Priority Questions
1. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the actions he will take to secure the pensions of members of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27418/14]
View answerIn light of the publication of a report of the expert panel established by the Government to try to find a resolution to the aviation dispute, will the Minister set out the next steps in the process? How will the expert panel's report secure the pension entitlements of the various categories of pensioners in the Irish airlines superannuation scheme?
Resolution of the funding difficulties in the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, where there is a deficit of more than €760 million, is primarily a matter for the trustees, the companies participating in the scheme, the scheme's members and the Pensions Board. The deficit in the scheme has arisen over many years as the companies and the members did not put sufficient funds into it to match the benefits that were expected or promised.
The problems with the scheme have long been recognised and there now exists an opportunity to resolve them at long last. An expert panel was established by my Department, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, IBEC and ICTU to find a solution to the industrial relations issues relating to the scheme. The panel presented its final report on 16 June and it has been published on my Department's website. I welcome the report and urge all parties to give it careful consideration. Its recommendations can be used by the parties as the basis for constructive engagement and to achieve a resolution in the best interests of all. While some of the decisions that will be required will be challenging, all parties should bear in mind the view of the expert panel that its recommendations represent the best possible outcome that can be achieved.
I have included provisions in the Shannon Group Bill 2014 to facilitate implementation of whatever proposals emerged from the recent discussions among the parties. There has been some concern about certain provisions in section 34 of the Bill, which was originally drafted to provide a fallback position. However, as I informed the House yesterday, on the basis of the expert panel's report and the views expressed in both Houses, I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to delete these fallback provisions. I urge all the parties involved to seize this opportunity to bring this issue to a final and fair conclusion.
As to the next steps in the process, the expert panel report will be discussed by the boards of Aer Lingus and the Dublin Airport Authority and the relevant trade unions. If the parties are open to its findings, they will subsequently engage with each other on the basis that the report offers a solution with which they will agree. Any agreement will then be the subject of ballots.
Is it correct to conclude from the Minister's response that he believes the expert panel's report provides the best framework for finding a resolution to the dispute? If so, has the Minister commenced a process of engagement with the directors of the relevant boards, given that he appoints all the directors of the board of the Dublin Airport Authority and a minority of directors of the board of Aer Lingus? Has he met directors of the boards to communicate his desire to have the recommendations of the expert group implemented and to encourage both companies to engage?
The Minister stated that the resolution of the current difficulties is, in the first instance, a matter for the trustees and companies involved. He has a strong hand to play in this dispute, however, given that the State is the majority shareholder in the Dublin Airport Authority and has a significant shareholding in Aer Lingus. I encourage him to use this position to try to achieve a resolution as quickly as possible.
This is a difficult issue for workers, retirees and those in a deferred position. It is a matter of particular concern for members of the public and the tourism industry that a continuous threat of strike action hangs over them as a result of the legacy issues involved in the superannuation scheme. We see the damage being done in France as a result of strike action by certain aviation workers. The sooner the issue at Dublin Airport is resolved, the better it will be for all concerned.
The expert panel's report is the best chance we have to resolve this long-standing problem. I am concerned that it may be the last chance, because if the Pensions Authority winds up the pension scheme, current pensioners may be protected but the deferred pensioners and active members of the scheme may lose almost everything, which would be a disaster. We have an opportunity to grasp the nettle and use the expert panel report as the basis for a solution. This would be good for current and former staff because it would finally give them certainty about their pensions. Individual staff will want to know exactly how much they will receive, and this will take time to work out, but in the vast majority of cases, if not all cases, the sum involved will be more than half their final salary, which is similar to or better than the position of public servants.
A solution would also be good for the companies involved as it would provide security and allow their share prices to rise. Moreover, it would be good for the economy, taxpayers and the tourism industry because it would provide greater security against the threat of further industrial relations disputes.
I have been in touch with the chairman of Aer Lingus and at least one of the Government-appointed directors of the company's board. The Government appointees must put the fiduciary interests of the company first.
The shareholder vote in Aer Lingus will be difficult and a specific outcome cannot be guaranteed. Some people may believe the only ballot will be of staff, but that is not the case. Aer Lingus shareholders will also be balloted and it will be difficult to secure their agreement on any proposed solution.
While I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the expert panel's report with the board of the Dublin Airport Authority, I will do so.
The Minister has identified a potential problem of which all of us are aware. Has he had any discussions with the other shareholders of Aer Lingus and the Dublin Airport Authority with a view to trying to find a resolution? I have in mind one of the other large shareholders in Aer Lingus, namely, Ryanair.
Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss this particular matter with the chief executive or any of the directors?
