Vol. 726 No. 3
53 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport his regional strategy having announced the ending of State funding for Galway, Knock, Sligo and Derry airports without any consultation or political debate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2630/11]
Having considered the value for money review of Exchequer expenditure on regional airports, the Government has agreed to support the continuation of a public service obligation, PSO, route between Donegal and Dublin airports and Kerry and Dublin airports. In line with the review, the Government has also agreed to cease requiring PSO routes between Dublin and Sligo, Knock, Galway and Derry airports from July 2011.
The review, published last Wednesday, involved extensive consultations with a wide range of stakeholders including the regional airports, the BMW regional assembly, IDA Ireland, the Irish Aviation Authority, Fáilte Ireland, Tourism Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Aer Arann and Ryanair. Under updated EU legislation governing PSO air services, more stringent conditions will apply having regard, for example, to the availability of other transport connections and especially rail services with a travelling time of three hours or less. In the context of regional strategy, this decision took account of recent improvements in alternative transport modes, the change in EU legislation, the completion of the review and the requirement to make best use of scarce Exchequer resources. Overall, the combination of an improved surface transport network with a more consolidated air service network to regional airports, together with the three State airports, provides the necessary transport access to underpin Ireland's sustainable development.
In addition to the PSO scheme, two other schemes provide Exchequer support to the regional airports. The core airport management operational expenditure subvention scheme, OPEX, covers all or part of the airports' operational losses in any given year and the capital expenditure grants scheme, CAPEX, provides finance towards the cost of necessary infrastructure at regional airports. I am giving further consideration to these schemes and will revert to Government shortly with proposals.
The Minister has misled the House. There was certainly no extensive consultation before his announcement last week that he was cutting the PSO levy for services between Dublin, Sligo, Galway, Knock and Derry airports. The announcement came as a shock and surprise to many. We were expecting to have a robust and, potentially, difficult debate around the future of regional airports, their funding and State supports and putting in place a new and more effective PSO to link regional airports with Dublin. No one was expecting the Minister to announce the Government was pulling PSO funding from four airports in the west without publishing the value for money review. The review should have been the subject of a debate in this House before significant decisions were taken that will impact seriously on the west and regional development policy. Will he explain the rationale behind his decision to cut the PSO levies?
I reject out of hand the Deputy's contention that I misled the House. In my reply, I outlined the various bodies and organisations that were consulted. To my knowledge, all of the regional airports made detailed submissions both to my officials and to me. I met a number of representatives from the regional airports in various places — including at the BMW regional assembly — and at different times. I, therefore, reject out of hand the Deputy's contention in this regard.
I can excuse the Deputy for not being aware of what is happening. After all, it was not long ago that he was appointed his party's spokesperson on transport. However, he is the only person who should have knowledge of this matter who was caught by surprise by the announcement.
That kind of smart response does not help anybody. There are people who are extremely concerned that airports in the west are going to be obliged to close as a result of the Minister's announcement last week. I have also met representatives from most of the regional airports. I accept that these airports made representations to the Minister in the context of justifying their existence. However, that is not the same as consulting someone before shutting off their revenue source. Since I became my party's spokesperson on transport, the Minister provided a commitment to me to the effect that a debate would take place in the House in respect of regional airports and their future and the PSO levy and its role regarding the future viability of such airports. The Minister has decided to ignore that commitment and simply announce a reduction in funding from July onwards. Why did the Minister not publish the report and then engage in a debate — which would have been broad in nature and which would have focused on regional policy and the role of airports therein — on it within the House before making his decision?
If the Deputy makes smart comments, he can expect smart responses in return. He will be aware that the current PSO contracts end in July. He will also be aware of the severe financial constraints under which the current Government is operating and under which its successor will be obliged to operate for the next three to four years. Decisions must be made and endless prevarication in respect of issues of this nature is of assistance to no one.
As the Deputy has admitted, consultations took place. The terms of reference relating to the consultation process are listed at the back of the value-for-money review document and everyone was aware of the destination to which that process was leading. On the basis of the submissions made, the advice received and, as already stated, the nature of the country's current financial circumstances, the Government made the decision I outlined earlier.
