We now have statements on transport. Group spokespersons will have six minutes. The contribution of one Sinn Féin Senator will be two minutes. All other Senators will have one minute for questions, and statements are to conclude by 5 p.m. I call the Minister.
Transport Issues: Statements
I am pleased to have the opportunity to outline the contribution that transport is making to the Government's overall objective, which is to secure economic recovery and fiscal sustainability in a way that supports job creation in the economy. In the transport sector, this involves continued investment, albeit on a reduced scale. It also involves ensuring that the policies and regulatory frameworks across land, sea and air transport provide the most supportive environment for a competitive economy.
I will begin by giving an overview of the transport capital programme for 2012 to 2016. The capital programme in that period amounts to €4.5 billion, and continues to be the biggest of the Government's capital programmes, but the scale is very much less than it would have been if we had not experienced a crisis in the public finances. Projects that have had to be postponed include road projects such as the Cork-Limerick motorway and large public transport projects for the greater Dublin area such as metro north and metro west. DART underground had already been postponed by the previous Government under the national recovery plan. Some of these projects were being developed as public private partnerships, PPPs, but also required very significant commitments from the Exchequer and therefore had to be postponed. The PPP market also has been very difficult for Ireland as private sources are reluctant to lend for large projects which are dependent on the Exchequer for repayments.
I was very interested in recent days to hear calls from some political groups and trade unions for an off-balance sheet stimulus plan supported by funding from the European Investment Bank, pension funds and the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF. I am very sympathetic to this viewpoint and want to see more investment in transport. However, investor enthusiasm is muted due to a number of concerns on their part, the first of which is about Ireland's commitment to the euro and whether long-term contracts concluded in euro will be repaid in euro. Second, they are concerned about Ireland's capacity to pay investors back over 30 years given our budget deficit and calls for default from some quarters. There are also concerns about the strength of Ireland's financial institutions. I deal with the European Investment Bank, meet the National Treasury Management Agency and the NPRF and deal with pension funds and other potential investors and what they say to me is clear. They want to know that if I sign a contract to invest in a road or rail project whether they will be paid back in euro. They ask if the Irish people are committed to the euro. They also look at the contract and say, as with many transport projects, that these are 30 year deals but that we have a big budget deficit of more than 9% of GDP. They want to know if the Irish people and the Irish Government are committed to staying the course and getting their deficit under control or will they default on people who are investing in their economy. They want a "Yes" or "No" answer to those questions. Those are the fundamental questions the country must ask later next month. That is the reason, in my view, a "No" vote in the referendum would undermine our aspiration of getting a stimulus plan in place because it will heighten uncertainty about Ireland's commitment to the euro and our uncertainty about our willingness to repay creditors. It is my view, therefore, that any effort to link the need for a stimulus plan to a "No" vote is somewhat off the mark and based on a poor understanding of the reality we face. Unfortunately, a "No" vote is likely to mean deeper, quicker and more brutal austerity, with no scope for stimulus. Having said that, I favour a stimulus policy with greater investment in infrastructure funded by the NPRF, the European Investment Bank and private investors. It is a good idea. It would create jobs, increase the economic growth and increase competitiveness but making it happen will be very difficult.
With regard to the postponed projects, I wish to state clearly that these will all be considered again in advance of the next capital programme which will be drawn up in 2015. I am conscious that considerable funds have been spent already on advance planning and design and I will be seeking to ensure that as much as possible of this is not wasted. I should also say that there is a pipeline of shovel-ready, good projects ready to proceed should any additional funding become available. In considering new projects, the key criteria from now on will be affordability, support for economic recovery and job creation and the potential to add value to existing transport infrastructure.
With regard to public transport investment, a project which serves as a good example of that is Luas Broombridge or Luas BXD. That project will link the existing Luas Red and Green lines with a new line that will extend through the city centre to Cabra, Broombridge, thereby improving cross-city access and reducing the reliance on private car usage in the city. The business case for the Luas BXD is strong and it could create, directly and indirectly, approximately 800 jobs in the construction period. Subject to the granting of a railway order this year, essential pre-construction works could begin next year, with the main works scheduled to begin in 2015. Funding will be provided for other key public infrastructure programmes such as bus fleet replacement for public service obligation, PSO, routes, four new rail stations on existing lines, the Marlborough Street public transport bridge, and traffic management programmes including quality bus corridor, QBC, upgrades.
Funding is also being provided for traffic management projects, including QBCs in regional cities and I recently announced a programme of works amounting to €14 million for Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford in 2012. I will be keeping specific funds for an agreed programme of works in these cities to 2016. Each year there is also an allocation of approximately €100 million for the railway safety programme. Given the scale of this commitment, a review of the programme is about to begin. We must ensure that our railways are safe but it is also important to ensure that we make the most efficient and effective use of scarce resources.
Some of the most significant recent investment in public transport has not been in physical infrastructure but in technology to enhance the customer's experience and therefore to increase the attractiveness of public transport as a commuting option. I am very pleased with the initial impact of the Leap card. Real-time passenger information at bus stops has been a good success in Dublin. A pilot scheme has been launched in Cork and that will be extended to other cities later in the year.
As regards roads investment, one might feel we were fortunate to get the major interurban motorways completed when we did. Though the road network is not so good if one is not on or near the motorway network, some important bypasses have commenced construction. It is hoped to award a design-build contract for the Ballaghaderreen bypass before the end of 2012. The National Roads Authority, NRA, continues to seek to complete the contract award of the PPP scheme which provides for the upgrade of Newlands Cross and the section of the N11 between Arklow and Rathnew. Beyond these schemes, and a few improvement schemes here and there, there are no major new starts planned for the next few years. These are simply not affordable. Instead, the emphasis will be to focus available moneys on maintenance, rehabilitation and safety works. Innovative technology will be used to predict when and where roads will require maintenance, respond to incidents or accidents on our motorway network, provide real-time information to motorists, and identify accident prone locations and deal with them efficiently and cost effectively.
In addition to the capital programme to 2016, the Government has also published current expenditure frameworks to 2014, and my Department is required to achieve savings of in or around 5% in each of the three years 2012, 2013 and 2014. These measures will be implemented and have emerged from the comprehensive expenditure review that was carried out across all Departments. I am under no illusions about the consequences of some of the choices we have had to make, not just in my Department but across all areas of Government. After several years of tough budgets, the low-lying fruit has already been picked. We will get every possible dividend from further efficiencies but the level of savings I will have to deliver next year makes it unavoidable that there will be further reductions in the allocations for public transport subventions and for road maintenance simply because those two items together make up 60% of my entire current budget. The public transport companies have to find ways of delivering those savings in whatever way is least detrimental to services. This will be very challenging given the difficult state of the CIE finances. Similarly, the NRA and the local authorities have to deliver their savings in whatever way is least detrimental to the road network. I am fully aware that there are no easy answers but similar hard questions present themselves across all areas of Government. The bottom line is that there is a very strict limit on the total quantum of public spending, and that will continue to be the case until we regain our financial independence and rebuild the economy.
With regard to bus and rail regulation, my first nine months in office were dominated by the need to put the new fiscal framework in place and to bring clarity to the capital and current funding would be available for each sector. I have dealt with that in the first part of my statement but my job is not just about money. Now that funding decisions have been taken, there is time and space to focus on policy issues which are just as important to economic growth, competitiveness and sustainability. For example, the issue of bus competition and rail regulation will be addressed in the coming year. The programme for Government recognises the need to rebalance transport policy in favour public transport. In this context, the Cabinet committee on infrastructure will explore the benefits to the public transport passenger of more diverse bus service provision and specifically the opening up of some public service obligation, PSO, bus services to tender.