I have discussed some matters with Ryanair in the past week or two but I have not discussed this issue. It has made its position very clear. That may change but its position as of now is that it will oppose it. It thinks that the contribution being asked of the company and, indirectly, of the shareholders is too great. The Deputy will be aware that a vote took place some weeks ago on the CEO's remuneration package which was voted through, predominantly with the help of Ryanair. The Government was on the other side of that vote with notice to the staff, so it is something that needs to be taken account of in this dispute. Aer Lingus takes the view and believes it has legal advice to the effect that it is under no obligation to close the deficit or even necessarily contribute to it. That will be a difficult vote. It is not the only hump we need to get over but the role I play as Minister and shareholder is to try to assist all the different parties to come to a solution. The difficulty is there are many different parties involved in this dispute and they all think they are the only ones but they are not. It will require agreement across the board to get this through.
2. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the discussions he and his Department have had with their Assembly counterparts regarding the development of an all-Ireland tourist strategy. [27421/14]
View answerTourism is an essential part of our economy. In fact, it continues to make gains despite the current global recession. What steps has the Minister and his Department taken to develop an all-Ireland strategy for tourism?
In the Good Friday Agreement, tourism is specifically designated as an area of cross-Border co-operation. Tourism Ireland was therefore established to market the entire island of Ireland as a destination in overseas markets.
Co-operation on tourism does not take place directly with the Assembly. Rather, the tourism Ministers from the Government here and the Northern Ireland Executive meet regularly in the North-South Ministerial Council, NSMC, tourism sectoral format. The most recent sectoral took place in January. Among the items discussed were Tourism Ireland's Business Plan 2014 and Corporate Plan 2014-2016. Both these documents set out the strategies being employed to grow tourism to the island of Ireland in the next three years.
The Deputy and I may believe that a single tourism agency makes more sense than the three that are currently in existence. However any changes to this set-up would require substantive changes to the North-South framework and could only progress within a wider political and institutional agreement.
I thank the Minister for his response. In 2011, Ireland was voted favourite holiday destination in the world by readers of Frommer's Guide. Lonely Planet listed Ireland as the world's friendliest country and the Irish Tourist Board's website, Discoverireland.com, as being the best tourist board website in the world. A ten-year review of the Irish tourism industry in 2003 anticipated that 10 million visitors would visit Ireland on an annual basis by 2014. The Northern Assembly aims to increase visitor numbers to that part of Ireland to 4.2 million and grow tourist revenue to €676 million by December 2014 and €1 billion by 2020. These are ambitious targets which can be further developed with the correct all-Ireland approach. Clearly, tourism makes a huge contribution to the economy. However, we have a problem with attracting repeat visitors. Does the Minister consider there are enough tourist attractions on the island? I think it would be beneficial if the Minister was to meet on a regular basis with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Does he plan to have any such meetings?
I am not sure we have a problem with attracting repeat visitors.
We do.
Clearly, the statistics indicate we get fewer repeat visitors than other tourist destinations but that may be, in part, down to the nature of Ireland as a tourism destination. People may well go the Costa del Sol and Portugal every other year. Coming to Ireland is a different proposition especially for people coming from America or from long haul flights. In many cases, it is a once in a lifetime holiday or something they may do twice. It is different from the south of France. The important issue is to increase the numbers coming in every year, whether they are repeat visitors is not the key issue. What I can say is that this is going to be another good year for tourism. Since the change of Government the number of international visitors coming to Ireland has increased by a million per year. I meet the Minister with responsibility for tourism in the Assembly, Ms Arlene Foster, regularly. The last such meeting took place on Friday week in Farmleigh. We have built up a good working relationship in recent years. There is an issue that might be considered by the party of which the Deputy is a member. Under the d'Hondt system Sinn Féin had the second pick of Ministries. The DUP chose finance and Sinn Féin passed over the opportunity to have enterprise, trade and investment which includes tourism, I am not sure why. Essentially, what Sinn Féin did in the North was to decide not to have anything to do with the economic Ministries and decided to go for others instead.
I thank the Minister.
Perhaps the Deputy's party might suggest getting that department in the next Executive.
I thank the Minister for his comments. One project that I believe would be a huge asset to tourism in Ireland is Ireland's Eye TV. This has the potential to increase international visitation rates and showcase our nation's strong significance at a global level. Ireland's Eye TV will reach more than 30 million web users, some of whom will be high level business people and influential leaders. This initiative will also highlight Ireland's advancement as the Silicon Valley of Europe and global investment opportunities. Will the Minister discuss this project with his Assembly counterparts and facilitate a joint meeting?
