Vol. 927 No. 1
2. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will address the leaking of the National Transport Authority's draft report on the review of the rail network and services; his views on the review; his plans to make Iarnród Éireann more financially sustainable; if he plans to discontinue any rail services as a result of the review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33004/16]
I ask the Minister to address the leaking of the draft report on the review of the rail network and services, to make a statement on the review, to outline his plans and those of the Government to make Iarnród Éireann more financially sustainable and to state whether he intends to discontinue any rail services as a result of the review. Can he say in his reply whether he thinks it was appropriate for a review of the magnitude of this one to be leaked to the media?
I congratulate Deputy Troy on finishing the Dublin marathon in four hours and 15 minutes. It was an extraordinary achievement. The Deputy will only have to stay here for the next hour and a half, so he should be able to manage that.
The question before the House is very fair in many ways.
I have no idea about the leak. I regret the leak and I think it is a great pity that it happened. However, the report is due for release shortly and I will come to that in a moment.
As I indicated at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport's meeting on 5 October, I have received a copy of the rail review conducted by the National Transport Authority and Irish Rail. It examines the funding parameters required to support our rail network now and in future. I have already stated that I will bring the report to Cabinet and then immediately arrange for its publication and the commencement of a public consultation process to be conducted by the National Transport Authority. I intend to do this next week.
The review identifies a funding gap for Irish Rail based on the projected allocations prior to budget 2017. In the meantime, decisions under budget 2017 provide for additional funding of over €50 million to Irish Rail next year. This significant increase in funding for next year allows for increasing investment in maintenance and renewal of the network and the rolling stock as well as to provide more funding for safety projects. It is also encouraging to note that Irish Rail is experiencing business growth, with increases in the number of passenger journeys. The reopening of the Phoenix Park tunnel in the coming weeks for commuter services from the Kildare line to the stations between Connolly and Grand Canal Dock and the expansion of DART services to a ten-minute frequency will also help to grow the business.
While there has been much speculation regarding the future of individual rail lines, I wish to emphasise that no decisions will be taken on any of the options identified in the review in advance of the full process of public consultation. The latter will give the public and other interested parties the opportunity to see the analysis on rail funding and to contribute to all aspects of the debate on the future of rail.
I thank the Minister for congratulating me on the marathon. I compliment the organisers of the event and the volunteers and supporters who lined the route. Sunday's Dublin city marathon was a tremendous occasion. I hope the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport supports those involved to the greatest extent possible because it was a magnificent showcase of Dublin at its very best. I wish to pass on my congratulations to the organisers and the supporters.
I asked the Minister a specific question but I do not accept his remarks in respect of the leaking of the report. How long has the Minister sat on the report? The report has been in the Minister's possession for months. One wonders whether the Minister was happy that the report was leaked before he brought it to Cabinet or the relevant Oireachtas committee or before the Dáil had an opportunity to debate it. That totally undermines the Oireachtas. It is difficult for people on this side of the House to have a meaningful and frank discussion, although that is precisely what the Minister has asked for previously in respect of how public transport develops over time. It is particularly difficult for us to have that discussion with our hands tied behind our backs and in the absence of a report that the Minister has sat on for months on end. Moreover, the report has been leaked to the national media and it has identified rail closures. I accept the Minister has said that there will be no rail closures before any consultation. Can the Minister rule out any rail closures, full stop?
I totally reject any suggestion that it was in the interests of anyone to leak the report. It was highly inconvenient that the report was leaked. I have not sat on it for months. Deputy Troy should be more accurate about the matter. The reality is that I had intended to bring it to Cabinet this week. The Cabinet meeting was curtailed and a one-hour discussion was arranged because of the Brexit meetings at Dublin Castle today. That would not have given enough time for a report of this kind to be seriously considered by the Cabinet. To suggest that such a report could be seriously considered in an hour is absurd. I delayed the discussion until next week for that reason.
The Deputy should be well aware of the programme because I have made it absolutely clear. The report will be released immediately once the Cabinet has seen and considered it. It will then go to a public consultation and will be considered by the National Transport Authority afterwards. Recommendations will then be made.
