Olivia Mitchell
Ceist:105 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if it is intended to continue to fund parts of the road construction programme through a tolling mechanism; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3566/06]
Priority Questions.
Road Network.
The national roads improvement programme, in line with the national development plan and, more recently, Transport 21, provides for the procurement and construction of a number of major national road projects as toll public-private partnership projects. The current position is that three projects — the second West Link bridge, the Dundalk western bypass and the Kilcock-Kinnegad section of the N4 — have been completed. Work is under way on the Fermoy bypass and work is due to start on the Waterford city bypass and phase two of the Limerick southern ring road this year.
A number of other toll PPP projects — the N6 Galway-Ballinasloe, the N7-N8 Portlaoise-Cullahill and the M50 PPP upgrade — are at earlier stages of procurement, but I understand the National Roads Authority expects these schemes to be in construction by early 2007. The Clonee-Kells section of the N3 is before the courts and the timeline for commencing that scheme will depend on the outcome of the hearing. In addition, the Dublin Port tunnel will open this year.
Toll charges are being applied to the tunnel for traffic management purposes. The NRA estimates that private sector investment in the toll PPP projects completed to date amounts to approximately €500 million. Private sector investment in toll PPPs over the period to 2010 is estimated to be approximately €2 billion.
The projects to be undertaken as toll PPPs have been selected by the NRA having regard to a number of principles. One of these key principles is that toll roads should be spread across the main national routes to create an equitable distribution of user charging on the newly constructed network along with the benefits of the accelerated delivery of the new roads. Another fundamental underlying principle of the NRA PPP programme is that an alternative toll-free route be available for road users.
Toll PPPs are only undertaken following rigorous assessment in line with Department of Finance requirements and guidelines relating to PPPs and capital appraisal and when it is determined that the toll PPP approach offers value for money. The toll programme is making a significant contribution to the accelerated implementation of the national roads upgrade programme. It has also facilitated the more extensive use of private sector expertise in the design, construction and operation of facilities.
While the scope for additional toll road PPPs is limited, the scale and cost of the national roads programme, combined with the demands of the other sectors which limit the capacity to allocate more Exchequer funding, require that all possibilities for generating additional funding to accelerate the implementation of the national roads programme be considered and kept under review. It is a matter for the NRA in the first instance to consider and propose projects to be undertaken as toll PPP projects. In summary, the toll road PPP programme will continue to make a significant contribution to the implementation of the national roads improvement programme.
I thank the Minister and welcome the clarification but I question the need to continue. While I understand the original rationale behind using tolling to pay for roads, we no longer need the money. Last year we had a surplus of €1.8 billion as a result of a more favourable budget outcome than expected. The Stability and Growth Pact restrictions have been removed so there is no reason to continue tolling except, perhaps, as the Minister said, to benefit from private sector expertise. Can that not be achieved through design, construction and operation without also asking that the private sector finance roads? On the M50, whatever about the obscene profits made by the private sector, my real objection is the loss of control of the road and the traffic management as a result of giving a ransom strip to a private company.
The Minister said one of the requirements is that toll roads would be spread equitably throughout the country. Clearly that is not the case. The Galway road will have two tolls, and drivers on this route might also face tolls at the M50 and the East Link. I am not sure it meets any of the criteria originally envisaged as a reason for tolling. Would the Minister agree that the diversion rates on roads outside Dublin are high? The diversion rate on the newly opened Kinnegad bypass is still growing. Has there been any calculation of an acceptable diversion rate? The level of traffic that can be generated outside the populous Dublin area is such that it requires a high toll to give a return to the private sector and the higher the toll, the greater the diversion rate. Are we trying to milk it for all it is worth by persisting with tolling when we have the money and could maintain control while benefitting from private sector expertise by using another model?
A fair assessment would say that my Department received a major contribution from the Exchequer in Transport 21 and we have laid out €34.4 billion. In a perfect world with no competing demands from other Departments, one might be able to take all the State's resources and put them into infrastructure, but that is not the case. We have outlined a major investment programme in a range of areas, specifically in roads, over the next few years.