The bus market in Ireland is composed of a variety of markets such as the Dublin market, provincial city and town services, commuter services, rural services and the long distance interurban market. The latter has had a diverse range of providers for many years now, while the core public service obligation market has been operated on a direct award contract basis by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The current direct award contracts expire at the end of 2014. In examining the options for more diverse bus provision, the needs of public transport customers will be at the centre of the considerations of Government. We are committed, notwithstanding the financial challenges we face, to explore how we can provide a better service to the bus user, many of whom do not have alternative means of transport.
On rail regulation, the main policy change in the coming year arises from the decision not to seek a renewal of Ireland's derogation from some of the more onerous administrative requirements contained in the first railway package. The derogation will expire on 14 March 2013 and, significantly, will require some restructuring of larnród Éireann. To this end, larnród Éireann is already carrying out some preparatory work by examining how to minimise the transaction costs of the structural changes necessary and availing of the opportunity of restructuring to encourage greater efficiency and transparency in our rail sector. These changes will help prepare Ireland for the challenge presented by the future liberalisation of the domestic rail market, proposals for which are expected to be presented by the European Commission towards the end of 2012.
Persuading people to travel smarter is a key element of the Government's transport policy. Helping people to make smarter choices about their personal travel habits — choosing to walk, cycle or take public transport rather than taking the car for every journey — can be sidelined in the transport debate. For example, persuading more people to cycle more often is not as straightforward a deliverable as a new stretch of motorway or a fleet of trains. No one disagrees with the idea that increased walking and cycling or active travel is a good thing. What we need to accept as a nation is that a move to active travel is fast becoming a necessity. Active travel is necessary to improve the nation's health, make communities more liveable and reduce our emission outputs and energy use. A sustained shift to more active travel modes will contribute to our national competitiveness as well as our well-being. Greater cycling and walking increases the health and fitness levels of the workforce, while a less congested road network improves the movement of goods and people. Towns which are not blocked with traffic are more attractive places to live and do business.
My Department has taken a two-pronged approach to promoting active travel, namely, improving cycling and walking infrastructure around the country to make it safer and more attractive to walk and cycle and promoting active travel to persuade people out of their cars. The National Transport Authority is working in co-operation with my Department to fund a rolling nationwide investment programme for smarter travel infrastructure. Funds are being made available to local authorities under a range of strategic programmes to develop infrastructure in cities, towns and villages to support sustainable transport, such as cycle tracks, bike lanes and improved pedestrian facilities. We then need to encourage people to use these facilities. We do this in many ways, in particular through support of the smarter travel workplaces programme, green schools initiative and promotion of cycling though the annual bike week. While investment in smarter travel is not a luxury, especially in the times we live in, the availability of investment funding is constrained. All funding decisions are taken with careful consideration of value for money. We need to ensure projects are carefully evaluated, both before award of funding and on completion to ensure that they provide a real return, particularly in terms of increased use of active travel modes.
Since coming to office, aviation is one of the areas in my Department which I have prioritised as it is an engine for economic growth. My policy focus is on building safe and competitive links between Ireland and its business and tourism destinations. While this drives a myriad of initiatives, I will focus today on airports which are of particular importance as gateways into and out of the country. At the top of my list is reviewing the separation of the State airports. I have made no secret of my belief that the current halfway house arrangement, which has been in place since 2004, whereby Cork and Shannon airports have separate boards but have limited autonomy from the Dublin Airport Authority, cannot continue indefinitely. Nor can the position continue whereby losses at Cork and Shannon airports are absorbed by the DAA group. It is time to make firm decisions on the future of Cork and Shannon airports.
As a first step in this process, I consulted the Dublin, Cork and Shannon airport authorities on separation and their unanimous view is that there is no support for separation as originally envisaged under the State Airports Act 2004, either now or in the immediate future. Taking account of these responses and following a public procurement process, I commissioned Booz and Company to identify and analyse all likely options regarding the ownership and operation of Cork and Shannon airports and make clear recommendations as to the optimal ownership and operational structures for the airports. The consultants, who are experts in aviation matters with international experience, were asked to consult as widely as possible with stakeholders in Cork and Shannon airports on sustainable options for the two airports. They reported back to me last December. Their report analyses the viability and sustainability of Cork and Shannon airports and on that basis makes two recommended approaches with regard to their future. It is clear from the report that significant changes in strategic direction are required, particularly in the case of Shannon Airport.
Since receiving the report my Department has been involved in detailed engagement with all relevant stakeholders on the issues involved. That process has been concluded and I will shortly bring proposals to Government on future policy regarding the separation of the State airports. These will centre on the potential of providing an independent structure for Shannon Airport in conjunction with elements of Shannon Development. Such a structure could be better placed to maximise the benefits for the region and country as a whole. In particular, it could provide the foundation for an exciting and valuable aero-industrial development in the region. While I do not underestimate the difficulties in working through the details, I am convinced it is a unique opportunity that must be seized. Any decision taken will be mindful of the key objective of aviation policy, which is to ensure that the aviation sector supports Ireland's economic and social goals in a safe, competitive, cost-effective and sustainable manner and to ensure maximum connectivity with the rest of the world. This is of particular importance to tourism which, while outside the scope of today's debate, is an important part of my brief and a key driver of job creation and economic recovery across the country.
On the regional airports, with the agreement of Government I have set very clear policy on future Exchequer support for these airports with allocations decided for the coming years. The number of airports being supported has been reduced for a number of reasons, not least because we no longer have the money. I have also made clear to the remaining four regional airports that are in receipt of Exchequer support that they need to work towards achieving viability as Government funding is on a downward trajectory.
I am keenly aware of the importance of our ports as vital facilitators of trade and commerce. They are critical to our economic recovery. Recent years have been difficult for the ports, particularly the smaller ones. However, the sector returned to modest growth in 2010 and year end figures for 2011 should indicate further stabilisation. As with all transport infrastructure, the development of port capacity requires a long-term perspective. In that regard, I am heartened by the responsible approach taken by the major ports in planning for their future development. I recently launched Dublin Port Company's master plan, which sets out the vision for the port over the next 30 years. The Port of Cork published a similar strategic plan in 2010 and a master planning exercise is under way in Shannon Foynes Port. This type of long-term planning is in line with international best practice and can only aid the development of a more integrated approach to transport planning generally.
At a policy level, my advisory officials and I are working on a revised ports policy statement, which I hope to publish later this year. The ports sector is highly diverse and it is clear our commercial ports face differing challenges and opportunities. My intention is that the revised policy statement will provide a clear framework within which all of our ports can develop in the manner that most suits their particular circumstances.
The haulage industry is also vital to the efficient functioning of the economy. I am aware it is hurting in the current economic climate, particularly with the collapse in demand from the construction sector and sharp increases in fuel prices. For obvious reasons, the Government has little scope at present to reduce taxes or duties, as the industry has sought. Similarly, the open internal market for the haulage sector means keen competition is a fact of life. However, there are supports we can give, for example, supporting competitiveness by enforcingthe law against illegal or non-compliant operators, rationalising speed limits, as I have done in recent weeks, disavowing new tolls and allowing heavier vehicles to use our roads, where appropriate.