Deputy Troy referred to the issue of rail lines being closed. I think it would be altogether wrong to prejudge any of the conclusions of this report or any conclusions of the NTA and I am not going to do so.
Time has expired.
Decisions will be made after that consultation.
We must observe the time.
When did the Minister receive the report? It is going to be publicised next week. How long then until the public consultations begin? We are aware that €60 million is needed to maintain the lines in a steady state. Can the Minister set out the level of capital deficit that has built up over many years of underfunding? How is that going to be met in the short term to ensure that we have a rail line infrastructure that is fit for purpose and does not compromise safety?
At a time when we are talking about needing more funding, surely to God what we should be doing is trying to increase passenger numbers rather than closing rail lines and introducing incentives to encourage people to use rail services. I was amazed last week to see that operators of car parks under the remit of Iarnród Éireann have introduced further disincentives for people to use the rail line by increasing car parking charges. That seems nonsensical.
The Deputy will know perfectly well that I do not and cannot get involved in the day-to-day running or operational activities of Iarnród Éireann in any way. We make policy, we do not interfere with what the company does in car parks or anywhere else. That is not our business and it would be absolutely wrong if we did interfere.
The Deputy addressed the issue of funding. Deputy Troy will be pleased to hear that over €50 million in additional funding was allocated to Irish Rail for 2017 in the budget. This will bring total funding next year to over €300 million. The rail review addresses what the Deputy has rightly identified as the chronic underfunding of Iarnród Éireann over many years and the difficulties the company faces at present. It addresses the possible solutions to that funding problem. One is further Exchequer funding, another is further revenue and yet another relates to cutting costs. These are rather dramatic and we have to make a decision in respect of them in due course following the public consultation process.
3. Deputy Imelda Munster asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if his attention has been drawn to the issuing and amending of commercial bus licences on routes served by existing operators, a practice which has the potential to impact on the employment of 800 workers on the Expressway service; the actions he will take to rectify this situation and safeguard the employment of the workers; if he will convene a forum, inclusive of all stakeholders and as provided for in the 2009 Act, to discuss all aspects of State provision and funding for public transport in view of the importance of this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32937/16]
I am asking the Minister about the issuing and amending of commercial bus licences on routes served by existing operators. This has the potential to impact the employment of 800 workers on the Expressway service. What action will the Minister take to rectify this situation and safeguard the employment of the workers? Will the Minister convene a consultative forum of all the relevant stakeholders to plan and discuss funding, reinvestment and the future of our public transport network?
I thank Deputy Munster for the question. It is topical because of the critical situation in which Bus Éireann finds itself.
Since December 2010 the NTA has operated as the regulator of licensed bus services and all commercial operators must apply for a licence under the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009. I am unaware of the forum as referred to by the Deputy. It is worth noting that since 2010 the NTA has issued only five new licences in the intercity bus market. It has approved amendments to a further three licences and refused eight applications for licences.
Last year, almost 28 million people travelled on licensed bus services, with over 7 million of those travelling on Bus Éireann Expressway services. Specifically, on the major intercity corridors, the annual number of passenger journeys rose by approximately 1 million between 2012 and 2015. However, that overall growth in passenger numbers and revenues is not being reflected in the Expressway operation and it has lost approximately 6% in passenger numbers since 2012. As a result, Expressway is loss-making and this, in turn, is affecting Bus Éireann's overall profit. Last year, the company as a whole lost approximately €5 million and this year the company forecasts losses of up to €6 million. Clearly, these losses are not sustainable and the company is required to address them.
I have been consistently clear since assuming office that issues relating to pay and conditions in any particular State-owned company under my Department's aegis are a matter for discussion and agreement between the employer and the employees.
The Deputy is aware that Bus Éireann has engaged consultants to review independently the options available to it as it seeks to address these aforementioned losses. That process is still going on. In addition, the Deputy is probably also aware that the company has indicated its desire to discuss the Expressway issue with trade unions. I am firmly of the belief that difficult issues such as this can only be resolved through open, constructive and realistic engagement between the company and its employees. A Programme for a Partnership Government commits to a review of public transport policy, and as an integral part of our public transport network, the commercial licensed bus market will come within the ambit of that overall policy review.