There is no doubt that the added capacity we can get through accelerated delivery of roads throughout the country has been enhanced by the availability of PPP projects to us. Many Deputies from both sides of the House ask me to speed up the delivery of their projects and are open to their delivery as a PPP if it means they can be moved up in the programme. Even businesses from local areas have made the same case because they think advancing and accelerating these projects delivers an economic benefit to everybody, even with a toll, rather than waiting six, seven or ten years to get the project. It is built into the programme. Everybody accepts that our share of the taxpayers' contribution to the Exchequer is massive.
The Deputy raised an interesting question on diversion rates and it is important to put this on the record. The main cause of diversion from toll roads is gridlock.
Demonstrably not.
I am telling the Deputy what the research and facts indicate. The figures on the Dundalk bypass are way beyond expectation. They are running at approximately 26,500 cars per day on the Drogheda and Dundalk bypass. I do not have the final Kilcock-Kinnegad figures yet but they are running at 16,000 to 18,000 per day, exactly the level expected.
It is dropping on that road.
There are no such figures. Much notional debate occurs around these issues. People speculate and make comments but in fact — we should all deal with facts — the volume of traffic using the Kilcock-Kinnegad road is exactly in line with expectations. It is untrue to say that where tolls are in operation, they are not having an impact on the local communities by taking traffic out of those communities. They deliver a positive return for the NRA and for the toll users. Expected figures are being met on all tolls and are way ahead on most.
There is nobody better than the Minister at notional debate. Is it not true that the saving of €2 billion in the short term costs motorists about €5.5 billion in the long run?
If Ireland was the only country on the planet involved in tolling, then the Deputy might have an argument. Every modern economy uses tolls. It is a legitimate——
I am not objecting to tolls, but to the use of tolls to have the private sector build and own the roads indefinitely.
It is a legitimate part of the contribution of developing a range of infrastructure here, as it has been in every country throughout the world.
The Government is now buying a road back for €900 million.
We should not pretend we are doing something different to that which happens elsewhere. That is simply not true.
Road Traffic Offences.
Róisín Shortall
Ceist:106 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if, in view of the Attorney General’s advice to the Garda Commissioner that under existing legislation the Garda Síochána has the power to set up random road checks for the purpose of detecting drink-driving, he will launch an immediate campaign to tackle drink-driving in order to reduce the number of road deaths. [3475/06]
The Attorney General has provided advice on the exercise of the powers currently available to the Garda to stop vehicles both on a general basis and in particular in connection with the enforcement of drink driving laws. Members of the Garda Síochána may stop any vehicle using a public road for the purpose of detecting offences under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004. Those Acts provide for a legislative basis for the operation by the Garda of preliminary roadside breath testing for the purpose of detecting drink-driving offences. The legislative provisions establish that a driver may be required to submit to such a test where a vehicle has been involved in a traffic collision, where a traffic offence is committed, or where a member of the Garda is of the opinion that the driver has consumed intoxicating liquor. The requirement that a driver must submit to a preliminary roadside breath test, following the formation of the opinion of a member of the Garda that he or she has consumed alcohol, may be applied through the stopping of vehicles on an individual basis or through the establishment of dedicated checkpoints.
During his contribution to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport on 25 January, the Garda Commissioner indicated that he welcomed the clarity of the advice from the Attorney General and gave a commitment to the pursuit of enhanced levels of enforcement of drink driving offences as a result. I welcome this commitment and look forward to a significant and immediate increase in the levels of enforcement of drink driving laws. The extent of such enforcement campaigns is an operational matter for the senior Garda management. The Attorney General has also given advice that will allow for the development of a scheme for the operation of extended preliminary roadside breath testing, or "random" breath testing. Such a scheme, in which the Garda will not be required to form an opinion on alcohol consumption, will operate in a targeted manner.
I will now bring forward legislative proposals to allow the Garda to establish road checkpoints for "random" breath testing at which drivers will be required to submit to a preliminary test. The legislation will provide the basis for the production of clear guidelines that will establish definitive parameters for the application of these proposed checkpoints, in order to prevent any arbitrary use of these statutory provisions.
