Vol. 883 No. 1
1. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the changes to transport in the centre of Dublin proposed by Dublin City Council and the National Transport Authority in the Dublin city centre transport study; his further views on the proposals to ban private cars from key central routes within the city centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23835/15]
The Minister will be aware that the National Transport Authority has prepared a report that seeks to ban private cars, including taxis, from key central routes in Dublin city centre. Will he outline his views on the report to the House?
Before I reply to the Deputy's question, I add my voice to the voices of those who spoke in the Dáil yesterday about the awful tragedy and loss of life in Berkeley. My thoughts, like those of everyone else, are with the families of those involved and everyone else who has been affected by this incident.
The Dublin city transport study which was recently published jointly by the National Transport Authority and Dublin City Council comprises a set of proposals to enhance overall movement in the city and cater for increased usage. It seeks to address the imminent transport issues facing the core city centre area, to facilitate the implementation of the Dublin City Council development plan and to safeguard the future growth of the city. A public consultation process is being carried out on the study. Anyone who wishes to make a submission on the study can do so online at www.dublincity.ie/transportstudy. The closing date for receipt of submissions is Thursday, 16 July.
As the study is the subject of a public consultation process, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual proposals. Decisions on specific traffic management measures are the responsibility of the local authority and will be matters for Dublin City Council to progress when the consultation process is complete. Councillors will have to decide whether to include the various recommendations, some of which are controversial, in its next development plan. I confirm that the general thrust of the proposals is in line with my Department's overall strategic policy for sustainable urban transport. I do not doubt that in the public consultation process we will hear from city centre business interests who believe private cars should form part of the transport mix, for example, to allow city centre shoppers to purchase large and bulky items. A key objective of transport policy is to ensure investment is targeted in the most effective way that encourages people to leave the car at home, where possible, and to walk, cycle or avail of public transport. The study will play a role in seeking to determine the most appropriate way to make progress with that agenda, taking account of all stakeholder views.
I am disappointed that the Minister is not in a position to put his views clearly into the public realm. I accept the statutory position he is in. It would be highly unusual if, as the Minister with responsibility for transport, he felt precluded from offering his views on this matter. If he were to offer them, I do not think it would conflict in any way with the roles of Dublin City Council or the National Transport Authority as set out in statute. Given that the total ban faced by private motorists on College Green and parts of the quays needs to be addressed in advance, I suggest the Minister set out his views as part of the process of public consultation. I totally believe in the concept of improving the movement of buses, trams, cyclists and pedestrians as part of the National Transport Authority's plan to cope with the expected 20% increase in commuter numbers. As the Minister knows, the report points out that O'Connell Bridge is used by approximately 70,000 vehicles each day, or approximately 60% of the number of vehicles that use the M50 each day. These are startling figures. It is right and appropriate that an approach be taken to ameliorate the expected increase in order that everybody can go about his or her business. Mr. Conor Faughnan of AA Ireland has suggested there has been a belief for some time that four wheels are bad and two wheels are good. Unfortunately, that attitude is starting to find a level of acceptance in certain State agencies. We need to look at everything on its merits. The greater the number of people who involve themselves in the discourse during this process - that includes the Minister - the more helpful and beneficial it will be to whatever is the final draft. We have to look at the importance of the motorist, especially in the light of what he or she contributes to the economy generally.
A recognition of the role played by Dublin City Council in this respect, as well as the powers afforded to the council under law and the use made of these powers, needs to be at the heart of the discussion. The council is looking to hear the views of the people of the city and beyond on its proposals. While that consultation process is ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to become publicly involved in a draft plan that is out for consultation. As I said to the Deputy, I support the overall objectives of the plan. It is essential that we find the right transport mix to deal with the huge increased demand for road space in the future owing to the recovering economy. In the past five years the Government has made funding of approximately €97 million available via the National Transport Authority for improvements in transport infrastructure in this area. The Government is also investing almost €370 million in the cross-city Luas line which will be operational in 2017.
The Minister is well aware of how well pedestrian zones work in cities throughout the world. It is, undoubtedly, fantastic that they improve the living space and allow people to get around, but they have to be developed in harmony with people's ability to gain access to such locations by means of private cars or public transport. There is a delicate and fine balance between the two. On the basis of what I have read so far, I am concerned that the broader exclusion of the car from the city centre almost has the potential to make a park out of that zone. If access to the city centre is restricted and the volume of people is reduced, there will be no level of activity there. It will become a no-go zone for people who will choose to do their business elsewhere. We should have learned from experience around the world when city centres started to be hollowed out. Much of that happened as a result of people's decisions to move to commuter belts and live on the outskirts of cities. If a business district is created in the city centre and cars are removed, it could potentially have a really damaging effect on the economic life of the city. For that reason, I hope people's views will be listened to as part of a broader consultation process. The consultation process on this report should not be mere window-dressing that will allow Dublin City Council and the National Transport Authority to drive ahead with this agenda.
