EU multi-annual financial framework which was reached during Ireland's Presidency of the European Council of Ministers, the Government was successful in securing €1.2 billion in cohesion policy funding for the period 2014-20. This includes two special allocations of €150 million towards a new PEACE programme and €100 million for the BMW region. A total of €409 million has been allocated to two European Regional Development Fund co-funded programmes which will be delivered through two regional operational programmes aligned with Ireland's NUTS II regions, one covering the southern and eastern region and the other covering the Border, midlands and western region. Total programme expenditure for the two ERDF programmes, including match funding, will amount to just over €800 million. The programmes will support investment in RTDI, enterprise development, the roll-out of high speed broadband in unserved areas, energy efficiency in social and low income households and urban development programmes.
I am pleased that Ireland's two regional programmes were among the first to be adopted by the Commission before Christmas. I travelled to Brussels last month for the formal signing of the two programmes and meet the new Regional Policy Commissioner, Corina Cretu, who has accepted my invitation to visit Ireland in the summer.
Work is well under way on the implementation of the two programmes. The monitoring committee for each of the programmes met earlier this month. Building on their record in managing previous programmes, the newly reconstituted Southern Regional Assembly and the Northern and Western Regional Assembly, representatives of which attended the signing of the agreement in Brussels, will continue as managing authorities for the new programmes.
At a national level, a partnership agreement monitoring committee is being established to oversee implementation of all the operational programmes covered by Ireland's partnership agreement for European Structural and investment funds, including not only the ERDF but also the European Social Fund, the rural development fund and the European maritime and fisheries fund. As the Deputy will be aware, Ireland has a good record of maximising its draw-down of EU funding. I am confident that this will continue in the period 2014 to 2020.
Perhaps the Minister might set out the expected yearly draw-down of this funding and outline how much of it can be drawn down in the early years, rather than, as is often the case, in the final 18 months, leading to project funding possibly not being spent as wisely as it would be if it were drawn down earlier. I acknowledge that it takes time to get systems up and running.
In regard to the regional assemblies referred to, perhaps the Minister might outline when he expects these agencies to draw down funding and give a commitment to provide further information in due course on the monitoring committee referred to in the reply.
There is always a roll-over period. Approximately 90% of the funding for the last period which concluded last year has been drawn down. We will draw down every cent, but final documentation in that regard has yet to be completed. There is always an overlap in this regard.
On the indicative draw-down, the following is the expected draw-down by region. In 2015 the draw-down for the southern and eastern region will be €34.1 million and for for the BMW region, €21.9 million. In 2016 the draw-down for the southern and eastern region will be €34.8 million and for the BMW region, €22.4 million. I will forward this information to the Deputy, including information on the proposed spend by Science Foundation Ireland, the Maritime Institute and so on.
I thank the Minister. I look forward to receiving the information which will be very helpful. It would be remiss of me not to raise with the Minister today another issue related to EU funding.
While it is not exactly the European Regional Development Fund, I refer to the severe cut in funding to the Leader projects that were announced this week. Although a lovely cup of tea from a teapot with everything set out was served somewhere in County Tipperary to give the impression that there is great funding, the bottom line is there has been a 43% cut in Leader funding under the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. All counties have seen huge cuts, with County Cork suffering a reduction in funding of up to 72%. The impact will be severe and while there will be a lot of good spin with regard to rural development, the reality is of a cut of 43% in that funding, which is a key component. Moreover, it is one of the most visible funds people see throughout the country.
I am dealing with the regional development funds here and the Deputy has referred to a fund that is not under my purview but under that of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
It is also under the purview of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in respect of community affairs.
Yes, there is an overlap in that regard. However, the overall cohesion money is being increased and the overall spend in Ireland will be higher. Although the Border, midland and western region is now a developed area in the European aggregate, the Government managed to get an additional €100 million for it. I will get a specific response for the Deputy on a point that is not directly in my purview, as I do not have one to hand. As I recall off the top of my head, the overall spending and supports we have secured from the EU to be spent across the country have increased by 8% over the last spend although the overall fund negotiated at European level has been reduced by 8%.
10. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the extent to which he expects to be in a position to recognise and reward the huge sacrifices made by the public and private sectors over the past seven years in the context of economic recovery with particular reference to the changing economic situation, notwithstanding the need to maintain prudent economic and fiscal policies; if he expects budget 2016 to reflect such principles; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11692/15]
This question relates to the opportunities that may arise for the Minister, in the context of the framing of expenditure and reform over the next four or five years, in trying to identify means whereby the public can be rewarded for its support in the economic exercise over the past four years, as well as in recognition of the leadership of the Minister and his Government colleagues during that period.
I thank the Deputy for the question and for his kind remarks. The Government faced the challenge of restoring stability to the public finances and creating the correct environment to support sustainable economic growth and job creation. Gross voted expenditure has been reduced from €63.1 billion in 2009 to €54 billion last year. While implementing these expenditure reductions, the Government has sought as best it could to protect the most vulnerable and to support economic growth. In this regard, its programme of public service reform has played a pivotal role in mitigating the impact of expenditure reductions by contributing towards the effective and efficient delivery of public services.
