Vol. 876 No. 2
1. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will discuss the ongoing industrial dispute, and plans for industrial action by workers, at Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, over the decision to put 10% of routes out to private tender; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16718/15]
As we face into this holiday weekend our entire public bus network will grind to a halt because of the actions of the Government in attempting to follow the ideological path of privatisation. What do Fine Gael and its Labour Party colleagues in government intend to do to address the very severe impact this strike will have on commuters and tourists? Obviously, it is not just this weekend; industrial action is threatened over the coming weeks.
As the Deputy is aware, I am greatly concerned that industrial action has been threatened in circumstances where the National Transport Authority is carrying out its statutory responsibility of proceeding with a tendering process that resulted from an assessment of how best to balance direct award and tendered public service obligation bus services in the public interest. Such action would cause considerable disruption to the public across the country and would substantially damage the companies' finances.
Allowing for a degree of competitive tension in the market will ensure better value for money for the taxpayer and improved quality of service for commuters and the Government is committed to that objective. Both CIE bus companies are open to compete for the routes that are going out to tender. Furthermore, the growth in both companies will be sufficient to minimise the effects should either of them not be successful in securing a tender.
I have repeatedly stated my support for both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann as shown by the €180 million that was invested in the companies by the taxpayer and by the Government last year in public service obligation funding and support for the upgrading and modernisation of their fleets. I have also given a commitment to seek an increase in subvention funds into the future to enable expansion in the years ahead.
There had been intensive engagement for some time at the Labour Relations Commission, which is the appropriate place to have employee concerns addressed. The unions should call off the threatened strikes and return to the commission. The companies have assured me that they will engage constructively in that forum.
The Minister's privatisation strategy is in a shambles. Last night, in an effort to placate the concerns of drivers at the two companies, he said that no driver would have to transfer in the event of the route being lost to a private competitor. In effect, what he intends to do is place an additional burden on the balance sheet and books of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, making them less cost effective. This undermines the entire strategy his Government put forward in the first instance to privatise the routes. He is now going to create an additional cost base by retaining workers with the company. That makes no sense.
I am deeply concerned at what is happening. I listened to a SIPTU representative this morning say this was not a battle with the Government but with the employer. The fact of the matter is this is entirely at the feet and the hands of the Government. It is the strategy it has taken on to privatise the bus routes. The Minister must now look to 2019. If Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann go in carrying the cost of 10% extra staff, it will make them less efficient and put them in a far more difficult position to compete for routes then. The Minister should put his hands up and say his Government is about dismantling the public transport system and privatisation. He should at least be honest with the travelling public and the workers.
Deputy Dooley is performing more U-turns on this matter than the most agile driver in either Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann. The implementation of the tendering process is a consequence of the 2008 legislation introduced by his Government, which he supported. Bringing in a degree of competitive tension to the marketplace is a consequence of that legislation. It is a policy that I believe is appropriate given the scale of investment by the taxpayer in the bus market.
If I had not made the intervention yesterday, the Deputy would be standing up this morning asking why I was not doing anything. Now that I have made an intervention he is in here criticising me for doing it.
What the Minister failed to say is that the 2008 Act is the consequence of a 2007 directive from the European Commission which the European Parliament supported at the time and which was a requirement on the State. The Fianna Fáil strategy in dealing with it, in agreement with the unions, was that the competitive tendering process would only be in place for new routes and would not impact on the additional stock of routes. That was agreed with the unions and accepted.
The Minister should tell the whole story when he comes into this House rather than comparing me to some kind of joy-riding bus driver. He is wrong and should accept it. It is his Government and the Fine Gael approach, supported by the Labour Party, that is wrong. The Labour Party pulled a great stroke on the backs of the workers when a Minister of State with responsibility for public transport was appointed.
A question, please, Deputy.
I wish to ask the Minister when his Government is going to reappoint the Minister of State and show up the Labour Party for what it has perpetrated on the workers and the Irish people by leading us to believe, through its programme for Government, that it somehow cared about public transport. When the going got tough, when the deal was done and Fine Gael's privatisation agenda was firmly on track, the Minister of State with responsibility for public transport evaporated.
