Vol. 616 No. 1
49 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he remains confident that the penalty points system is working effectively; if he is confident that the system can cope with the addition of 31 extra offences on 1 April 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9568/06]
The operation of the penalty points system, which commenced with effect from 31 October 2002 in respect of speeding offences, was subsequently extended to apply to the offences of driving without insurance, careless driving and offences relating to the non-wearing of seat belts.
When a driver accumulates 12 penalty points, he or she is automatically disqualified for a period of six months under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 2002. Since its introduction, more than 300,000 drivers have incurred penalty points and 49 have been disqualified. The extension of the penalty points system to an additional 31 road traffic offences is scheduled for 3 April 2006 and I am confident that the relevant support systems will be in place.
The statutory regulations and commencement order to put the legal system in place for this extension of the penalty points system are being finalised in my Department in conjunction with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel following consultation with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The statutory instruments will be completed very shortly in advance of 3 April 2006.
Garda Síochána IT systems to process the new penalty points system are coming on stream. The relevant interfaces are in place between the gardaí and the Courts Services IT systems and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which holds and administers the national driving file.
I did not catch the Minister's comments about statutory instruments. When will these statutory instruments be signed?
They will be signed before 3 April 2006, which is the commencement date for the 31 new penalty points.
My comments on the implementation of the penalty points system for the four offences have been well rehearsed in the past week or two. It is disturbing that the Minister apparently either does not accept that there is a problem or suggests that the problem will be miraculously fixed on 3 April 2006. The handheld units made available to the gardaí are little more than electronic dockets and do not give access to information about penalty points. In addition, the PULSE system does not give access to information about penalty points.
Even if this part of the process worked, does the Minister accept that the process itself contains built-in flaws because it involves so many different stages, individuals, Ministers and agencies, and is almost bound to fail? It is one thing to say that people are automatically disqualified once they acquire 12 penalty points, which is undoubtedly the legal position, but there is very little point in having this system if nobody, including the driver, knows this.
I am concerned that when we move to the additional 31 points and people will be automatically disqualified, at least in theory, if they are detected, leading to more people being automatically disqualified earlier because of the additional offences, the entire system will be completely discredited because it will break down. There are too many stages in the process of recording penalty points.
The Minister should accept that there is a genuine problem. I understand the Minister was quoted as saying that it was hearsay, but this problem exists. Does the Minister accept that responsibility should move to one body and one Minister? Otherwise, the system is bound to fail.
As part of the current Road Traffic Bill, we proposed establishing a safety authority, which would be fully responsible for ensuring that the entire sequence of stages in the process are fulfilled. If the Minister has a better idea, I am willing to listen to it. Perhaps, the gardaí should take responsibility for it. I am not sure which body should accept responsibility for it but some Minister must accept responsibility for ensuring that penalty points incurred are noted on a driving licence so that the system has meaning. If the penalty points system is to be effectively enforced, one Minister must be responsible for it. Does the Minister accept that the current system is failing because one Minister is not assuming responsibility? Will he guarantee that the issue is included in the promised Road Traffic Bill?
I thank the Deputy for her comments. She raised an important issue a few weeks ago in respect of the national driver file and the automatic transmission of information held by it to the gardaí, which I have acted upon. That issue was raised in the context of other points just made by the Deputy.
A total of 49 people have been disqualified under the penalty points system. We must remember that it is illegal to drive with a driving licence once one has accumulated 12 penalty points. A person who has accumulated 12 penalty points must surrender his or her driving licence. If he or she does not comply with this requirement, he or she faces two further problems under the law and can be prosecuted for driving with a driving licence which should have been surrendered and for not surrendering the licence in the first place.
The issue in respect of IT systems is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the gardaí. Considerably more people have been disqualified through the courts for committing other motoring offences than have been disqualified for accumulating 12 penalty points. Due to the fact that the national driver file is now available to the gardaí, I believe that gardaí should do more than simply wait to stop and catch people on the side of the road and then check out the information. There should be a proactive unit within the gardaí which would ensure, once it receives notification from the national driver file, which is delivered more or less in real time and with the co-operation of the licensing authorities, that the licences of people who have accumulated 12 penalty points have been surrendered. This unit should pursue those who have not surrendered their licences. The system should be much more proactive. It should not simply be a matter of the gardaí stopping people on the side of the road and checking whether there is a problem with his or her driving licence when the information goes back into the system.