In the time available I have been able to give only a short overview of what is a wide-ranging sector that is facing significant challenges but also significant opportunities. While the resources available to me are greatly reduced from the levels of recent years, I am determined they will be used to maximum effect to support economic recovery and job creation. I thank Senators again for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's plans in the transport sector and I look forward to hearing their contributions.
I welcome the Minister back to the House. He deserves a gold medal for best ministerial visitor to the Seanad during the first year of the Government's term. As the House has had a number of Bills and debates on transport, I do not propose to go over all the ground. I will focus instead on one or two of the points raised by the Minister in his welcome contribution. I wholeheartedly endorse his statement on the importance of a "Yes" vote to secure infrastructure investment from the private sector. The Minister makes the point very cogently and I would like to see that message getting out. The people on all sides of this House who are in favour of a "Yes" vote have much work to do. That is a key point that should be made.
The Minister is very fortunate as he said himself that so much good work was done by the last Government in the area of roads infrastructure. That is just as well, because the major projects are being shelved. I also want to endorse our party's full support for the Minister's road safety programme, another stage of which has just finished up. He will get the full support of every Member of this House for his continued work to reduce road fatalities, in which, thankfully, he is succeeding.
The Minister's statement ignores the big elephant in the room, which is the continued shocking rise in fuel prices. Whereas the Minister has to take a macroeconomic approach in his statement to the House, I would like to zone in on the issue on a micro basis. We are facing a crisis in fuel prices. Petrol and diesel are probably the greatest single worry facing the public right now, including the ordinary motorist, the businessman and the farmer. We have seen a rise in both petrol and diesel by 70% since 2009, and there is no sign of any immediate relief. Prices are as high as €1.69 per litre and €1.65 per litre for petrol and diesel, respectively. Much of this is clearly outside the control of the Government and outside the control of individual nations, because we are subject to continual fluctuation in oil prices and uncertainty in the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and so on. That said, Government excise policy is clearly having an upward impact in the ever-increasing cost of fuel. There have been five separate increases in the tax on petrol and diesel since the budget of October 2008, totalling an accumulated additional cost to the consumer of 22 cent per litre. The Exchequer is taking in 57.3% of the price of fuel, and this is clearly far too high in an environment of increasing fuel prices. The Government must adopt a far more flexible attitude on this issue. We should be moving from the annual budget review on excise duties to quarterly reviews. This would be a more immediate hands-on situation whereby we could monitor and cover the needs of the public. I know this goes against EU policy frameworks which have been reaffirmed on a number of occasions, but I call on the Government to be far more proactive and to have this question readdressed in Europe. We are running out of time.
The Fianna Fáil Bill on emergency relief for the motorist envisages the Government dropping 4% from the revenue take which, when we take the VAT adjustment into consideration, will effectively mean a drop of 5 cent per litre in the forecourt. This is not a populist move. If we wanted to be populist, we would be calling for the price to be dropped by 50 cent. We are realistic about this and have tried to be constructive in opposition. I am disappointed at the way the debate has progressed in the Dáil, but that is their business. The AA calculates that this 5 cent drop would amount to €90 per year to the average motorist. The plan would be cost neutral, because the additional spending power in the public's pockets would engender additional income revenue for the Government anyway. This is borne out by the study of the FairFuelUK campaign in Britain, which calculates that a 2.5p reduction in fuel prices in England would save 1,000 jobs. This has been echoed by Mr. John Whelan, the chief executive officer of the Irish Exporters Association, who stated that a cut in fuel duty of 4% would save €48 million per annum for the export sector, would create 1,800 additional jobs and would add 0.3% to our GDP. Motorists are contributing a great deal to the general income of the State: €1 billion in VAT, €1 billion in motor tax and €2 billion in excise duties. The motorist needs a break. It is the big issue and I ask the Minister to work with his Government colleagues to do something about this urgently.
I am a little nervous about where the Minister is going with Shannon Airport, but we await further information. I believe the issue was raised on the Order of Business by the Minister's colleague, Senator Sheahan. I would share his concern on that issue. Where are we in respect of the sell-off of the so-called golden share in Aer Lingus? My party is not happy with this. The Minister has stated he does not see Aer Lingus as a key State asset. I tend to disagree with him. He also stated the Heathrow slots are not as important as they used to be. We have 23 of those slots which guarantee flights out of Heathrow to Shannon, Dublin and Cork airports. I disagree with the Minister in that respect. They are very important and must be protected. I would like to hear from the Minister on the issue.
The Minister is very unlucky. He has the largest expenditure for capital programmes, at €4.5 billion, but in better times the Minister with responsibility for transport would normally be spending the most money in all the Departments. The Minister's proposed savings in the Department through greater efficiencies will only help us in future when times get better and this country is back on its feet. The efficiencies he will have created in his Department will stand to us and one hopes they will work.
The beginning of the Minister's speech is very important. The message should go out to the people of Ireland about our commitment to the euro, and whether long-term contracts concluded in euro will be repaid in euro. This is very important and the fact unions have called for a "No" vote in the forthcoming treaty referendum is disgraceful. They want a stimulus package and as the Minister has pointed out, unless we are committed we will not get one. This treaty is the one thing that will prove we are committed to the euro. It is very important the people of this country vote "Yes" on 31 May.
I am delighted to welcome the Minister to the Upper House in my capacity as Fine Gael spokesperson on transport. As Senator O'Sullivan stated, I am beginning to think the Minister prefers this House to the Dáil as we have had the pleasure of his company on many occasions since he assumed office. It is a little over a year since the change of Government, but we have seen a significant number of initiatives in the transport area in that time. Road safety has been at the core of much legislation, and the falling rate of road fatalities suggests this programme is bearing fruit. As a Senator from a rural area, I am especially concerned with rural roads and rural transport issues. We have been unfortunate in bearing the brunt of quite severe weather in recent times. This week's forecasts predict a biblical deluge. This harsh weather has had a terrible effect on many country roads and in rural areas there is a great concern that funding will not be there to make vital repairs. It is important we continue to maintain our rural roads. Any period of neglect will only mean a greater challenge in the future. The rural economy and the morale of people in rural areas requires a continued investment in rural roads, irrespective of the economic climate.
My other area of concern is rural transport. This matter has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions. I was pleased funding for the rural transport programme was maintained at 92% of the 2011 allocation, despite the pressure on the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to slash funding in every programme. What is particularly welcome is that €10 million allocated to rural transport this year is not allocated in an unstructured way. Under this Government there is a drive to make rural transport more cohesive and to share government funded transport programmes in rural areas in a rational way. In our general election manifesto, Fine Gael committed to integrating school transport, non-emergency HSE transport and the rural transport programme. The programme for Government reflects this Fine Gael policy, which states the rural transport network is vital for rural communities as a reliable and sustainable transport service. We will maintain and extend the rural transport programme with other local transport services as much as is practicable. I am delighted steps have been taken to implement this policy in the last year. In particular, I welcome the review of the rural transport programme that has taken place. The National Transport Authority has assumed a national role for integrated local and rural transport and is taking responsibility for the rural transport programme. Such an initiative will protect the programme.
Programmes that are ad hoc and not part of a co-ordinated policy by the Government are more vulnerable to cuts in a time of economic difficulty. During the years such programmes have been seen as a soft touch and punished because previous Governments failed to locate initiatives within a coherent policy framework. The Government is different. It will address the issues of duplication and poor value for money but not in an arbitrary or blunt way. We will prioritise the core values of a programme and ensure taxpayers’ money is spent carefully and sensibly.
