Apologies have been received from Deputy Seán Kenny.
We will now be briefed on the European Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting due to take place in Brussels tomorrow and Friday, 22 and 23 March, which will be attended by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Minister is obliged to leave by 11.30 a.m. and is welcome to leave before then, if he wishes.
Unfortunately, I have an aeroplane to catch.
If that is the case, the Minister should not feel obliged to stay until 11.30 a.m. This is our second such meeting with him and I look forward to continued constructive engagement on EU matters in the coming months. Consideration of developments at European Councils is an important aspect of the work of Oireachtas committees and a key factor in strengthening Oireachtas oversight of EU matters. Members have been provided with a comprehensive brief by the Department covering all of the agenda items. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they do not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I now call on the Minister to make his opening statement.
I thank committee members for their invitation to brief them ahead of the Council meeting tomorrow and Friday. There are two dossiers on the agenda: the regulation on trans-European networks in transport and another on ground handling services, which is part of a wider airports-package liberalisation announced by the Commission in December. We need to identify and upgrade our trans-European networks in transport in order to deepen the Internal Market, increase trade and economic integration among member states and ensure that Europe does not fall behind other countries that are rapidly improving and developing their infrastructure, especially in Asia. It makes sense that the lead is taken on this issue at Union level.
At my last appearance here ahead of the transport Council in December, I outlined some of our concerns with regard to the TEN-T regulation. I understand that on foot of a subsequent hearing with officials from my Department specifically on the TEN-T proposal, the committee wrote to the European institutions setting out similar concerns with regard to the infrastructure specifications and governance structures and penalties that might be imposed on member states. This was very helpful, and I thank the committee for its actions. The compromise text, which we will discuss tomorrow, addresses many of these concerns. Specifically, the new proposal recognises the different characteristics of our rail network, which is considered to be an isolated network, and it will now be exempt from some of the more demanding and costly specifications being applied to the rail network on the continent, such as full electrification. There will also be new exemptions in duly justified cases for road transport infrastructure. The new proposal also contains stronger language to ensure that economic cost-benefit analyses are applied to any projects of common interest being funded. I strongly welcome this. Ireland contributes to the European budget and we do not want taxpayers' money spent on projects that do not stack up. It is also consistent with the commitment in the programme for Government to proceed with major new infrastructure projects only when finance is available and the cost-benefit analysis is favourable. Had the previous Government adopted this approach, hundreds of millions of euro would have been saved in planning projects that we now cannot afford to build, and on building projects that are now being subsidised by the hard-pressed taxpayer.
We have also secured some flexibility on the binding dates of 2030 and 2050 to deliver the core and the comprehensive networks. Critically, the implementation of projects will now depend on several factors, such as the degree of maturity of the projects, compliance with national and EU legal procedures and the availability of financial resources. There will be a review clause which requires the Commission to take into account the economic and budgetary situation at national and EU level when assessing the implementation of the core network. There is also a degree of roll-back on the governance structures envisaged to oversee the delivery of the core network. Overall, this represents a watering down of the draft regulation, which makes it more acceptable and affordable for Ireland. On the downside, from a European perspective, the regulation is weakened, and it will be harder to achieve the objectives of the regulation as a result. It is likely that the European Parliament will seek to harden it again.
A key concern remains the overall cost associated with delivering on the ambition contained in this draft regulation, given Europe's economic and fiscal outlook and the capacity of member states and private investors, particularly in Ireland, to deliver the level of investment in question - over €500 billion on the core network, according to the Commission's own estimates. Members should be aware that in Ireland's case, between 70% and 100% of the cost of any TEN-T project will fall on the Irish taxpayer either upfront or over a prolonged period in the form of a public private partnership. For this reason, it is my policy to limit the core networks to infrastructure that has already been built, in addition to a small number of projects that are already advanced, that have a positive benefit to cost ratio and that we are confident that we can fund. This is no place for aspirational projects; the directive is more about imposing onerous and expensive obligations on member states than it is about securing EU grants.
The other element of the package is the Connecting Europe facility, which is the funding programme proposed by the Commission to assist the development of the core transport network. This is being negotiated in parallel through various Council formations in the finance arena. These negotiations are linked to the wider discussion on the new multi-annual financial framework. My Department is working closely with colleagues in the Department of Finance to ensure the best outcome for us in these negotiations.
With regard to the ground handling dossier, the Presidency hopes to secure a general approach agreement tomorrow. The proposal was published only on 1 December last by the Commission and has been the subject of very intensive negotiations at a technical level since then. It is part of a package of measures that aim to foster the competitiveness of European airports while increasing their performance in terms of efficiency, quality and capacity. The ground handling proposal is part of the so-called airports package, and its particular objective is to stimulate competition among ground handling suppliers while ensuring a level playing field and a high quality of service in the sector. Access to self-handling and third party ground handling at Irish airports has been liberalised under a previous directive, Directive 96/67, and subsequent statutory instrument. There are currently a total of 13 self-handlers and 36 third-party handlers operating at Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports. The system of issuing, reissuing and revoking ground handling approvals is administered by Commission for Aviation Regulation.
