Olivia Mitchell
Ceist:75 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport the way he will ensure that there is an adequate number of buses in the greater Dublin area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6806/07]
Priority Questions.
Public Transport.
Transport 21 provides for a programme of investment to fund increased radial and orbital bus services in the Dublin area. The target is to achieve in the period up to 2015 a 60% increase in passenger carrying capacity through new and replacement bus acquisition. Dublin Bus is bringing into service the 100 additional buses for which Exchequer funding of €30 million was approved in September last. This will bring the total Dublin Bus fleet to 1,182 buses, up from approximately 900 in 1997.
The capacity of the Dublin Bus fleet, taking into account the 100 additional buses recently purchased, is now more than 106,000 passengers. This is an increase of more than 45% on the 2000 capacity. This increase reflects the fact that many of the replacement buses purchased over this period were of higher capacity than the smaller, single decker buses being replaced. Over the same period Dublin Bus passenger numbers grew from 137 million to 146 million per annum, an increase of 7%.
The need for additional buses over and above the 100 being brought into service will be considered in the legislation being prepared to replace the Road Transport Act 1932. The proposed legislation will, inter alia, address the precise arrangements for the award of franchises to private operators in the Dublin market in line with my announcement of September last.
I realise this was not an original question. However, I hoped for an original answer. The Minister knows as well as I that traffic conditions in Dublin deteriorate daily and will continue to do so in the short to medium term with the building of various transport projects such as metro and Luas, the intensification of work on the M50 and growth in the economy and population. The general growth in and desire for mobility means transport conditions can only deteriorate.
The truth of the matter is that we have had 100 extra buses in the past few months, not all of which are in operation. This means that in the past five years we had an average of 20 extra buses per year. This does not begin to deal with existing demand, never mind the growth we saw in the past ten years. The Minister referred to radial routes. Bus lanes are underutilised by buses. The Minister suggests that because we have 100 more buses, the service will somehow improve. It disimproves daily and the evidence is before our eyes.
The Minister promised the DTA would be established, liberalisation of the bus market and that the private sector would be invited to provide additional buses. We were promised this before this term started. We are now promised it will happen before the end of the Dáil term. Will it happen? Is it true the Taoiseach is firmly set against it and has decided it will not happen because it would step on too many toes? If it is to happen, will the Minister tell us when, even in an interim form? I understand the Taoiseach thinks it is in operation. Will the Minister clarify when it will come into operation, when the legislation will be published and passed and when buses will begin to be put on the streets of Dublin? It is the only real measure that can be taken in the short term.
I do not agree that traffic conditions are worsening on a daily basis. As Deputy Mitchell knows, since the port tunnel opened, traffic in and around the centre of Dublin and on the north side of the city has improved. I was pleased to hear from Dublin Bus that the speed ratio on its routes from the north side to the centre of the city had increased.
Not in the suburbs.
It is providing a much better service for the public.
Not in Dublin Port where the throughput is down by 20% since Monday.
The naysayers and doomsayers stated the M50 would close down when the port tunnel opened. Equally, this has proven not to be the case. I accept there are transport issues which must be dealt with and I am happy to state we are dealing with them. I saw the Dublin Bus plans for the new buses to be provided which are being maximised on green routes from suburbs to the centre of Dublin. The QBCs will carry many more buses. As the Deputy knows, we want to expand the number of QBCs.
Another 160 buses were provided for Bus Éireann, many of which will operate in the greater Dublin area outside the Dublin suburbs and bring many more passengers from towns to the centre of Dublin. The capacity of the bus fleet in Dublin has increased by 45%. I am glad Dublin Bus maximised its use and is now busily putting in place the route selection process for the new and additional buses.
I agree with the Deputy. I am anxious to have more buses in the Dublin bus market. As the Deputy knows, I have substantial resources available under Transport 21. We intend to increase bus capacity by more than 60%. The bus will remain the workhorse in the public transport system, as it is in almost every other country. This measure will be joined by seven Luas projects, metro north, metro west and the interconnector for all DART services. In the past year all DART services were expanded to eight-car services, which has meant a dramatic improvement in capacity on DART services.
It is my intention to roll out more buses with both the public and private sectors and continue to grow the bus market in the Dublin area. We began that process with 100 buses and 160 have gone to Bus Éireann, many of which will be used in the surrounding towns which now form part of the greater Dublin area on commuter runs to the city centre.