The rural transport programme serves an important purpose. It ensures those living in rural areas who are unable to run cars are not cut off from their local village or town, a particular problem for elderly people. For vulnerable older persons, the programme means they can have a prescription filled, buy food and fuel, visit the doctor, call to the post office or simply get out of the house. I have referred previously to a study by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which reports loneliness is the biggest problem faced by older people. Sadly, in the world in which we live, neighbours do not assume a duty of care for one another, as they might have done in times past. While we must do all we can as a Government to foster a spirit of community, voluntarism and neighbourliness, we must also do all we can within our limited resources to provide a rural transport service that ensures people living in rural areas are not cut off simply because they cannot run a car.
On the last occasion this issue was discussed in the Seanad I referred to the need for rural transport providers to publicise their services more, as well as to the need for a cultural change. The rural transport services available are of particular importance to the elderly, but the fact is the services are open to all. I would be very interested to see statistics for the profile of the typical user. Last year a CSO survey found that over 50% of people living in rural areas thought there was no transport service available to them. There is, therefore, a clear need to do more to encourage people of all ages to avail of the services provided. People living in rural Ireland who drive are very attached to their cars, but, with the increasing success of road safety initiatives, there is a real need for a rural transport service to facilitate those who want to go out to the pub. The local pub is a focal point for small communities; people do not necessarily go there to drink; they go to play a game of cards and see their neighbours. Obviously, because of the changes to the drink driving limits, rural pubs have seen a decline in trade. This is also a factor in rural isolation. There is a role for a rural transport service in this regard.
Senator Ned O'Sullivan mentioned fuel costs. This is a major burden for haulage companies and those running cars, but with the euro so weak against the dollar and sanctions in place against Iran, such costs have increased. It is a major problem.
That is an outline of my concerns about transport issues. I commend the Minister for his work to date and wish him continued success.
I welcome the Minister and commend him for the extensive update he has given to Members on the work he has done in his portfolio. I share some of the concerns expressed by Senator Pat O'Neill. Unfortunately, he lives in County Kilkenny, but he is close to me in County Tipperary. We come from similar communities and on occasion we teach them how to play hurling. His analysis of the need for the road infrastructure in rural Ireland to be kept in a serviceable condition to ensure people can go about their daily business is accurate. It takes up most of the Minister's budget for road maintenance, whether it be regional or secondary roads. I ask the Minister to examine the value for money we are getting in this regard. As someone who served on a local authority for 25 years, I have seen money being blatantly wasted and do not believe we are getting the best possible value for money in the work we do and the methods we use, particularly in seeking to protect rural roads. We literally tend to put a coat of paint on them when more money is needed. Allocating it would prove better value in the long term.
We have an excellent national road network. When I leave my home to come here, I travel for approximately 20 minutes on rural roads. For the rest of the journey I am on the Waterford to Dublin motorway which is absolutely fantastic.
The Senator is very welcome.
The Senator took the words out of my mouth. I recognise the work done by the previous Government when times were good and money was available. In this instance, it was spent properly on the national road network, although we must maintain it. We are a little way along the road — no pun intended — in this regard, which must be recognised.
Safety is paramount. The provision of real time signage on the M50, for example, allows people who have an appointment to keep to judge the time they need to spend on the road and slow down. As Senator Pat O'Neill said, we have the fifth best road safety record in the European Union, an excellent position, although obviously we want to be first. This is to be commended and a result of such an initiative which does not cost a lot but which is of practical assistance in letting people know the time they need to allow, be it five or 20 minutes, depending on the volume of traffic, to get from A to B.
I will be parochial. There is in the middle of my town a railway crossing which closes for up to 20 minutes each time a train passes. Last week an ambulance was stuck for 15 minutes while travelling to attend to someone who had suffered a heart attack in an estate on the other side. Issues such as this must be tackled and there is the will to do so and to spend money where it is needed but not to waste it.
Senator Ned O'Sullivan, my colleague from County Kerry, referred to Shannon Airport. I believe in regional policy and governance and the equal promotion of every area. Shannon Airport is a great resource for the south west and an area extending into north Tipperary. While I accept the Minister's remarks that entities such as Shannon Airport must be viable, we must be careful about the solution. I do not share Senator Ned O'Sullivan's immediate concern about the 25% share in Aer Lingus because I understand it will not be sold in a fire sale. We will wait until the market is correct and obtain proper value for money for that State asset. I, therefore, suggest the Senator not get over-excited.
Money has been well spent on the provision of cycling infrastructure, but there is a challenge; it is not enough to have a bicycle promotion week to get people out of cars and onto bicycles. It might help, but bike week will not change the attitude of Irish people. We must put more effort into the matter and come up with other ideas. They do not need to come directly from the Department but can come from communities. We must see the infrastructure in place being used by cyclists.
Senator Pat O'Neill dealt with the issue of rural transport. I am pleased the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly, has done a lot of work in this regard, but I want to reach the next stage when the lady who does not have transport can get on the school bus in the morning to go into town to do her shopping and then come home in the evening with her children from school, if necessary, or make a medical appointment, instead of having to use three services running through rural areas in getting from A to B. There is much goodwill in rural Ireland for the development of such a service. Senator Pat O'Neill spoke about the social side of transport which is extremely important in rural Ireland. We can save money and make progress in this way. I would like to see the matter progressed.
I thank the Minister. This debate has been enlightening for me as I am not my party's spokesperson on transport. I am standing in for my colleague, Senator James Heffernan, who has just arrived from a committee meeting. I welcome the work of the Minister with which I wish him well.
I welcome the Minister who brings vision, energy and great ability to his portfolio. I look forward to the House working with him during his term of office. He mentioned the big projects — metro north, metro west and DART underground, a project postponed by the previous Government. There was a phase during the Celtic tiger years when these very expensive projects were promoted by the beneficiaries but not independently evaluated. We need a mechanism by which they can be independently evaluated and a cost benefit analysis published and left in place for one year in order that we can see if they are of benefit to society as a whole or simply to the promoters. The Governor of the Central Bank has pointed out that the publication of a cost-benefit analysis by the promoters of a project is a useless exercise, except for public relations purposes. That is what they came to be used for.
I recall having a discussion with the Minister's late constituency colleague, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who asked why two tunnels, one rail and one road, were needed in Swords. The port tunnel afforded very fast public transport access to Swords and he considered it was superfluous to have two. The DART underground project has always amazed me. In the departure lounge at Connolly Station the history of the project is charted, with an underground line running from Connolly Station to Heuston Station through Phibsborough, Drumcondra and Cabra. The Minister for Social Protection is a major proponent of this project, but why build an underground line when there is already an overground line? Sometimes a railway company is more interested in adding new infrastructure than using existing infrastructure. The line is there. Why not give it a try? Trains could be run from Connolly Station to Heuston Station, linking services to Drogheda and Newbridge. There is no need for heavy infrastructural investment, for which we will not have the money. Let us, therefore, make better use of existing infrastructure.
When Mr. Harry Crosbie ran the Point Depot, he said he got tired of asking the railways to run trains to it. It was the location of an old railway station. The same is true of connecting services Navan to Drogheda. The line is used for freight transport. Why not run passenger trains on it?