The handheld unit, which will be used by the traffic corps, can take down all the details of a vehicle from the driver. If the garda suspects that the person has accumulated penalty points, he or she can return to the mainframe computer system in the station and download the relevant information. If he or she encounters a problem, he or she can automatically pursue the driver in question.
While some people may be abusing the system, I do not accept, nor do I have anything other than anecdotal evidence, that widespread abuse of the system takes place once people are disqualified. The vast majority of people who have been disqualified move to surrender their licences very quickly to serve their six-month period of disqualification as quickly as possible. There may be instances where people abuse the system but the law is very strong, as is the ability of the gardaí to prosecute people who do not surrender their licences or who drive with their licences when they should have surrendered them. The penalties are very severe so I would not advise any driver who has accumulated 12 penalty points and has been disqualified to take a chance and continue to drive.
We could progress by having a more proactive system in respect of notification and the existence of a unit within the gardaí which would pursue those who have been disqualified to ensure they have surrendered their licences.
50 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if he will review the decision to sell the majority State share in Aer Lingus in view of the strategic importance of the national airline to tourism and trade. [9518/06]
53 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Transport when he proposes to end the uncertainty and speculation surrounding the future of Aer Lingus; and if he will make a statement regarding his intentions in respect of this company. [9566/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 50 and 53 together.
As the Deputy will be aware, in its decision of 18 May 2005, the Government agreed to the State disposing of a majority shareholding in Aer Lingus and retaining a stake of at least 25% to protect strategic interests provided that the Minister for Finance and I are satisfied that this level of disposal is warranted on foot of the analysis prepared by the Departments' advisers for the transaction.
The decision to dispose of a majority shareholding in Aer Lingus was made following detailed and comprehensive consideration of the issue by me and my colleagues in Government. The Government agreed in its decision that the strategic development of the State airports and Aer Lingus was essential to underpin Ireland's competitiveness, industry and tourism. Furthermore, its consideration was based on an acknowledgement that the company had an immediate need for access to equity capital to enable it to compete effectively and to fund growth and that this investment could not, and should not, come from the Government. It is precisely because of the strategic importance to Ireland of a wide range of cost effective air services that a third party investment in the airline is being sought. The question of reviewing the Government's decision, therefore, does not arise. In accordance with the terms of Sustaining Progress, I had also engaged with the trade unions on the issue early in 2005 before the Government finalised its consideration of the matter.
Following a competitive tender process, UBS and AIB Capital Markets were appointed to provide financial advice and assistance to the Minister for Finance and me in respect of an Aer Lingus sale or investment transaction. William Fry and Freshfields Bruckhous Deringer were appointed as legal advisers for the assignment.
The first phase of the advisers' work was to recommend the most appropriate transaction mechanism and advise on the size and timing of a transaction. The advisers submitted their report before the end of last year and the key conclusions and recommendations are being considered by the Minister for Finance and me. No decision has yet been made on the basis on which the investment transaction will be implemented. I have instructed the company's management to engage intensively with the trade unions over the coming weeks to address issues relating to the company's pension schemes in advance of the planned investment transaction. It is my intention to revert to Government, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister for Finance, in the coming weeks.
The Minister did not answer the basic question. Why is he proposing to sell the State share in Aer Lingus? Aer Lingus is a very successful company. It is a profitable company which has served the interests of the country well in terms of tourism and trade. As taxpayers, we all own the company. There is no logical rationale for the Minister's proposal to sell the company. It recently replaced its short-haul fleet from its own resources. It has proposals to replace its long-haul fleet and expand that fleet over a number of years, and there are a number of options to fund the expansion. The Minister said that there is an immediate need for investment, but no one has claimed there is an immediate need for investment. There will be a need over the coming years to expand the long-haul fleet. We do not know how much the company will need. It certainly will not need it tomorrow and it will not need it in one lump sum. However, it will need investment.
The Minister also said that the Government should not and could not provide funding for this. Many people would argue that it should do so. If it makes sense for the private sector, it makes sense for the public sector to invest in a successful company. The statement that he could not provide funding is nonsense. Nothing prevents the Government from investing in Aer Lingus as a profitable company.