I am not particularly familiar with it. I have heard of it but I do not know very much about it and I have had no meetings about it. If the Deputy would pass on the details, I would certainly be happy to take a look at it.
3. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide an update regarding the €400,000 grant which his Department pledged towards a €150 million extension of the runway at Waterford Airport last August, subject to the airport itself raising a further €850,000 through private sources and local authorities; if all necessary moneys have now been raised to allow work to proceed; if the departmental grant of €400,000 has already been drawn down, and used for the compulsory purchase order of 18 acres of land required to facilitate the extension; the timeframe in which he expects the extension works to be completed; what will happen to the departmental grant if the €850,000 is not raised by the airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27416/14]
View answerI seek an update on the €400,000 grant which his Department pledged towards a €150 million extension of the runway at Waterford Airport last August. Will the Minister clarify if the departmental grant of €400,000 has already been drawn down and used for the compulsory purchase order of 18 acres of land required to facilitate the extension?
Exchequer support for infrastructural projects at the regional airports is confined to safety and security related projects under the Regional Airports Programme 2011-2014. The projects being funded at Waterford Airport under the current programme, through the CAPEX scheme, include runway end safety areas, RESAs, which involve the purchase of land to facilitate this work, as well as boundary fencing and the installation of other safety related equipment. Other developmental projects, such as the extension of the runway, do not come within the remit of the CAPEX scheme.
I understand that the land purchase for the runway end safety areas has been delayed and that the CPO process has been referred for arbitration on 26 August 2014. Once the arbitration has been successfully completed the land purchase and the work can be undertaken later this year, but that is contingent on that arbitration being completed successfully.
Development projects, such as runway expansion, are entirely a matter for Waterford Airport. I understand that the board and management of the airport are engaged in a fund-raising exercise with local authority and private sector sources in relation to this.
On countless occasions I have raised the IDA's abysmal record in attracting foreign investment into Waterford. It is widely recognised that one of the key deficiencies in the south east when it comes to companies locating there is the lack of a university and the underdevelopment of Waterford Airport. The Minister's Department pledged the €400,000 grant towards the extension in 2011 only to be frozen after Aer Arann's decision to pull out of Waterford. I understand the current funding is subject to a further €850,000 being raised by Waterford County Council and private investors. This infrastructure, while limited, could be vital to Waterford Airport attracting a direct service to London which was previously used by more than 80,000 passengers per year. As it stands Flybe has committed to Waterford Airport until the end of the year, at least, after which the airport's future is unclear. This infrastructure would pave the way for additional expansion into the future to bring all types of jet aircraft into Waterford, which can only be beneficial to a city already under tremendous economic pressure.
We are all very keen that Waterford Airport should secure flights to London again. There are flights to Birmingham and Manchester. Deputy John Deasy told me yesterday that the load factors on those are improving considerably, which is encouraging. Whether the RESA will secure a flight to London is not clear. Some people say it is like a chicken and egg situation - which one comes first?
We might find out when the development is complete that it is still not possible to get a London flight, which would be disappointing. The Department's commitment to the airport in Waterford remains strong and should it be able to sort out the CPO and come up with the agreed matching funds, we are prepared to assist it.
I do not need to remind the Minister of the critical nature of this infrastructure for the region. A major report prepared in 2010 found that Waterford Airport supports up to 560 jobs, with 85% of businesses in the south east stating that direct access to the region was crucial to their operations. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation recently admitted that the IDA is having trouble attracting foreign direct investment to Waterford. Our high unemployment rate underpins this. The lack of a proper runway and the absence of a London route is a pivotal factor in the difficulty in attracting investment. If the matching funds of €850,000 cannot be found - I am not saying that will be the case but it is important to get clarity - what position would the Government take in regard to its promise to provide €400,000 in funding? Would it be able to increase its funding?
We are constrained in how we can support regional airports by EU state aid rules and by our own budget, which is capped at €12 million per annum for all of the regional airports. Waterford has received considerable amounts of money in recent years, particularly under the operational expenditure heading, because of the losses it has been making. I am advised that the airport is confident it can raise its share of the funds and I do not see any impediment to getting this done, other than dealing with the CPO.
4. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he is satisfied that the distribution of taxpayers' money under the sports capital programme is carried out in a transparent manner; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27419/14]
View answerThe current round of sports capital funding is currently being discussed and distributed by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Is the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport satisfied that the money is being disbursed in an upfront and transparent way, without any political influence?
I was delighted to be able to launch the 2014 round of the sports capital programme earlier this year, through which €40 million is available for allocation. The 2,036 applications received under the 2014 programme are currently being assessed by officials in my Department. Every application will be assessed by one official and reviewed by another. Given the number of applications received and the detail contained therein, this process takes a number of months to complete. I hope to announce allocations in the next number of weeks.