It is fantasy to think Dublin Bus is busy allocating the 20 buses a year it received. It would not take long.
Does the Deputy have a question for the Minister?
The Minister failed completely to answer my question on the Dublin transport authority.
I apologise.
When will it be established to liberalise the bus market? Is it true the Taoiseach is dead set against it? Who will win in this case? Will the authority be established? Will we have a liberalised bus market?
I am happy to answer the question. I apologise; I should have answered it. The legislation is ready and I intend to publish it within the coming weeks. The new chairman designate has been appointed. He was also made chairman of the RPA which is part of the transition process in establishing the Dublin transportation authority.
I do not know where the Deputy Mitchell gets the idea that the Taoiseach is against it. He has been very supportive of the need for the authority, as has the Government. It will be an essential element as we move towards the medium to longer term development of all infrastructure and its management in Dublin in the years and decades ahead. It will be delivered——
When will it start providing franchises for private sector bus services?
I will deal with this matter later when I reply to another parliamentary question dealing with the Road Transport Act which is being reformed. The Dublin transport authority will also have overall responsibility for traffic management in Dublin.
When will we have a liberalised bus market? It will not happen.
That is not true and the Deputy knows it.
The Minister is at it eight years.
Rail Services.
Róisín Shortall
Ceist:76 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport his views on the continuing reduction in the use of rail freight and the corresponding increase in road freight here; the Government policy in respect of rail freight; the consideration which he has given to the introduction of an incentive scheme to encourage the greater use of rail; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6884/07]
Iarnród Éireann continues to pursue a policy of growing its rail freight business where opportunities present, such as in bulk and trainload traffic. The company has also sought to return the rail freight business to profitability. To help achieve this turnaround, Iarnród Éireann withdrew from loss-making groupage, palletised and single container rail transport resulting in the deficit on rail freight being reduced by 50% in the past three years.
Since 1999, Iarnród Éireann has invested over €1.6 billion in rebuilding the railways, with Government and EU support for the investment programme. This has delivered improvements in new trains, upgraded infrastructure and customer facilities. Although such investment has primarily focused on improving passenger services, where the need is greater and the demand strongest, the investment in improving rail infrastructure also has a direct beneficial impact on freight activities.
Iarnród Éireann has made progress in growing the rail freight business in areas where it holds a competitive advantage over road haulage, such as large volumes or trainloads over long distances. For example, Iarnród Éireann has reintroduced the trainload pulpwood business by modifying surplus wagons and providing additional services for Coillte between the west and the south east.
It has altered rail schedules and is currently providing three additional trains per week for Tara mines, with a potential to carry an extra 85,000 tonnes of lead and zinc between Navan and Dublin Port per annum. It has modified surplus platform wagons to provide a trainload service for containers between Ballina and Waterford Port.
Iarnród Éireann has undertaken extensive engagement with industry and transporters around the country to try to identify long-term sustainable business opportunities. It has had genuine difficulty in identifying opportunities that offer reasonable volumes of business on a regular basis. It is not feasible to run trains with one or two containers and Iarnród Éireann has not identified sufficient business, with the exception of the Ballina to Waterford stream, to group a number of separate activities together to form a viable load.
Most industry is focused on "just in time" transport and as our road network continues to expand and improve across the country, the role of rail freight becomes more problematic because all rail journeys involve road movements at each end of the logistics chain. Furthermore, in Ireland, distances are short. The experience across Europe is no different. Rail freight activities are most economic where distances are long, where there are large volumes to be transported and where the freight to be carried is not time-sensitive.
As part of the engagement with industry, Iarnród Éireann works closely with port authorities, such as in Dublin relating to transport of lead and zinc and Waterford relating to container traffic, to increase rail-based freight. The Government's ports policy statement recognises the need for the integration of ports as a fundamental link in the supply chain with other transport modes, including rail.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In the absence of opportunities or proposals for viable long-term rail freight business, the development and use of fiscal incentives has not been considered.
As regards a role for new market entrants to the rail freight business, I have introduced the European Communities (Access to Railway Infrastructure) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, SI 780 of 2005, implementing EU Directive 2004/51, on the development of the Community's railways. These regulations open the freight market to competition from both domestic and foreign operators from 1 January 2006 in the case of international freight, and from 1 January 2007 in the case of domestic freight operations. To date, no serious representations have been made to my Department for entry to the market.