54 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Transport if he has reviewed the operation of his Department and of the various transport services throughout the severe weather crisis in December 2010; if he is satisfied that road, rail and air transport operated to their optimum; his plans to replace the ad hoc national emergency co-ordination committee with a more permanent, structured and robust body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2633/11]
57 Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Transport if following the extreme weather conditions experienced in January and December 2010 he will be implementing alternative plans to ensure that there will be no shortage of salt and grit; the organisation of how national and non-national roads are to be gritted which were an issue in 2010; if further expenditure in the form of snow ploughs, or other equipment is necessary; if an instruction needs to be made from him regarding the provision of salt and grit to the community for distribution through local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2508/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 54 and 57 together.
The Government's emergency task force, under the auspices of the Department of Defence, is the framework around which national emergency responses are co-ordinated. Under the published emergency planning procedures, the national response to severe weather events is lead by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department of Transport plays a support role in responding to such events.
The severe weather interdepartmental co-ordination group met daily during the recent severe weather in to co-ordinate the national response and monitor impacts across all sectors countrywide. Following a meeting last Wednesday, the group has already commenced a review of the overall response to the recent event. The review will, among many issues, contemplate transport-related matters, community involvement and salt management issues. It is expected to be largely completed over the next four to six weeks and Government Departments, including mine, will be actively contributing to the review based on their experience in December.
As Minister for Transport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding for the transport sector. The issues raised by the Deputies fall mainly within the operational responsibilities of the relevant agencies — be it the National Roads Authority, the public transport companies, the Dublin Airport Authority or the local authorities — and I have no direct function in respect of them. Following the 27 days of severe weather which commenced on 28 November 2010, overall transport preparedness was much improved on that of winter 2009-2010. This was due in part to the implementation during 2010 of recommendations from the review by the task force into the earlier event. As part of overall transport preparedness, the NRA launched the draft winter maintenance guidelines in early October 2010. These provided a comprehensive framework for local authorities to plan standard winter maintenance, including a schedule for severe weather. The authorities were requested to select routes in their areas for treatment on a priority 1, 2 and 3 basis, where all three priorities would be regular winter maintenance routes but where there would be a reversion to priority 2 or 1 or both as a severe weather event extended.
The NRA was also tasked with centrally procuring salt supplies. However, it was left open to local authorities to purchase their own supplies directly should they wish to do so. The decision to have the NRA purchase salt on a centralised basis contributed to a stock of 50,000 tonnes being available at the start of this winter, with a further 50,000 scheduled for phased delivery over the period to the end of this month. This compares to 10,000 tonnes at the start of winter 2009. Some €6 million was also made available by the NRA for additional dry storage facilities for stocks of de-icing salt and a further €2.5 million was made available for grit spreaders, snow blades, etc. for local authorities.
I understand that the CIE companies and Luas implemented pre-agreed operational plans for severe weather and, with the support of the local authorities, managed in extremely difficult conditions. Even with the severity of the weather, our airports managed to provide a high level of service and snow-related closures were kept to a minimum. The larger impacts on air travel to and from Ireland were more associated with weather difficulties at major airports abroad. Within the transport and local authority sectors, the commitment of front-line staff in responding in extremely difficult conditions is to be commended.
I thank the Minister for his wide-ranging reply. I agree with his point regarding front-line staff — whether they are employed in the area of public transport or the local authority sector — who performed miracles on a round-the-clock basis in seeking to ensure that services would not be disrupted. I cannot, however, agree with the Minister's statements to the effect that there was adequate preparation and that the response to the recent severe weather represented a great improvement on what happened previously.