The advice received by the Garda Commissioner last week conveniently seemed to get lost in the announcement by the Taoiseach about legislating on this issue. The Commissioner was very clear last week. The Attorney General told him that members of the Garda could set up random road checks for the purpose of detecting drink driving and that they could test people if they have reasonable suspicion that they have been drinking. If the person failed that test, it could provide the grounds on which they could pursue the issue by having a further test in the station. It seems to be the case that the Garda has all the powers it requires under existing legislation to dramatically change the approach to drink driving. This is welcome news and I cannot understand why the Minister for Transport and the Taoiseach are continuing to obfuscate and talk about legislating for it in the long term. There are substantial powers available to the Garda right now, as has been clarified by the Attorney General. If the Minister was serious about tackling the problem of drink driving, he would give a very political instruction to the Garda to launch an immediate campaign to clamp down on drink driving.
The Minister received that advice from the Attorney General some time ago and the Commissioner clarified that the advice had come from the Attorney General through the Minister. It is now several months since he got that advice and I wonder why he remained silent about that. Why has he not welcomed the fact that the Garda now has much stronger powers than presumed heretofore? Why is he not acting on that? Why does he continue with these delaying tactics, talking about legislating at some point in the future? All of the powers already exist for the Garda to tackle the scourge of drink driving.
I agree with most of what the Deputy said. I am interested in why she has criticised me so heavily for amplifying the powers that the Garda had for random breath testing before the Commissioner spoke last week. I said all of that before the committee, yet the Deputy laughed at me, claiming it was nonsense. The Attorney General has amplified the Garda powers and has made that perfectly clear. The missing piece was that members of the Garda do not have an ability to stop a line of traffic and without forming any opinion on whether someone has consumed alcohol or not, can request every driver to submit to a random breath test. Heretofore, I set out the conditions on how gardaí can administer a random breath test. The key condition that has caused a problem and had been challenged consistently in the courts is the opinion formed by the garda whether the person has consumed drink, which is either based on smelling alcohol off the person's breath——
The Minister has not read the advice. An opinion does not have to be formed before giving a breathalyser test.
It does.
There only has to be reasonable suspicion. Someone walks out of a pub or someone who smells of alcohol can be bagged.
The Deputy knows that this is the issue that is constantly being challenged in the courts.
That is not right.
Someone may stagger out of a pub——
He does not have to stagger, he can walk out of the pub, yet the garda can have a reasonable suspicion that he has been drinking.
If I walked out of a pub, the garda might form that reasonable suspicion but he would be wrong because I do not drink. We cannot have an arbitrary basis——
One can still be asked legally to blow in the bag.
The Deputy is asking why we need legislation when she rightly identifies that the Garda has substantial powers to set up random checkpoints and has a range of options in how to breath-test someone.
Why is that not happening?
I have been on to the Garda about this issue.
What has the Minister done about getting gardaí on to the road and tackling the problem?
I am not responsible for the operational matters of the Garda and the Deputy knows that. There are cases where we have had to increase the number of gardaí.
It has been pointed out that there are many forms of alcohol that do not emit a smell of alcohol, while some forms of alcohol consumed are more obvious than others. A garda can immediately form an opinion because he or she can smell the alcohol off the driver, but that is not always the case. I want to eliminate that doubt so that any driver stopped under the new legislation, whether he or she has had a drink or not, will be subjected to a breath test. That is the form of random breath testing that everyone in this country wants, including the Deputy. I agree with that and I have told her three or four time previously that I wanted to get to that situation. There were questions on the constitutional issues surrounding it. The Attorney General has worked out a way of going forward with this so that it is not seen to be arbitrary.
If the Minister wants something done as regards road safety, he can make it happen. He appears to be looking for excuses for not taking action.
The Deputy knows that is not the case.
I do not know that is not the case.
She does.
