Vol. 866 No. 1
123. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his position regarding the sale of Aer Lingus to IAG; the commitments he will make with regard to the security of employment of the Aer Lingus staff and the connectivity from Irish airports to the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4656/15]
For the last four years the Government has classified the State's shareholding in Aer Lingus as being non-strategic and as suitable for sale, based on a matter of timing. In recent days the Taoiseach appears to have had some divine inspiration and he is now concerned about the potential for a loss in connectivity and an impact on jobs in the State resulting from the potential sale of Aer Lingus. Clearly, the Government's policy position up to now has encouraged the IAG bid and others. Clearly also there has been a change of heart and the stakeholding is now seen to be of strategic benefit. Will the Minister outline to the House how or when that change of heart came about?
The many concerns that have been voiced regarding IAG's potential takeover offer for Aer Lingus have been raised when limited detail is available. It is important to note that IAG has made a proposal to make an offer and that no formal offer has yet been made.
At this point, all we know is what the companies have announced publicly. IAG has made a number of approaches to the board of Aer Lingus regarding a potential offer for the company. The financial terms of the latest proposal are €2.55 per share and the board has indicated to IAG that these financial terms are at a level at which it would be willing to recommend, subject to being satisfied with the manner in which IAG proposes to address the interests of relevant parties. The board of Aer Lingus has also indicated that the latest proposal from IAG remains conditional on, among other things, prior agreement from Ryanair and the Government to accept the offer. IAG's latest statement yesterday indicates that the company is proposing to offer legally binding commitments on a number of matters.
Under the Irish Takeover Panel rules, I and my Government colleagues are constrained in what we can say at this time. I do, however, hope to get more details over the coming weeks and, if so, these will be examined very carefully against the public interest criteria I have previously set out, including connectivity to and from Ireland, which includes Heathrow and direct transatlantic services, competition, jobs in Irish aviation and the Aer Lingus brand. The Government will make a decision on any offer based on these considerations. I also wish to remind the House that the Aer Lingus Act 2004 requires that the principles of any disposal be laid before and approved by the Dáil before any sale of the Government’s 25.1% shareholding.
I do not wish to be facetious about the prepared answer, but the question I asked was straightforward. When did the Government take a policy decision to recognise the strategic interest in the shareholding and the connectivity provided through that shareholding? Will the Minister outline the position better for me? I recognise the limitations placed on the Government by the takeover rules in the State, but notwithstanding this, the offer seems to include certain assurances as regards connectivity, the independence of the airline, the brand and the headquarters. Will the Minister outline how he intends to seek warranties in regard to these assurances? What is the nature of the structure that may be put in place to assure us such assurances will be maintainable and protect the interest of the State in terms of connectivity and jobs retention?
The prepared response I shared was to the question submitted to me. On the strategic value of connectivity, the Government has always been extremely fair. It abolished the air travel tax and supported Shannon Airport, made it autonomous and gave it the ability it needed to compete. There are welcome signs of this. The Government has placed aviation and connectivity at the heart of how it has encouraged investment and tourism. Last year alone, well over 7 million visits were made into and out of the country, owing to the level of access we have achieved. This is, in part, due to the decision made by the Government to abolish the air travel tax, which led to a direct increase in travel on routes into and out of the country.
On the nature of a guarantee and what we will propose, the Department expects to make contact with IAG soon in order to clarify what has been said. However, it is up to others to make the case for any takeover bid they wish to make. We are a shareholder and must make a decision in the right and long-term interests of the country. That is what we will do.
I thank the Minister for the update on the travel tax. However, my question was simple. It was related to the position taken by the Government in the past four years, that the State's interest in Aer Lingus was not strategic and that it was available for sale. The only proviso was "at a suitable time"; in other words, a sale would probably be based on the share value at the time. This was repeated by the Minister's predecessor and, obviously, Government policy. On Sunday, for the first time, the Taoiseach took the view that the State's interest was of strategic value and tied up with connectivity and access to the outside world. When was the decision changed? The difficulty I have with this is that the late change of heart on the part of the Government has led to IAG coming after Aer Lingus and will lead to considerable costs being incurred by the Government because the Minister has had to appoint consultants to advise him on what is now seen as a political matter. I am concerned that he did not go through the appropriate process and that he did not make it known to the marketplace at a much earlier point that the State had a strategic interest in the shareholding. Therefore, it was not a timing issue, a value issue or a share price issue but much greater and deeper. The Government is guilty and finds itself in a quandary, where it must fight off what can only be described as a hostile attempt by an international corporation to gain access to what is a key strategic asset of the State.
