Vol. 918 No. 3
37. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to address concerns of extremely low maintenance spending on national, regional and local roads by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22480/16]
I refer to concerns about the extremely low levels of spending on maintaining national, regional and local roads. It is something the Minister's Department has acknowledged in a briefing paper. Things are now at a crisis point. Roads the length and breadth of the country are deteriorating at an alarming rate. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure there is greater investment in road infrastructure?
I do not disagree with the sentiments of Deputy Troy that the roads are in dire need of additional funds. It is something we are addressing as a matter of urgency.
As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding in regard to the national roads programme. The construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads is a matter for TII, under the Roads Act, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Within its capital budget, the assessment and prioritisation of individual national road projects is a matter for TII in accordance with section 19 of the Roads Act.
The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is the statutory responsibility of local authorities, in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act 1993, as amended. Works on these roads are funded from the local authority's own resources, supplemented by State road grants. The initial selection and prioritisation of works to be funded is also a matter for each authority.
Ireland has just under 100,000 km of road in its network and the maintenance and improvement of national, regional and local roads places a substantial financial burden on local authorities and the Exchequer. As a result of the national financial position, there have been very large reductions in the funding available for road expenditure over the past number of years.
The capital plan, published in September 2015, outlined proposed transport investment priorities to 2022. It provides €6 billion for investment in the roads network in the period to 2022, with €4.4 billion earmarked for the maintenance and strengthening of the existing extensive network throughout the country and €1.6 billion for new projects, including PPP already underway. The transport element of the capital plan is based on a gradual buildup over the plan period in capital funding for the road network from the current relatively low base towards the levels needed to support maintenance and improvement works.
While I fully recognise the importance of maintenance and renewal work on the roads, as Minister I have to work within the capital and current budgets available to my Department. In view of the continuing constraints on State funding, my Department has emphasised to local authorities the importance of prioritising expenditure on roads when allocating their resource income.
The Minister is correct; it is the statutory responsibility of local authorities to maintain roads. I do not know whether the Minister was a member of a local authority in the past, but from my experience when local authorities are allocated money it is well spent and roads are kept in a good condition. Over the past four years, 47% less than what was required was allocated to various roads.
To put the reduction in context, in 2015, €400 million that was paid in motor tax was spent on the establishment of Irish Water, and a payment of €439 million in road tax is due to go to Irish Water in 2016. It is no wonder people are annoyed at the condition of the roads. It is not just me: my colleague Deputy Michael McGrath has also tabled a question on road projects. I met with a delegation of councillors from Monaghan who were infuriated with the condition of the roads. It is not good enough to say it is the statutory responsibility of the local authorities. They will carry out their work in an appropriate manner if they are given the necessary resources to do so.
I am afraid it is a reality in which we are now working. I remind the Deputy that public funding for Ireland's national roads fell significantly during the recession. From a peak of €1.75 billion in 2007, capital and current expenditure on national roads reduced to €433 million in 2015. The start of year capital and current expenditure allocation for 2016 is €402 million. The steep decline in expenditure on roads during that period spans several Administrations and several years. It is inevitable at this stage that we are in a situation which is critical, admittedly, in certain places but it is not just the result of spendthrift or generous spending on roads at certain times in the past decade; it is also the result of the fact that as the Deputy is aware, we have an extraordinarily high number of roads, 100,000 km, which is amazing and is way above the EU average. The roads present a burden not just in terms of maintenance but also in terms of capital expenditure, which is not endured by any other nation in Europe.
In Ireland we benefit from a high percentage of car ownership, which is not the case in any other European country. That means we have a higher percentage of people who pay road tax. The very least those who pay motor tax on their cars can expect is to travel on safe roads. The sorry situation now is that many roads are unsafe because we have not invested enough in road restoration. The figures the Minister outlined from 2007 to 2015 include new constructions. We have not had new roads constructed in recent years but we have had a siphoning off of money raised from road tax for the establishment of what in the words of the Minister is a super quango, namely, Irish Water. It is not surprising that motorists are infuriated by the condition of the roads. I ask the Minister to ensure that the bulk of the motor tax people pay is ring-fenced to ensure we have the necessary resources to maintain the infrastructure that has been put in place over many years.