What happened in January 2010 was a debacle. We had no Minister, no salt, no grit and no co-ordination. In the aftermath of last January's events, it was proposed that the NRA would provide salt to the various local authorities. The only other arrangement that seems to have been put in place was a commitment to keep the main roads open. That left a great deal to be desired. Adequate supplies of salt were not provided and, as a result, rationing occurred and local authorities were obliged to mix the salt with grit. In addition, supplies were landed in Cork when they were needed in Donegal. During the four weeks of severe weather leading up to and during the Christmas period, there was no indication that the authorities had learned the lesson which they should have learned following the events of January 2010.
Adequate provision was not made to keep the national transport system operating fully during one of the busiest periods of the year, namely, the Christmas holidays, when people travel into, throughout and out of the country. In the context of this year's review, is the Minister going to allow an emergency co-ordinating body to continue to operate or does he intend to put in place a national, planned structure that will be in a position to operate throughout the entire year? A structure such as that to which I refer should be ready to deal with events that were regarded as emergencies in the past but which are currently becoming the norm. Is the Minister merely going to continue with what is already in place rather than establishing something far more comprehensive in order to ensure that there will not be a recurrence of the events that happened in December?
I acknowledge what the Deputy said in respect of front-line staff. I do not agree with him that the response to the severe weather in December was not much improved on what happened last January. As stated earlier, there were only 10,000 tonnes of salt in the country in January of last year. In December, supplies of some 50,000 tonnes were on hand. Those supplies were managed much better on this occasion than was the case last January. Salt was mixed with grit in certain circumstances because such a mixture is more effective for dealing with snow than is the case with regard to ice or black ice. The additional equipment that was provided, the storage facilities for salt that have been made available and other matters to which I referred earlier also represent improvements. That said, I agree with the Deputy that nothing is perfect and that one will not always get everything right. New issues emerged on this occasion, principally the fact that it happened over 27 days, which was a long cold spell. However, I believe it was catered for much more effectively and efficiently than previously.
While we can of course make improvements, if the Deputy is suggesting, as I am sure he is not, that we can magically reach some situation where the 90,000 km of roadway in the country will be kept open during severe weather, that is just not possible. The main target was to ensure that the roads that carry 60% of the ordinary traffic and 80% of the commercial traffic were kept open. That was the priority and any aim below that was to assist locally to try to reach hospitals, factories, schools and so on, which the local authorities made a reasonable effort to do. Nonetheless, I take the point made by Deputy that in general we should learn from each of these events, try to improve as they happen and try to plan for them. A fair summary of what happened on this occasion is that we achieve that.
Nobody underestimates the difficulty in doing a fair job in this regard and I acknowledge that much effort has been made. There is another side to this issue, however. For example, I understand there were many accidents this morning following cold weather last night. Bad bends, hills and other stretches of road should have been identified by the county councils, which know them best, but the county councils are not allowed to salt or grit them to help make them safer. While we have learned from last year, we are far from perfect and have a long way to go to improve on that. The Minister should take cognisance of the fact that people are on the roads. The views of ordinary council workers are not being taken into account. I urge the Minister to reconsider the situation and take on board what these people are saying.
The responsibility for local and county roads is a matter for the local authority, within its resources. The primary source of resources for gritting local and regional roads should be the local authorities but, unfortunately, it is not, as the taxpayer is the central source. However, the local authorities are the bodies which advise the NRA on the actual routes that are to be gritted, and this information is put into a national database. I agree with the Deputy that the county councils should consider this issue.
We have had two very severe experiences inside a 12 to 14 month period. As in Dublin, where there was a difficulty with buses and other vehicles on certain streets, the local authorities now know, if they did not know before, that there are particular difficulties in some areas. I agree with the Deputy that they should examine local arrangements to ensure there is some supply of salt or otherwise close to such locations, and this might mean enlisting the help of a local farmer on a hill or close to an area that can become dangerous. I know the Deputy favours this as I have heard him speak of it previously, and it is something I have fed into the review process. It would be a helpful development.
I cannot agree with the Minister that the planning was adequate for the serve weather we experienced. The supply and delivery of salt was certainly not adequate and the fact that Dublin Bus closed most nights at 9 p.m. was unsatisfactory, as was the fact there was no antifreeze at Dublin Airport and the snowploughs there were not adequate to deal with some of the snow.