Has he met the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to see how it may be ensured that the Garda operates the law as it currently exists? I have never seen a checkpoint outside a licensed premises. Gardaí have the power to set up checkpoints anywhere they like tonight if they so wish. However, the Minister knows perfectly well there have been complaints from vintners and his publican friends. For that reason no clear direction has gone out from the Garda to enforce the law that exists. That is the nub of the problem. When is the Minister going to take action and stop making excuses, which leads to considerable numbers of people being killed on the roads as a result of drink driving?
I thank the Deputy for the question because it was I who called a meeting with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and all of the senior members of the Garda. I spent hours discussing this issue with the Garda on precisely the points the Deputy has raised. I wanted to establish from the Garda the actual training and methodology it uses in doing this. Much of the discussion before Christmas led to the conclusion, expansion and greater amplification from the Garda of the powers it already has and that——
That is months ago and nothing has been done.
I am not the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am the Minister for Transport. The Deputy asked me whether I had done anything about it. I have confirmed to her in a very open manner that I called a meeting and met not just the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but all of the senior gardaí from the Commissioner to the deputy and assistant commissioners. It was the correct thing to do and clarified a great many issues. I expect, as does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that there will be a clearly enhanced number of road checks in evidence to every commuter and motorist throughout the country as a result of the current situation. We will introduce legislation in the House, which the Fine Gael leader said they will be quite happy to facilitate, as I am sure the Labour Party will be, so as to ensure everybody, regardless of whether they have had a drink, will be subject to randomised breath tests.
Why is he not implementing the laws that exist?
I call Question No. 107.
Why did Superintendent John Farrelly say on "Morning Ireland" today that nothing will change before this legislation?
I ask the Minister to deal with Question No. 107.
Why did the Garda press officer say nothing was going to change? The Minister continues to make excuses for doing nothing in this area. However, he does not want to upset his friends. That is what it is about.
Of all the people accused of doing nothing, I find myself in a bizarre position. My problem is that I am always being accused of doing something. Most of the time the Deputy does not like what I do, but she does not accuse me of doing nothing. What kills her is that I will make decisions. She does not like them when they are made and——
Why are the laws not being implemented?
——keeps moving the goalposts every time I do something.
Public Transport.
Olivia Mitchell
Ceist:107 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport the position regarding bus transport policy; when same will be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3567/06]
Róisín Shortall
Ceist:108 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if he will fulfil his commitment under the National Development Plan to provide Dublin Bus with an additional 180 buses before the end of 2006. [3476/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 107 and 108 together.
I am committed to the further expansion of bus services both in Dublin and nationally. In this context, Transport 21 provides for significant Exchequer investment in expanding bus services in the greater Dublin area and in other urban and rural areas outside Dublin. As regards the bus market in Dublin, as I have indicated to this House previously, I requested Dublin Bus to carry out a network review to examine the impact of recent investment in rail infrastructure and demographic changes and if the existing bus fleet was being utilised to maximum effect. The review is also a necessary first step in the new investment programme set out in Transport 21. I understand the company is currently finalising the reviewand I expect to receive the completed report shortly.
In the meantime, Dublin Bus has recently submitted an application for funding to me for additional fleet requirements, which has due regard to the emerging findings of the network review. I will make a decision on the number of buses to be provided in 2006 when my Department's assessment of the application has been completed. I understand Bus Éireann is also finalising proposals for the expansion of its fleet and an application will be submitted to the Department shortly.
I appointed Professor Margaret O'Mahony of Trinity College Dublin, as chairperson of the Dublin Transport Authority establishment team, which will make recommendations to me regarding the structure, remit and responsibilities for the new authority. I will make my decision on the future regulation of the bus market throughout the country after Professor O'Mahony's team has reported on the structure, remit and responsibilities of the Dublin Transport Authority and the Government has made its decisions in this regard.