I am open to any views on how we can expand rail freight but the business environment is such that real opportunities have not been presented to me. The market for rail freight is now fully liberalised and if there are promoters who have identified opportunities I would welcome expressions of interest.
The Minister began his reply by stating that Iarnód Éireann continues to grow the rail freight business, which is patently untrue. The figures over the past few years indicate a 28% decline in rail freight in 2005, with a 47% decline last year. The business has virtually disappeared, with approximately 0.5% of freight now carried by rail. The Minister should stop codding himself and us. Nothing has happened to support rail freight or encourage its greater usage in the past few years. The opposite has been the case, with a dramatic decline becoming evident.
I asked what Government policy on rail freight is and if the Minister has any proposals for incentivising rail freight. Looking at the rest of Europe, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland have incentive schemes to encourage the use of rail freight.
The Minister is operating on the basis that Iarnród Éireann has a very limited budget, with its emphasis rightly being on passenger services. It does not have the resources to try to expand the rail freight business. This does not stack up. I listed the countries which have incentive schemes but does the Minister have any proposals for an incentive scheme to encourage a switch from road to rail?
To correct the Deputy, I stated that Iarnród Éireann continues to pursue a policy of growing its rail freight business where opportunities present, such as in bulk and trainload traffic.
It is in serious decline.
It is interesting for the Labour Party to adopt a position where it suggests the taxpayer should fund highly profitable commercial sector companies to move their goods and services around the country. This is an extraordinary position. The taxpayer has enough to fund in this country.
The taxpayer is already paying for the carbon fund.
There is a significant hidden cost.
The Minister should stop making cheap political points.
It is not a cheap point. The Deputy is requesting that the taxpayer fund, through subsidy, highly profitable and commercially successful companies——
The Government does that already with the roads.
——in this country in doing their business. That is not a position to which I subscribe. We all have demands on the Exchequer and we need funding for health, education, the social services and all these areas.
What about the environment?
When it comes to it, that is further down the line.
From 1 January this year, all domestic freight operations in this country have become an open market which has been fully deregulated. To date, no serious representations have been made to my Department to enter into the market. I have requested the private sector, if it so wishes, to come into the market.
I would not as long as the Minister is still there.
Some private sector companies have considered the move but the big difficulty in Ireland is that distances are very short and end-to-end points do not have huge business at either end. This is the reality here and in Europe. Freight movements on trains are more successful in Europe where they are over long distances.
In fairness to Iarnród Éireann, Norfolkline, a major international shipping company, put a proposal to it for the movement of freight across this country. It came on board with a joint venture and worked it through. Unfortunately, it failed completely because of the private sector costs, including trying to get the goods to the station. They had to hire trucks to get the goods there. There was also the cost of putting goods on and off trains, which meant the operation was not viable.
The private sector, which is very experienced in shipping and operating rail systems in Europe, came to the conclusion that, given the configuration in Ireland, it was not viable because of the cost base of moving much freight by rail. It was significantly different to do so by road. That is the reality of using rail freight in this country.
Iarnród Éireann has maximised its benefit in some specialised bulk cargoes, which it is growing, and some specific long loads of container traffic.
It is very disingenuous of the Minister to try to score cheap political points. He knows perfectly well that the road system is highly subsidised by the taxpayer. He should also know that the cost to the taxpayer of road freight is very high. If we lose the remaining tiny proportion of freight currently travelling by rail, it will cost the taxpayer some €36 million a year. That has been fully costed and refers to wear and tear on the roads, not to mind the increased likelihood of accidents or the environmental impacts of having more HGVs travelling through residential areas.
Almost every other country in Europe subsidises the operation of rail freight. I asked the Minister if he had a policy and he clearly has none. He has spoken about opening up the market but there was no interest. There is no interest because it does not stack up unless all the costs are included. We can look at internal costs but the Minister and his Government should also take into account external costs.
Will the Minister be proactive in this area and end the hands-off approach? We have a serious problem with the amount of freight carried on our roads and we are paying a heavy cost for it.
We must move to the next question as the time for this one has expired.
It would be good to believe that the Minister has thought about this issue, has a policy on it and is prepared to take a proactive approach.