If the Deputy feels so strongly about these points, I am given to wonder why he agreed to the privatisation of 75% of Aer Lingus in the first place.
I have made that very clear.
If he feels so strongly about all the points he has made, I am struck by how he squares that up with what his party did with the company when in government.
I will address that in a moment.
The Deputy made points about the strategic value of our stake in the Aer Lingus company to the country. We have always been crystal clear that the disposal of such a stake would be dependent on the right terms and conditions being secured and also what the gain for the taxpayer would be in terms of the share within the company. We have remained absolutely consistent to that point of view throughout all of this. We have made clear from the outset that an essential element of the terms and conditions I have referred to, which underpinned the classification of that stake then, was connectivity, competition and the impact on employment within the economy. That will continue to be the criteria against which any formal offer will be evaluated if such a formal offer is made.
124. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for the State's stake in Aer Lingus; and the maintenance of its Heathrow slots which are vital to the Irish economy. [4666/15]
There are huge concerns not just among the public but in various representative groups about any potential sale of Aer Lingus. Those concerns were expressed at the recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications by unions, employers' bodies, Enterprise Ireland, representatives of tourism and other groups. Within our economy tourism numbers have been greatly increasing. From what we can gather, €300 million is what the State would benefit as a result of a sale to IAG. Does the Minister think selling off our Heathrow slots, which are vital to the Irish economy, is worth €300 million?
I touched on some parts of the Deputy's question when I was responding to Deputy Dooley. His question contains particular reference to the Heathrow slots. I will devote my time to responding to that issue.
At the time of the flotation of Aer Lingus in 2006, a procedure for any proposed disposal of the Heathrow slots was built into the company’s articles of association. That procedure was outlined in detail at the time and on many occasions since in this House. The threshold to prevent a disposal of Heathrow slots is such that the vote against disposal cast at an EGM of Aer Lingus shareholders must be at least 25%, or greater than the percentage of the company's shares held by the Minister for Finance plus 5%. With the present State shareholding that threshold is 30.1%. Therefore, the ability of the State's shareholding to block a disposal of slots is not guaranteed under this mechanism. Furthermore, it relates only to a proposed disposal of slots. Aer Lingus does not require any shareholder approval to change the routes for which it uses slots.
IAG's latest announcement yesterday indicated that it is proposed to offer legally binding commitments to Government on Aer Lingus's Heathrow slots. These are still only proposals and it should be noted that IAG has stated that any such commitments would be subject to Irish takeover rules and EU competition review. The Government's steering group is considering this proposal and intends to engage with IAG to explore these potential commitments. However, it should be noted that these discussions are at an early stage. This is a complex area which will require detailed and careful consideration before any recommendations can be made to the Government.
It is widely reported that IAG has offered to secure these slots for five years. That is not worth the paper on which it is written. In the past we have seen how companies come and go and how they change over time. In a previous takeover in England it was agreed that a position regarding slots would last for three to five years.
Then, the regulator moved in and said a certain number of slots had to be shed as a result. That is the problem facing us.
We have an airline that is profitable and is making money for the State. It is making money for the tourism industry and across the board we are seeing huge increases in tourist numbers. The airline has a modern fleet and it is working well. There are major grounds for expansion. The takeover bid seems to be about the Heathrow slots and their use. We need to protect them to protect our industry and tourism. There are 23 slots in question and the loss of any of them will have major repercussions for connectivity across the country. This applies not just to Dublin but to connectivity in Cork and Shannon. The regional balance we try to keep will not be kept by the likes of IAG.
I have always been acutely aware that national connectivity has a vital regional dimension. I have visited Shannon and Cork airports and met representatives of the two airports on matters of concern and interest. I understand that access to our country is fundamental to the way our economy has grown. Maintaining and increasing access in the future is vital not only from the point of view of tourism but also from the point of view of investment and allowing Irish companies to sell their goods and services abroad. That is why I have been clear that what is at stake is far more than the price of a share. The considerations that must be taken into account to guide our decision will have connectivity as an essential elements of how this will be examined.