I take it the Minister does not have a bus policy and is just thinking about one. I know Dublin Bus is carrying out a review. A review was undertaken in 2000, the Scott Wilson report, which recommended that by 2006, this year, Dublin Bus would need around 1,500 buses. Of course that was a gross under-estimation of requirements, but nevertheless it has nothing like that, with just over 1,000 buses today. That report was ignored. Even the 180 buses promised under the national development plan was ignored. Prior to that the Government had announced policy based on the Bacon report on the liberalisation of the bus market in Dublin. That was accepted as Government policy. Another report was commissioned at great expense to show how it might be done. That was accepted by Government and subsequently ignored. In view of the latest report from the Competition Authority recommending the liberalisation of the bus market in order to get rid of the inefficiencies that are endemic in the current system, which is not serving the public well, does the Minister intend to ignore this report as well or will he liberalise the bus market as announced several times as Government policy?
The supplementary question asked by the Deputy is very different from that submitted, but I am happy to deal with it.
Has the Minister a policy?
Of course I have and she well knows the policy. It is set out for her benefit quite clearly in Transport 21.
There is not a mention of a bus in Transport 21.
Between the two of ye, every time ye get up and ask a question, ye want to keep going. Does the Deputy want me to answer the question?
Never mind referring to us as "ye". There is nothing about buses in Transport 21.
The Minister is in possession and should be allowed to answer.
Does the Deputy want me to answer the question?
There is nothing in Transport 21. The Minister should stick to the truth.
If the Deputy wants me to answer, I have no problem, but she might allow me the same respect I have given her in putting the question.
I can try to ignore that.
I am not prepared to give to any agency under my aegis resources belonging to taxpayers without a basis and proper business plan for doing so. That is a reasonable position. Dublin Bus was made aware of this, as was Bus Éireann. They accepted the challenge. They accept that they have a responsibility to make a business case to me based on the network review they are carrying out. They say this is almost finished and expect to submit it to me shortly. On 20 January, some days ago, my Department received an application from Dublin Bus for a substantial enhancement of its fleet in Dublin. It is based on projections in advance of its completion of the network review. We are looking at that application in anticipation of the network review.
The second point of the Deputy's question is about my view, which I have stated to Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann, unions and management. I want market opening in Dublin and around the country. I have no doubt about that. That is what I want to achieve. It is for the benefit of the customer and the commuter and we can have greatly enhanced capacity in terms of the delivery of the bus model as a transport mechanism both for Dublin and around the country. That must be part of the future.
It is interesting the Minister says, as regards buses, that he wants market opening. The public wants buses and it does not care who owns or operates them. If the Minister goes to Westmoreland Street this evening between 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock he will see hundreds of people being turned away from buses because they are full. That is happening on a daily basis. It is being repeated in the morning all over the city of Dublin.
The Minister is changing the goalposts. He promised under the national development plan to provide a certain number of buses to Dublin Bus. He still owes them 180 buses before the end of this year, as the figures show. He has welched on that undertaking. The Government was supposed to provide funding for those extra buses and has failed to do that. The Minister has 11 months left to honour that commitment, if he intends to do so. Is the Minister aware that three new quality bus corridors have been created by Dublin Bus in the last year on which there are no buses? The road space has been provided, the white lines have been painted and the signs are up but there are no buses because the Minister continues to stall on this issue. He has failed to provide the additional buses that were promised.
It is time to end the excuses. People are sick and tired of the fact that they cannot travel to work or move around the city because there are not enough buses to do so. When will the Minister deal with the immediate situation? It is all very well to have grand plans for the next 15 years but we need solutions now to Dublin's traffic gridlock. In the short term and for the foreseeable future, that solution must be bus-based. When will the Minister provide the buses?
I only received the application some days ago, on 20 January. Time is needed to process the application.
Do not get into this.
The Deputy asked me when more buses will be put into the market.
That is nonsense. The application was made last summer.
The Minister is in possession.
Is the Minister living in a different world from the rest of us?
The application was made to the Minister last summer. He had promised the buses anyway.
The difference between Deputy Shortall and Deputy Olivia Mitchell is that Deputy Shortall does not want the market opened while Deputy Mitchell does.
Stop changing the subject. What people want is buses.
So it is our fault now.
There are fundamentally different and opposite views on that side of the House.
The Minister and the Government promised this in 1998.