Applications are first checked to ensure eligibility. All eligible applications are initially assessed against the following five criteria: the likelihood of increasing participation and improving performance and sharing of facilities; the level of socioeconomic disadvantage in the area; technical merits of the project; the level of own funding available; and the level of sports capital programme funding received in the past. These criteria are designed to give higher scores to applications which increase participation, share facilities, are from designated disadvantaged areas, have not received substantial funding in the past or are ready to be progressed at the earliest opportunity.
In deciding the final allocations within each county, the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, and I may have regard to other criteria, such as the need to ensure a fair distribution across different sports and between rural and urban areas. I assure Deputy Dooley that I am satisfied the allocation process is fair and transparent.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister of State has confidence in his own abilities, although it does not surprise me. On the previous occasion we discussed this issue the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, explained that the system of administration has changed since the Minister of State took office. Scoring and validation continue to be carried out by officials of the Department but the allocation of moneys has been transferred to the Minister of State, who will decide in consultation with his advisers who gets what. I am concerned that the system lacks accountability and transparency.
We also previously discussed the staffing of the Department. The Minister alluded to the fact that the Minister of State has a special adviser who is not being paid. Apparently he has offered his services free of charge. That is noteworthy. Does this individual have access to departmental files and has he signed a contract of employment, even if he does not get paid? Is he subject to the Official Secrets Acts? I ask the Minister of State to clarify the context in which he has benefited from the free services provided by a private individual.
Fianna Fáil Members will find it difficult to understand why somebody would act for nothing because Fianna Fáil never did anything for nothing. They had plenty of their own advisers who cost a lot of money. When we came into government we were not lucky enough to be able to provide junior Ministers with advisers. I am honoured to have a man of the quality of Mr. Paul McGrath to assist me in the Department as my programme manager. It is great that somebody in this country is prepared to give State service for nothing and I compliment him on that. He is not on a State board and he does not get paid from a State board. He does not get paid for this job. He gives up his own time to assist me when I want him. I thank him for his work and commitment.
In 2007, when Deputy Dooley's party was in government, the then Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism set the criteria and officials submitted the eligible applications. I will outline some of the figures, as follows: Glebe Sport Holdings in Letterkenny was allocated €250,000 - invalid; Baltinglass GAA club, €50,000 - invalid; Kilmanamagh Family Recreation Centre, €175,000 - invalid; St. Mary's GAA club in Cahersiveen, County Kerry - Deputy Dooley knows who was Minister at the time - €300,000 - invalid; Farranfore Maine Valley AC, County Kerry, allocated €5,000 - insufficient own funding, invalid.
In regard to pro rata rates, I do not know where the Deputy was when he was in government. At the time his county was receiving €114 per capita. When the Kerry Minister was in power, Donegal received €183 per capita and Wicklow was getting €102. During this round and the previous round, I increased funding to County Clare after strong representation from the Deputy's two colleagues in the county. I have increased the allocation to counties that previously did badly. Deputy Dooley's county is going to gain substantially from this. I am happy with the way the sports capital programme has been managed.
We will return to the Minister of State. We have to watch the clock because supplementary questions and replies are allowed one minute each.
I am pleased that the Minister of State answered the question in that way because he fell into the classic trap. I asked a simple question and rather than answer it he responded with the usual bluster about what Fianna Fáil did. I am not standing over the practices followed by previous Governments.
I am glad to hear that.
Of course, people had a right to do what they did back then but the position has since changed significantly. I asked the Minister of State straight questions about the people who advise him. Is the individual in question subject to the Official Secrets Acts? Does he have unfettered access to departmental files? Has he signed a contract of employment with the Minister of State or with the State, even if he is providing his services free of charge?
The Minister of State indicated that on the basis of political representation from two individuals in a constituency, he decided to change tack and increase the level of money to be disbursed. I would have thought that creates a rather chilling response among the many people who believe these funds should be disbursed in a fair and equitable manner, based on established criteria. The Minister of State is suggesting that if two individuals jostle him around a bit he will throw more money at them. That blows the whole thing open. He has been very revealing, and I thank him for that.
The Deputy is not bad himself at making representations. He has seven or eight here.
Absolutely.
What do I do now? Should I not allocate money to the groups on behalf of which the Deputy made representations? Is that what he is saying? Before the recent elections he and his party sent election candidates to the officials in the Department. Does he think that is okay? Does he think it is okay for Fianna Fáil to do whatever it wants?
I am asking the questions.