I appreciate what Senators Denis Landy and Pat O'Neill said. It is time to look at the entire bus fleet. Goodbody analysed the independent bus fleet in 2003. It comprised about 80% of the vehicles and about 44% of the receipts, some €307 million. The independent sector is running school buses with which it can bring people into towns. Historically, we have been strongly opposed to these transport entrepreneurs being allowed to do anything, but we need their services in which they have invested. I am impressed by the people who operate buses in Waterford, Tipperary and Kilkenny. There used be a monopoly, with one bus running each day between Dublin and Galway. Today there are 45 and the service has developed hugely.
Edinburgh Airport was sold in the past seven days. We should have competition between the three State airports. If people wanted to buy them, I would sell them separately. I would, perhaps, retain one terminal for the Dublin Airport Authority, but I would sell the other. Toronto Airport operated a regime of competing terminals. We need to have competition in the sector. During the debate on competition I said bypassing the Commission for Aviation Regulation to secure a 41% increase in airport charges to pay for Terminal 2 was wrong. We need more competition. We need strict assessment of the capital and operating expenditure efficiency of airports. Before the legislation was changed in 2004 to favour the Dublin Airport Authority, rather than the customer, the results showed there was scope for efficiency improvements at airports. The experience on the adjoining island is that one can have competing airport systems.
I welcome the Minister's remarks on ports. In the Culliton report it was recommended that Larne, then the most efficient and competitive port in the country, be used. It is, however, to the credit of Dublin Port that it emulated what was being done at Larne.
I share the Minister's doubts about the rail safety programme. Based on the costings he presented to the House on the previous occasion, it should help to prevent about 40 fatalities, at €2.5 million per fatality. I seriously wondered about this in the case of the Malahide railway viaduct problem. I gather the programme was based in Connolly Station when the viaduct fell down. Happily, owing to the vigilance of drivers, there were no fatalities. A safety programme that missed that problem should cause concern.
From surveys my students have conducted, they are not optimistic about the new Leap card which they say conflicts with other smart cards. I also understand it cost about €55 million to introduce. I wonder if that was a good use of public money.
I welcome the vision shown, the greater rigour in the expenditure of public moneys and the looking at different options to solve our transport problems, particularly the investment programme for quality bus corridors, QBCs, to provincial cities. Can the QBCs in Dublin be used more? They are valuable unfrastructure, but I sometimes wonder why nothing is happening on the inside lane. They are used by taxis, but are enough buses using this valuable infrastructure to get us around the city very fast? The QBC between Chapelizod and Heuston Station enable people to move faster than either the Luas or the DART. There is a possibility of using QBCs much more intensively than they have up until now.
I welcome the Minister. I like his vision and enthusiasm. I assure him that he will receive co-operation from this side of the House as he develops the sector.
I will speak briefly and will not mention the treaty or the referendum.
Will the Minister tell the House what progress is being made in the review of the Bus Éireann network in the greater Dublin area being undertaken by the National Transport Authority? The level of service provided is being reviewed. I have drawn the attention of Bus Éireann to the frequency of feeder services to the main commuter corridors, with special recognition being given to the No. 108 Kells to Bailieborough service to the main No. 109 Cavan to Dublin commuter service corridor. Was the review being undertaken by the network planners initiated with a view to reducing the level of service provided? The Minister said:
In examining the options for more diverse bus provision the needs of public transport customers will be at the centre of the considerations of the Government. We are committed, notwithstanding the financial challenges we face, to explore how we can provide a better service for bus users, many of whom do not have alternative means of transport.
I raise this issue because it is not long since I was a student and I know what it was like to get the bus to college. I was fortunate to live on a main commuter route, but I know of the difficulty in having to get a bus to the main commuter route. Students returning to Dublin on a Sunday evening must rely on the 6.30 p.m. bus service to Kells to connect with the main commuter route service. If there is a problem with the service to Kells or if the No. 109 bus to Dublin is full, students are faced with a problem in getting back to Dublin.
Now that we are in uncertain economic times, fewer people have cars or alternative means and the demand for the services is higher. People cannot even rely on their parents to get lifts to the other towns to chase the bus up the road. There are longer waiting times in between the two services which can be exacerbated by delays in that respect. Could the Minister advise of progress being made in the services reviewed by the National Transport Authority? Does he know when it will report and when any possible changes will take effect?
On another synecdoche on the taxi industry before I finish, what plans has Minister to legislate on issues relating to the taxi industry? If there are any, what plans would there be to consult taxi drivers and their representatives about any upcoming legislation?
We move on to questions. While I suppose it is the Minister's prerogative, there are only four or five Members and as they have only one minute to ask a question, if it is acceptable to the Minister, we will bank them all and then he can respond.
I welcome the Minister again go the House. He gave a comprehensive report on his brief in his contribution.
The Minister mentioned that ports and airports are vital facilitators for commerce and trade, and, indeed, tourism, and I would fully agree with that remark. Is there a mechanism in place whereby State-appointed directors on these boards can report back to the Minister on any difficulties that may arise from time to time or that may be coming down the line? If such a mechanism is not in place, it should be. The Minister needs to know the problems well in advance rather than have them land on his desk.
On an area that would be close to my heart, is the Minister aware of any marketing strategy in place with CIE to attract more freight business onto rail and remove many of the HGVs from towns and villages? There should be much more traffic going by rail rather than road. Insufficient emphasis is being put on this by CIE. I do not believe it has ever existed. Has the position improved since I have gone from the business?
There is much we could talk about today. Senator O'Sullivan outlined the difficulties motorists and everybody who buys petrol and diesel are experiencing. It is the elephant in the room. If it is not tackled, it will lead to inflation in the economy. I hope the Minister can bring about steps to alleviate the difficulties motorists and everyone purchasing fuel is experiencing because it is the topic being talked about by many motorists. In the overall context, motorists provide approximately €4 billion to the economy through VAT, excise duties, etc. each year. That must be taken on board.
I have two issues. There were two major projects removed from the Department's overall capital programme for roads, the first of which was the road to the north west linking Dublin to Donegal and Derry. Approximately €435 million was committed by the previous Government under the St. Andrews Agreement for that project. It is the last motorway project linking any region because there are the major inter-urban routes linking Waterford, Cork, Galway and Sligo. The north-west one to Donegal was the last one. I appreciate we are in difficult economic times but when a commitment is given, it should be honoured. The Minister has gone back to the drawing board and is looking at providing €50 million to be spent in the next few years, but it is far short of the €435 million committed. It is a project of importance to the north west, a region which will never realise its full potential until that project is delivered. The Minister might outline what steps can be taken to re-commit to that project.
I welcome the Minister back to the House. He must enjoy that chair. He certainly fills it well.
There is much to be welcomed in developments in transport in the past 12 months or so, such as the Luas extension to Citywest and the €379.5 million investment programme for local and regional roads. I would like to see a little more progress on the rural transport issue. A start has been made and there are many strands attached to it that need to be worked through, but it is a work in progress. It is getting there.
I welcome the Minister's statement. I flicked through his address on Shannon Airport, which I was unfortunate to miss, and I will give it further consideration when I get a chance.
There is a friend of mine who, I believe, served on the Young Fine Gael executive with the Minister many years ago.
Sound man.
He surely is. I do not necessarily agree with his politics 100% but I would not hold that against him.
Senator Heffernan is close enough.