Pensions must also be considered. There was a debacle with the pensions of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS. Other areas must be examined beyond connectivity and tourism. It is important we examine this carefully.
When senior executives stand to make €30 million, it is in their interests to sell off our airline. That seems to be how things have moved. The drive to privatisation has been a disaster for the country and is one this party was opposed to in respect of the sale of Aer Lingus, with the State ending up with 25% of the company. It is a shambles. Vital connectivity for this island nation, on which our regional airports depend, and continuity must be kept. We are building our tourism industry and the Minister has taken initiatives on this. Why would we sell something that is profitable and is delivering? Has the Minister sought support from other shareholders? We know the pilots hold a 7% stake while Ryanair holds 29%. Has Minister sought support from them?
The first step in allowing the Government to determine its decision is for us to gain the right level of information and understanding about what IAG is proposing. We are in the process of doing so and preliminary contact has been made. I expect further contact to take place soon, which will allow us to understand the exact nature of what is being proposed. When I am in a position to report back to the Cabinet and the Dáil with a comprehensive understanding of what is proposed by the group, I will be in a position to make a recommendation to the Government. Extreme care and caution must be taken on this decision. The Government has shown in many initiatives that it is absolutely clear on the importance of tourism, foreign direct investment and access to those to deliver the best outcome for our country and its communities in the years to come.
125. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the reason the initiative proposed on 2 December 2014 by the Secretaries General of his Department and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to the expert panel in relation to the IASS dispute was not acted on until 14 January 2015, creating needless anxiety for workers at the three State airports; and if he will direct the DAA and the Shannon Airport Authority to lift the imposed deadline of 15 March 2015 for signing waivers to allow the process to take place. [4687/15]
The Minister will be aware that thousands of workers employed by the DAA and the Shannon Airport Authority have been instructed that they must sign a waiver by 15 March or they stand to lose lump sum payments into a new pensions scheme. On 2 December 2014 the Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport sought to initiate a process aimed at addressing some of the concerns that remained outstanding for the workers who were members of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme. Why was the Secretary General's invitation not acted on? Why has SIPTU not been involved in the process and what will the Minister, as the sole owner of these companies, do to lift the gun from the heads of these workers?
I must again make it clear that the IASS and its funding are primarily matters for the trustees, the companies participating in the scheme, the scheme members and the Pensions Authority. Following SIPTU’s recommendation last November to its members in the DAA and the Shannon Airport Authority to reject the IASS trustees' proposal, the Secretaries General of my Department and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation wrote to the expert panel on 2 December to clarify certain industrial relations issues which were the subject of the expert panel report completed last June. The panel was asked to re-engage with SIPTU and ICTU and provide clarity on these matters. Discussions took place immediately before Christmas between the Departments, members of the expert panel and ICTU on this engagement which helped to refine the areas of focus for the panel.
Given the unavailability of the relevant personnel over the holiday period, I understand it was not until just after Christmas when arrangements could be agreed for the panel to engage with ICTU and establish the relevant position of the unions involved, the DAA and the Shannon Airport Authority. That process is ongoing and it is for the panel to complete this work as effectively and efficiently as possible. Given that the trustees' proposal was implemented with effect from 31 December, it is vital that the industrial relations issues among certain DAA and Shannon Airport Authority staff are resolved at the earliest opportunity. In that regard, the deadline of 15 March for the signing of waivers is a matter for the DAA and the Shannon Airport Authority. At this stage, it is important that there be clarity on the areas of concern in order that IASS members, with all other DAA and Shannon Airport Authority staff, have visibility and certainty on their future pension arrangements.
I do not think the Minister will be able to kick this matter solely to the trustees. I am not sure whether he was ill-informed or deliberately misled on was what the position. The facts are that the Secretaries General of his Department and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation contacted the expert panel to ask it to engage in a process aimed at resolving some of the difficulties that had arisen. That process has allegedly started, but it has not involved the people who represent the majority of workers who have issues. The problem is twofold. Substantial changes are being proposed to the contracts of airport fire and police service workers who are all represented by SIPTU. They have not been involved in any process. Furthermore, even though we are dealing with one pensions scheme, IASS, involving two companies, Aer Lingus and the DAA, an entirely different set of assumptions prevails in respect of each. This meant that workers in the DAA who had rejected the proposed changes by a majority of 90% were faced with the prospect that a worker aged 53 years with seven years of service would receive a lump sum of €95,000 if he or she worked for Aer Lingus but only €65,000 if he or she worked for the DAA, even though he or she would be on higher pay in the latter. How could this be a realistic assumption for a pensions scheme covering workers in both companies? Clearly, one set of assumptions was wrong. This issue has to be addressed, but holding a gun to workers' heads is not the way to address it.