When will the Minister buy the buses?
Deputy Mitchell is seeking an opening of the market——
When will it happen? When will there be buses on the streets?
——while Deputy Shortall does not want the market opened.
Answer the question.
Deputy Shortall does not want it; Deputy Mitchell does.
Answer the question.
The Fine Gael position is that it wants liberalisation but the Labour Party——
What does this have to do with the Minister's job?
It has everything to do with what the Deputy is saying in the House this afternoon.
In other words, the Minister is going to——
Deputy Shortall and the Labour Party want no opening of the market.
Where are the buses?
I agree with Deputy Shortall on one point. She is correct that the customers want buses. They do not mind who delivers the buses——
Yes, the Minister promised them.
——so long as they are available. I have urged both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to send me the plans so I can release the buses. It would be irresponsible of me, or any Minister, simply to waste taxpayers' money on no basis. The cost of the application that has arrived from Dublin Bus is €120 million. The Labour Party Members speak every day about value for money in expenditure on health and education. Is it the Labour Party position on transport that there should be no value for money, that the buses should simply be provided and that we should have no business plans, no demonstrable use for the buses, no way of showing how they will be paid for and no way of considering what the subvention is for the buses?
Is the Minister saying there is no demand for the buses?
The Deputy should be consistent.
Is the Minister saying there is no demand?
There is.
Well, where are they?
The Minister had nine years to put the plans in place.
If Fine Gael and the Labour Party want value for money in every aspect of what the Government does, I agree with them. Do not, therefore, suggest in the House that I, as Minister for Transport, with no basis of a network review and without a business case should willy-nilly spend €120 million of taxpayers' money immediately. The Members are contradicting themselves and it is time it stopped. They have been getting away with it——
Not one extra bus has been provided in five years.
——but they will not get away with it as far as I am concerned. They cannot have it both ways on value for money.
Not one extra bus has been provided and that is the reality.
The Minister knows as well as I do that this is nonsense; it is a time-wasting exercise. He has been in Government for nine years and there has been plenty of time to prepare any plans or value for money assessment that is required. Since 1998 it has been Government policy to liberalise the bus market——
The Deputy's party was in power within the nine years and did nothing about it.
No, we were not.
It was.
The Minister cannot count either. In 1998, the Government decided to liberalise the bus market. It is now 2006 and the Government has been in power consistently over that period. When will the bus market be liberalised? There are thousands of new communities consisting of newly married couples and new house owners. These communities have no buses; they are utterly bereft of any form of public transport. The first thing the people must do is buy a car and then the Minister wonders why there is congestion and why an outer ring road must be built. The reason is that these communities are bereft of services. The Minister has already spent €117 million building bus lanes. Another €40 million is to be spent this year but there are no buses, and no prospect of buses, to travel on them. When will the Minister liberalise the market?
I am not sure in what part of the country the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party live but since 1998 the liberalisation in the bus market in this country has been phenomenal. The number of private operators operating in the bus market has gone through the roof in that short period. Ask the customers. Private operators are running services from practically every part of Ireland today and from places where there was no service. They have brought tremendous competition to the market, lowered prices on the routes and forced the State bus companies to change their ways.
They are frustrated at every turn by the Department and Dublin Bus.
They have expanded dramatically. The number of services available has had a huge impact in liberalising the market. An issue remains and that is the on-street delivery of bus services in Dublin, on which both Fine Gael and the Labour Party have diametrically opposed views. One party wants the market liberalised to allow private operators onto the bus market in Dublin——
What does the Minister want? What is he going to do?
——while the Labour Party does not want that to happen.
What will the Minister do?
They do not have a united front on this. They are split on the issue.
Does Fianna Fáil have a united front with the Progressive Democrats? Do Progressive Democrats Members agree with the Minister? Do they even know his position?
The Deputies are obfuscating by coming after me and the Government but they are wrong.
It is extraordinary to hear the Minister talking about problems in the Opposition and whether they agree with each other. It has nothing to do with us.
The Deputies are trying to pretend to the people that they have a cohesive alternative when they do not.