I know the Minister is aware that Expressway is our national carrier and these plans threaten to drive it to extinction. Since taking office the Minister has not even sought to convene a consultative forum with all the relevant stakeholders to discuss and plan not just the funding but the future of our public transport network. As an incoming Minister he did not see that as a relevant step.
Private companies can amend their contracts the day after being given them. They can drop the least profitable routes and some of the services on a particular day. This is not just a question of privatisation or profit. This should be regarded as a public service. It will result in a much poorer service. What will the Minister do to rectify this and to protect our national carrier? What steps will he take to convene a forum to discuss the future of our public transport network?
I thank the Deputy for her supplementary questions. It is very omniscient of her to be able to tell me what I have and have not thought about. She can tell me what I have said, not what I have thought about.
The Minister has not done it.
I certainly have not done it. The idea of a consultative forum has merit. There are possibilities in having one. I want to be guaranteed that we do not have the kind of megaphone diplomacy that has been going on during the industrial relations problems we have at the moment. There are certain State bodies which deal with those. What was conspicuous in the last industrial dispute, in Dublin Bus, was that people were saying one thing publicly and another privately. That is the way industrial disputes are conducted in public but it would not be helpful to have a consultative process in the midst of that because all that would happen would be that, in the heat of industrial disputes, that forum would be used for other purposes.
When the other two companies have sorted out the difficulties in which they now find themselves, and which are well known to the Deputy, I will certainly consider having in a less heated atmosphere a consultative forum between all the parties and stakeholders involved. It does have merit, but in the present atmosphere of industrial differences, it would be wrong to do so.
I welcome the fact the Minister thinks there is merit in setting up the forum but it is a bit late doing so after the horse has bolted. Expressway is under threat of privatisation. What will the Minister do to rectify that? When Bus Éireann management met the Minister, it said that to continue with Expressway, it would have to be a low-pay, low-wage project and the Minister did not give an opinion either way. Either we protect our public transport network or we do not. Setting up a forum after Expressway has been extinguished is not good enough. Will the Minister explain what he intends to do to protect the Expressway service? Will he commit here and now to going ahead with the forum to discuss the future of our public transport network?
I have already answered the Deputy's question. I will consider it.
Nobody in this House has a monopoly on sympathy for those whose jobs are threatened: no party, no group, no individual. We all have exactly the same sympathy. I do not want to address the operational issues faced by Bus Éireann but it is a company in an expanding market that last year lost €5 million and this year is heading for a loss of €6 million. That company obviously has very big problems. It receives no Exchequer funding. It is a commercial body and will continue to be one. There are only a couple of options open to it, and it is considering them and has employed consultants to consider them. It also has an appointment on 1 December with one of the State bodies which helps in these types of disputes. I will not be directly intervening in any operational matter being run by any of these companies, particularly a commercial company.
4. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the need for a second runway at Dublin Airport; the terms of reference for the review he has initiated of the planning for the runway; and the length of time this will take to complete. [33005/16]
What are the views of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport on the need for a second runway at Dublin Airport, the terms of reference of the review he has initiated in the planning for the runway and the length of time it will take to complete this?
I am somewhat confused by the question. There is no review of the second runway. I will answer what I think the Deputy meant by his question. The second runway has been decided on and given the go-ahead quite a long time ago. The review to which he refers is, I suspect, something different. If the Deputy will forgive me I will answer the question I think he wished to ask. He is confusing the second runway with all sorts of other capacity reviews and third terminals and so on but I will explain it to him anyway. I will address the capacity review which I think is what he means. The second runway is a given and will not be reviewed.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, has statutory responsibility to manage, operate and develop Dublin Airport. In April 2016, the DAA announced plans to proceed with a second parallel runway, the north runway project, with the intention of having the runway operational by the end of 2020. I have welcomed the DAA's decision to develop this critical piece of airport infrastructure which will ensure Ireland's international connectivity into the future.