I am struck by the speed at which the Deputy moved on from acknowledging his own role and that of his party in putting together the legislation that forms the origin of what I am dealing with today, to an open discussion regarding who is doing what at Minister of State level within the Government. The Deputy has just acknowledged the role he and his party played because he understood then what I understand now, namely, that a degree of competitive tension is appropriate in dealing with a bus market that is of such importance to our country. Before Christmas, I brought in a Supplementary Estimate of over €100 million, the sole purpose of which was to support the development of CIE and to address the financial needs of Irish Rail and both bus companies. The Deputy is in danger of performing so many U-turns on this matter he is going to end up where he started in his own journey.
2. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to avoid industrial action in public transport companies, particularly Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, due to plans to tender 10% of routes. [16846/15]
I wish to ask the Minister about his plans to avoid industrial action in the public transport companies, in particular, in Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Has he any plans to address this and to avoid any actions that may take place?
I refer the Deputy to my reply to Priority Question No. 1 from Deputy Dooley in which I had an opportunity to refer to some of the points raised by Deputy Ellis. I will make a number of additional points on the matter.
I made it very clear in my intervention yesterday that were any existing employees of Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann to find themselves in a position where they were working on a route that had been tendered out to another company, they would not be required to transfer. Therefore, if Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann were to find that they lost a route due to the tendering process, drivers in those situations would face two options. On option one, I gave a commitment yesterday morning that they would not have to transfer if they did not wish to do so, because I acknowledge the degree of change involved in this, particularly in a part of the country represented by Deputy Halligan where I know this is a matter of great interest to employees located in his county. The second option for employees is that if they wish, they could transfer on existing terms and conditions. It is due to the intervention I made yesterday that a platform has been created for substantial engagement in the Labour Relations Commission. We find ourselves in a situation where, in 2015, the travelling public and employees are facing a strike about something that might happen in 2019. The Government and I have dealt with all of the matters raised by existing employees in both companies for 2015 and beyond, by giving the guidance to the management in both companies that no existing employee will be required to transfer.
It is clear the Minister may not see a problem but certainly Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann workers and the unions see a problem coming down the road. They believe that this is a drive to privatisation. I, too, believe it is a drive to privatisation. This is at a time when the number of people using the services of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann has increased substantially and now we are starting to off-load 10% of our routes. There are big issues to be considered. I disagree with the Minister's two options because a private company will decide who it will employ and who it will not employ. It will not be a case of having option one and option two on the table; the private companies will make up their minds and they will cherry-pick all the routes. There is absolutely no doubt that they will cherry-pick the profitable routes. There have been cutbacks in the Dublin Bus routes in recent years and there has been a significant drop in Government funding since the Minister came into Government, with a decrease of 23% and 24%, respectively, in funding for the two companies.
The Deputy's points are absolutely wrong. I say that with respect because I know the Deputy's interest and support for both companies. It is not a case that if a private operator were to win a tender it would be able to select routes. That point is incorrect. The National Transport Authority is looking at a parcel of routes which is 10% of existing routes and it will make the decision which routes will be put out to tender. The Deputy is using the language of privatisation, which I understand he will do for political reasons, but these routes will continue to be regulated by the National Transport Authority in what is one of the most regulated markets in our country. The NTA will determine the fares and it will ensure that any tender is implemented.
I reiterate that Deputy Ellis is incorrect in the points he made. The bus markets will not be picky; a private bus company will not be picking whom it may employ. As a result of my intervention yesterday, it will be the choice of the employee. I made that intervention because of the respect I have for both companies and the work they have done but also because of the commitment that if and when we increase investment in the future, it will deliver a better return for the taxpayer who is paying for that investment.
The Minister always blames the NTA, which is the regulator. Does the Minister not have influence in this situation? Privatisation is an ideology that is driven by his own party, Fine Gael. That is the problem. Even at this late hour, will the Minister intervene or even talk to the unions and not remain at arm's length in his dealings? Will he ask the unions to talk to him? Will he explain to them what is happening? Does he intend to coalesce with private interests in order to break this strike because that is what seems to be happening? This is a very important stand by the workers because they see what is coming down the road, as I do. What engagement has the Minister undertaken with the unions on these privatisation plans before going ahead with them? Did he explain what was going to happen?