There are options for Aer Lingus in expanding its fleet. It can do so from its own resources because it would have no difficulty raising loans. It can enter into long-term leasing arrangements, which is what most airlines do. The State could provide the investment necessary or there could be a combination of all three. Why is the Minister pretending that there is an urgent need for a decision and that the money must be provided immediately? That is not the case. There is a strong likelihood that all of us as taxpayers will go from a position of owning a very successful company, which is valued at up to €1 billion, to probably having nothing. How can the Minister prevent Aer Lingus becoming Eircom mark II? What percentage of the State holding does the Minister intend disposing of this year and to what method of disposal is he referring?
I am taking this action for precisely the reasons the Deputy outlined. As I said on numerous occasions, I am seeking to position the airline for growth, increase the number of jobs——
The Minister should stop giving us this old waffle. The company is positioned for growth. He should justify what he is proposing.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to continue.
To position the company for growth, it is essential that substantial funding is available, not just in the short term but in the medium to long term. As the Deputy knows, the purchase or lease of aircraft, which has the same effect on a balance sheet, can take a number of years in lead-in time in terms of purchasing aircraft, planning new routes and getting new destinations. In fairness to Aer Lingus, it has been very successful in adding a number of new short-haul routes in recent years. All the international evidence——
On a point of order, in spite of what he said, the Minister accepts there is not an immediate need for investment.
I said that there is an immediate, medium and short-term need for investment in the company. The company is planning to invest approximately €2 billion in aircraft purchase in the medium term. It is examining many new routes into the United States, which will be available under the open skies policy. The competition for and on these routes will be great. The agreement I succeeded in getting from the Americans, and agreed by my European colleagues in the transition period from Shannon, will provide a good opportunity for a stepped-up approach from Aer Lingus to expand substantially on what will become a very competitive route on the North Atlantic.
This month, Aer Lingus will begin its new services into the Middle East. This is the first new major long-haul destination in that direction by the airline. Clearly there are further opportunities that Aer Lingus needs and must exploit to remain competitive and successful into the Far East, Australia and South Africa. This planning must take place now. The potential for purchasing aircraft in bulk can change substantially the cost to the airline. If the airline is now in a position to do a major deal with a big supplier based on its needs over the coming years, it will be in a position to do so because we are providing the resources.
I am not taking an ideological position on this issue. Everyone, including the trade unions, know that I take a very pragmatic approach to ensuring that Aer Lingus will survive. If Aer Lingus remains in its current construct, it will have no chance of survival. The evidence for this is that almost no airline remains in state ownership as we know it. All the international airlines in state ownership are either gone or are going down the tubes rapidly.
Ours is one of the most successful. It is a huge success.
It is a relative term. I acknowledge the huge effort of the staff, trade unions and management. They have been the most successful in turning around a national airline since 9/11, for which they must be congratulated. I want to secure that effort and ensure that Aer Lingus grows in terms of jobs, tourism, industry and the development of this country. The only way it can be achieved is by way of a substantial cash injection.
Why does the Minister not do that?
I will allow the Deputy in again if there is time.
I asked when does the Minister propose to end the uncertainty and speculation surrounding the future of Aer Lingus, to which he did not respond. Does he accept that Aer Lingus is not an airline in crisis? Does he accept it is a State asset, not a State liability and, if so, that selling off the airline does not make sense?
The only beneficiaries of the privatisation of the airline will be a small number of wealthy friends of the Government. The State needs an airline which is dedicated to the needs of our island economy. We need a cargo carrier of which there are very few left. It is vital to our island economy to have such a service. Taxpayers' money is being invested in other airlines around the world through the pension reserve fund, yet Aer Lingus is not getting the proper investment. Has the Minister a view on the whole concept of a State holding company as an alternative way forward for Aer Lingus? Has research been done in this regard? Perhaps this could be the way forward rather than selling off the airline to a few select friends and not going in the direction desired by the people. While we need a national airline that operates successfully, the Minister's proposals will mean that a coterie of friends of the Government will benefit from the privatisation of the airline and not the Irish people as a whole.