The measures taken by the Government, combined with the effective prioritisation and allocation of resources to vital areas, have ensured its success in restoring stability to the public finances. This stability is a necessary prerequisite of creating an environment for further economic growth and job creation. The Deputy will note that in 2014, the economy expanded by 4.8% to become the fastest growing economy in Europe, with domestic demand and personal consumption now also contributing to economic growth. Unemployment at the end of February was at 10.1%, a reduction from a peak of more than 15% in 2011. The Government's fiscal adjustment target for 2015 is a deficit of 2.7% which, when achieved, will ensure Ireland's exit from the excessive deficit procedure. Members will have seen the expectation in the ESRI report published this morning that the unemployment rate will be 8.4% by next year. When the Government came into office four years ago, had anyone suggested it would halve unemployment in its term, people would have looked on with disbelief. However, that is a measure of the progress it has made.
I thank the Minister for his reply. It is a highly impressive performance within a short space of time. I will ask a question that is on everybody's lips, namely, the extent to which the Minister thinks the Government may be able to reward the public in the context of the coming year, while at the same time maintaining frugal fiscal policies.
I would not classify the policies as frugal but as disciplined.
Prudent policies.
Yes, certainly. The Government began with a slightly expansionary budget last year after a period of seven years of contraction. It was able to add additional spending in priority areas, most noticeably in the areas of health and education. Public service recruitment has started again and as I have stated, there was a gross increase in the number of public servants last year for the first time in many years and this will continue this year as the Government addresses the issue of front-line services. In addition, the Government last year also reduced the level of tax, particularly on the lowest and middle-income earners, with reductions in the universal social charge. The Government will continue this policy in a prudent way next year. The Government wishes to ensure that Ireland does not return to boom and bust but that the economic base that is now solid, with an economy growing on the basis of goods and services people wish to buy, will be sustained and there will be increased prosperity in which people can make rational planning decisions for themselves in an environment that is secure.
11. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in view of the fact that he is responsible for the sale of State assets, if he will provide an update on the attitude adopted by his Department in the interdepartmental steering group in response to the bid by International Airlines Group, IAG, for Aer Lingus. [11688/15]
This question is fairly straightforward. It seeks an update on the discussions in the interdepartmental group that is considering the potential IAG takeover of Aer Lingus. This issue has dominated the minds of the thousands of people who work for Aer Lingus, as well as the 15,000 members of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, the overwhelming majority of whom are former Aer Lingus workers and who are looking at this bid with a great degree of fear. They would like to know whether it is possible to learn what is going on with the bid at present.
As the Deputy will be aware, the programme of State asset disposals agreed by the Government in February 2012 included, inter alia, the disposal of the State's remaining shareholding in Aer Lingus. However, I made it clear at that time that a disposal of the Aer Lingus shareholding could only take place when market conditions were favourable and in circumstances that accorded with Government transport policy, as well as at an acceptable price for the taxpayer and the Government. This has continued to be the Government's consistent position since 2012. The Deputy also will be aware that following the announcement of IAG's approaches to Aer Lingus, the latter is now in an offer period under the Irish takeover rules. These rules impose a range of specific obligations on Ministers, as shareholders in Aer Lingus, including obligations of confidentiality and obligations to ensure statements made in connection with the offer are accurate and not misleading. These obligations are particularly acute for the Government given the pivotal role the State has regarding any proposed bid for Aer Lingus.
The Government has made clear, through statements made by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, that the key issues of concern in the context of any potential disposal are connectivity to and from Ireland, including direct transatlantic services and connectivity via Heathrow, competition in the air transport market, jobs in the Irish aviation sector and the maintenance of the Aer Lingus brand. In that context, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport announced last month that the information and commitments that had been provided by IAG on these issues did not provide a basis on which the Government could give an irrevocable commitment to accept an offer to dispose of its shares, should one be made by IAG. The interdepartmental steering group, of which my Department is a member, was mandated to continue discussions with IAG with a view to seeking an improved proposal with greater clarity and certainty regarding the implications of a potential takeover on the key issues I have outlined above.
There is not much clarity in the Minister's reply. I appreciate the stage at which the bid is but that said, this will not provide much comfort for those who are particularly concerned about it. It is regrettable that this proposition was included in the programme for Government at all. Many workers are shocked that the Labour Party did not use its position to ensure that would not happen. However, this is an opportunity to put on the public record that the stated objectives of connectivity, of securing jobs at the airline in particular and of the other issues outlined cannot be achieved if IAG takes over Aer Lingus.
The best protection that can be offered is that the Government would maintain its shareholding. This is a company that currently employs just short of 3,000 people. When IAG involves itself in amalgamations of this nature, this inevitably means job losses and IAG is on record as stating this definitely will happen and promises of future jobs are no guarantees. The Minister should give assurance to Members that the idea of so-called tangible legally-binding agreements on job conditions and connectivity hold no weight whatsoever when one considers the previous guarantees on jobs that were given to airline staff, not least in respect of Aer Lingus and TEAM Aer Lingus.