I would think I have certain powers of persuasion. It comes with the job. I was able to persuade that fellow to come and canvass the roads of Limerick with me. He did so and he was a tremendous canvasser during the election. Those powers of persuasion were certainly found lacking when I got up this morning. I am not the first to mention being clamped, a matter which has arisen previously in this House. This morning, I woke up and decided it would do the right thing and get a parking ticket for my car for two hours, but I was caught short by approximately ten minutes. Given the rain and the conditions, I thought the clampers would hardly be out this morning. When I went down, sure enough, my car was clamped and I had no choice but to pay the €80 and go away with my tail between my legs. That brings me on to the question. Certain recommendations have been taken into account and are being considered with the clamping Bill. When will that legislation come before the House as I might have amendments to make to it?
What is the Minister's view on motorway service areas? I refer specifically about the construction of a motorway service area at the end of a motorway, which, in my view, is bad value for money. There has been significant discussion here today about bringing value for money to the Exchequer. I refer to the motorway service area due to be constructed on the N11 on the Gorey bypass. The bypass ends approximately seven miles away and there is a village approximately three miles beyond the end of the motorway. It is the height of madness that there is land to be bought, a motorway service area to be constructed and an arrangement to be put in place with the operator about turnover, and yet seven or eight miles down the road there is a village with all of those services available.
I want to correct Senator Ó Domhnaill. There is a stretch of motorway still to be constructed, namely, the M11 all the way down to Rosslare. Like the project to which he referred, it is not happening at present. It may happen at some stage. I would agree wholeheartedly with the construction of this motorway service area if the road were going ahead, but all this will do is take trade from two villages which are only down the road, Camolin and Ferns. It is money poorly spent. I am aware of the Minister's view on spending money well and wisely and would like to hear his views on this.
I thank the Minister again. Much has been happening in transport in recent years. I agree with Senator Heffernan about clamping. It happened to me in Dublin one Saturday at 7.55 a.m. when I thought one could sleep in until 8 a.m. It is ridiculous that some areas charge at 7.55 a.m. on a Saturday. However, I had to pay it.
The Minister may be aware of an issue that causes confusion for motorists travelling from Belfast to Dublin, namely, the fact that there is an M1 in the North and also in the South.
I have encountered that problem.
The Minister knows what I am talking about. It is a difficulty that many people have encountered. On a recent car journey from Belfast to Dublin, I was chatting with my son and before I knew it I was almost at Ballygawley, on the Letterkenny to Dublin road. Tourists driving from Dublin to Belfast, or even Donegal people like myself who are not used to the roads, may assume they should stay on the Northern M1, on the logical assumption that it will continue on to the M1 into Dublin. If one does so, however, one ends up in mid-Tyrone. Perhaps the Minister might discuss with his counterpart in the North whether the two motorways might be designated as the "M1A" and "M1B", for example, or if another way can be found to signal clearly how motorists should proceed to access the M1 to Dublin. It is frustrating when one is in a rush to end up back in Tyrone. On the occasion to which referred I might well have been home to Donegal for my tea and back again by the time I realised my error. It is an issue I have raised before. There must be a clearer system for directing people straight to Dublin from Belfast and vice versa in order to eliminate the confusion arising from the coincidence of names for the motorways in either jurisdiction.
I welcome the Minister, who is doing a good job and proving himself most accessible to people. I apologise for missing his opening statement but I was attending a committee meeting. I welcome his comments in regard to Shannon Airport. The uncertainty in that regard has gone on for five or six years but at least decisions are finally being made. The worst that could happen would be for nothing at all to happen. We would all accept that the airport cannot continue to lose €8 million to €10 million per year. Confidence in the region is being battered in the absence of a coherent plan for its future. Now we can at least have confidence that the Government intends to lodge and implement a plan. I have no doubt that the proposal will not please everybody, but at least there is a plan and some action will be taken. I have had private discussions with the Minister on this matter and am aware that he intends to travel to the region frequently in the coming months in order to ensure the plan is implemented and that as many as possible of the stakeholders are brought along.
The Leas-Chathaoirleach is indicating, but I understood I had six minutes in which to make my contribution. I must have been misinformed.
The Senator is already over his quota.
I am sure the Leas-Chathaoirleach will afford me a little latitude.
The Senator has an unusual way of asking a question, but I will allow him a degree of latitude.
The western rail corridor was opened to much fanfare by the previous Government, but one might question now whether or not it was the right thing to do, because it seems to be losing a fortune. We will probably have to spend more money on it in order to make it a success. What is the Minister's thinking in this regard? What is the timeframe for the construction of Crusheen railway station? There must be a plan in place to make the service work rather than having a situation continue where it requires to be subsidised at great cost.
I am very conscious of the situation in regard to fuel prices, something which is brought to my attention, by hauliers in particular, all the time. I am very aware of it in respect of CIE, whose accounts show it is impacting very seriously on the company's costs and its business plan. I am aware of it myself, not having a State car. Like everybody else, I look at petrol stations as I drive past and see the numbers going up and up, which is quite frightening. To clarify, of the 20 cent or so that has been added to the cost of petrol since early December, only 4 or 5 cent is accounted for by Government measures, with most of the increase arising from factors beyond our control. The reason I did not dwell on this in my speech is that it is a taxation issue and, as such, a matter for the Minister for Finance. While I am certainly aware of its impact on transport, tourism and aviation, I do not wish to take responsibility for something that is not within my remit or make commitments I cannot deliver.
The Minister for Finance and I meet from time to time and this is one of the issues we discussed at our bilateral this morning. A working group has been established involving the Department of Finance, the haulage industry and others to review the options that might be available, although they are limited in many ways. Much as I would like to say that reductions in excise would be self-funding, we all know that is not the case. Fossil fuel prices will always go up and down, but the overall trend is upward. We must plan for an economy in ten or 15 years time where fuel prices are much higher than they are now, even if no taxes were imposed. We must also bear in mind that fossil fuels are imported and that money is going out of the country every time one fills one's vehicle.
To clarify what I have said before in regard to Aer Lingus, it is not accurate to describe the airline as a State asset. It is a public limited company in which the Government owns 25% of the shares. That shareholding is certainly a State asset, but the company itself is not. Contrary to popular opinion — it is a myth I have apparently failed to destroy — the Heathrow Airport slots are not protected by the Government's 25% stake and there is nothing to prevent Aer Lingus from leasing some of those slots to other companies, which it already does. A sale would require a resolution of the board and 30% of votes are necessary to block any such sale, which the Government does not have. Other shareholders might take the same view as us in such a scenario, but that is not guaranteed. The slots at Heathrow Airport remain very important to the State in terms of access, but not as important as they were in the past. As a frequent air traveller I find myself flying more and more through Schiphol, Frankfurt, Copenhagen, Paris and even Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Nevertheless, this is not to say that the connections at Heathrow are not extremely important. They are also very profitable, with airlines making a great deal of money on those routes. I am not sure Aer Lingus would walk away from the Dublin-London route as quickly as people might assume. I am very keen to ensure the Cork-Heathrow and Shannon-Heathrow routes are retained.
On the question of selling the Government stake in Aer Lingus, in the past that was linked, to some extent, to issues relating to the employee share ownership plan and pension fund. I had hoped these issues could be sorted out, in which case the value of the stake would rise and we would get a better price for it. Given that the progress in this regard is slow, that matter is now decoupled and we are no longer waiting for a solution before selling the stake. The sale is being handled by NewERA and it is important to note, as Senator Denis Landy observed earlier, that there will be no fire sale. The stake will be sold for a good price, at the right time and with the right conditions. It would be wrong of me to name a price or time because that is not how one proceeds in any sale.