As the Deputy and his colleagues will be aware, almost every plan for Aer Lingus over the past decade and beyond have been crisis plans. This is the first time we had an opportunity to position the company for growth and development. The Deputy is correct because if Aer Lingus was in crisis, there would not be much point approaching anyone as nobody would be interested in it. We must take account of the fact that the company is currently in a very good state, the markets are in a good position and there is a strong management team in place.
Aer Lingus must compete in the aviation sector which is probably one of the most volatile business sectors worldwide. As it is a hugely cyclical market, I have no doubt that the ups and downs for the company will continue. In a downward trend, it would be impossible for this or any Government to invest in Aer Lingus. Therefore, we must give the company the commercial freedom and the mandate to develop and be flexible enough in a true commercial sense to compete in one of the most cut-throat commercial sectors of industry worldwide. All the international evidence suggests that the only way this can happen is by allowing a company to be free of the state and to be operable in a highly commercial environment in the most flexible and commercial way possible.
The Minister is operating from an ideological position. There is a deeply held view in his Department and in the Cabinet that the State has no business being in business and that it wants to off-load as many of the State's involvements in enterprise as possible. The Minister has still not provided any type of rationale for the proposed sale of Aer Lingus. Will he confirm that there is nothing preventing him under EU law from investing in Aer Lingus as it stands as a profitable company? Will he accept that the reason Aer Lingus has been successful is that it has been a State-owned company, that there has been a remarkable record in recent years of staff and management working together in the interests of the company and that there is no reason that cannot continue into the future?
Will the Minister explain how he will avoid the sale of Aer Lingus becoming "Eircom mark two" given that the adviser to the Government is the same? As taxpayers, we have a successful asset valued at €1 billion. Will the Minister also explain how we will avoid ending up with nothing and without control over our air services?
I do not accept the thesis the Deputy put forward. Others may have an ideological view, I do not. Based on all the credible evidence — there is as much as one can read — the future of Aer Lingus can only be secured in a highly volatile market if we position it to bring in investment from——
No adviser said that.
If we position it to bring in investment from the private sector——
Who said that?
I ask Deputy Shortall to allow the Minister to conclude.
That is the reality.
Who is saying that?
The Deputy seemed to suggest that even now the Government could invest. That would be challenged in Brussels immediately.
Not as a rational investor.
Deputy Shortall's colleagues have tabled questions.
Does Deputy Shortall want me to answer the question or does she want to ask and answer the question?
I ask the Minister to conclude.
The Minister is making points which are fundamentally untrue.
Unlike Deputy Shortall, I expect Deputy Olivia Mitchell and myself are almost on the same page. We are trying to position this airline for growth, development, the best interests of the staff, growth in jobs, tourism, customers who fly out of this country and for the economic development of this country. That is what the hard decisions are about. It would be easy to take other decisions and be irresponsible but I will not go down that road.
They are being served with the airline in State ownership and they will continue to be.
51 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Transport his views on whether it will be necessary within the near future to introduce demand management measures on the M50 as was suggested by An Bord Pleanála, Arup Consulting Engineers, the Dublin Transportation Office and the National Roads Authority at the oral hearing to examine the proposed widening and upgrade of the M50; the road tolling contracts which have been signed over the past year; the additional road tolling contracts awaiting his approval; when he expects such contracts to be agreed; and if he will not postpone any finalisation of such agreements pending agreement between the Government and the National Roads Authority on the nature of future tolling arrangements on the M50 motorway. [9520/06]
I understand from the National Roads Authority that the free flow toll arrangement to be put in place on the M50 on completion of phase one of the upgrade in 2008 will be a single point toll. I expect to receive specific proposals later this year from the NRA on these 2008 arrangements.
The planning permission granted for the M50 upgrade requires that a scheme of specific demand management measures for the motorway corridor be published no later than three years after the upgrade has been completed which is anticipated to be in 2010. For this reason, the barrier free tolling arrangements will need to be adaptable to meet the medium to long-term needs that arise and to satisfy the planning permission requirements in that regard. Comprehensive research and analysis will require to be undertaken by the NRA in the coming years to address the post-2010 situation and to submit proposals to the Minister for Transport at the appropriate time.