The national aviation policy, published in 2015, included a commitment to commission a high-level strategic capacity review of State airports in 2018. With Irish airports now experiencing a return to growth following several years of decline and Dublin Airport, in particular, experiencing exceptional growth, at three times the EU average, I have decided to bring forward the review and get it under way now. While my Department has yet to commence the procurement process for independent consultants to undertake this work, I would hope that the review will be completed in summer 2017.
This review involves planning for the long term. It will consider the development of Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports to 2050, with the identification and prioritisation of new infrastructure development, including modifications, if any, to the existing airport infrastructure. The review will also consider options for the development of new terminal capacity at Dublin Airport, whether State or independent.
There is no intention that there will be an economic or financial review of the north runway project at Dublin Airport. That project has already commenced, as announced by the DAA in April, and now needs to be completed at the earliest opportunity in 2020.
We are all in agreement that the airport is at capacity. We need to increase capacity if we are serious about sustainable development of our capital and the greater eastern seaboard, and if we want to attract foreign direct investment, support job creation and secure international connectivity. However, we must take on board the concerns of the residents who are living in close proximity to the airport. If we do not do that in a proper manner, we will run the risk of delaying the construction of the second runway. Is the Minister satisfied that EU Regulation No. 598/2014 will give the power in terms of noise restrictions to the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA? Is he satisfied that a statutory instrument will suffice to give it that power or will primary legislation be required? What timeframe does the Minister envisage for that because, as he rightly said, if we are talking about having a second runway constructed by 2020, the residents need to know exactly what the process will be but those who are planning to expand the capacity at the airport also need to know the timeframe under which they are working.
I thank Deputy Troy. I agree with much of what he said. The interests of the residents are immensely important on this issue of noise regulation in particular but also on the development of the second runway generally. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware that I have met several of the residents' groups individually. Some of them were brought by members of the Deputy's party to meet me, and I listened to what they had to say. I am concerned in particular that a State monopoly should not be allowed in any way to railroad a project like the north runway against the interests of the residents without hearing their legitimate complaints. There are approximately 200 residents involved. That is a lot of people, and there is no doubt that some of them have to suffer unthinkable noise in their homes. The new system of monitoring noise is very welcome. It is being given to the IAA and, for the first time ever, a separate unit within the IAA will be set up specifically to deal with noise regulation. In addition to that, under the EU regulation and within its specific mandate it will speak to the residents and consider their complaints.
The question about the statutory instrument is a fair one. Our intention is to do this by secondary legislation before the end of the year. A couple of issues are still being considered in the Attorney General's office in terms of whether it will be necessary to introduce primary legislation, but that will be decided in the next few weeks.
The Minister referred to the 200 residents. They do not have certainty because on this day, on the floor of the Dáil, the Minister cannot say verbatim whether the IAA will take over by way of a statutory instrument or primary legislation because he does not know for definite whether he would have the full support of the House for such a move. The residents have no certainty. The IAA has no certainty. Everybody is in limbo, and the only person who can take people out of limbo so that the residents can have confidence in the process that will be undertaken and that the DAA can plan accordingly and move on with this much-needed increase in infrastructure and increased capacity is the Minister. He is talking about a third terminal. At the moment we do not have a second runway in place to deal with the capacity of the passengers transiting through Terminals 1 and 2. Will the Minister use this opportunity to outline clearly the timeframe for how this will develop over the coming months and the process by which effective parties, if they have a grievance, can raise it?
Absolutely. The Deputy is being a little bit alarmist. There is one certainty. The runway will be built. What is uncertain, as the Deputy correctly said, is the exact timeframe because we are not certain that primary legislation will not be required. It is unlikely, but it is possible. If this is done by way of a statutory instrument, it will all be over by Christmas. If primary legislation is by any chance necessary, it will be done very early in the new year. Those are the certainties. The residents have this certainty, and they have comfort in that. They have a Minister who, for the first time, is sympathetic to their wishes and who is meeting them and making sure that whoever is the regulator, their needs will be considered.