I am very proud of the last round of the sports capital programme. It was the only time the media, the Deputy’s party and everybody else could find no fault with it because we allocated it on a per capita basis. Every county received what it was entitled to get. I picked the lowest counties and gave them an increase and I will do the same again because members of previous Governments allocated money to their own counties. I did not do this. My county, Mayo, received what it was entitled to get pro rata. I can stand over every decision I made in the last round of the programme.
Will the Minister of State answer the question?
Will the Deputy withdraw his representations?
No. The Minister of State should answer the question.
Therefore, there are representations.
5. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide an update on the privatisation of bus routes currently serviced by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann; the rationale for this move; if an impact assessment was sought in relation to effects on current jobs and future pay and conditions for workers in public transport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27415/14]
View answerWill the Minister of State give an update on plans to put 10% of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann routes out to tender and the rationale for this move? Has the impact on current jobs and future pay and conditions for workers in public transport been assessed? Will the Minister of State, please, make a statement on that matter?
The direct award contracts for the provision of public service obligation, PSO, bus market services held by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann expire later this year. The awarding of subsequent contracts is the statutory responsibility of the National Transport Authority, NTA. All Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann routes will be included in the new five year direct award contracts which the NTA will enter into with the companies next December. However, the NTA has announced that up to 10% of publicly subvented bus services will only remain within the direct award contracts until the end of 2016, after which they will be operated under separate contracts that will have been competitively tendered for. The overall level of tendering is very modest. The contracts will go to the best competent tenderer and I expect both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to apply for such tenders. The NTA expects that the procurement process for the routes to be tendered will begin in December 2014, leading to the award of the contracts in March 2016, with the successful operator or operators commencing services in late 2016.
In the case of either Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann not being successful in the competitive process, staff would be protected under the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003, TUPE. These issues need to be addressed by the NTA and the bus companies through constructive engagement with the unions in the course of the procurement process in the next two years. Following a meeting I, ith the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, held with unions representing Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann workers last November we asked the NTA to put a structured engagement process with unions in place. I understand the NTA met the NBRU and SIPTU unions in January and March this year and consultation continues.
I am surprised that the Minister of State, coming from the Labour Party, would go along with this. I would expect Fine Gael to do this because it has been pushing a privatisation agenda for many years. In November 2013 the NTA, in spite of negative experiences of privatisation of bus services, went along with the idea of putting out to tender 10% of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann routes and 100% of routes in Waterford. This was at a time when passenger numbers were increasing in the major cities. The privatisation of the routes will put 440 jobs at risk. Dublin Bus is increasing its employee numbers, but the Government will put jobs at risk by 2016. This will also undermine terms and conditions for workers. When routes are allocated to private companies, conditions are less favourable to workers. Will the Minister of State reconsider this issue and not blame the NTA? This is a Government decision. Using the NTA is not good enough. This is against the principles for which the Labour Party has stood.
This matter is governed by European and national legislation, as I am sure the Deputy knows. The NTA will continue to define the services that the successful applicants will be contractually required to provide. The tender is for up to 10% of routes and I expect both companies will submit robust bids. The NTA will apply the same level of control and centralised planning to the routes put out to tender as it does to the routes operated by the CIE suite of companies. It will predetermine the routes, schedules, vehicle types, standards, fares and customer service requirements. It is a modest change. In the past few months, even in the past week, Dublin Bus has been hiring. It is looking for 100 new workers. It is in a positive position. I expect issues which arise to be dealt with in in the engagement with the NTA and the unions.
The fact that Dublin Bus is hiring workers is a very good reason not to go down this route. Blaming the European Commission and saying its rules have been put in place-----
I am just pointing out the facts.
Has the Department produced a proper impact statement on the effects of this process on workers and their conditions? The Minister of State knows as well as I do that the private sector will undercut. Will the Government give it public service obligation, PSO, services? I am sure that in recent years the PSO subvention has been reduced dramatically. It is one of the lowest in Europe and the service is moving towards profitability. I do not understand why we would facilitate going down this route. The Government is using the NTA or the European Commission as an excuse, but there is certainly a means to do this, as I believe the Minister of State knows. This is a policy decision, a drive towards privatisation. That is the problem.
The NTA will implement this change and define the services to be provided. I expect that when it engages with the unions, it will ensure all workers will be protected. It is a modest change. I expect that Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus will compete very strongly for these routes and have every possibility of being successful. I believe the workers will be protected. Public transport numbers are growing and the statistics are improving every month. We have regular meetings with all of the companies. As a result, I believe the workers who could be affected will be protected as part of this process. The controls in place will ensure that will happen.