The statutory power to levy tolls on national roads, make toll by-laws and enter into toll agreements with private investors in respect of national roads is vested in the NRA under Part V of the Roads Act 1993, as amended by the Planning and Development Act 2000. Accordingly, individual PPP contracts are a matter for the NRA and I have no function in relation to the approval or signing of such contracts.
The current position in relation to toll road PPP projects is that three projects have been completed, the M50 second West Link bridge, the M1 Dundalk western bypass and the M4 Kilcock-Enfield-Kinnegad scheme. The N8 Fermoy bypass contract was signed in 2004 and its construction is ahead of schedule. No PPP contracts were signed in 2005. However, I understand from the NRA that a further three contracts are expected to be awarded in 2006, that is, the N25 Waterford city bypass, the N7 Limerick southern ring phase two and the N3 Clonee-Kells scheme. I am informed that the NRA does not envisage any delays in the awarding of these contracts, subject to legal developments on the N3 Clonee-Kells scheme.
At the oral hearing for the widening of the M50, the National Roads Authority, Arup Consulting Engineers, the Dublin Transportation Office and An Bord Pleanála said we would need to demand manage this road because it will not work. Mr. John Henry, the head of the Dublin Transportation Office, said in its submission that scheme management was needed earlier rather than later because the figures in the oral hearing were dramatic. They showed that as soon as it is opened in 2008, the volumes will double and the road will be grid locked. Does the Minister support the position of the National Roads Authority, Arup Consulting Engineers, the Dublin Transportation Office and An Bord Pleanála that we will need to demand manage that road sooner rather than later? Does that not require what was implied by the Minister, that is, a multiple point tolling system on the M50 operated on a variable basis — not to raise revenues but to cut down on congestion? Does he support that principle? Is that the scheme the NRA will come back to the Minister with this autumn?
Given that it would seem we will have to introduce such a demand management system on the M50 to make it work, why proceed with signing contracts for a tolling system on the N3, the Clonee-Kells motorway, which would effectively mean that motorists travelling from Cavan to Dublin daily — approximately 6,000 people commute on that route daily — would have to pay a toll at the Kells end of the new motorway, a toll at the Clonee end of it and a toll when they hit the M50? Surely this requirement for a toll management system on the M50 requires the Minister to review the entire tolling operation being put in place so that motorists are not fleeced and that we at least have a tolling system designed to get those roads working rather than raise money for private operators. Will he reconsider the application of tolls on the Kells-Clonee motorway given that almost every transport expert agrees we will have to toll the M50 to make it work?
I hope the Deputy supports Government investment in both roads and public transport. As the Deputy well knows, the funding for the 50% increase in capacity on the M50, which is significant, will come directly from the tolls collected. They will be reinvested immediately in that road system. I said that at the end of the year the NRA will come back to Government with a proposal for a move to barrier free tolling at the end of phase one of the upgrade, which will come into place in 2008. That will involve a single point barrier free tolling position on the M50.
I have been asked this question on a number of occasions and I made it clear when I launched Transport 21 that I could not countenance — nor do I believe could anybody else — introducing demand management or congestion charging in Dublin until all the public transport facilities a modern capital city requires are in place. I refer to metro north, metro west, the seven Luas extensions, the substantial investment in buses and so on. One cannot have congestion charging or a demand management system of the type about which the Deputy speaks without alternatives for the public to use. Currently there are insufficient public transport systems in place as an alternative to the use of the M50. After 2015 when all the public transport systems are in place, a review of how they are working can take place. I hope they will have the same effect as the Luas and take 50% of people out of cars. Metro north alone will take 41,000 car journeys per day out of the system. We will be able to go to Dublin Airport from the city in 17 minutes and to Swords in 26 minutes.
There is too much debate around the issue of dealing with the M50 or another project in isolation. These projects will only benefit each other when they are completed. That is what we are doing with massive investment by the taxpayers which could not have happened only for the policies of this Government in recent years.
It is clear the Taoiseach has got to the Minister in terms of not doing anything which will scare the horses before the next election. The Minister talked about 2015. If the Minister will not take the advice of the transport experts to put demand management on the M50, not the anti-roads people, but Arup engineers, the NRA, the Dublin Transportation Office, and the Bord Pleanála inspector — I could cite chapter and verse as to why they see an immediate need for demand management — what will he say to the motorists who will drive on the road from 2008 onwards, when it will in effect be a car park? The Minister says he will put everything off until 2015. How will he make that road work?