The concerns workers had expressed and the fact that many of these concerns had been instrumental in the ballots which had taken place in the DAA and the Shannon Airport Authority formed the background to the decision taken by the two Secretaries General to ask the expert panel to engage in a process of clarification.
For the Deputy's own information, the particular matters they were asked to clarify and engage on related to the actuarial assumptions used for the purposes of lump sums, the applications for proposals towards the lower paid, the proposed contributions to the new defined contribution scheme and the implementation of medical fitness testing procedures for airport fire and police service over the age of 60 and retirement arrangements between the ages of 60 and 65. In relation to a point the Deputy put to me on engagement on the initiative from other parties with the expert panel, my information is that to date ICTU has provided a statement on behalf of IMPACT, Unite, Mandate and the TEEU while SIPTU has provided a separate statement.
These were the issues which were being sought to be addressed, but the problem is that SIPTU has not been asked to engage in this process or to contact the panel. In fact, while it is the only body to have put in a submission, meetings have been held from which SIPTU has been excluded. That is a recipe for disaster given that the workers whose living standards are being impacted by the airport fire and police service and the members of the DAA are primarily organised by SIPTU. The Minister may be misinformed by his Department. Since his Secretary General took the initiative at the start of December, there has been a meeting held under the auspices of ICTU on 16 January. While we accept that around Christmas people will have been away, it does not explain why SIPTU was not invited to that meeting. I note that 90% of the workers have voted against the proposal and they are still not happy. What happens there has yet to be determined. If the Minister is serious about resolving these issues, I ask him to go back and ask the DAA and SAA to lift the embargo. There is supposedly a process, poor and all as it is, and the Minister is the boss of the DAA and SAA on foot of 100% State ownership. If the embargo is not lifted, there cannot be meaningful talks to resolve this.
It is at least possible that the Deputy might be misinformed on this as well.
I am absolutely not.
I am glad to hear that she has such certainty. I am struck by such certainty on this matter. I have my own information that I have put on the record of the House and I have answered each of the questions the Deputy has put to me. When I have answered them, she has then-----
Why was SIPTU not at the meeting?
I have given the Deputy the answer on that. My information on the process that is taking place is that SIPTU has provided a statement to the expert panel.
I said that but SIPTU was not invited to the discussion.
In the communication that my Secretary General and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation made to the expert panel, we requested that engagement take place between the expert panel and senior officials within SIPTU to facilitate engagement. This is the information that I have. I understand that the process of engagment is under way. If the Deputy has information to the contrary, it would be something I would be interested in understanding further. I make the concluding point to her that while it is correct to say the Dublin Airport Authority is a State body, it has complete operational independence. It has a board of directors and a management team whose job it is to make decisions on the long-term interests of the airport and the objectives I have set forth.
126. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when a decision will be taken with regard to the best route and infrastructure option in connecting Dublin city with Dublin Airport; if he is satisfied with the current public transport connections to the airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4657/15]
The Minister will be well aware that a rail link between a capital city and its international airport is a very significant piece of infrastructure and one which needs to be part of any city that seeks to set itself apart in terms of its overall development. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to when the Government intends to proceed with a decision on the best route or option in that regard?
The National Transport Authority, NTA, has responsibility for the implementation and development of infrastructure projects in the greater Dublin area, GDA. Under this remit, the NTA has commissioned the Fingal-north Dublin transport study to examine all existing proposals as well as other possible options for a transport solution to meet the needs of the Swords-Dublin Airport-city centre corridor in the long term. Phase one of the study was published on 8 December and six short-listed project options were identified for further detailed evaluation. A public consultation process was also launched at that time.