We know what has been going on legally for 21 years. I hope the Minister can assure us that he will be very sceptical about any legally-binding guarantees.
The State owns a minority of the shares in Aer Lingus. I am afraid the decision concerning a majority of the shares being disposed of by the State was made many years ago, so we do not control the bulk of the shares. We have to consider that another sizeable shareholding may come onto the market shortly, depending on the outcome of legal proceedings in the United Kingdom. We must have regard to ensuring that there is a sustainable future for Aer Lingus. As I said, however, we have no control over 75% of the shares.
To deal with the Deputy's specific point on jobs, I have listed the priorities the Government has indicated will be critical to meet in any decision we make. Jobs will absolutely be a part of that.
I can understand the Government's position, but a slice of cake is better than no bread at all. While I would like the airline to be 100% in State ownership, 25% is certainly better than nothing in terms of securing the objectives which the Government has outlined. The Minister has alluded to the other significant shareholder, but their silence against the backdrop of this bid is of particular concern. There is a belief out there that there is possibly a tacit agreement between Ryanair and IAG that the proposed move would be good for both airlines. That would undoubtedly cause concern to Aer Lingus workers.
I ask the Minister to address the point about entering legally-binding agreements. The history of such agreements in the airline is not good. Litigation around the TEAM Aer Lingus letters of comfort is still ongoing after 21 years. Has the interdepartmental group sought the supposed guarantees? History has shown us that they do not stack up at the end of the day. What is the Minister's approach to that in the discussions?
I will reiterate what I said previously, which is that we have a minority shareholding. The Deputy is overemphasising the influence of a 25% shareholding, if she thinks that is a controlling influence on anything; it is not. That decision was made some years ago. We have to think of the strategic interests of the country, including connectivity, business, tourism and the future of the Aer Lingus brand, as well as jobs in Aer Lingus and our airports. That is the strategic decision that will fall to be made by the Government, assuming that IAG continues in the negotiations and improves on the situation which, as the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has indicated, was unsatisfactory some weeks ago.
The next question is in the name of Deputy Ruth Coppinger but, as she is not present, we will proceed to Question No. 13 from Deputy Seán Kyne.
13. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will carry out an inventory in relation to coastal defences here with a view to having a plan for rolling funding for repairs and improvements as necessary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11693/15]
I wish to ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will carry out an inventory in relation to coastal defences with a view to having rolling funding for such issues that may arise concerning coastal defences.
The primary objective of Government policy on coastal protection is to ensure that in areas identified as being at greatest risk of damage or loss to economic assets through coastal erosion or flooding, appropriate and sustainable measures are identified by local authorities to protect those assets. Where intervention measures are economically justified on cost-benefit grounds and compatible with all required environmental and other statutory requirements, they are implemented subject to the availability of resources. It is not practical to provide protection to the entire coastline. The Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study, ICPSS, is a major examination to assess and identify the most significant areas of erosion risk for the entire national coastline. These programmes assist with the identification of areas potentially at risk from coastal flooding nationally.
The OPW, in conjunction with its consultants, has prepared and published strategic coastal flood hazard maps. These maps have been prepared for the current and two future scenarios, mid-range and high-end, associated with sea level rise in the context of climate change. The mid-range future scenario represents the flood hazard based on a 0.5m sea level rise at 2100, whilst the high-end future scenario represents a 1.0m sea level rise. This major study provides invaluable and essential information required to inform coastal protection policy.
I am conscious of time, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, so I will give the Deputy a chance to ask a question.
Thank you, Minister. We just have time for one supplementary question.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I acknowledge the engagement by the Office of Public Works and the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, with Galway County Council on a range of flood defence issues. Last year, there were a series of storms which caused coastal erosion. The old proverb says that "A stitch in time, saves nine", so expenditure now can save future expenditure. There are plenty of examples whereby coastal defence issues have been identified by local communities for a long time. Funding was not available, however, because of uncertainly over whether responsibility lay with the OPW, the county council, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
A small amount of expenditure could have prevented major expenditure last year on particular problems. There are also ongoing problems on private property, for example, in Dog's Bay which is a world-renowned area near Ballyconneely and Roundstone in Connemara. No money is available for coastal defences there since it is private property. In addition, no money has been identified at all for the second round of storms that occurred in February 2014. Money was made available quickly following the storms in January 2014, but not for the storm damage in February 2014. These issues are ongoing. If an inventory is supplied by local authorities to identify the areas affected, the Minister could put in place a rolling fund for the OPW for the protection of existing coastal defences.
I hear what the Deputy is saying, loud and clear, and there is a lot of merit in his suggestion. In the context of the new capital programme I am working on, I am conscious that there are a number of overarching issues. One of them will be how to address climate change in future, not only concerning coastal flooding and storm damage but also protecting communities that are prone to flooding from rivers. That will require significant funding, so we will have regard to it in future plans. I will certainly take note of what the Deputy has said.