The Minister is the person who has the power to deliver and the funding to solve this problem, if he has the political will to do it.
I agree.
He should stop trying to distract attention from his failure——
So there should be no basis for spending. That is the Labour Party view.
Deputy Shortall, without interruption.
——to deliver on what he promised to do. All this ideological debate is just a cover——
I am not having an ideological debate.
The Minister is using it as a cover to distract attention from the fact that he has not delivered the 180 buses which were promised to Dublin Bus under the national development plan. They are supposed to be in place at the end of this year. Furthermore, despite the huge demand for bus services throughout this city, the Minister has failed to provide a single extra bus for the Dublin Bus fleet since 2001.
That is not true. We have provided hundreds of buses.
No, they were replacement buses. The Minister has not provided an extra bus——
So they are different. Are we classifying new buses as different now?
They are different.
Hundreds of new buses have been provided in Dublin.
When a new bus is provided, an old bus is removed. There is no expansion in capacity.
That is an operational matter for Dublin Bus.
The Minister should not be disingenuous. There is a difference between a new bus and a replacement bus. There has been no net increase in capacity or in the number of buses in Dublin Bus since 2001. That is entirely down to the Minister. The reason people are squashed on buses or not allowed onto them and have no option but to take their car into the city centre is that the Minister has failed to provide the adequate number of buses that were promised. He has reneged on that promise.
A final reply from the Minister.
I am pleased we have had this discussion.
The public is not pleased.
We now have more clarity about policy. For the first time it is clear how shallow and hollow are the calls of the Labour Party for value for money.
The Minister should talk about his own performance.
What is his policy?
They ring utterly and abysmally untrue.
The Minister's performance is abysmal.
The position of the Labour Party is clear. There should be no business planning, no network review, no proposals to a Minister——
Stop changing the subject. What is the Minister doing?
A Minister should be a rubber stamp——
He is doing nothing.
——to waste taxpayers' money.
On a point of order, Question Time is for questions to the Minister, not questions to the Opposition.
I am telling both Deputies that I will not do it. I will not waste money——
The Minister is not doing anything. That is the problem.
——unlike what Deputy Shortall and Deputy Mitchell have said. I will not do business that way.
The Minister talks about plans for the future but there are none for now.
Regional Airports.
Jerry Cowley
Ceist:109 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Transport if an investment of €29 million, which Ireland West Airport Knock requires for the period of 2005 to 2007 to meet essential infrastructural needs which would allow it to compete realistically with other international airports, will be made; if in view of the vast potential of this airport with the third longest runway in this country, he will make this investment awarding CAT.2 navigational status to this airport to enable landing in all weathers and faster turnaround time for aircraft due to increased apron space; if he will make this €15 million realistic financial investment in Ireland West Airport Knock in light of the pivotal role it would play in balanced regional development and in further light of the €3 billion underspend in the Border, midlands and west region and gross over-congestion at Dublin Airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3601/06]
A total of €100 million will be available for investment in development and safety related infrastructure in regional airports, including Knock, under the Transport 21 framework. As well as the continuation of grant assistance for essential safety and security capital expenditure, all six regional airports will be eligible for targeted investment where demand for additional air services can be demonstrated and where an economic case can be made to justify increased investment. A new grant scheme is being devised and all regional airports will be consulted by my Department before the revised grant scheme is finalised. Apart from capital investment, the regional airports will continue to benefit from a range of non-capital support measures, such as operational grant assistance and public service obligation, PSO, air services.
Officials from my Department are working closely with the management at Ireland West Airport Knock and the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, to ascertain the precise scope of the infrastructure required to allow the airport to conform with all relevant safety standards as it develops into the future. Funding for runway safety improvements and enhanced navigational aids was provisionally approved under the national development plan in February 2005. Project specifications and costings in respect of the approved works are awaited from the airport. A final decision on the funding proposal cannot be made until the Department has an opportunity to consider the IAA approved specifications and thereby assess the relevant costings.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The difficulty arises when we consider the money invested in the other international airports. Ireland West Airport Knock is Ireland's fourth international airport and has the third longest runway. Therefore, its potential is massive. If the Minister looks at the map I have he will see that, annually, 6 million people go through Northern Ireland airports, in the east and the south 25 million people go through the airports, but in the west only 500,000 go through them. This demonstrates unbalanced regional development.