I assure the Deputy that I will do everything I can in the coming months to ensure that we have a capital budget for the motorways and other roads that is as large as possible, because I am aware of the problem every day of my life. What is called the steady State expenditure, which is such a high proportion of the money we have spent on roads, explains a lot of the problem to which the Deputy refers. The fact that we have to spend so much money just on the maintenance of the roads because the network is so extensive is indicative of the problems, which are going to remain with us for a long period. As the Deputy is aware, there are plans in the capital plan for some fairly dramatic movement upwards and spending on roads from 2019 onwards. I am very optimistic that when that period comes we will see a great improvement in the roads and that the spending on some of the areas that are high profile and have been lacking will be extended.
38. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will consider projects at Clarke's Hill and Coach Hill, Rochestown, County Cork, for inclusion in the next round of grants under the specific improvement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22245/16]
The question I raise relates to the specific improvement scheme under the Department and whether funding will be made available in the next round of the specific improvement scheme for two road projects in Rochestown, County Cork, one of which is Clarke’s Hill and the other is Coach Hill. Perhaps the Minister could first respond on the scheme generally and whether funding will be provided for the reinstatement of the scheme which fell victim to the economic crisis and the downturn.
The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is a statutory function of local authorities in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on such roads are a matter for the relevant local authority to be funded from its own resources supplemented by State road grants.
The initial selection and prioritisation of projects to be funded from these moneys is a matter for each local authority. Under the strategic grant scheme introduced in 2000 to facilitate housing and other development my Department did provide grant assistance to Cork County Council in relation to road improvements at Clarke's Hill. This grant commitment concluded in 2015.
Given the cutbacks in State funding for regional and local roads since the financial crisis, it has been necessary to curtail the grant programme for major new regional and local road schemes and for major realignment schemes in order to protect the funding available for the maintenance of the existing network. In this context my Department is not operating an annual application process under these schemes and does not have applications in relation to projects at Clarke's Hill or Coach Hill in Cork.
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, together with the Minister for housing, planning, community and local government, has announced the establishment of a local infrastructure housing activation fund of €150 million, to be matched by €50 million in local authority funding, to relieve critical access and support infrastructural blockages and enable the delivery of large-scale housing on key development sites, with the potential to open up lands and deliver a significant level of new housing in Dublin and other urban areas. Once details of the arrangements relating to the fund are finalised and a call for proposals issues later this year, it is open to local authorities, including Cork County Council, to consider submitting a bid proposal to access such funding for suitable projects.
I would not expect the Minister to be aware of the location and the specifics of the scheme concerned but the Clarke’s Hill road improvement scheme was partially completed, which included a longer stretch of road around Garryduff, Moneygourney, Rochestown and Douglas. Clarke’s Hill itself was not completed and is the final remaining section of that road improvement scheme. I accept that the local authority must supplement its own internal funding with funding from the Department but the question is whether there will be a specific improvement scheme going forward.
The Minister said the Department was not operating an annual grant scheme. Are allocations therefore made on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis? The infrastructure fund to which the Minister referred is not relevant in this case: this is not about opening up development land. The roads are already serving densely populated residential areas in Rochestown and the road infrastructure on the two roads to which I refer is woefully inadequate. Perhaps the Minister could give an indication of how the Department expects councils to complete schemes such as the one to which I refer if there is not an annual application process under what was regarded as the specific road improvement scheme.
First, I will outline my understanding of the scheme. Grant funding was provided under the scheme for road improvement works on the Clarke’s Hill-Moneygourney Road. Funding totalling approximately €3 million was provided between 2001 and 2005 and the works were undertaken in phases, with the most recent phase covering a section from Foxwood, where the previous contract ended, and Maryborough Hill, including construction of a roundabout on the main alignment of the junction of Fort Hill and The Borough. It is understood that further works will be required to complete the road upgrade in the area.