Some member states had concerns about the mandatory nature of the ground handling approvals system and the application of harmonised standards put forward in the original Commission proposal. As a result, the Presidency proposed a compromise, essentially making it a voluntary approvals system. This in turn created problems from our perspective, as our approval system is already mandatory. At our request, the Presidency has incorporated the relevant elements of the original directive into the new regulation to address our concerns.
There are also a number of items on the agenda under any other business. These are updates and information pieces from the Commission on issues such as the recent Costa Concordia accident and the ETS aviation dossier. I am happy to answer questions on these issues and, as a follow-up, to provide the committee with a report on the outcome of the Council in due course.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and compliment them on their negotiations to date, which have achieved a watering-down of the original proposal. I also wish them well in their ongoing negotiations tomorrow and thereafter.
When does the Minister expect the discussions to be concluded, and when does he expect the TEN-T regulation to come into effect? Based on the compromise document, what does he estimate will be the total cost to the State of meeting the criteria that will form part of the final document? I accept that is a difficult question, but I ask the Minister to reply based on his best judgment. Has he factored that into his capital spend over the next three to five years?
I will make a political point since the Minister made one in his speech. He talked about the previous Government and the approach it took to various projects, some of which he said were in the planning stage and would not proceed. He might identify those projects for us. I would also be happy if he could identify those projects that have been built but that he believes should not have been built.
The Minister says that Ireland contributes to the European budget. Does he know the extent of our contribution at this stage?
Clearly, it is desirable to have a very good rail network throughout Europe. It was recognised that an island such as Ireland is in a different category due to our remoteness. It is welcome that there has been a change because of that, but it is at the same time desirable that the network continues to be developed. Is this being considered in the context of competitiveness? What elements are to be considered in the context of modal change or changes in transport usage from the point of view of climate change, and is that factored into the debate? That is the elephant in the room in that it is the primary reason for this change.
My question is about the implications for Ireland of the ground handling proposal, which provides for the possibility of imposing a requirement to engage existing ground handling staff with similar conditions when a contract goes to a new provider. Is that already covered under Irish legislation, or will we need to introduce something to guarantee the conditions and rates of pay for current ground handling staff when there is a change of provider?
On the first set of questions, the intention is that the Council will adopt a general approach tomorrow. Discussions will then begin with the Parliament before returning to the Council. The target is for adoption in 2013, perhaps during our Presidency and perhaps thereafter, and for the regulation to come into force in 2014. I do not have an estimated cost because we do not yet know exactly what projects we will be committed to and the exact specifications required. However, it will certainly be several billion euro, which obviously is not available under the current capital programme that runs to 2016. Those costs will then fall due in the period 2016 to 2030. I am conscious in dealing with this directive that I do not want to impose major spending commitments on future Governments which they could end up being fined over. That is why it is my policy to limit the number of projects to infrastructure already in place, such as the major motorway network and projects which have already been planned and can be funded through public private partnership or the private sector.
On projects that have been completed, the Deputy will be aware approximately €200 million has been spent to date on planning for metro north and DART underground which cannot proceed in the foreseeable future. A similar amount has been spent on road projects that have stalled or will not proceed. One can add Thornton prison, the national children's hospital, which there is now doubt about, and a number of other projects. Almost €500 million was spent by the last Government on projects that cannot now be funded. I appreciate at the time Ministers honestly believed they could fund them. They were not reckless, rather they were mistaken. It means the Government has to be extra cautious not to commit to spending and planning projects we cannot fund, particularly as we will probably find out in a number of cases planning permissions and railway orders will expire before we can start them which means one has to go back to square one.
On projects that need to be subsidised, I did not say they should not be built. A number of toll roads now require a subsidy from the State to make up the difference between what was thought would be raised in tolls and what was actually raised. Almost all the new rail lines, with the exception of Luas, require a subsidy, including Dunboyne which serves my constituency, the western rail corridor and Midleton.
In terms of Ireland's contribution to the budget, we are still net beneficiaries. I understand the figure is approximately €700 million, which is largely down to agriculture. It is anticipated that will change over time and, during the period of this regulation, we will become net contributors which will force us to change our thinking about Europe. In the past when we were beneficiaries of Structural Funds, we often saw Europe as a mechanism by which we could get grants to fund things. We now have to look at things in another way. We are net contributors and any money we get back is money we have contributed in the first place. We need to ensure our taxpayers' money is not funding projects in other countries we would not build ourselves.
Climate change is factored in and is a major objective for the Commission, in particular, in trying to meet the 20-20-20 objectives. After agriculture, the biggest emissions come from transport and we will struggle to reduce our transport emissions given that we cannot invest in public transport in the way we should or would like. Any funding the Commission will offer will focus on railways, in particular electrified railways which produce much lower emissions than roads.