Nobody involved in the process has the objective of seeking to turn our city centre into a no-go zone or to get to a point at which our city is hollowed out. The objective of the proposals the city council is putting forward is the opposite of this. It wants to create a more vibrant and sustainable city centre balancing the huge number of people passing through it with the needs of the business community and the growing residential community. This is fully recognised by the Government, which is why we are investing in the Luas cross-city project and why we have invested more than €97 million in recent years. We will support good plans for the area depending on the funding available to us. I agree with the Deputy we need a good consultation process and this is under way. I will make comment, and the Department will become involved, at the end of this process when everybody has had an opportunity to make known his or her views.
2. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will commit to providing a portion of the proceeds from any sale of Aer Lingus to protect the pensions of deferred members of the Irish Airlines (general employees) superannuation scheme who worked for Aer Lingus. [23234/15]
This question is on the possible sale of Aer Lingus and the possible use of the money for the deferred members of the pension scheme. As the Minister knows, a huge issue has arisen in this regard. He has made decisions in the past but I plead once again for something to be done to address the injustice which took place.
An agreed solution was implemented at the start of this year to address the funding difficulties in the Irish airlines (general employees) superannuation scheme, IASS. This agreed solution is a matter for the trustee, the companies participating in the scheme and the scheme members and the Pensions Authority. Under the agreed solution, the total contribution proposed by the IASS employers towards resolving the IASS difficulties now amounts to over €260 million. This includes adding a further €20 million to the €40 million already being made available for deferred members, bringing the full amount for this group to €60 million. The trustee has confirmed these measures are in the overall best interest of the members of the IASS as a whole. The solution will continue to be implemented in compliance with national and EU law irrespective of the ownership of Aer Lingus. I am very conscious that the agreed solution has a significant impact on many members of the scheme, but as I have said in the House, these risks would have arisen for all members, the companies involved and the wider economy if this solution had not been implemented.
Any proceeds from the sale of the State's minority shareholding in Aer Lingus will be paid into the Exchequer, and the Government has decided that such proceeds should be used to establish a new connectivity fund as a sub-portfolio of the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund. Under EUROSTAT rules, the proceeds arising from the sale of the State's shares in Aer Lingus represent the sale of a financial asset and will have no beneficial impact on Ireland's general Government balance, GGB. Accordingly, the money received will not provide any capacity for additional Government expenditure on a GGB-neutral basis. It is for this reason the proceeds will be allocated to this special fund, which will operate on a commercial basis.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Therefore, they will not constitute Government expenditure but will facilitate the re-use of the proceeds for productive purposes within the economy, on a GGB-neutral basis. For this reason, the moneys generated by the sale cannot be used for the reasons proposed by the Deputy.
Once again, this is very disappointing for the deferred members, many of whom have suffered huge losses. When the State airport Bill was brought forward those who paid a heavy price were the deferred members. We all know this. A terrible injustice was done to them whereby some of them lost between 30% and 50% of their pension. This is not right. It is within the gift of the Minister to re-examine this and push the Cabinet to re-examine it. To come in and say the Government has done a deal and put in so much money, and mention the trustee and what was done, is not good enough. There is room if this goes ahead and the Government gets extra money. The Minister mentioned the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund. From a basic point of humanity and the injustice done to these people, something can and should be done.
I am fully aware of the hardship caused to people as a result of what happened to the pension fund. The pension fund faced a huge deficit. The one thing on which I am very clear is if I had gone against the wishes of the trustee, the person whose job it is to administer and run the fund, the Deputy would be the first person in the Dáil Chamber to criticise me for doing so.
I am getting very confused about where the Deputy stands on the sale of Aer Lingus. Is he for the disposal taking place or is he against it? He came into the Dáil for a number of weeks saying he was against the sale happening, but now he has come in here stating he wants the proceeds of the sale to be used in a particular way. The rules in place mean if the stake were to be sold we would not able to use any funding for current Government expenditure. It can only be used for commercial purposes.