In the next stage, the six projects will be subject to further analysis assessing cost, engineering, environmental and usage forecasts. This will form the basis for the selection of the recommended preferred option. The NTA has indicated it expects to have the output of this phase by the end of March. The output will then require careful consideration in tandem with other analyses being undertaken, including the updating of a business case for the DART underground project and the work being carried out in the preparation of a draft transport strategy for the GDA. I anticipate that I will finalise this review by the middle of the year, in conjunction with the development of the transport strategy for the region.
Regarding public transport provision at Dublin Airport, results of an extensive survey carried out by the NTA at the airport in late 2011 show that 33% of passengers travelled to the airport by bus, with a further 24% travelling by taxi. While this compares favourably with other airports internationally, I am conscious of the need to address this issue in the context of the needs for transport improvements for the GDA in general. The NRA has predicted an increase by 40,000 journeys into the city centre by 2023, which would necessitate the construction of an additional 40 multi-storey car parks, were all these journeys to be taken in private cars, a scenario that is neither possible nor desirable.
The last line of the Minister's response sets out the stark reality that faces us, and there are other implications for infrastructure throughout the city and surrounding it in terms of finding an appropriate solution. While I have much regard for what the NTA is doing, it requires action at Government level to ensure the appropriate funding is in place and this will dictate the options that are open for consideration. In the short term, the bus rapid transit option is, perhaps, an appropriate measure to deal with the immediate need, the Government will have to proceed relatively quickly to ensure there is a rail option. It is the only long-term solution that will provide the appropriate level of connectivity and meet the demand the NRA expects. I would like the Minister to set out, in a clear and concise way, a definitive timeframe during which these projects will begin. While we understand the necessity to do value for money studies, we can never again allow a backlog in the roll-out of infrastructure, a problem which arose as a result of the failure on the part of successive Governments to proceed with investment at the appropriate time. It is important that we drive these projects towards commencement.
By the middle of 2015 I aim to have achieved clarity on the projects that should be progressed and why. It is more difficult to answer the second part of the Deputy's question about when work will begin and when the projects will be open to serve the travelling public because the recommendation I take to the Government will determine which projects will be built and how long it will take to happen. Some of the options would take more time than others and some would cost more than others. When I make my recommendations on how money will be spent on public transport by the middle of this year, I will be in a position to determine the timing of the selected projects.
I thank the Minister for the clarification. While I am prepared to wait until the middle of this year for the assessment to see what he is prepared to put to Government - I see the Minister smile and I suppose I have no choice but to wait - I believe it is important that he put in place the moneys available to him as soon as possible. The difficulty is that this seems to be a step process: when the Minister gets that information he will bring it to Cabinet and make a decision. He needs to put pressure on the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform prior to getting a conclusion from the NTA on the options available. He will then know what moneys are available because ultimately that will assist him in deciding on the proposals he will bring to Cabinet. I would like to see more activity in tandem with that process and that the Minister reaches a point when all the analyses are done that he knows what moneys are available to him. That then becomes a relatively straightforward memorandum to Cabinet.
I absolutely appreciate the Deputy’s point, that there is a need for public transport projects in parts of our country to alleviate congestion challenges just as in many other parts of the country there is an acute need for infrastructure and investment in our local road network to respond to the needs in many counties. For me to gain support within Government for projects to be delivered, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, and others will want to know what those projects are, the business case for them and the cost. In order for me to answer those fundamental questions and ensure best value is secured for taxpayers I need to do this on a phased basis.
I strongly believe that compared with transport planning in recent years very few of the landmark public transport projects that were prioritised happened. There was a great improvement in our road network. I am clear that if we do not make more progress on key public transport projects our road network, regardless of its design, in some parts of the country, particularly in Dublin, will not be able to cope with the level of demand it will face.
127. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for the future of the public rail network under Irish Rail; and the way it will be better integrated with the wider public transport network. [4668/15]
As the Minister said, there are huge gaps in our rail network and we need better integration with the wider public transport networks. What plans does the Minister have to improve and integrate our rail system and to keep it in public ownership? That is very important. Connectivity in this country is a huge issue. The whole north east has no rail network. Is there any sign that the Minister will consider that? Will he consider a rail link from all major cities to the airport, which is vital?
I am committed to supporting a well-funded public transport system into the future, recognising the vital role it plays in our economy and society generally. I ensured that PSO funding for bus and rail services was maintained at current levels in the last budget, the first time this has happened since 2008.