Knock airport would have great potential if it got some of the money that should have been given to it. If it got the Aer Rianta €3 per passenger, it would have got between €115 and €190 million in the past decade. However, it got €5 million. The Minister should consider the effect over the next three years of the €29 million investment the airport requires. The airport could have Cat. 2 status. Even on the day we celebrated fire engines arriving at Ireland West Airport Knock, aircraft had difficulty arriving because of weather conditions — they cannot land in all weathers. The airport lacks Cat. 2 navigational status which would make a major difference and would allow Ireland West Airport Knock to compete with other airports, which it cannot do at the moment.
The investment would allow an enlarged apron area. Aircraft and airbuses which can land at the airport cannot turn around quickly enough to suit the fast turnaround time their schedules require because of the lack of apron space. The airport also requires essential safety requirements and enlarged terminals. The airport has enormous potential because it serves 13 counties and is close to nine large urban centres or gateways.
I know the Minister cannot give a decision now, but is he well disposed towards allowing balanced regional development to occur? There is a €3.9 billion underspend in the BMW area. The population of the North is almost the same as that of the BMW area, yet 6 million people travel through Northern Ireland airports. People find it difficult to get in and out of Dublin, but €150 million will be spent on another terminal and other facilities there. Will the Minister commit to this investment and does he believe in the Government's commitment to balanced regional development?
I thank the Deputy for raising this question. I am hugely committed to the development of airports, in particular regional airports. That is the reason I believe we need to secure funding, as I did — over €100 million — in Transport 21. The Minister for Finance is equally committed to regionalisation and our regional structures. We see airports as key to that.
I am happy to fund the projects outlined by the Deputy. In February 2005, I approved the moneys and costings for what is required on the technical side. Unfortunately, I have not got back the final proposals from the airport, which is not my fault. I want to spend a substantial amount of capital moneys on further enhancement. Knock airport has a big future and local and business communities have been correct in identifying that. We will work on that.
I wish to point out something that applies to all the airports. Because of the consequences of issues that arose from the Ryanair case regarding subventions and moneys and grants to regional airports, the European Union has issued stringent new rules on state aids which make matters difficult with regard to how Governments put moneys into airports. That said, I am confident we will be able to support the regional airports in Knock, Waterford, Kerry etc. I want to do that. I strongly believe in the spatial strategy and the benefits regional airports bring economically into regions, from both the business and tourism perspective. This can and will be done.
Previous investment into Ireland West Airport Knock has related to safety. In other airports to the south and east investment has gone towards expanding the existing aprons rather than towards safety and security. I understand what the Minister said with regard to the European Union. Surely, however, with the deficit of €3.9 billion in the BMW area, with such an important catalyst and with such a low figure of only 500,000 passengers compared with 25 million in the south and east, there is a pressing case for Ireland West Airport Knock. Will the Minister put pressure on the European Union to ensure that the airport gets the money it deserves for balanced regional development?
I am ready, willing and able on behalf of the Government to invest in Knock airport. There is no issue between us. However, I need Knock airport to start drawing down what has already been approved in 2005 so that we can move to the next stage. A number of proposals have come from Knock airport from different groups. We are trying to co-ordinate these and get to the key points of investment in the airport, and we will do so. That is the reason I secured a specific funding arrangement in Transport 21 for regional airports. That sum is €100 million, which will have a substantial impact.
Does the Minister agree that the developments I outlined are essential, the apron turning area and CAT.2 status, which will cut down diversions and allow aircraft to land?
I am not a technical expert, but in general these issues arise in regional airports. The more technical equipment on the capital side that we can put into an airport, the better the airport can function. That is what we want to do and I want to do that for Knock airport. There is no equivocation on Knock on my behalf.