It is very clear we are against the sale of Aer Lingus. I do not even know the status of what is going on behind the scenes and to where it has progressed. We have been against it for many reasons including connectivity, jobs and the fact the tourism industry has been doing very well with numbers increasing. We are selling off a going concern. I have addressed this. The Government has voted to sell off Aer Lingus. I am looking at the reality of the fund of whatever money the Government will potentially get. It is all well and good talking about the role of the trustee. This is an issue of a serious injustice. Will the Minister ask his Government colleagues to make an exception and look at the deferred pensioners once again? This is all I am asking, on the basis the Government will get this money. Perhaps the Minister will give us an update on where we are with regard to the Aer Lingus situation. Has there been any further news?
It is good to hear the Deputy acknowledge the success we are having in tourism. He also opposed many of the measures put in place to deliver this success. He opposed the way we needed to fund the lower VAT rate, which is the very measure supporting Irish tourism and supporting hotels, cafes and restaurants in delivering affordable prices to tourists to get them to visit our country. The measures the Deputy opposed now contribute to the success seen in Irish tourism. I take this opportunity to recognise again everybody working in tourism for the great job they do for our country. The Minister of State, Deputy Ring, is at pains to acknowledge this all of the time.
Deputy Ellis stated it is all well and good about the trustee. The trustee is the individual with the legal responsibility for the maintenance of the fund. If I had gone against what the trustee wanted to do to try to bring solvency and stability to the largest pension fund in the country, which had a deficit of hundreds of millions of euro, Deputy Ellis and his colleagues would have been in the Chamber opposing me for doing so. I am aware of the huge difficulty people have faced and I have explained to the House that the accounting rules in place mean it is not possible to use the proceeds of any sale for current expenditure.
3. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he is satisfied the route proposed for the M7 upgrade in County Kildare is the most beneficial and cost effective; the timescale as to when the upgrade will be completed; the public consultation which has taken place to date on the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23837/15]
This relates to the upgrade of the M7 Naas to Newbridge bypass upgrade scheme. Is the only impediment funding? What priority does it have?
I must point out again that, while I have responsibility for overall policy and funding for the national roads programme, the construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads are matters for the National Roads Authority, NRA, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. I understand the proposed M7 Naas bypass widening scheme which follows the alignment of the motorway has been progressed in compliance with the NRA's project management guidelines. Kildare County Council advertised the scheme in local and national newspapers and a public consultation process began and was left on open display for two weeks. An Bord Pleanála approved the scheme in August 2014 after an oral hearing.
Unfortunately, the financial realities are that capital funding will continue to be tight for the next number of years, limiting the scope for progressing additional new projects over and above the PPP schemes already in place. I know that it is important to restore capital funding for the transport sector over time, to ensure land transport infrastructure is maintained and renewed to support economic development. While I have, I hope, stabilised the funding position, the scope for new projects depends on the availability of additional capital funding in the future. Once that is clear to me, the Government will publish a plan to address particular bottlenecks and challenges within the country.
I am looking to find out when it will be clear to the Minister. This is local to County Kildare, but it is also a national primary route. There are three lanes to the point where it narrows, where there is a significant bottleneck and a high number of accidents. Many years ago cost-benefit analyses were carried out which looked at fatality rates. Accident rates were also factored in. I would hate to think that is the reason a scheme will have a higher priority when we can already predict a significant problem. The functioning of the economy will be dependent on the ability to manufacture and deliver goods and services. This is one of the most densely populated parts of the country and the route is the artery between Dublin and two of our major cities. I would like to know where the scheme stands in the list of priorities.
I agree with the Deputy that the maintenance and, where necessary, the creation of good national roads are crucial to how the economy moves and our ability to move goods and services throughout the country. It is also crucial to make sure the national finances continue to improve and that if we commit to a project, we have the ability to fund it. The Deputy will be aware that a condition of the planning permission granted for the millennium business park was that an interchange be built at Osberstown. If that scheme was executed in isolation, the consequence would be an addition of 8% to the volume of traffic on the M7 motorway, which is already operating at a very high level of capacity and exceptionally busy. To deal with this issue in a comprehensive way, we need to deliver a number of projects in the area, including widening the road at Naas, funding the interchange and carrying out work at Sallins. The total cost of all these projects is €110 million. We can only commit to a project if we are confident that we can fund it. The group of projects has a high priority, but in order for it to go ahead, I have to be confident that I can fund it and that the State will be in a position to afford it in the future
I agree with the Minister that the projects are linked. The problem is that, in the absence of being able to get traffic to and from the park and providing entry and exit points for developments such as the big new development of the Kerry Group, the millennium business park is stuck in an environment in which it was never planned to be in. It is very well located, which is why the Kerry Group development took place there, but it is being constrained in expansion because of this impediment. While a very large amount of money is involved, it has the potential to bring about a decent return also.