The proposal provides that each member state will have to have regard to natural legislation already in place rather then introduce new legislation. My understanding is that, if people were transferred, they would be covered under the provisions. In Ireland, ground handling is already almost entirely liberalised, certainly in the three State airports. The DAA is no longer involved in ground handling and has not been for a long time. One will find ground handling in airports in other parts of Europe is still done by airport companies. That is where the concern arises in those countries. They do not want State airport companies to lose their monopolies on ground handling.
I thank the Minister for his response. During the Council meeting he received a report on the tragic cruise liner accident off the coast of Italy. There was also an incident in Northern Ireland where a captain allegedly took alcohol and there was a collision between a passenger ship and cargo vessel which could have ended tragically. Is there an opportunity to raise the protocol and re-examine legislation governing ships entering and leaving harbours? There is also an issue when cruise liners are cruising close to the coast. The Minister will receive a report under any other business. There is potential for tragedy, as we have seen in Italy.
I refer to some of the rail projects. Irish Rail has done a lot of work on the interconnector and DART underground. It is described it as a game changer. The number of passengers that could be accommodated if the rail network were improved would make a lot of other lines viable. It is not in the programme for Government. Does the Minister think there will be an opportunity for conversation with those providing funding, including those in Europe, about the possibility of opening up funding in advance of 2016?
On the Costa Concordia, prior to the incident the European Commission had commenced a review of passenger safety on cruise ships. It has been under way since 2010 and will be very useful. The legislative proposals and accompanying measures are planned for the end of 2012. The public consultation process is due to start at the end of March. The proposal is to amend two directives, one on the safety rules for standards of passenger safety and the second on stability requirements on ro-ro ships. There is an opportunity to answer the Deputy’s question and pursue the issue at a European level.
It is a big problem domestically. We talk a lot about drink driving. A huge number of maritime deaths that occur are related to alcohol. We have a very effective campaign to discourage people from drink driving which is working. This year the number of road deaths is 18 fewer, or 30% less, than it was this time last year, which is an extraordinary success. We need to turn attention to the fact that people are operating vessels after consuming alcohol. It is dangerous and something to which we need to pay attention.
On DART underground, I agree with the Deputy that it is a game changer and something that would benefit not just commuter rail in Dublin but would also allow us to run trains from Cork to Belfast. It is the kind of infrastructure that would benefit the entire country. The public private partnership was cancelled by the previous Government, not the current one. I understand it was done because public private partnerships for transport are no longer an option as we do not have access to the markets. We would have to regain market access and confidence before we could bring public private partnerships back online.
The DART underground project meets the criteria for inclusion on the core network and is included for that reason. It opens up the possibility of some European funding for DART underground between now and 2013.
I have a question on the statement of the Minister on railway orders. Can anything be done about the fact that if and when they expire, we will be back at square one? The EU has changed the rules to make things easier because of the current climate. If railway orders were procured in a certain climate, could we follow the example of the EU and say there are exceptional circumstances? Can legislation be introduced to extend railway orders in exceptional circumstances? It will be very expensive to go back to square one and throw out everything that has been done.
I have a question on ground handling. Ireland has mandatory rather than voluntary elements proposed by the EU. I presume the mandatory system still stands in Ireland. The Minister said the presidency has incorporated at our request the relevant elements of the original directive to address our concerns. Does that mean the mandatory element still stands?
I may have to check this point but I believe the legislative process with regard to the railway orders allows for the promoters to look for an extension of the railway order. It is similar to what happens under planning permission where a person may ask for a five-year extension of a permission when it expires. I believe this is what the promoters can do in this case. In theory, legislation could be enacted to allow railway orders to be extended and this is an option but the problem lies with the environmental issues. An environmental impact statement, a strategic environmental assessment, is carried out for any railway order but this assessment can change depending on environmental conditions and habitats, for instance, which can change in a period of seven or ten years. This is where the problems can arise. Even though the railway order may be extended by legislation, it could become a matter for the courts very quickly if people argue that the environmental impact statement was done ten years previously and that conditions have changed in the meantime. The extension of the order might then take even longer because of court action by environmental groups.
The text is still under negotiation and the text currently under consideration has been amended to allow it to remain mandatory in Ireland but others will take a different view. The difficulty is that if this was not permitted, we would be forced to pass primary legislation just to enable us to continue with the status quo. I hope this can be avoided.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending and for briefing the committee. I wish them well on Thursday.
I thank committee members for their interest in this matter. This is a useful process for me as it forces me to read the documentation long before I go to Brussels. From the national perspective it is a good idea to have this meeting-----
That sounds like Brian Cowen.
It is like the pre-leaving certificate examination.
Yes, it is like doing the mock examinations. I thank the committee for its work on assessing the chairmen and quite a number have come through already. I thank the committee for dealing with the clamping issue.
We are at the final stages of that. We will suspend the sitting to allow the next delegation to be seated.