Bulk cement is ideal for carriage by rail freight. The service operating from Drogheda to Cork is nonetheless in decline in recent years.
We must move to Question No. 77.
I would like to answer this question.
Will the Minister take any action to restore the business and make it viable, or to ensure there will be savings for the taxpayer?
I have a policy that is fundamentally different from that of the Labour Party. In Government, the Fianna Fáil Party will not subsidise highly profitable companies to move their goods and services around the country.
Why is the Minister trying to deceive people on this matter?
That is the enunciated position.
The Minister knows the cost for the taxpayer is much higher for road freight. The Minister should stop trying to mislead people.
The Chair is now calling Question No. 77.
If the Deputy is going to enunciate a position, she should at least have the courage to stand over what is being said.
She is.
Does the Minister not understand the costs involved in road freight?
Of course I understand the costs involved.
He should stop making cheap points then.
The Minister only understands it because he has been told by CIE.
The Labour Party seems to be taking a view that it can force commercially successful companies in this country to use rail freight, which is not viable, as opposed to road freight. To get them to do so, they would use taxpayer's money. It would be an appalling waste of money and only the Labour Party could develop such a skewed view on how to use taxpayers' money.
We are discussing incentivising them which would result in savings to the taxpayer and the environment. If the Minister does not understand this, he should not be in his position.
I understand, which is the difference between the Deputy and me.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Eamon Ryan
Ceist:77 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Transport the measure he will take to reduce the increasing greenhouse gas emissions for the transport sector here; and his views on whether the current rate of 8% annual increase in emissions will make it difficult for Ireland to comply with the stated European Union target of at least a 20% cut in emissions from 1990 base levels by 2020. [6804/07]
I am implementing a number of policies and measures that will deliver a sustainable transport system, including the provision of supply-side infrastructure and demand-side management measures to reduce congestion and support a modal shift from private to public transport. This will allow the economy to maintain economic competitiveness by removing infrastructural bottlenecks, while increasing social cohesion and reducing environmental impacts.
Transport 21, a €34 billion capital investment framework for the period 2006-15, will promote the modal shift from private cars to public transport through the significant rebalancing of investment in favour of the latter. A total of €18.5 billion will be invested in the national roads programme, while €15.8 billion will be provided for public transport projects and regional airports. Funding for a range of sustainable transport initiatives is also provided for under Transport 21, including the dissemination of information on eco-driving and travel blending, as well as support for alternative fuels and technologies for public transport, haulage and taxi fleets.
The completion of projects identified in Transport 21 will, for example, see public transport capacity in the greater Dublin area almost double by 2016. Modelling of the impacts of Transport 21 in that area with the complementary implementation of demand-side management measures shows a reduction of almost 20% in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions during rush hour in 2016 compared to a situation without Transport 21.
I have requested my Department to draft a sustainable transport action plan for consultation this year. This will support the Government's revised climate change strategy and energy White Paper due to be published in the coming weeks. The plan will set out a range of measures to assist the transport sector's progress along a more sustainable path and make a critical contribution to reducing emissions in line with Ireland's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol in the period 2008-12 and beyond.
I am working to achieve emissions reductions in the public transport fleet. I have requested CIE to move to using a 5% bio-diesel blend in its current vehicles and to plan for a 30% blend in new vehicles. My Department is also supporting a pilot project in conjunction with the German-Irish Chamber of Industry and Commerce to promote the use of 100% pure plant oil, PPO, in heavy goods vehicles and buses. These measures, together with excise relief and obligatory fuel blending by fuel suppliers in 2009, will contribute to achieving the indicative biofuels target of 5.75% of all transport fuels by 2010 as set out in the biofuels directive.
In addition, technological advances within the automotive industry will be important in bringing more fuel efficient vehicles to market. Ireland supports the current proposals to achieve a reduction of average emissions in new passenger cars to 130 grams per kilometre by 2012. Tackling transport emissions will remain a key priority of mine. I will continue to promote measures to ensure the transport sector makes its contribution to reducing national greenhouse gas emissions.
That is dishonest nonsense.
I would not expect the Deputy to say anything else.
The Minister is not following a transport policy that will lead to a reduction in emissions. Instead, the State agency Sustainable Energy Ireland has set out detailed research on what is happening and where we are going. It predicts that by 2020 transport emissions will have increased by 46% on top of the 156% increase in the past 15 years. The Minister's record is one of utter failure in the past and preparing for failure in the future.