On rural transport, we have a plan to integrate transport in rural areas. It is a logical approach which involves pulling together transport services provided by the Health Service Executive, rural transport schemes and school transport services. It makes great sense on paper, but making it happen is very complicated. There will be six pilot areas initially and the project is being headed up by the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly, who is also reviewing the issue of rural taxi services.
In regard to road maintenance, many people have made the point to me about value for money. It is an issue I will have to examine further. Now that funding for road maintenance is falling, we must ensure local authorities are getting bang for their buck. People sometimes see roads being resurfaced and then, six months later, they are in disrepair once again. However, there is often a reason for this, namely, that the road in question needs to be reconstructed rather than merely resurfaced. Unfortunately, restoration is very costly and therefore unfeasible in many cases. Instead, a patch-up resurfacing is done which only lasts for eight or nine months. It is not the case, therefore, that authorities are wasting money but rather that they do not have sufficient funds to undertake the full restoration that is required. Many roads were not built properly in the first place. Members from my part of the city will know that the main road in the Phoenix Park had, until now, to be resurfaced every year. It was only this year, 250 years after it was built, that it was constructed properly from the bottom up. I am very grateful to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, for providing the funding for that. Of course I would never dream of providing funding for it from my own Department.
What constituency is it in?
It is in Dublin Central, but I often use it.
Senator Barrett raised the issue of cost benefit analyses and promoter bias. He is right about that because one must be a little cautious about cost-benefit analyses being put forward by those who are promoting a project. They, together with their consultants of course always will be a little biased in favour of that project. While Ministers can be highly sceptical of lobby groups that present them with figures showing this or that is a great project, they are not sceptical enough when their own agencies and companies suggest to them that X or Y is a great project. On the public transport side, it is useful that the National Transport Authority, NTA, is now in place because it is not a promoter and does not build or run anything itself. As a result, one can rely on the NTA, which is not a promoter, to assess projects on the public transport side and with regard to some road questions. The Government also must make better use of the ESRI and other bodies when it comes to cost-benefit analyses. There have been incidences in the past of Governments ignoring such cost-benefit analyses. Two occasions when this occurred under the previous Administration were the first phase of the western rail corridor, for which the cost-benefit analysis was highly negative, and the section of the motorway between Carlow and Waterford, for which the cost-benefit analysis also was negative. People have different views as to whether Ministers made the right call as to whether these projects should have been built at all or could have been built more cheaply. However, they now are in place and one must make them work, which is a subject to which I will return a little later.
One of the first things I did as Minister was to take the train from Heuston Station to Connolly Station via the Phoenix Park tunnel and around the way. It is a very long route, on which it takes almost 25 minutes to get from Heuston to Connolly. The route goes under the Phoenix Park, around through Cabra and then back around again towards Connolly. Were one to take a train from Kildare that terminated at Heuston, would one really wish to spend 25 minutes going around that route when one could instead take the Luas, which already links together Connolly and Heuston stations? In addition, it would be expensive to bring the tunnel up to the requisite standard. It was a possibility that I had hoped would be a cheap answer to our problems but having travelled on the route and having studied it, I am unconvinced that it can be used for much.
As for the bypassing of the Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR, in respect of the price cap on aviation and airport charges, that certainly is not something I intend to do. I have made it clear to both the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, and the CAR that they will not get ministerial directions from me to raise airport charges. I believe they have got the message in that regard. I must have a good think about terminal competition. On one level, I consider it to be a great idea but on another level, I can envisage airlines ripping off both terminals and the Government then being asked to intervene and rescue whichever terminal goes bankrupt first. I believe this to be the nature of the aviation business.
The Leap card is just starting to operate. While it cost more than €55 million, that was over ten years. Only approximately €10 million was spent during the lifetime of the present Government and it is now actually available. As I understand the Oyster card cost €200 million or €300 million to develop and was launched 17 times, these things never are straightforward. When Deputy Alan Kelly and I took over control of the transport portfolio, what we did was to tell those concerned to launch it by Christmas or we would get rid of it. Subsequently, it was launched by Christmas and other features now are being added to it. For example, student passes will be added to it before September and the Taxsaver scheme will be added before the end of the year. An important phase of the project, which will happen within the next few months or certainly this year, relates to fare integration. The Leap card simply is an e-purse and one does not save any money by using the Luas and then the bus or the bus and then the train. Consequently, discounts will be introduced this year for those who, for example, use both the train and the Luas. Thereafter, probably next year, something similar will be introduced for buses, thereby putting in place a single price within Dublin. In a practice called fare capping, one will simply pay a maximum fare no matter how many modes of transport one uses and this will make the Leap card even more attractive.
Senator Reilly asked about the Bus Éireann route network review. While it is under way, I do not know when it will be completed or when it will be published. However, provisionally it shows some inefficiencies on the current routes that may need to be straightened out. As for taxi regulation, there will be legislation in this regard and it is on list C of the legislative programme. While I would like to have it in place this year, I cannot promise that because of the manner in which legislation is prioritised. Financial legislation gets first priority and the IMF legislation gets second priority. Anything that involves a court case or a European regulation gets third priority and everything else comes fourth, which is the reason legislation frequently is delayed.
Senator Cummins asked about State-appointed directors reporting directly to me. The normal process is the chairman reports to me, which is the best way to do it. There are approximately 30 State agencies or companies within my remit and while having 30 people report to me is doable, having 300 so do is not. The normal process is such entities report to me through their chairs and this is done on a regular basis. The Department and I meet most of the companies and agencies two or three times a year and they also report to me in writing. On occasions, directors who believe that something is extremely serious and has not been dealt with by the board or who are not confident the chair has dealt with a matter properly approach me directly. When this happens, I obviously pay attention to what they have to say. However, when such directors approach me, this very often turns out not to be the case and they have ulterior motives. Consequently, the process is to go through the chair. If someone wishes to report to me directly, it really must be for a very good reason such as having lost confidence in the chair or the chief executive officer for some reason and effectively acting as a whistleblower.
Rail freight used to be extremely unprofitable and was largely abandoned by Irish Rail. The latter has taken it up again and it now is highly profitable and many external operators are working on that front. Although more can be done to expand rail freight somewhat and market it somewhat better, the capacity for this mode of transport is limited. It works well for bulk cargoes such as lumber and materials from mines and so on, that is, products that are not obliged to get anywhere quickly and are bulky. It does not work for many other items because one should bear in mind that if one wishes to move something by freight, one usually must get it on a truck first to get to the train station and one often must get a truck to pick it up at the other end. While some ports are connected to railways and there is scope to grow rail freight, were its share to increase from 2% or 3% to 5% or 6%, more than 90% of goods still would be transported by road and I do not envisage this changing dramatically.
In respect of the A5, the commitment made by the previous Government arose from the St. Andrews Agreement but was not actually in the Agreement. Unfortunately, like many commitments made at the time, it was unfunded and the money did not appear for it in the national recovery programme, for example. While the commitment was there, the money was not and it was never intended to come out of the transport budget. Instead, it was intended to come out of a North-South co-operation budget that also never was available. That said, contributions have been made to the A5 project. I believe the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport already has contributed €20 million or €30 million, mostly pertaining to the planning and design of the road. The authorities in the North are going ahead with two sections, namely, from Derry to Strabane and from Omagh to Ballygawley. These sections are going ahead and it is expected they will be completed by 2016. The Government will contribute £25 million in both 2015 and 2016 to those parts of the road, which will improve journey times considerably between Derry, Letterkenny and Dublin. While some people have doubts about that route, of all the sections thereof the aforementioned parts are those that are most worth doing. The Government remains committed to completing the other sections, namely, from Letterkenny to Strabane and those segments on our side of the Border. However, the Government has informed the Northern authorities that while it still is committed to contributing to the cost and taking its share of the cost of building that road, it cannot make commitments beyond 2016 at this point. Moreover, this is not something that applies to Northern Ireland alone. It applies to absolutely everyone because the country simply is not in a position to make commitments beyond 2016. However, the Government will revert to this issue in 2015. The positive point is the aforementioned two sections will be built and this will make a real difference for the north west sooner rather than later.