However, the extent of the cutbacks in grant funding meant that the position regarding these grant categories had to be reviewed in 2013. Because of the cuts, expenditure on maintenance renewal was falling well short of what was required to adequately maintain the regional and local road network. For this reason, the then Minister informed the Government in February 2013 that, given the impact of the expenditure cuts on maintenance and renewal of roads, the decision had to be made to prioritise the protection of the existing network and to curtail road improvement grants with effect from 2014. In this context the Minister indicated that while the effects of under-funding in maintenance might not show up for a period of years, they eventually do, and at that stage roads can deteriorate quite rapidly and can be very expensive to repair.
The point is that the Clarke's Hill scheme is an incomplete project. I understand that this funding stream was frozen as part of the economic crisis. The question is whether an application by the council for funding under this scheme can be considered if the scheme no longer exists. Does it exist? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that. The second project to which I refer, Coach Hill, is separate but it dovetails with the Clarke's Hill road scheme in that they meet up at a particular junction. No work was done on Coach Hill, but the Clarke's Hill project did receive State funding, which was badly needed. It is a fabulous scheme where the work has been completed, but it is incomplete. If the Minister could signal even that an application by the local authority, which is Cork County Council in this case, could be considered by the Department for the 2017 allocation, then I could advise it of such and it could make plans accordingly.
I hope I can help the Deputy in this matter. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, together with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, has announced the establishment, as referred to by the Deputy, of the local infrastructure housing activation fund of €150 million, to be matched by €50 million in local authority funding to relieve critical access and supporting infrastructural blockages and enable the delivery of large-scale housing on key development sites, with the potential to open up lands and deliver a significant level of new housing in Dublin and other urban areas. Once details of the arrangements relating to the fund are finalised and a call for proposals issues later this year, it is open to local authorities, including Cork County Council, to consider submitting a bid proposal to access such funding for suitable projects.
The next question is in the name of Deputy Boyd Barrett. I see him looking around frantically. Has he lost his phone?
No. It was my pen.
Question No. 39 is next.
It is somebody else's turn.
My deepest apologies; it is. Deputy Munster is next, then Deputy Boyd Barrett.
On a point of order, could the Acting Chairman include Question No. 53 with Question No. 39? It is a similar question.
Are we taking them separately?
They should be grouped.
Question No. 39 or Question No. 53?
It is a similar question-----
I think grouping is gone, is it not?
If it is, it is only in the last few days.
It is up to the Minister to group them.
I will not group them. If the Deputy has an issue with it, he should go to the Ceann Comhairle. I will stick to what I am supposed to do.
Is the Acting Chairman encouraging repetition?
I will proceed and let everybody's question be taken-----
You are out of order.
Nice try. I hope we will get to the Deputy's question.
39. Deputy Imelda Munster asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he has made a decision as to whether sports capital grants will be made available for 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22490/16]
Have the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Patrick O'Donovan, made a decision as to whether to release the sports capital grants for 2016, and will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I know Deputy O'Keeffe has submitted practically the same question. Deputies will be aware that the sports capital programme is the Government's primary vehicle to support the development of sports facilities and the purchase of sports equipment. They will also be aware that there was no round of the sports capital programme in 2009, 2010 or 2011. There were, however, rounds of the programme in 2012, 2014 and 2015. Almost 1,600 applications were received under the 2015 round of the programme, evidence of its ongoing importance. No decision has been taken on the timing of the next rounds of the sports capital programme. Work is, however, ongoing on simplifying the online process to make it easier for applicants.
I know that there has been something of a mini-hysteria about this recently. I point to the fact that in the programme for a partnership Government there is a commitment for an annualised sports capital programme, and the Minister, Deputy Ross, and I are committed to the content of the programme for Government in that context. I met recently with officials from the Department in Killarney in this regard, and the Minister, Deputy Ross, and I are actively pursuing this issue. As soon as a decision is made on the 2016 programme, which I hope will be soon, I will be in communication with Deputies.