It is one thing just to ignore everything I just said a moment ago but it is another thing to ignore everything I said yesterday. The Deputy is asking me to intervene but I remind him of what I did yesterday and what the Government did. We made a very comprehensive intervention to respond to the concerns of employees which I appreciate they would have. I repeat what we said yesterday. This Government said yesterday that were any employees to find themselves in a position that their company - be it Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann - were not to win a tendered route, those employees will not be required to transfer. That is a comprehensive response to the issues that have been raised by employees. Deputy Ellis asked what kind of direct engagement I have had with the unions. I met them all before Christmas and my Department had recent contact with them but I wish to emphasise that the best place for these matters to be dealt with is in the Labour Relations Commission.
It is ideology over economics.
3. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if the upcoming policy document on Ireland’s aviation policy will take into account the European Commission's guidelines on state aid to airports and airlines with regard to reducing State funding, specifically for Waterford Regional Airport; if he supports these guidelines; if he anticipates the Government and local authorities reducing funding to Waterford Regional Airport under the new aviation policy; his views that reducing state aid to Waterford Regional Airport could have a detrimental effect and ultimately hinder economic growth and deter multinational investment in County Waterford; if he will provide an update on the proposed runway extension at the airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16852/15]
I wish to ask the Minister whether the upcoming policy document on Ireland's aviation policy will take into account the European Commission's guidelines with regard to reduced funding for state aid to airports and airlines, in particular to Waterford Regional Airport. Does the Minister support the European Commission guidelines? Does he anticipate the Government and local authorities reducing funding to Waterford Regional Airport and other airports, under the new aviation policy?
The Government policy on aviation is reflected in Ireland's Regional Airports Programme 2015–2019, which provides for the continuance of three Exchequer support schemes, namely, the OPEX and CAPEX schemes which deal with the operational and capital expenditure needs of airports and the PSO air services scheme. These apply, where appropriate, to the four regional airports, including Waterford Regional Airport. The programme limits future Exchequer support to safety and security-related infrastructural capital projects, similar to previous policy.
Such supports must comply with the 2014 EU guidelines on state aid to airports and airlines. The criteria for providing such financial support has changed since 2005 and has resulted in a reduction in the level of state aid that may be given to the airports under the 2015–2019 programme. However, I stress that there is provision under the guidelines, in exceptional circumstances, for airports to make submissions to the Commission for consideration on a case-by-case basis to seek approval to exceed the 75% maximum set out in those guidelines.
It will be up to Waterford Airport to provide a comprehensive business case in support of such a request.
Central to such supports will also be the need for regional and local business investment over the course of the programme. Ireland, in accordance with the requirement to do so under the 2014 guidelines, conveyed its unconditional acceptance to the guidelines in May of last year. Following a lengthy clarification process, the programme has recently been formally notified to the European Commission for approval. My Department will engage with the four airports to identify the specific level of Exchequer supports to be made available to each airport under the programme once approved.
I call on Deputy Halligan.
I have some other material that I will raise with Deputy Halligan.
Waterford Airport suffered a dramatic decline in passenger numbers since the recession began, from 144,000 in 2008 to 28,000 in 2013, but the numbers have increased dramatically since 2014, by 15% to 16%. Waterford, like Knock, Donegal and Kerry, is still in receipt of the support under the regional airports programme. However, since 2011, successive transport Ministers have made clear the importance of what they call working to achieve financial viability in the medium term, and this is where I have the concern about the impact of the proposal by the European Commission. The Government pledged to bolster air traffic at airports with incentives, such as the ending of the €3 travel tax, but would the Minister agree that reducing state aid by any amount would ultimately hinder economic growth and deter multinational investments in Waterford Airport and other regional airports, and that regional airports play a crucial role in facilitating balanced regional development?
I agree with Deputy Halligan that regional airports play an exceptionally important role in delivering balanced development across the country. The Deputy has in the past raised with me the issue of the lengthening of the runway at Waterford Airport and I followed up on that matter in anticipation of this question here today. My Department has been advised that the airport board is committed to raising the necessary funds from local sources to fund the laying of an additional 150 metres of runway.
I appreciate that the Deputy has acknowledged the considerable success that the board and management of Waterford Airport have had recently but I acknowledge, too, the recent success that they have had in securing a replacement for the Waterford-London Luton route which became operational on 27 April. This route will operate seven days a week between Waterford and London Luton. They will also operate a mid-morning Waterford to Birmingham service four days per week. I can assure the Deputy that, through the regional airport programme on which we are working with the European Commission, I aim to provide a platform within which the needs of airports such as Waterford can be responded to.