The residents have something else as well. They have a new regulator whose mandate is to consider the wishes of the residents and the strain they are suffering under and to give them all sorts of remedial measures if and when they are appointed. The IAA has already been appointed but I refer to when the regulator is confirmed. That is a comfort to them. Never before has there been a State body solely dedicated to dealing with the noise levels at the airport. It is a body which has expertise in this area and which we considered very carefully before appointing. I believe the residents, who have had a very tough time for many years, should regard that as a plus and a benefit.
5. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for implementing EU Regulation No. 598/2014; the implementations that will require legislation through Dáil Éireann; the timeline for such legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32958/16]
I ask the Minister to outline to the Dáil his plan for the implementation of EU Regulation No. 598/2014. What seems to be coming down the tracks and what we heard in the Minister's press release is very concerning not only for local residents but for the future integrity of planning decisions in this country.
I thank Deputy Ryan for his question. The current regime for managing airport noise is based on EU legislation dating back to 2002 where the responsibility rests primarily with the airport operator. The entry into force in June of this year of EU Regulation No. 598/2014, to which Deputy Troy referred, represents a shift in responsibility from the airport operator to a separate, independent statutory entity or competent authority to oversee the delivery of the new, more prescriptive approach to airport noise management. Along with all other EU member states, Ireland must now give effect to this changed situation.
On 22 September last, I announced details of the manner in which EU Regulation No. 598/2014 is to be implemented in Ireland. This will require the introduction of a statutory instrument, which is envisaged will be completed by the end of this year.
There are two key reforms in the planned implementation of EU Regulation No. 598/2014. First, a dedicated, expert-focused competent authority in Ireland is being designated to take responsibility for consideration of all airport noise issues in Ireland. While I acknowledge there is no one available body perfectly suited to fulfilling this function, the Irish Aviation Authority is considered to be best placed to perform this important regulatory role. This is particularly relevant to the ongoing requirement for noise monitoring at the airport. The second essential reform is to clarify the collaborative working and public consultation arrangements that have to be applied in this area. It is important there is clarity about how the legitimate concerns of residents about increasing traffic at the airport will be taken into account.
I am delighted that there will now be a dedicated body with exclusive responsibility for dealing with the issues of noise. Previously, the DAA was essentially self-regulating in respect of noise, and that was not appropriate.
In so far as the question of primary legislation is concerned, I am not yet in a position to confirm the precise situation in that regard. That will depend on advice of the Office of the Attorney General. The immediate focus is on the completion of the statutory instrument, and if further issues need to be clarified by way of primary legislation, it would most likely arise in early 2017. I am sorry if I am repeating some of what I said to Deputy Troy earlier, but the issue overlaps.
The new runway, for which planning permission was granted in 2007 has the potential to create jobs and boost the economy. However, the permission came with conditions and the plan by the DAA to seek the setting aside of two of these conditions, conditions 3 and 5 regarding night-time flying and noise restrictions, has been strongly resisted by the local communities. What is especially concerning is the Minister's intention to appoint the IAA as the competent authority to implement this regulation which calls for a balanced approach to airport noise control balancing the potential economic benefits with the potential negative impact on the surrounding communities. If this legislation goes through, the IAA will be the only body empowered to make determinations and operating restrictions to apply at the airport and the IAA will not be bound by operating restrictions foreseen in the planning permission granted in 2007 for the new runway at Dublin Airport. I do not see how this could be supported in this House.
In the Minister's reference to whether it will be a statutory instrument or primary legislation, it would seem that if these powers are given effectively to overrule previous conditions, primary legislation would be required in terms of the planning Acts. That is my understanding. Maybe it is not in the Minister's area.
I thank the Deputy. I appreciate his concern. I note many of his constituents are concerned about this. The Deputy would be welcome, like others, to bring in any delegation of groups he wants in order that my officials and I can listen to what they have to say. I am impressed by the ones who have come in already. I am impressed by their concerns and by the fact that much of what they seek is reasonable. Some of them have had to put up with dreadful noise under the old regime. This is not a new problem, as the Deputy will be aware. Several residents have suffered under this for many years. That is why I welcome the opportunity to appoint a new authority which will not be self-regulating, as was the last authority, the DAA, in this issue which would chronically conflict it in this way.