The Minister of State said that the programme for Government was committed to an annual programme. "Annual" means yearly. We are now in 2016, we are heading into the summer recess this week and there is a state of confusion among sporting clubs right across the State as to whether the funding is available. The Minister of State said that there were 1,600 applicants last year, which will give him an understanding of the level of interest in the sports grant application process. He will also recognise how valuable these sports grants are to sporting clubs right across the State, particularly to sporting clubs and groups in disadvantaged areas. I am sure he will also agree that these grants help to promote health and well-being and community spirit. I wonder is it a case of stalling until it is too late in the year to announce it? When I asked about this at the transport committee meeting, the Minister, Deputy Ross, said that it was a political decision between him and the Minister of State. Given that the programme for Government states that the Government will consider this annually, when will the Minister of State say whether he will announce it for this year? If he has no intention of doing so, will he say so, in order that sports clubs do not go blind watching to see whether the funding will be available? They should be given enough time to get their applications in order and submitted. A bit of clarity would not go astray. We are into July.
With the agreement of the House, I will give Deputy O'Keeffe a minute. I have a little discretion. If he wishes to make his case, we will give the extra minute for it so that Deputy Munster does not lose out.
I will make a brief follow-up in support of the previous speaker. The severe delay in the allocation of sports capital funding is now a major concern for various sports clubs and organisations that have been waiting for investment to progress with plans and proposals to upgrade or develop facilities for some time. It is critical that the Government build on the many years of investment in this area. As the Minister has indicated, he relaunched the scheme in 2012. Many clubs, on the basis of having submitted an application on the first day, have now progressed plans to move on further. The Minister of State also created the air of uncertainty. He said he would take a special interest in this. Judging from his response to a previous parliamentary question, I am sure his colleagues below in Killarney received a rush of expressions of interest. Even that has created an air of uncertainty. From a political point of view, it has to be acknowledged that money has been allocated to the Department. If it is not spent this year, does the Minister of State propose to spend it on other sports capital projects through various other channels?
To take the last point first, I would be very slow to withdraw any grant that has been allocated to a sporting club because, as Deputy O'Keeffe knows, many sporting clubs have difficulties regarding planning permissions and the matching of funding. I certainly would not accept the suggestion that we withdraw money that has already been allocated.
The only state of confusion seems to be among certain members of the Opposition. I could not make it clearer that no decision has been made on this issue and that both the Minister, Deputy Ross, and I are committed to it. I point to the years 2012 onwards in that regard. The timeframe in which any allocation or announcement would be made allows the potential for something to happen in 2016. The only confusion and uncertainty out there is, I think, generated by people who almost hope in a way that we might not be able to do it. Our aspiration is that we will be able to do it. The clubs are certainly looking for it, and individual sporting organisations have over the last number of months been engaging with the Department on an online basis anyway. Ongoing assistance is available from the Department for people who are preparing applications and they should continue in that vein.
I will still allow Deputy Munster her minute; she is entitled to it, as it was her question initially.
What a silly response to say that the only confusion is with the Opposition.
There is confusion with sporting clubs and groups which have been waiting anxiously for the Minister to announce funding. Will the Minister release the grants or not? If he is going to do so, what is the delay in coming forward with an announcement, or is it the case that he has absolutely no intention of doing so and instead is trying to draw out the year and then announce the grants for 2017? Sporting groups and clubs across the State will be extremely disappointed if the Minister has not released the grants. That would be mean-spirited and short-sighted. It was included in the programme for Government as an annual scheme, so this will be the Minister's first broken promise.
I wish to clarify one point. I did not say the Minister was withdrawing money from clubs that have received it, but there is an allocation of sports capital funding from the Department. If it is not going to be spent this year through the sports funding scheme, does the Minister propose to make money available through other mechanisms within his remit directly to the governing bodies or other sports organisations?
It is all very fine to say that clubs can put together development plans. However, as the Minister knows, if someone applies for a home loan, the bank may grant a mortgage but the house must be purchased within a certain timeframe. Nowadays these plans are compiled by professional individuals, including consultants, which cost money. There is a timeframe concerning the validity of such development plans, so every month that goes by it is costing these clubs money.