I welcome the Minister's engagement, as I welcomed the engagement of the previous Minister, with regional airports but I must reiterate that there are concerns which must be addressed. Ireland's official response to the European Commission guidelines stated, "provision of compensation for uncovered operating costs of services of general economic interest (SGEI) would remain possible for small airports to allow for connectivity of all regions". The problem is it does not clarify what the provisions will be. As the Minister stated, the Commission is calling for a maximum intervention rate of 75% for small airports, such as Waterford. Would the Minister agree, even at that, it could have catastrophic consequences for small regional airports?
I do not agree with Deputy Halligan's analysis regarding the risk of catastrophic consequences for either Waterford Airport or the other regional airports. The Deputy asked about the Government's response to the guidelines from the European Commission. As I stated earlier, we agreed with the guidelines that were being put out. I suppose we did that for larger reasons. It places new constraints on the ability of state bodies to invest in the kind of airports to which the Deputy refers. I believe that will create a level playing field within which airports such as Waterford will be able to prosper in the future because there will always be other governments and bodies which will have deeper pockets than a country such as Ireland which, in turn, could confer greater competitive advantage on the kind of airports with which Waterford is competing.
I assure Deputy Halligan that in the framework within which we operate in the European Union, we will do all we can to support the development of Waterford Airport. In fairness, this is something that is acknowledged by the management and board of Waterford Airport. I met the airport's manager recently and I look forward to having an opportunity to meet the board and management of Waterford Airport in Waterford Airport soon.
4. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his position regarding the sale of the Government’s shareholding in Aer Lingus to the International Airlines Group; the nature and character of any assurances sought from the group on connectivity, jobs and the management structure at Aer Lingus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16719/15]
Some time ago the Minister indicated that he would bring to a conclusion relatively quickly the Government's deliberation on whether to sell to IAG the Irish people's shareholding in Aer Lingus. Can he update the House on where that process is at?
At this stage, I do not have any significant developments to report on the proposed offer by IAG for Aer Lingus. However, I expect that the Government will be in a position to make a decision on the matter in the coming weeks.
The Government's interdepartmental steering group and its advisers have continued their engagement with IAG. This engagement has centred on the considerations set out in my statement of 24 February. These include legally-binding permanent commitments on the Heathrow slots and term-based commitments on routes; clarity on the overall employment prospects, with particular reference to the timeframe within which net additional employment could be created; further details and clarity on transatlantic growth and opportunities for growth at Cork, Shannon and Knock airports; confirmation of the nature and acceptability of any oversight measures on the Heathrow slots and routes, subject to any EU considerations; and evaluation by the steering group and its advisers of the financial terms offered.
There has been useful engagement on the issues by both sides. IAG has provided further details on the issues of concern to Government that were highlighted in my statement and discussions are progressing. I expect that the steering group will report back to me shortly. I indicated previously I do not want this process to be drawn out unnecessarily and I expect that it can be brought to a conclusion in the coming weeks.
The Minister states, in response and on a number of occasions, that the Government is seeking legally-binding guarantees on the slot access to Heathrow from the three State airports. Can he tell us what the nature of such legal guarantees might be? Can he indicate what kind of recourse would exist and, in default of such agreements, what kind of remedies might be put in place? In the minds of most, the kinds of legal guarantees that are mentioned are fairly worthless. The views of many would be that a legally-binding guarantee to retain slot access to Heathrow for five, seven or ten years could easily be breached by one contracting party and, in the case of default, the only recourse would be some kind of financial compensation which would be worthless to the people, to the foreign direct investment and to the companies that have already located in the southern region of this country. The Minister would be wrong to think that somehow, seven or eight years of a legally-binding guarantee to retain slot access to Heathrow from Shannon and Cork is appropriate without some kind of concrete guarantee in dealing with a default on the contract and the recompense that would be in place. Anything other than a reversal to a State entity of the slot access would not be considered appropriate.
As I stated, this is a matter that I have not drawn to conclusion. The Government, through the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, has made clear that the main elements any guarantees would need to deliver, were such guarantees to be agreed by the Cabinet, would be that they would be robust, certain and have clear oversight mechanisms in place.