The Deputy acknowledges that this is a very significant amount of money from the taxpayer. It is easily comparable to, if not greater than, the private sector investment put into the millennium business park and the surrounding area. It is receiving priority for the future, provided funding is available, because of how busy the existing roads in the area, in particular the M7, are and because access to the millennium business park will become extremely difficult if we do not find a way to alleviate the problem. That is why this group of projects has been proposed. My challenge is to ensure the total amount of money, in excess of €100 million, can be secured to support the investment and job creation under way, but we can only go ahead with the scheme if we have the money and can be sure money will be available in the future. Otherwise we risk repeating the mistakes which have cost us so dear already.
4. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the reason he decided to refuse the proposed motorway between counties Cork and Limerick, in view of the fact that the National Roads Authority has identified the project as one of the country’s priority road investments. [23836/15]
This follows the announcement made by the Minister that he was not going to proceed with a project to have a motorway between Cork and Limerick. Given that it was a priority for the National Roads Authority, will he outline why he has decided to shelve the project at this time?
As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding for the national roads programme. The planning, design and implementation of individual road projects, including the M20, are matters for the National Roads Authority, NRA, under the Roads Acts. 1993 to 2007, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Given the national financial position, there have been very large reductions in roads expenditure in the past few years. The reality is that the available funds do not match the amount of work which could be undertaken. For this reason, it has not been possible to progress a range of worthwhile projects and the main focus has had to be on the maintenance and repair of roads.
In 2011 my predecessor indicated to the NRA that it should withdraw its application to An Bord Pleanála for the M20 Cork to Limerick route. I understand the then Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, was concerned that proceeding any further with the scheme to build the M20 would have exposed the NRA to significant costs arising from a consequent requirement to purchase the compulsorily purchased land within a limited timeframe. This would have had to be done without the reasonable prospect of proceeding to construction stage quickly. Unfortunately, there is no escaping the reality that road budgets have reduced radically in recent years and will most likely remain tight for the next few years. Given the scale of this project, at an estimated cost in excess of €800 million, I am not in a position to review the decision. I am, however, continuing to examine if there is any possibility of alleviating some of the bottlenecks on the existing N20, although this will only be possible if funding is made available for said projects. Furthermore, my continued preference is to use certain funds available to maintain the existing network, rather than build new roads that we would then have the responsibility to maintain into the future.
The current connection between Limerick and Cork is an appalling stretch of road. It stretches for 80 km and the proposed motorway would significantly cut the travelling time between the two locations.
It would also reduce congestion in towns and the number of deaths and injuries that take place on that stretch of road which is a connection between the second and third largest cities in the State. As the Minister is well aware, 25% of Ireland's economic activity is generated in the mid-west and south-west regions. Limerick and Cork alone account for about one third of the population outside Dublin. Limerick and the mid-west region generally are recognised as attractive locations in which to invest and do business. Unfortunately, without the appropriate infrastructure between the two cities, it becomes unattractive to do so from an investment point of view, on top of protecting what is in place and reducing the numbers of deaths and injuries on the roads. If the Government is to do anything more than pay lip-service to the notion of having balanced regional development, it is appropriate that this funding be set aside to invest in the regions. That would allow people to live, work and remain in them, rather than crowding everybody into the Dublin region. Infrastructure needs to be provided. Why not try to be a little more balanced in how the funding is spent?
The total cost of the project is in excess of €800 million. The land cost alone will be approximately €100 million. Deputy Catherine Murphy spoke about this issue earlier. The total cost of delivering all of the projects we discussed is just over €100 million. The main challenge I face in a project of this scale is that funding cannot be secured; we are instead trying to progress projects the length and breadth of the country which make a contribution to road safety and support the ability of communities to get to and from work and around the country safely. I want this project to go ahead at some point in the future, but there is a lack of funding. If the Deputy is committed to the project, perhaps he might tell me where he would secure the €800 million required to deliver it, while also delivering all of the other Government projects he supports.
It comes back to what one fundamentally believes in. If one's view is that infrastructure will only be provided in certain sections on the east coast, investment will be concentrated on the east coast, people will move there and the Minister's burden of responsibility will increase in providing infrastructure after the event. It is no surprise that Kerry Group, to which Deputy Catherine Murphy referred, located in Naas because the infrastructure was available. This is creating a further intolerable burden on existing infrastructure which needs further investment. If one was to invest in the regions, Kerry Group might locate in Munster, rather than finding it necessary to locate in Naas. I am not suggesting this is the only reason it is based there, but we need to be serious about providing for balanced regional development. I want to see development take place on the east coast and it is right that it does, but it has to be balanced against the future growth of the regions, if the Government is serious about providing for this. The appropriate approach to take is to invest and further investment will follow.