I am glad we had the opportunity to put the Green Party policy in place because that party now wants the M50 festooned with tolls, with no alternative public transport system in place. I reject that view.
I do not trust the Minister to deliver the road. I do not trust him to run a merry-go-round, let alone public transport.
It was suggested I recently changed my mind on this matter. I quoted what I said last year.
The Minister hid behind other people.
I made it quite clear——
The Minister made nothing clear.
I made it clear that taking a balanced approach to all road users and those using public transport, one cannot go down that road for a capital city the size of Dublin until public transport is organised.
The Minister is not being responsible.
That is the Fianna Fáil position and the position of the Government.
Put if off until never-never.
Despite what the Minister said on Friday evening, when he got it so wrong.
Just because Deputy Shortall's party leader decided to misquote me does not mean I must go down that road.
The Minister got it so wrong.
The Taoiseach told the Minister to say nothing, to put it off.
The political antennae were not working that night.
We know who the Minister for Transport is in this Government — it is the Taoiseach.
The line of the Labour Party these days especially is "I know he did not say it but I want to hear him deny it". That seems to be the mantra in terms of creating mischief in the public mind.
The Minister said it and his spokesperson said it last night.
52 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he has satisfied himself with the delay in the break-up of Aer Rianta; his views on whether this delay is hampering the development of the three State airports; if he will involve himself in the process to dispel the uncertainty with regard to the future financial position of these airports, particularly Cork and Shannon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9569/06]
All three airports showed record traffic last year with passenger numbers of 18.46 million at Dublin, 3.3 million at Shannon and 2.73 million at Cork. This represents growth of 8% at Dublin, of 38% at Shannon and close to 21% at Cork. The new boards for Shannon and Cork, in conjunction with the DAA, are bringing a new impetus to developing and growing their airports.
The State Airports Act 2004 provides for the establishment of the three State airports at Dublin, Shannon and Cork as fully independent and autonomous authorities under State ownership. The Act provides a framework to allow for an orderly approach to the distribution of the assets of Shannon and Cork Airports in conformity with the capital maintenance and other provisions of the companies Acts. New boards were appointed at all three airports in 2004. The boards of Cork and Shannon airports are now charged with making preparations to assume responsibility for the ownership and development of the airports. They are also empowered to undertake certain management and operational functions on an agreed basis with Dublin Airport Authority during the interim period.
Under the Act, before any assets can transfer to either the Shannon or Cork Airport authorities, the Minister for Finance and I must be satisfied as to the financial and operational readiness of the airport authorities. Accordingly, each authority is required to prepare a comprehensive business plan and obtain our approval for these plans before any assets can be transferred.
The three State airport authorities are continuing to work on the preparation of their business plans with the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, co-ordinating the process. In this context a range of issues needs to be carefully considered. These include the unsustainable cost base at Shannon Airport, the recent airport charges determination for Dublin Airport by the Commission for Aviation Regulation and the optimum mechanisms for the financing of the new terminal in Cork. These are complex issues that the airport authorities must consider carefully and as I have indicated previously, I have not imposed any artificial deadlines for the completion of this process. My Department will continue to liaise with the DAA on the business planning timetable taking account of the key issues I have mentioned.
At the appropriate time I look forward to the finalisation of the business planning process because of its importance to facilitating the development of dynamic, independent and financially sustainable State airports. The Government objective of airport restructuring must be achieved in a manner which underpins the financial sustainability of all three State airports.
Every time this issue arises, the Minister maintains it is a complex problem and that he will not impose deadlines. The Minister cannot continue indefinitely to stand back from the issue. He must get involved with the financial issue of Cork Airport and make good his promise to ensure it can incorporate debt-free. That promise was given and must be fulfilled. Cork Airport must be allowed to set up on its own without the debt — currently an unknown level of debt — hanging over it. It must also be made clear from the point of view of Dublin Airport.