The strength of those oversight mechanisms, put in place in the public interest, should mean the very issues to which the Deputy is referring would not arise.
However, I shall conclude by reminding the Deputy of something of which he is already aware. The prevailing conditions are such that the only legal protection the State has is in regard to the disposal of slots. That protection can be triggered only by the State using its shareholding in addition to prevailing upon other shareholders to vote with us to trigger the mechanism.
The Minister is correct that I am fully aware of the current position. However, to paraphrase an advertisement, when it is gone, it is gone. If the State decides to sell its stake in Aer Lingus, it will have no capacity whatsoever to influence the direction of the company. A shareholding of 25% is significant. I accept there are limitations to what a minority shareholder can do but believe it is clear that IAG considers the State shareholding to be of strategic interest and clearly does not want the Minister or State on its state register. It could buy up the rest of the company at present without bothering with the State. It clearly regards having the State on its state register as an impediment. Therefore, the legally binding guarantees will have to be far more progressive and clever than what the Government is attempting to achieve, which is to push out this debate. I refer to an arrangement whereby ten years are sought, five are offered and seven are settled upon, and to the desire to move on to the next business on having secured such a supposedly great deal. I am not interested in the duration but in the nature of the deal and the potential to reverse any decision that might have a negative impact on the regions and the employment that is so dependent on direct access to Heathrow.
What strikes me is that the Deputy and Fianna Fáil did not make these points when his Government sold 75% of the company. Let me quote what the Deputy said about the legislation in March 2004. He stated:
The purpose of this legislation is to provide for a viable future for the airline. It needs to change the focus which was initially targeted at the national interest. That need is no longer as prevalent, but there is a need to develop the airline and ensure the future viability of not only existing jobs, but to build and grow a company that will develop into an international success.
It is vital to consider the national interest now, as was the case in 2004. I have quoted what the Deputy said in 2004 when he and his Government voted to sell 75% of the company. The point I would make to the Deputy-----
That is why we held on to the 25%.
The Deputy did not seek in 2004 the very kinds of mechanisms he now seeks.
We did. Why did we hold 25%?
I have outlined the circumstances that would obtain were the Government to find itself having to seek to dispose of its share. That decision has not been made; it is something we are considering. I have outlined all the criteria against which we would evaluate this decision, on which I am required to come back to the Oireachtas. However, the point I am making very clearly is that the very issues the Deputy is raising now did not appear to be in his mind when 75% of the company was sold in 2004.
With respect, that is why we retained 25% of the company. The Government is now trying to sell off the piece we believed it was important to retain.
5. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the rationale for omitting Waterford’s Atlantic coastline from the Wild Atlantic Way initiative; the reason Waterford did not meet the route selection criteria; the number of the 366 feedback submissions that were opposed to Waterford’s inclusion; if he will consider recommending an amendment to the Wild Atlantic Way to incorporate Waterford’s coastline; his views on whether the new initiative Ireland's Ancient East completely disregards Waterford’s coastline, which for many years has been a key tourist attraction in the area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16853/15]
Could the Minister of State please explain the rationale behind omitting Waterford's Atlantic coastline from the Wild Atlantic Way initiative and why Waterford did not meet the route selection criteria? How many of the 366 feedback submissions opposed Waterford's inclusion? Will the Minister of State consider amending the route of the Wild Atlantic Way to incorporate Waterford's coastline?
I thank the Deputy for raising this. The role of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport regarding tourism lies primarily in the area of national policy. The development of the Wild Atlantic Way and Ireland's Ancient East are operational matters for the board and management of Fáilte Ireland. The Department is not directly involved in their development.
The Wild Atlantic Way arose out of the need to address the dramatic decline in international visitors to the west over the last decade. Its main objective is to motivate overseas visitors to visit the west coast and give them reasons to linger longer. It was never intended to be defined by Ireland's entire Atlantic coast but to broadly follow the coastline of the western seaboard counties that share a common unifying tourism proposition. There was an extensive evaluation of various route options, and a comprehensive process of stakeholder, community and public consultation.