The debate on climate change has a moral dimension in that our emissions are killing people on the other side of the planet. Why is the Government failing in its basic moral duty by planning to increase emissions to such an extent that they will kill people? For this reason, the policy is dishonest. It is more than nonsense because "nonsense" is the wrong word.
The Minister is failing in every respect. Bus passenger numbers in this city are decreasing. As we heard on the last question, the Minister is willing to shut down the rail freight system, despite freight being one of the fastest growing sectors. In today's newspaper the Minister is reported as saying he is not happy with the number of roads we have and that he wants more such as an eastern bypass and an outer orbital ringroad around Dublin.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I cannot understand how the Minister can propose such plans after the Taoiseach stated this morning that we would meet our European commitment of ensuring a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020.
Of course, we will.
It is patent nonsense and dishonesty. It is Fianna Fáil not telling the people the truth. How will the Government meet the reduction target of 20% below 1990 levels, 45% below current levels, when emissions will increase by another 45% under the Minister's stewardship? How can he combine those figures and give me an honest answer?
The Green Party finds it difficult to cope with a thriving economy, full employment and all that has happened in Ireland in recent years.
None of which would have happened without the environment.
According to the Green Party's recent pronouncements, it wants to cancel all road and motorway programmes and does not want the orbital route around Dublin or the eastern bypass.
We want a Luas system in Galway and Cork.
The Green Party has consistently opposed the planning of almost every major piece of infrastructure. In the context of the country's development, I do not adhere to the backward-looking position taken by the Green Party. As a former Minister for the Environment and Local Government and as the Minister for Transport, I adhere to a balance between the environment and the economy. I told the House with confidence that we would achieve our targets by 2010 under the EU biofuels directive. We have set out to achieve our targets and many public companies and the private sector support us.
The Deputy has not mentioned our considerable investment in public transport. Almost half of the €34 billion will be invested in light rail, metro and heavy rail systems. In the context of the electrification extension of the DART system, the construction of the interconnector will make a significant contribution to the reduction of emissions, which the Deputy knows and chooses to ignore. This will be followed by expanding the rail network, restoring the western rail corridor, providing new commuter routes to Cork and Galway and examining extensive feasibility studies for Limerick and other cities. While the Deputy discusses these matters without contributing anything positive in terms of maintaining a balanced economy and competitiveness——
The Government wasted ten years doing none of that.
——we will take care of them, but we will not do so at the expense of undermining Ireland's position vis-à-vis the European and world economies. We will balance the serious environmental agenda, to which my colleagues in government and I subscribe, in a way that sustains Ireland’s competitiveness in the global economy.
I want a simple answer to my next questions. Does the Minister believe we will be able to meet our European target of reducing emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and how does he equate this with the State's predictions that our emissions will be 45% greater by 2020? I cannot believe there is still a Minister who is of the view that there is a choice between the economic and environmental balances.
The whole world believes it.
The economy is a subset of the environment, not vice versa. If we do not have a planet, there will be no economy. That is the scale of the challenge in the climate change issue. Even if one considers economics alone, the Minister’s solution of significant growth in transport emissions will cost the Irish people considerably more because the rest of the world’s population will not look on and say, “In fairness to the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, Ireland must look after its economy”. The world will charge us for the excess emissions caused by the Minister which will cost us as taxpayers dearly.
The Deputy knows that most countries are reducing their emissions by building nuclear power stations, but that would not sit well with the Green Party which wants it every way.
Will the Government meet the reduction target?
Of course, we will.
Some 20% below 1990 levels.
Order, please.
Shouting at me will not make the answer easier to understand.
The Government only has a couple of months left to meet the targets set.
The answer is straightforward — we will meet our targets. We are committed to doing so.
How?
We will not devastate the economy and create mass unemployment to reach our targets, which is all that the Green Party offers. The Deputy cannot sustain his position of not building infrastructure to maintain competitiveness and jobs, retain foreign direct investment and maintain our position in Europe and the global economy and balance it as we do.
I attended the Environment Ministers' Transport Council and dealt with the environmental initiatives, to which I subscribe. We were a leading party in that respect and will continue to be so, but we will not be caught on the wrong side by simple rhetoric because rhetoric has never achieved anything.