There was very severe weather towards the end of November and throughout nearly all of December, which may be an eventuality we will experience on a regular basis. Will the Minister put in place, if not an emergency plan, a structured national plan with a budget so the local authorities, the Department of Transport and the other relevant bodies are able to prepare well in advance and ensure we do not have a situation where people's travel plans are destroyed at one of the busiest times of the year, which is what happened in many cases? While the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has the lead role at present, given so much transport is involved, it might be more appropriate that the Minister for Transport would have the lead role.
I welcome the Minister's comments. To have this followed up and put in place, will the Minister draw up guidelines with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Has he spoken with the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, in this regard? What the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, has said is very sound and sensible. I ask this in the context of progressing the issue.
As I said, that is part of the review process. Following the incident this time last year, I had meetings with the IFA in regard to the possibility of enlisting its aid. While it has welcomed that, we need to move that process forward. The question of guidelines and plans is under review and, while there is a plan, it needs to be updated and improved.
To be fair, if one considers what happened across the water and across Europe in similar circumstances, I believe we in this country did much better in dealing with this issue from a transport point of view than any of the other countries. We can be very proud of that because we very often spend our time knocking what has happened, although I know nobody present has knocked the efforts made by the front line staff. Overall, our response was much better than in other places and was much improved. Again, I accept the point we can always improve more.
55 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport if his attention has been drawn to the plan of the Spanish Government to part-privatise its national airport authority and air traffic control in 13 airports; if he has given consideration to such an initiative regarding the Dublin Airport Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2288/11]
The Deputy will be aware that part of the terms of reference of the review group on State assets and liabilities, chaired by Mr. Colm McCarthy, is to consider the potential for asset disposals in the public sector, including commercial State bodies such as the Dublin Airport Authority. When that review has been completed, I will consider any recommendations with regard to the Dublin Airport Authority. I answered a question on this some time ago and generally indicated that I would think long and hard before I would favour privatisation.
I tabled this question to try to get an understanding of the Minister's thinking on how we can resolve a difficult situation whereby the Dublin Airport Authority, which controls and owns the three largest airports in Ireland, is heavily indebted to the tune of approximately €1.2 billion. The cost of servicing that debt means it is difficult for it to reduce airport charges sufficiently to attract new airlines and traffic through airports, which is needed because passenger numbers have dropped by some 29% in the past three years.
I hope the Minister will respond. This is not about privatisation or selling off assets. This question refers to what the Spanish Government is considering at present, which is to sell a minority stake in its State-owned airport operating company in order to raise capital to reduce the debt repayments that are required from that company. Is the Minister thinking along similar lines in an effort to bring down airport charges and drive up passenger numbers, which is ultimately what the economy needs?
To put the Deputy's comments in context, the airport charges at Dublin Airport are well below the average and, if I recall correctly, are probably one of the lowest sets of airport charges anywhere in Europe for an airport of its size. Therefore, I would not start from the premise that our airport charges are higher than elsewhere or that we are not in line with the rest of Europe. The reality is that we are much better placed than other countries.
I agree with the Deputy that the lower we can keep the charges, the better it will be for consumers. However, privatisation or part-privatisation of an asset such as the Dublin Airport Authority might cause its own difficulty. One would, quite rightly, have to put on one side of this equation the possibility that if the three airports were split up, there might — and it is only a maybe — be greater competition. It is difficult to prove it would be so, but that is certainly one side of the argument. However, the other side of the equation which must be taken into account is the question of whether, in selling or diluting the State's share in the airport, one would be in a position to secure the type of investment in infrastructure that is necessary, particularly, for example, investment in runways before they are needed in order to facilitate future expansion. There is a debate to be had in this regard, and that can take place as soon as the McCarthy report is made available.