A similar tourism proposition for the south and east has since been developed. The Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and I recently launched Ireland's Ancient East, which is built on the abundance of cultural and heritage assets in the south, east and midlands. I am confident the initiative will impact positively on Waterford, including the Waterford coast, which has such highlights as the historic round tower at Ardmore, the Ring Gaeltacht and its rich heritage, and the unique mining story of the Copper Coast Geopark. I certainly believe Waterford, including its coastline, has far greater potential to develop overseas tourism as part of Ireland's Ancient East than by artificially extending the Wild Atlantic Way. I hope that the communities become fully involved and make the most of the initiative as have communities up and down the Wild Atlantic Way.
With regard to the Deputy's specific questions about the route selection process, I have asked Fáilte Ireland to reply to the Deputy directly. He should contact my private office if he does not hear from them within ten working days.
I am astounded and taken aback because it appears the decision was not made by the Department at all, or that it had no input into the decision, although there are three Government Deputies operating in the constituency. The decision was made by Bord Fáilte. The Minister of State said himself that the Wild Atlantic Way was born out of the need to address the dramatic decline in international visitors to Ireland, particularly the west. Bord Fáilte's figures show a drop in visitor numbers to the south-east region from 1,100,000 in 2000 to fewer than 685,000 in 2010. This is one of the most dramatic drops in all regions of the State. The exclusion of Waterford's 147 km coastline and 50 beaches beggars the belief of businesspeople and those working in the tourism industry. Is the Minister of State saying to me today he cannot influence Bord Fáilte to change the decision that has been made by it? Is he suggesting the decision was not made in any way by the Department but by Bord Fáilte, which informed the Department when it was made?
I hope the Deputy is aware of how State agencies work because they have independence. Policy is decided and determined at Government level. The Government determines the funding for the State agencies but it does not actually run them on a day-to-day basis. That is why we pay a chief executive officer and staff and why we have Fáilte Ireland in place.
With regard to Government policy, we decided we wanted a proposition for Dublin because we wanted visitor numbers in the city to increase, and we got a proposition. Then we found there was a major problem with attracting tourists to the west. That is why we asked Fáilte Ireland to make a proposal and it proposed the Wild Atlantic Way. It is for the same reason that we established Ireland's Ancient East. We asked Fáilte Ireland to concentrate on the ancient east, particularly Waterford, to give this region the same opportunity. I hope the Deputy, his colleagues, the tourism interests in Waterford and communities will support this initiative and take it on board exactly as the Wild Atlantic Way initiative was taken on board.
Let me give the Deputy another figure, a very simple one.
I will come back to the Minister of State.
We are supporting it all right. It is the Government that is not doing so, considering what it has done. On several occasions, the possibility of facilitating a presentation by Waterford council and tourism personnel on the merits of expanding the Wild Atlantic Way was discussed with the Minister of State.
Can the Minister of State confirm even now that he did not have that meeting before the decision was even made? Has this presentation taken place without my knowledge? Perhaps it has. I do not know. Does the Government plan to do it? The point remains that the Government has excluded 140 km of coastline and 50 beaches with huge tourism potential based on Fáilte Ireland's first initiative. The reason Fáilte Ireland designated part of the Wild Atlantic Way was the drop in tourism. The greatest drop in tourism was in the south east. It does not make sense.
Deputy Deasy raised this matter with me last week and I gave him a commitment that I would give Waterford County Council an opportunity to make a presentation to Fáilte Ireland. This meeting will take place next week. At the end of the day, the reason why the Government came up with the Wild Atlantic Way and Ancient East initiatives was to get visitors to visit the south east, which is Deputy Halligan's county, so he cannot fault us for not coming up with initiatives.
A total of €10 million was put into the Wild Atlantic Way. A total of €10.5 million was put into the Waterford Viking Triangle, which is a great project.
We are not talking about the Waterford Viking Triangle. That is a separate process. It has nothing to do with the Wild Atlantic Way.
The Minister of State to conclude.
We are all part of the overall product. Waterford has a very good product, coastline and initiatives and we all need to work together.
I did not interrupt Deputy Halligan when he was speaking so could he please show some manners and let me finish what I have to say? He can get up again and speak if he wishes.
He cannot.
Well that is fine. I will not do the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's job. We have a very good product. We have one for the south east, the west, Dublin and the rest of the country. Buyers who visit this country want new products every year. Yesterday, we saw there was a 14.5% increase in visitor numbers for the first quarter. This will be the best year for visitors and Deputy Halligan needs to promote his county and talk it up rather than talking it down all the time.