I would invest in public transport. Luas lines will provide for the future, not the Minister's motorways which are clogged up.
I appreciate one may have the luxury in Opposition of being narrowly focused and not care about all the other issues and that the Deputy can pick one very narrow point, which is fair enough. I do not propose to do that. It is irresponsible politics to do so.
Transport Infrastructure.
Olivia Mitchell
Ceist:78 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he is confident that the maximum return will be secured from investment in transport infrastructure over the coming years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6807/07]
Transport 21 provides unprecedented capital investment for the development of Ireland's transport system over the period to 2015. This investment will transform both the national road and public transport networks.
It will deliver faster, safer and more reliable journeys on our national road network. It will lead to a doubling of public transport capacity in the greater Dublin area. It will result in increased service frequency and reliability on our rail network. It will deliver better public transport services in our regions.
The investment programme being funded by Transport 21 is based on an extensive and robust body of research and policy work, including the strategic rail review, the national roads needs study, the DTO's A Platform for Change and a number of regional land and transportation studies. It is supported by the technical and economic evaluations in those reports. There are appraisal and monitoring structures in place that will ensure the maximum return will be derived from the investment involved. All projects contained in Transport 21 have been or will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the guidelines for appraisal and management of capital expenditure proposals and the value for money guidelines issued by the Department of Finance. These comprehensive guidelines require the appraisal of the project at various stages from approval in principle to post project review. My Department and the State agencies responsible for implementing Transport 21 projects will, of course, comply fully with the guidelines.
In addition, I have established a monitoring group, comprising representatives of a number of Departments, to oversee progress on Transport 21. The group will satisfy itself that proper procedures are being followed in the appraisal, management and post project review of projects. In this regard, a tender process is nearing completion to engage auditors to provide independent assessments of the appraisals carried out on a selected number of projects. Audits will also be carried out on the physical and financial progress of selected projects under consideration.
I accept what the Minister is saying as regards unprecedented investment. That is not in question. I am concerned as to whether we are getting value for money for this unprecedented investment. There has never been a shortage of inputs in recent years. The question is whether we are getting the output we should be getting. Given the scale of promised investment and the returns on existing investment, one really has to ask this question. The port tunnel has cost the best part of €1 billion, for example, and the volume of traffic is between 6,000 and 8,000 vehicles a day while its capacity must be close to 150,000 per day. It will never grow very much beyond that level. The idea is not to pour traffic into the city and certainly not much more can be diverted onto the M50, so who precisely will use the tunnel? There are no buses in it, and of course there are none to put in it, even if someone was directing the usage of this tunnel. Nobody is co-ordinating these matters, or ensuring the tunnel is used. Earlier we spoke about rail freight and indeed already €1.5 billion has been put into the rail network. It is lying idle most of each day.
The Minister gave Deputy Shortall an example to the effect the private sector had undercut Iarnród Éireann. The reality is that the company's road haulage division undercut Iarnród Éireann and that is how it lost that contract. We were promised that the Phoenix Park tunnel, one of the best kept secrets, would be opened to bring traffic from Heuston to Connolly Station and perhaps relieve some of the congestion on the quays when the metro work starts. Now that is being reneged on because it might interfere with the interconnector project. Bus lanes are being built in jig-time. Some of them are empty, without even one bus to be seen. The school bus fleet is another area where there is enormous potential for increased output. There is no co-ordination, co-operation or integration of services. The result is that the synergies that should be available if someone was driving all these projects and ensuring they gave the best value for money, are just not happening in Dublin. When are we going to have the Dublin transportation authority that could drive these projects? Does the Minister accept we are getting less than optimal return as a result of not having such a body?