I remind Deputy O'Keeffe that in the worst days of the economic crash, in 2009, 2010 and 2011, the last government was able to reintroduce the sports capital programme. We did so because we realised that this is a labour activation measure in many rural and urban communities. It really makes a difference to clubs. Nobody on this side of the House needs to be told about the programme's value because we are well aware of it.
Deputy Munster said she was waiting for an answer, but this is the third time I have said that no decision has been made. I do not know which part of the term "no decision has been made" cannot be understood. We are only in July and there are still five months of the year left to run. The programme for Government is clear. The Minister, Deputy Ross, and myself have a commitment to ensure that the elements in the programme for Government concerning the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport are adhered to and will be delivered. The Deputy might be disappointed later on in the year.
As regards previous allocations made under this programme from 2012 to 2015, the Deputy will find that the timeframe was not too different from what we hope to achieve.
40. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if, in his deliberations on the future governance of Dún Laoghaire Harbour, he will be taking into account the series of questions that were raised with his predecessor with regard to anomalies in payments to the chief executive and a board member of the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22477/16]
For the five years of the last Dáil I asked a litany of questions about what I consider to be serious concerns about the corporate governance of Dún Laoghaire Harbour. Payments of expenses to directors turned out to be irregular and where the money was supposed to be refunded, it was not. Extra payments were made to the CEO and the saga of questions goes on.
I am not sure if the Minister is aware of it, but the latest accounts of Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company show a €6.5 million loss, an increase from a €1 million loss last year. Will the Minister take into account these serious financial and corporate questions concerning the future of the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company?
I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for raising this issue. I am not sure how helpful I can be to him, but I will be as helpful as I possibly can. I understand that the Deputy has previously raised these issues with my predecessors in relation to payments to the CEO of the port company and concerning payments made to a director of the company.
Every commercial State body must disclose the CEO's annual salary in the published annual report and accounts of the body and Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company complies with this requirement. In relation to the amount of the CEO's salary queried by the Deputy, I am advised that, for better or for worse, it was in line with Government policy at that time.
On the payment of other expenses to the CEO in 2011, one of my predecessors made his view known that the payment should not have been made. I understand that the company has acknowledged this and confirmed that it will not happen again.
The payment of expenses to directors is a matter for Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company in accordance with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. As was advised in previous replies, the matter of payments to the director is the subject of legal action and it would be wrong for me to comment any further on that.
As the Deputy is aware, the Harbours Act 2015 provides the legislative basis for one of the key recommendations in national ports policy, namely, that governance of five ports of regional significance should vest in more appropriate local authority-led governance structures. Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, as a port of regional significance, is designated under the policy for transfer to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. The process of transferring governance and the future operational structures of the port are primarily matters for agreement between the local authority and the port.
The Minister needs to look into the issue of whether there are court proceedings. My understanding is that there is none. The Minister is being told a porky. He should simply ask the company if there is a court date and if an actual court hearing is due. He will find out there is not, so they are not telling the truth. That is my understanding and the matter needs to be checked.
Earlier this year, the statutory auditors for Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, Deloitte, resigned. This year, Pamela Kearney, the auditor on the board, resigned. As I have told the Minister, losses for the company, whose accounts came out in May, have increased from €1 million to €6.5 million.
Next week, on 27 July, the trustees of the pension scheme have been asked to meet the Pensions Board to address serious concerns raised by the worker pension trustees about the company's behaviour concerning the pension scheme. The questions continue over serious problems and irregularities with the financial and corporate governance of this harbour company. This company, which the Minister himself once called a quango, has to be dissolved. Its operating loss this year was €500,000. The combined salaries and fees of the CEO and directors add up to that loss. This quango has to be dissolved.
I hear what Deputy Boyd Barrett is saying. I am not in a position either to contradict or confirm what he said about the legal action. My information is that there is a legal action going on, while the Deputy says there is not. I will resolve that in the next two or three days by checking up on what the Deputy is saying. I am not suggesting in any way that either party is acting in bad faith, but there is obviously a misunderstanding or certainly a conflict of evidence about this issue.