On the appointment of the IAA, I must concede to the Deputy that I agree it is not perfect. There are one or two problems, but we made it as good as we possibly can. It is the best possible solution. Under EU rules, a body like this with a dual function is allowed. It has been permitted specifically in this case. The EU will allow this and regards it as totally independent under that status.
For the Minister to say specifically that the IAA, as the new competent authority, will not be bound by conditions in previous planning permissions is a major problem for planning law and planning decisions in the past. For better or worse, the people see this as a means to assist the DAA to get around the problem it has with those conditions. The DAA has every right to seek to change the conditions at any time, but the key point is it must be through the same planning laws and procedures that granted the permission and decided upon the conditionality in the first place. If the Minister sticks to his guns on this one, there will be wholesale opposition to it and, as Deputy Troy indicated, it will be difficult to get primary legislation on it through the House. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his position on it.
It is a pity to prejudge the decisions of a new body which has not even come into existence at this stage. No doubt the Deputy will find, because it is a new body, that it will be an improvement. I stated in answer to Deputy Ryan's first question that it is not perfect. There is no perfect solution to this problem. That said, I think he will find it will be independent, impartial and sensitive under its mandate to the wishes of the residents about whom the Deputy is concerned.
There is also another element of which I am sure the Deputy is aware. When he states this new body's decisions may be difficult to justify, there is an appeal mechanism under its establishment which will allow anybody to appeal to another completely independent authority - it is a bit clumsy to have so many independent authorities, but it is necessary - in case they feel that there is no justification for the decision which is made. An independent authority will be set up with another independent body, appointed by the Minister and consisting of independent persons who have expertise in this area, to make decisions on what the IAA has decided. One will not get a better structure than that. I can see where the Deputy thinks it might not work in practice but I think it will be the best possible solution. We will monitor it closely.
6. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when he expects the proposed greenway from Dublin to Galway to be completed; his proposals to resolve issues that have arisen among parties along the Athlone to Galway section; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33006/16]
The Minister will be familiar with the greenway between Mullingar and Athlone, and into Ballymahon. The Minister visited on a number of occasions. We have always welcomed him because, in fairness, he has made much-needed funding available. As I have always said when raising the need for additional funding in my constituency, the greenway will not reach its full potential until such time as it runs from Dublin across to Galway. There is a major issue between Athlone and Galway in progressing the next phase. I want to know today how the Minister intends to resolve the issues and concerns of the landowners affected in this area.
I seem to be spending more time discussing the issues in Athlone than anywhere else when I am answering questions on this particular body, partly, through no fault of Deputy Troy, because I seem to be familiar with those issues. This greenway is a good litmus test. It is a good question and I will address it.
My Department is developing a new strategy to set out a cohesive and forward-looking approach to the development, funding and promotion of greenways. As part of this process my Department will consult all stakeholders in the coming months. This proposed strategy will include a recommended approach to be taken by authorities and agencies tasked with delivering greenway infrastructure where engagement and consultation with landowners is required and, when finalised, will inform the approach to be taken to progress delivery of the section of the Galway to Dublin greenway between Athlone and Galway.
I was pleased to be in a position to award funding in July this year to a number of greenways where good progress was being made. This included funding for sections of the Galway to Dublin greenway in counties Kildare and Meath. The focus of this funding allocation was for those sections of the Galway to Dublin greenway where planning permission is in place and I expect that by the end of 2017 this will have facilitated progress on construction to the extent that it will be possible to cycle from Maynooth to Athlone entirely on segregated high-quality greenway.
I remain committed to achieving the delivery of this coast-to-coast greenway that will help to position Ireland as a destination for cycling holidays. I understand that the number of tourists cycling while on holiday in Ireland has increased significantly in recent years, from 66,000 in 2009 to more than 200,000 in 2015. While this is a small percentage of the total numbers visiting Ireland, it shows that there is a growing market for cycling tourism and this can be further exploited by a cohesive approach to the future development of greenways which I intend to pursue through the development of a new greenways strategy. I am determined to see this greenway in being and to clear it up.