As for private clamping, the Joint Committee on the Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht has done a great job on listening to different interest groups and reporting back to me on what such groups believe should be included in the forthcoming legislation. The latter now has been included in the legislative programme and I hope to introduce legislation on private clamping this year or next year. However, like everything else, it is in the queue for the legislative programme. On motorway service areas, I support them as a concept and note customers like them and use them. They also are important for safety and in particular for parking trucks, coaches and so on overnight. Moreover, notwithstanding the costs involved they are profitable and the National Roads Authority, NRA, makes money out of the existing service areas. While I will double-check, I am 99% certain the service area it is intended to build at Gorey is linked to the N11 contract. In other words, it will not be built unless the Rathnew section of the N11 is completed. I understand it is linked to this project and this is the basis on which it will be constructed. I note the location is decided by the NRA and not by me. I am not qualified to decide where road service stations should be located but I am 99% certain the Gorey service station is part of the contract for the Arklow to Rathnew section and cannot proceed without it.
Senator Conway stated that the western rail corridor is losing money. That is certainly the case. A railway losing money is not unusual; they all lose money. The western rail corridor is not losing the most money but it is losing a great deal. Making a railway work is very difficult because the only railways that ever break even are those on which large numbers of people are transported either between big cities or around cities. I am not aware of a single example from around the world of a railway which connects towns or cities with populations of 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 and which makes money. It is very difficult to identify what one could do to turn around matters in respect of the western rail corridor. We will have to do our best in terms of making people aware of the service and in proceeding with the work on the Oranmore railway station project. As far as I am aware, construction on the latter is due to commence in June or July. This project will also have benefits for Galway commuters. The project atCrusheen is very much linked to the developer and the development arrangements that apply. However, it is still planned to proceed with the project.
I have had the same experience as Senator Harte in respect of the M1. The latter is the road from Dublin to Belfast and is known as the A1 in the North. The M1 north of the Border is a completely different road and it runs south of Lough Neagh and off into County Tyrone. The position is extremely confusing and the signage is not good. I have placed this on the list of matters to raise with the North's Minister for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy, MLA, when next I see him. I am not sure the authorities in the north will change the names of their roads to satisfy us. However, they might provide some proper signage. It is very easy to follow signs for the M1 and then find oneself halfway to Tyrone or Fermanagh.
Or Donegal.
I hope I have answered all of the questions. There are some matters in respect of which I will communicate further with Senators on a one-to-one basis.
There is one Senator who is anxious to ask a question and with the Minister's permission I will allow him to do so. I am sure the Senator will be extremely brief.
I have three questions to ask but I will ensure I will be brief.
It will be a quick-fire round.
The Minister referred to the fact that money will be prioritised in the context of road maintenance, rehabilitation and safety. I am pleased the quality of material being used on road projects is much improved and that road surfaces are much better as a result. Local authorities are concerned that in the context of funding, 10% is going to be taken off the top. If €100,000 is allocated in respect of a road project, some 10% will be designated for health and safety purposes. What efforts are being made to obtain better value for money and to reduce the proportion of funding designated for health and safety purposes?
I welcome what the Minister said in respect of the use by tourists of discounted tickets on the Luas and on buses in Dublin. I hope huge numbers of tourists will visit Dublin this year but I also hope it will be possible to encourage them to visit the regions in order that the entire country might benefit from their presence. Will the Minister consider providing discounted bus and rail tickets for tourists? This would not be difficult to organise. For example, a person would need only produce his or her airline ticket or ferry pass to prove he or she is a tourist. Tourists must be encouraged to explore the natural beauty of all parts of the country.
My final question is parochial in nature. As the Minister is aware, there is a fine rail service from Galway city to Dublin. The trains on this service run frequently throughout the day. There is a small rural station where I live — Woodlawn — from which an excellent service runs west into Galway. However, the service running east is very poor in nature. I discussed this matter on a previous occasion with the Minister and with the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly. I urge the Minister to exert pressure on Irish Rail, when next it is reviewing its timetables, to ensure that at least one additional train will stop at Woodlawn at an appropriate time each morning in order that people might travel to Dublin to carry out their business, attend hospital appointments, do some shopping or whatever. At present, only the 5 a.m. train from Galway stops at Woodlawn. It is the afternoon before the next train to Dublin stops there. If possible, Irish Rail should take steps to adjust its timetable in this regard. I have received positive indications that it is likely to happen but I ask the Minister to continue to exert pressure on Irish Rail to have a second train to Dublin stop at Woodlawn station each morning.
I thank Senator Mullins for his questions. I am not sure about the 10% of road funding being designated for health and safety purposes. Perhaps the Senator might return to me with further details in respect of that matter. I am not sure from where his information comes. I would be concerned if 10% of the maintenance budget was being spent on health and safety.
Some 10% of road budgets is being spent on health and safety.
In what way?
If, as Senator Mullins indicated, €100,000 is allocated in respect of a road project, only €90,000 is spent on it because the other €10,000 goes on health and safety.
Is the Senator referring to the costs relating to health and safety?
Yes.
It seems excessive.
I do not know if it is 10% across the board. I will be obliged to obtain further information on this matter. We must, of course, be conscious of health and safety concerns. In the past there were many accidents involving road construction and maintenance. Perhaps that is the reason for this money being set aside.
We can certainly give consideration to the issue of discounted tickets for tourists. However, providing such tickets costs money and the financial position of CIE is fairly precarious. I am, therefore, seeking to raise revenues rather than offering discounts.
I have no involvement with timetables. However, I am aware of the issue to which Senator Mullins refers in respect of the Galway to Dublin line and I have engaged in correspondence in that regard with Irish Rail. I understand the company would be willing to have a further train stop at Woodlawn but has stated there are technical issues with regard to whether this will be possible. I will certainly pursue the matter further. The difficulty with the Galway to Dublin line is that the service is very slow. For example, it takes approximately three hours to travel from Galway to Dublin and vice versa. In addition, the service is under-patronised. Private coaches are killing the service because they can get people to their destinations much more quickly and at lesser expense. In addition, it is possible to access WiFi on these coaches and they are also probably somewhat more comfortable. Furthermore, they do not stop in all the towns along the way.
The motorways are great and I am glad they were built. However, I am not sure anyone considered what would be their impact on the railways and the regional airports. The position with regard to the Dublin to Waterford — I have often sat on my own in a carriage on this service — and the Dublin to Belfast lines is similar. I wonder whether those involved gave full consideration to what would be the consequences for the railways and the airports when the motorways were built. The latter are now the subject of heavy use, particularly by some extremely efficient coach services. However, the railways are not being used as much and the regional airports are in serious trouble.
I am trying to ensure there will be an additional stop in order that extra passengers might use the train.
I thank the Minister for coming before the House to take this debate.
Sitting suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.