On the other matter, as the Deputy knows, the transfer is due to happen. The manner of the transfer will be finally decided, if it is not resolved between the local authorities and the company, in the last analysis by the Minister. If there is a dispute as to the model chosen, it will be a ministerial function to make that decision. I will certainly bear in mind what the Deputy has said if I am called upon to make that decision at any stage.
As I said, the operating loss, not to mind the huge increase in losses, is equivalent to the excessive salaries, fees and expenses that are being paid to an executive that has essentially run this company into the ground. That in itself, on a financial basis, is the reason for its dissolution and the need for it to be put under council control. In that way, we can have some real oversight and accountability concerning what goes on there. I urge the Minister to do that. When I asked him before, he offered an arrangement to meet some of the other stakeholders. Much of what the Minister is hearing is coming from the harbour company itself or from senior council officials.
In the next few weeks, if at all possible, I would like to bring some of the other harbour stakeholders to meet with the Minister to discuss the other side of the story in terms of what is going on in Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company because it is not a good story, Minister.
I share the Deputy's view that if there is an operating loss of the size he mentioned and the chief executives and directors are getting huge sums of money that is wrong. I do not feel comfortable with that and never would. I accept that on the last occasion we discussed this issue I said I would meet with anybody the Deputy wished to bring in and I would be delighted to do so. However, as the Deputy will be aware, my powers in this particular matter are limited. In other words, the Deputy should not expect too much from the meeting but I will certainly listen to what he has to say and where I can make decisions I will bear that in mind.
41. Deputy Eugene Murphy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the protocol in place in relation to the recognition here of British driving licences in respect of British citizens living and working here and if they will have to be replaced with European Union driving licences in light of the British electorate vote to leave the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19224/16]
Has a protocol been put in place in regard to the continued recognition here of British driving licences in respect of British citizens living and working here or will these licences have to be replaced with European Union driving licences in light of the British's electorates decision to leave the European Union?
I thank Deputy Murphy for his question. He is pretty fast out of the traps.
Following the referendum in the UK on leaving the European Union, the UK remains an EU member state for the time being. It is the understanding of the Government of Ireland that the UK intends at some point to invoke Article 50 of the European treaties, following which there is a two-year period during which future relations between the UK and EU will be negotiated. The issue of driver licence recognition is one of a great many matters which will have to be resolved between the UK and the EU during the negotiations. As in all other matters relating to the departure of the UK from the EU, it would be premature to speculate on any possible outcome to negotiations which have yet to begin.
Whatever the outcome of the negotiations with regard to the recognition of UK licences within the EU, Irish driving licence holders will be able to drive in the UK and UK licence holders will be able to drive here for up to one year as visitors under International Road Traffic Conventions which apply in both Ireland and the UK independently of EU provisions. Similarly, depending on the outcome of the negotiations, Irish authorities may be able to make bilateral arrangements, similar to those applying to other non-EU states, for the exchange of UK driving licences for Irish ones.
I am sorry that I cannot be more specific in my response to Deputy Murphy on this matter. It is a little early for these decisions to have been made, although I understand the Deputy is already receiving queries on the issue.
I thank the Minister for being here to answer my question. I understand to a point why he cannot be more specific in his response. We heard several times today in the House, including from the Taoiseach and other Ministers, that the exit of Britain from the EU, which will happen if Article 50 is invoked, will lead to the creation of many problems here, particularly in relation to driving licences in the context of the return of the Border. I ask the Minister to formulate a policy in this area as soon possible. It is important that we act early in the situation.
While I agree with the Minister that we do not know what will happen in the context of the negotiations on Britain's exit from the EU, we need to prepare for it. The issue I have raised is one of many now arising out of the British electorate's decision to exit the EU, which we must respect. We must react as quickly as we can to deal with situations such as the one I have raised today in relation to driving licences.
I do not propose to come back in with another supplementary question following on from the Minister's response. I appreciate his response and ask that he keep me informed of any developments over the coming months.