In regard to airport charges, the Minister is comparing Dublin Airport to airports in other European capital cities, which is not necessarily comparing like with like. The vast majority of capital cities have both a conventional airport and a low-cost airport, whereas Dublin Airport facilitates both services. In the case of low-cost airports which are served by airlines such as EasyJet and Ryanair, there are much lower charges.
We have seen almost a 30% reduction in passenger numbers and, at the same time, a 45% increase in airport charges. That is the reality. We cannot continue to compensate for falling passenger numbers by increasing airport charges. We cannot continue to subsidise the operation of airports that no longer have sufficient passenger numbers to cover their running costs. It is in this context that I have asked the Minister on several occasions what the Government approach is to this problem. Is it to facilitate competition between airports and potentially facilitate competition between terminals in terms of the operation of the two terminals in Dublin Airport or is similar to what the Spanish Government is looking at, namely, to sell a minority stake in the overall company? Is it to continue with Irish aviation policy as it is, even though it is failing us and resulting in continuing falling numbers?
The Deputy is incorrect in assuming that the reason for the fall-off in passenger numbers is the increase in airport charges. The reduction in passenger numbers, as is the case with CIE and other public transport companies, has more to do with general economic activity and the very severe hit we have taken in the context of the international recession. People are travelling less because they cannot afford it.
Passenger numbers have increased in every other European Union member state except for the United Kingdom.
With a 9% fall in economic activity last year, it is true that we have been more severely hit than other countries. I am not comparing airport charges at Dublin Airport to those at airports in large cities such as Paris; the figures to which I referred relate to capital city airports throughout Europe which are of comparable size, serve a similar population and so on. The reduction in passenger numbers is not down simply to airport charges. It may be a factor but only a minor one.
56 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Transport following receipt of a report from the National Roads Authority in December 2010 on increased numbers of tolling stations on national primary routes, if he will publish this report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2301/11]
The local government efficiency review group recommended the introduction of new tolling schemes on national roads, both new and existing, based on an equitable distribution of tolling points across the national network, with a proportion of revenue being used to invest in local and regional roads. The Infrastructure Investment Priorities 2010-2016 document also referred to the possible introduction of further tolling on national roads and recommended that any additional income generated through tolling should be retained by the National Roads Authority, NRA, to help fund ongoing road investment.
In light of these recommendations the NRA was asked to examine options for a new tolling strategy. The authority's initial report was presented to me in November 2010. At this point, however, no decisions have been made in regard to additional tolling on specific national roads. I will inform my Government colleagues about the position in regard to the investigation of options for a future tolling strategy shortly, and consideration will be given to publication of the options report in that context.
Will the Minister publish the report so that we can have a discussion on the justification, or not, for increasing the number of tolling points on the motorway infrastructure?
A story broke last week to the effect that the NRA is now requesting that toll prices be reduced at five tolling stations in line with deflation. What has the response been from the tolling companies to this proposal? I understand only one of them has responded positively. Does the Minister have an understanding as to why we have waited until now to call to task tolling companies which are clearly overcharging consumers in the context of consistent deflation since 2008?
We have not yet published the report from the NRA because I have not completed my consideration of it and have not brought it to my Government colleagues for their information and consideration. On the second point, that is a matter for the NRA, which has direct responsibility in this regard. It is a contractual matter and not one in which I have a role.
Does the Minister not think it appropriate that he should comment on the fact that in five instances, consumers have been consistently ripped off and overcharged when using tolling booths on the national motorway infrastructure? As Minister for Transport, he has responsibility for the NRA. It is the authority's job to implement Government policy, roll out infrastructure and put in place contractual arrangements with tolling companies where appropriate, but when consumers are being overcharged and ripped off in using publicly owned infrastructure, surely the Minister has something to say.
As I said, this is a contractual matter between the NRA and the tolling company. It is not one in which I, as Minister, have a direct control or say. Given that the matter may end up in court, I do not want to be in a position where I might jeopardise anything the NRA may do. As far as I am concerned, the cheaper the toll charges, the better for motorists.
Question No. 57 answered with Question No. 54.
The time for Priority Questions has expired. We will now move on to ordinary questions.