At the end of 2014 I brought forward a Supplementary Estimate which included additional new funding in the public transport capital investment programme of €101 million to ensure the public transport sector is better placed to address the demands of our economic recovery. A large portion of that amount was targeted at the renewal investment required in the rail network. Irish Rail has also benefitted from increasing passenger numbers with an additional 1 million journeys in 2014. While this increase is welcome and is evidence of a recovering economy, Irish Rail must continue to improve its services and marketing to attract even more people to use its services.
Given the significant funding requirements, it is important that rail users and policymakers are consulted on how best to ensure that rail services continue to meet the needs of users and the contribution of rail to an efficient and effective public transport system generally.
The draft strategic framework for investment in land transport recommends the development of a new rail policy, intended to have regard to social and environmental considerations uniquely addressed by rail, as well as the economic and investment context established in that report. I will be consulting with the NTA on how best to progress this proposal.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Leap card is providing seamless travel between Irish Rail, DART and commuter rail services and bus and Luas services in the greater Dublin area. It is also in the process of being extended to commuter rail in Cork. The Leap card is already operational on buses in the regional cities of Cork and Galway and recently commenced operation in Limerick. It will be operational across almost all the country by the end of this year.
There has been a huge increase in rail passenger numbers, with great potential for further increases. However, rail services are lacking in several parts of the country. For example, in the north east the rail system is practically non-existent. In regard to connectivity in our main cities, I hope that the Minister shares my vision regarding the need for rail connectivity between Dublin, Cork and Limerick and Dublin Airport. The issue of cross-Border ticketing also needs to be addressed.
I took part in three sets of consultations on three different versions of Metro North, which if progressed would have made a huge contribution to employment and to a reduction in car numbers on our roads. The provision of connectivity to Dublin Airport would have resulted in a huge increase in the number of people using our rail network. The Minister said he is currently looking at six projects in this area, including Metro North and the extension of Broombridge station to Dublin Airport. It is vital that connectivity is put in place. However, that is a debate for another day.
I will try to respond to each of the points made by the Deputy. In regard to the north east, I spent all day yesterday, including yesterday evening, in Donegal where I heard first-hand many of the points made today by the Deputy. For example, the county manager made the point that there is more than 6,000 km of road network and between 4,000 and 5,000 bridges in County Donegal. The vast majority of the road network is made up of regional roads, which presents its own challenges in terms of support and maintenance. In regard to what can be done to improve connectivity, as I understand it from my discussions yesterday, the county manager and employers in the region would welcome improvements to the road network in the short to medium term. This year, €10 million has been provided to support the development of key roads in the county. I have also put in place a process to examine the potential use of TEN-T funding in terms of improvements to key roads.
I appreciate the Deputy's points in regard to ticketing. However, it is important to recognise that by the end of this year the availability of the Leap card within the country will have step-changed. It is already making an important contribution to integration of public transport.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I agree that the Leap card has proven to be very successful and has improved the lives of many commuters. However, I believe there is a need for discussion between the Minister and his counterpart in the North on the cross-Border ticketing issue. It is important that there is connectivity across the whole of the island of Ireland, including Derry and Belfast. We need to look at how we can improve connectivity and in doing so think outside of the box. There is a huge amount of traffic flowing North and South on a regular basis. I urge further consideration of the delivery of a transport system to Dublin Airport. Most European countries have a rail network to their airports. It is a vital cog in most countries in terms of how they work.
On access to the airport, a matter Deputy Alan Farrell has also raised, we have put in place a process to examine the options that might substantially improve access between Dublin city centre, the airport and Swords. As I told Deputy Timmy Dooley earlier, I aim to have that process completed by the middle of the year to ensure we will be clear on what projects will be involved which will allow us to respond to the points identified by the Deputy.
On the need to invest in public transport and Dublin north-south connectivity, before Christmas I introduced a Supplementary Estimate of €160 million, of which €110 million went directly to public transport. If one ever wanted to have a clearer sign of my Department’s, as well as the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ring’s commitment to public transport, it is that we brought forward this Supplementary Estimate. The €110 million allocation went to Irish Rail, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to give them the support they needed to respond to the needs outlined by the Deputy.
The Government also abolished the Minister of State with responsibility for public transport, too.