The Minister consistently says he will not get involved and will stand back. That is not good enough. The stalling is causing major problems for Dublin and Cork airports. Neither can prepare any kind of realistic plan. Cork Airport does not know whether it will have to carry the debt of €160 million, which I now understand may be closer to €200 million. Neither does Dublin Airport know if it will have to carry the debt. Both airports are facing an open skies policy in the very near future where they will not compete with each other but with the largest airports in Europe. All the main airports in Europe will be in competition for the new long-haul business likely to emerge, particularly from the United States. Dublin and Cork airports must be in a position to meet that challenge of competition and to exploit the opportunities it will offer.
At the time of the passing of the Bill two years ago, a political promise was given, and a political solution must be found to ensure the promise is fulfilled, so that Cork Airport can be set up as a stand-alone company entirely debt-free with some chance of survival. The Minister says that under company law this cannot be done, otherwise there are no assets to distribute. A report from the board of the Great Southern Hotels said the hotels should be sold and the Minister seemed to accept that was possible. Surely Cork Airport would be entitled to some part of the proceeds of the hotel group sale, on distribution? Is that a possible solution? Has the Minister a solution? Will he stand back indefinitely, let time go by and hope we will all forget about it?
I am not for one minute being passive, which the Deputy knows. As I stated in my response, my objective — the only one any government can have — is to ensure the three State airports are placed on a financially sound footing.
When?
I am not sure if Deputy Mitchell is speaking for a group of Cork Deputies or if she is putting forward the Fine Gael party position when she suggests all of the debt from Cork Airport should be loaded on to the passengers at Dublin Airport.
That is not my solution.
That seems to be the Fine Gael position.
There are assets to distribute. The Minister must fulfil his promise. His party gave a commitment. Will he fulfil it?
I am in exactly the same space. I suggested to Deputies Shortall and Mitchell on a previous occasion that they read precisely what was said by the former Minister for Transport in this House when he introduced the State Airports Act in 2004. One of the key points he made was that to advance the rapid independence of Cork Airport, a leasing arrangement on at least some of the debt would have to be agreed with Dublin Airport. I did not say that — I am not quoting myself. That has been the position for several years.
If Cork Airport wants to wait, that is outside any political consideration, irrespective of who stands in my position. If that airport wants to be entirely debt-free, under the companies Acts, where the distributed reserves must be sufficient at Dublin Airport to distribute the Cork debt — which as I publicly stated will probably involve €200 million — that will take time to achieve. We should also bear in mind that Dublin Airport Authority is now embarking on an investment programme of at least €1.3 billion for Dublin Airport, which is essential for the development of this country. I do not know where the Deputies think the assets will come from to cater for all that, and for the borrowings——
The Minister should ask the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan.
——-and to separate out Cork Airport, sort out Shannon Airport, the pension funds and other issues.
Where were those funds going to come from when the Minister made his promise?
It is not a simple issue.
The Minister comes here every week saying the issue is complex and he will not set deadlines.
Clear as mud.
There is nobody who would like more than I to see the three airports agreeing the way forward.
Deputy Cullen is the Minister for Transport.
We are well over time and must move on.
The position being adopted by the Deputies is that an entirely new Cork Airport should be debt-free and that its debt should be absorbed by the Dublin Airport Authority, meaning that the passengers using the capital city must pay for Cork Airport. The Commissioner for Aviation Regulation will not allow the charging regime at Dublin Airport to operate in a way——
Is the Minister suggesting that as a solution? I certainly am not.
Not for one minute.
There are assets to be distributed and the Minister will not make up his mind how they can be distributed. He will not make a decision about anything.
Would Fine Gael and the Labour party for once be a bit honest——
Deputy Cullen is the Minister for Transport. He is the one who says it is a complex problem, that he will not become involved, that he will not set deadlines, that he must stand back. The Minister should make a decision.
That bleating will not achieve anything for the benefit of Cork Airport or anywhere else. I wish this situation could be resolved.
The Minister is in charge.
We both know the assets available to the Dublin Airport Authority are not sufficient to leave all these elements debt-free.
I do not know that.
That is a statement of fact.
Did the former Minister, Deputy Séamus Brennan, not know that?
We told him.
He said that himself in the Dáil during the debate on Second Stage.
What happened to the deadline of April 2005?
Question No. 53 taken with QuestionNo. 50.