I am glad the Minister has, once again, acknowledged that he is listening to what I am saying on this side of the House and when I requested additional funding for a part of this section, he granted it. This is a national scheme. It is not parochial. It is not unique to my constituency. It is for the betterment of the tourism sector in general. That is why we need it to run from Dublin to Galway and for the project to advance to the next stage.
The question I ask refers in particular to the section between Athlone and Galway because I am very familiar with the funding that has been made available to the other sections of the greenway. There is considerable concern and anxiety about the affected landowners between Athlone and Galway. That is why the project was shelved over 18 months ago, although I acknowledge it was before the Minister's time.
In order to advance this to the next stage, will the Minister and his officials agree to meet a group which has been set up and which is representative of people who are concerned about this section of the planned route? Will he meet and engage with them to see how we can overcome this impasse in order that we can come to an agreement, select a new route and move on so that construction can commence for the final leg of the project between Athlone and Galway?
I will consider that. If I think there is any useful purpose in meeting the landowners and any groups involved, I will consider doing so. I am not inclined to get involved in a local dispute if I think it will not do any good. It is very important that we consider, under the greenways policy, what we are going to do here. I understand the problems for landowners and the fact that they feel threatened by the possibility of compulsory purchase orders. My officials and I are determined to promote greenways throughout Ireland. The possibility of a coast to coast greenway of the sort envisaged here is something which we must turn into a reality. We will have to examine all the possibilities. Regarding rerouting, it was probably a mistake made by Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, initially in the preferred route it put down here and it was probably jumping the gun a bit.
I would be prepared to consider meeting the parties to which the Deputy referred if I thought it would be of any use. However, I will not meet them if I think it will be just another empty exercise. It is very important that this is done. If I see an opportunity for ministerial intervention which would do some good, I will certainly act accordingly. In the meantime, the previous Minister put this project on pause and talks are hopefully going to go ahead which will resolve this problem.
This is not simply a local dispute. It concerns a large section of the overall greenway project. Approximately 55% of the route of the greenway between Dublin and Galway goes through privately-owned land, yet no representatives of the owners of those lands were on the steering committee. That was a mistake. They should have been on the steering committee from the outset and had their voices heard. The reason the project has been very successful to date is because of the local buy-in from those in the areas where it has advanced. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, was in Coolnahay recently and he saw the success of local buy-in to the greenway project and he also saw that when he visited our region. The reason it has been so successful is that State-owned land has been used in those areas. There are alternatives here. I am a strong supporter of this project. I do not want to see it shelved and fall off the cliff, as it were, in Athlone. I want it to go all the way to Galway. Everybody wants to see that but let us bring it to Galway in a manner which can be done in consultation with the various stakeholders that will not impinge on farmers who are going about their daily work on their farms when there are alternatives that could be considered. I ask the Minister - in all sincerity - to meet those landowners, explore the alternative options and see if we can reach a compromise to advance this project to the next stage and have what we all want, a greenway from Dublin to Galway in the very near future.
We are probably ad idem on this. We all want to see this greenway developed and brought to fruition. It is just a matter of the best way of doing that. There is a process already being shaped by my Department for the development of greenways and difficulties of this sort. Specifically, my Department will consult all stakeholders in the coming months. This proposed strategy will include the recommended approach to be taken by authorities and agencies tasked with delivering greenway infrastructure where engagement and consultation with landowners is required and, when finalised, will inform the approach to be taken when talks are resumed on the delivery of the section of the Galway to Dublin greenway between Athlone and Galway. It may have been paused but it has not been halted. I can assure the Deputy of that.
Engagement with the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and with other stakeholders will be a necessary part of the process in seeking to resolve the issues of concern which have been identified to date. In addition to identifying and agreeing a preferred route, potential levels of compensation to affected landowners will be examined. The Department will look for guidance to the compensation package put in place to enable the TII and the local authorities to deliver national road schemes.