I certainly do not. I agree that in the early days of the investment programme, it was quite clear the construction sector and the systems that were in place were not geared to take the enormous volume of investment the State wanted to make. There were problems in the early days in that regard, no doubt. However, we are all very heartened by experience in the last few years, Ireland having developed the most formidable construction sector of any country across Europe. Projects are all being delivered on budget and quite substantially ahead of schedule. It is time we stopped knocking the agencies involved which comprise some very good people whom I have met in recent years and who are doing a fantastic job at all levels. No one has the ideal panacea. The solutions cannot be delivered overnight, but quite clearly I do not agree with the Deputy that this is not an integrated approach to the development of transport, both in Dublin and around the country. A formidable, integrated transport solution is being presented. Every month, almost, the integration is seen to be coming together for Dublin. We see the completion of the Naas dual carriageway upgrade to three lanes in either direction, as well as the opening of the largest urban infrastructure tunnel ever built in Europe, the port tunnel, working very successfully. Yes, we need the completion of the M50 upgrade which will increase capacity by 50%, and freeflow tolling. The traffic coherence to be brought about when all those projects have been completed will work extremely well. We are well advanced in our planning on metro north and as regards the Luas network. The first new railway station, which only started last year, will be opened in Dublin next month, in the docklands. It only physically started last year, so great credit is due to Iarnród Éireann for delivering a new railway station on that basis.
The Minister is not answering the question I asked, which——
I am answering all the questions the Deputy went on about.
The Minister is in possession.
—— is about getting value for money for the investment that is being made. I am talking about the usage of the networks that have been provided. Is there value for money for bus lanes that have no buses?
Order, please. The Minister has the floor.
Can the Minister honestly stand over that and what agency can blame him, since he is the only person to be blamed?
That is fine and there is a big church in that group, but that does not bother me. The fact is we are delivering and this is visible every day not just in Dublin, but across the country. It is very interesting that public support from 2006 is fantastic for the developments in transport and the visible transformation of almost the country's entire landscape, including what is being done for communities through bypasses and returning economic and social quality of life to different areas on a weekly basis. It is something this Government is committed to completing. That is why I am the only Minister for Transport in Europe today who got a €34 billion package, a ten year framework, who put in place a development plan that is clearly cohesive and got the financial resources to deliver the solutions.
I have heard Members of the House talk about places in Europe, and Vancouver in Canada and I have spoken to people there and seen them all. There is a very simple answer to this. We are not backward in delivering in this country. That is a simple statement of fact. We should be proud of what many Irish men and women are doing as regards delivering infrastructure.
The Minister is hallucinating.
We should be proud of it. I know Fine Gael is not, but that is another story. It was against Luas, and rubbished it. It was against the port tunnel even though it has opened.
The Minister is definitely hallucinating.
Now it is not functioning the way Fine Gael wanted. I am not hallucinating——
I use Luas daily and I fought for it since 1987, so the Minister is hallucinating.
What gives me encouragement is the standing Ireland has, which is spoken of widely, among international forums, as regards what we are doing in this country. I am proud of that, although the Deputy may not be.
The Minister should consider the amount of money he is spending, without admitting what the output will be.
I have never pretended that every problem has been solved, but I can certainly say that the solutions, investment and construction are well underway.
The Minister is deluding himself.
What?
The Minister is deluding himself.
Industrial Relations.
Seán Crowe
Ceist:79 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Transport given that the State is one of the major shareholders in Aer Lingus, his views on the recent industrial relations impasse at the airline and the possibility of an upcoming strike; if he has had discussions on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6869/07]
Ireland's strategic interests in aviation are best served by the provision of regular, safe, cost-effective and competitive air services linking the country with key business and tourism markets around the world.
The Government's main objective in selling a majority of its shareholding in Aer Lingus last year was to provide the company with access to new equity to enable it to compete effectively and to grow its business on short-haul and long-haul routes. As a result of the proceeds generated by the IPO, Aer Lingus now has a unique opportunity to fulfil its potential and to contribute in a positive way to the country's economic development, in line with the Government's strategic objectives.
The conduct of industrial relations is a matter for the company and the State's shareholding does not confer on me a direct role in this matter. As Minister for Transport, I would be concerned that any disruption of services arising from industrial action would inconvenience the travelling public and could also have a negative impact on the economy.
Accordingly, I hope the company and unions will ensure that industrial action, as outlined, is avoided and I encourage them to ensure it is. It is understood that efforts are being made by management to resolve the issues in discussions with the unions with the assistance of the industrial relations services of the State.
I suppose it is my turn now to be attacked by the Minister; he is in good form today.
I am conscious that the State has a role in regard to the company as it still has a substantial shareholding in it. The State agreed with all the parties involved on the way forward for the privatisation of the company four months ago and it did so in the full knowledge of how matters would proceed. Part of the agreement reached at that time was that if any changes were to be made, there would be consultation and agreement on them, but clearly that has not happened.