The Government is committed to providing for balanced regional development, which is why we have invested in tourism and made great progress in attracting foreign direct investment in many parts of the country. We appreciate the need for investment and employment to be generated across the island. On the contribution of transport, we are continuing to support the maintenance of the local and regional road network. I go back to the original point I made to the Deputy, namely, this is a project that will cost in excess of €800 million. As much as I want to see a project like it happen, my challenge is to find funding for it and, if it is available, to ask whether it could be spent in other ways that would deliver balanced regional development and improve the ability of commuters and residents to get around the country. I have to note that I asked the Deputy the simple question of where he would secure the €800 million necessary, while supporting everything else the Government was doing. He was not able to answer that question.
When I have access to the Minister's Department, I will gladly provide him with the answer.
5. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for the Dublin Area Rapid Transit underground project, the railway procurement order for which expires in September 2015; the revised options for the project he is considering; the new timeline proposed for completion of the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23838/15]
Some 28% of the population now live in Dublin. According to the last census, more people are living in Dublin than in Munster. We will keep on arguing for increased road capacity and car parks if we do not do something about public transport. The DART underground project would be a game changer, but the railway order runs out in September. It is important, therefore, that we know what the plan of action is.
I am conscious that a decision on whether to proceed with the DART underground project under the current railway order must be made by September if the CPO conditions applicable to the order are to be met. The National Transport Authority has been carrying out technical reviews of all the greater Dublin area public transport projects and I am awaiting delivery of its report and recommendations. It anticipates delivering this work to me by the end of June. Following my receipt and assessment of it, I will make my decision on public transport investment priorities in the greater Dublin area by the end of the summer and in advance of the September deadline for issuing the CPO notices to treat relating to the DART underground project.
This is a very large and expensive project, but it would be a game changer. It was estimated that it would increase the number of passenger journeys by something like 100 million a year. It would be a driver of the recovery of the capital city in efficiency terms. When the rules changed regarding how EU funding would be allocated in the mid-1990s, it was based on themes. One of the reasons we have the Luas and other public transport projects is the Government made an argument that Dublin was inefficient as a result of congestion. It is now estimated than in the next five or six years an additional 50 million extra people will travel in and out of the city every day. We are back to the future and there is a point at which a decision has to be made on this issue. Perhaps European funds could be leveraged for the project.
On the Deputy's latter point, I expect that once we decide on the projects to be progressed in the short to medium term, we will be able to apply for and, I hope, receive European funding for such projects as happened in the case of similar projects in the past. Public transport projects are under way, including the Luas cross-city project which has been in receipt of support from European bodies.
As it was designed, this project would have a major impact on the ability of the rail network to perform within Dublin, Leinster and along the east coast. The Deputy has made reference to the potential cost, which would be many billions of euro. The decision I have to make involves weighing up that cost versus the cost of meeting other transport needs. I need to consider whether we could do other things in the existing rail network that would increase capacity and whether we should examine alternatives such as light rail, not to mention road project options such as those mentioned by Deputy Timmy Dooley in other parts of the country.
I presume congestion costs form part of what the Minister is considering in terms of the overall picture and the decision he will have to make. We will all make arguments about how much longer it takes to get from A to B. When one factors in goods and services, one finds that using the roads becomes very inefficient as they are clogged up with people who have no reason to be on them. We need to move people from them, not just cars, vans and trucks. Dealing with the movement of people is the real missing link in the capital city and has been for a very long time.
It is precisely because we want to make a contribution to making it easier for people to get around that we are funding and putting in place Luas Cross City. It will deliver an additional 10 million journeys per year on our Luas network to take the number from approximately 30 million to approximately 40 million. While that will make a contribution to movement within the city, the Deputy is also asking me about how we get people to the city. Of course, that is why a project like DART underground could make a significant contribution to increasing substantially the capacity on our rail network by allowing more services to run to our main city centre train stations.
While the Deputy is correct that congestion is imposing a growing cost on the economy, of which I am well aware, the hard funding must be secured to deliver projects. While this is a project that would make a contribution as currently designed, it has an associated cost of many billions of euro and, as such, I must weigh it up directly against, for example, the road project Deputy Catherine Murphy was pressing me for earlier to support the growth of the Millennium Business Park. We have to make choices about what can be done.