The unions and workers involved are talking in terms of the normal existing labour relations mechanisms. They have made four offers at this stage to go down the path of talks with the Labour Relations Commission but management has refused to do that. Does the Minister consider he has a role in calling on the management to use the normal labour relations mechanisms? Does he agree there is a responsibility on the State to become involved, as the State has an interest in this company? However, it is also in the interests of the State that a dispute is avoided by the parties involved using the labour relations mechanisms in place.
I ask the Minister to make a statement urging the parties involved to do down that road. It has been suggested by the unions. The Government, the Minister and the Taoiseach were involved in the negotiations leading up to the privatisation of the company and, therefore, they have responsibility in this matter given that part of that agreement provided that in the event of proposed changes in work practices and so on, they would be made on the basis of consultation and agreement. It is clear that the management has not engaged in consultation or sought agreement on them. It seems to be going ahead with the proposed changes. It went ahead with the introduction of inferior contracts for new workers and it is now talking of going ahead on 1 March with the introduction of inferior contracts for existing workers.
I largely agree with much of what the Deputy said. As he is well aware, the Government, the Taoiseach and I firmly believe in the use of industrial relations machinery and that it should always be used to deal with disputes. I always believe that consultation and discussion are far preferable to people not talking to each other. I understand considerable discussion took place between management and unions in the company. I urge that whatever mechanisms are available within the industrial relations machinery should be used.
There is no doubt that the staff and management in Aer Lingus have done a fantastic job compared to other airlines, some of which in terms of international brand names are no longer with us. They went to the wall because they were not able to compete. In terms of traditional State owned air carriers, the company has brought Aer Lingus to the top in terms of its achievement, but there is enormous pressure on the company. Competition is growing daily at Dublin Airport. There is great expansion on the Middle Eastern routes and many new formidable competitors are competing with Aer Lingus. As the Deputy will be aware, we signed a new bilateral agreement with Singapore, which will result in more competition on routes to that region. We are engaged in discussions with China and Thailand. We hope to see the open skies initiative come to fruition, certainly from an Irish perspective. Therefore, Aer Lingus must be very lean, fit and competitive. The best way to achieve that is for all who work in the company to have the focused goal of achieving that end and to not alone maintain the company's position but to see it grow substantially. There is no doubt there is a huge opportunity for it to do so. It has been doing that successfully in the European sphere of operations in recent years. There is a huge opportunity for the company to expand its flights to the Middle East, South Africa, the Far East and potentially to Australia. Therefore, I agree with the Deputy's point in that respect.
I urge all involved on both sides to use the industrial relations machinery available to them. Any industrial action would be potentially damaging for the company, its staff, management and everybody involved. We need to avoid that course of action. The best way to do that is for both sides to get together with the use of industrial relations machinery available to work with them to achieve a positive outcome.
Is there any mechanism the Department or the Minister could use to kick-start discussions with the parties involved? One party appears to be proceeding with its proposals regardless of the views of the other party or its lack of agreement on the proposals. This dispute affects our national interests. It will affect our economy and the travelling public. If a strike can be averted, there is a responsibility to ensure all available mechanisms are used to avert it. Is there any mechanism the Minister can propose or anything he can do, aside from the public statement he has just made, to urge management to pull back form the brink in regard to this dispute?
I do not believe it is ever helpful, and perhaps the Deputy is not suggesting this, to take blame one side or the other. There are complex issues on both sides that need to be dealt with. I respect the different views they evoke in terms of dealing with some of the issues. Both sides have a similar interest, which is the development of Aer Lingus not only on routes to Europe but worldwide, and securing the company as we go forward, making sure it is financially strong, stable, that it has the capacity to enter markets and to continue to grow by purchase, if necessary, of new aircraft. It has a good financial fund available to it, a war chest, so to speak, to do that. That was the purpose of the IPO.
The interests of the management and the workforce in Aer Lingus are the same. We need to get both sides together to make sure resolution of the issues between them can be quickly facilitated. All energy should be focused on the competition and how best to meet it as opposed to getting involved in difficult industrial relations scenarios. I urge both sides to work through this. I attach no blame to either side in the sense that I understand and respect the points of view of both sides. They are complex issues, but they are capable of being solved in regard to developing Aer Lingus into the company we all want it to be.
It is only four months since that agreement was reached.