I will do that. There are two distinct matters at issue: driving in other jurisdictions on a temporary visitor basis and exchanging driving licences on taking up residence in another jurisdiction. On the issue of driving in another jurisdiction on a temporary visitor basis the right to drive in another jurisdiction on a national licence is based on international road traffic conventions. These allow people to drive in signatory countries for up to a year as visitors. Ireland and the UK are parties to such conventions. This will remain the case regardless of what EU-UK arrangements may emerge. Irish driving licence holders will therefore be able to drive in the UK and UK licence holders will be able to drive here as visitors post Brexit. This is important for both business and tourism.
On the exchange of driving licences currently, as EU member states, Ireland and the UK operate driver licensing to the same standards and under EU law licences may be exchanged. This means that an Irish driving licence holder taking up residence in the UK may exchange his or her licence for a UK equivalent and the UK driving licence holder taking up residence in Ireland may exchange his or her licence for the Irish equivalent.
Am I correct that the Deputy does not propose to ask another supplementary question?
Yes.
My Department is vigorously addressing the difficulties which we face as a result of Brexit. I will ensure that the issue raised by Deputy Murphy is among those addressed by it.
I thank the Minister.
42. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the input his Department had into to the Galway transport strategy; to provide details of any reports provided by his Department to the Galway transport unit; the remit of the consultants involved together with any reports and-or findings presented by them; the plans in place for a light rail system for County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21981/16]
What input did the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport have in the Galway transport strategy; what reports, written or otherwise, are available and was light rail considered?
I thank Deputy Connolly for the question.
My Department had no input into the preparation of the Galway transport strategy. While we would be supportive of the objectives contained in the strategy to promote more sustainable forms of transport for Galway, the development of the strategy is a matter for the local authorities concerned and we have no direct role in the matter. However, the Deputy may recall from my response to a previous question on 14 June that the National Transport Authority, NTA, which is one of the agencies under my aegis, assisted Galway City Council and Galway County Council in the development of their transport strategy for the city. The NTA administers the regional cities programme for investment in public transport infrastructure in the regional cities of Galway, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. It also has responsibility for securing the provision of public transport passenger services throughout the country and so it has a keen interest in the development of transport strategies in the regional cities.
The Galway transport strategy sets out a series of actions and measures covering infrastructural, operational and policy elements to be implemented in Galway over the next 20 years and sets out a framework to deliver the projects in a phased manner. I am told the draft strategy was on public display until 11 July for public consultation and that that process is now complete. The draft strategy, appendices and strategic environmental assessment-Natura impact report were available on the Galway City and County Council websites as part of the public consultation process. I understand that it is proposed to incorporate the transport strategy into the draft Galway City Development Plan 2017-2023 and this is also a matter for the city council.
I am informed that the issue of light rail had been considered in the preparation of the draft strategy but it was concluded that there is insufficient demand to justify the significant additional cost of developing a light rail system, so bus transport will provide the backbone of the public transport network under the strategy.
I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I am disappointed. This is my third follow up in relation to this matter. I will continue to follow up on it. During a meeting with the National Transport Authority, which comes under the remit of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, a delegation, of which I was a member, was told that the NTA was preparing a report. I have tried to find that report - I would have thought there would be a written report outlining the reasons light rail was not an appropriate solution - but I cannot find it anywhere. The Minister is also unable to provide me with it today.
I come from a beautiful city, which was recently voted the European Capital of Culture. However, we have a trinity of problems, namely, the hospital, the lack of housing and public transport. Of the public transport options, light rail is the cheapest and will help us to comply with our obligations under the climate strategy and the legislation we passed committing us to low carbon emissions. Instead of that this Government is allowing Galway City Council to go ahead with a 16.5 km road that will cost €30 million per kilometre, at a conservative estimate of €500 million for a cul-de-sac, as happened in respect of the previous outer bypass.
It is a golden opportunity for the Government to lead and for the new Minister and the new politics to look at a green type of transport and a solution that is sustainable and that will show the way in Ireland and Europe. Many small cities in France have light rail systems. Where are the reports from the NTA?
I will address the issue of light rail first. I know that Deputy Connolly has been a very keen crusader for light rail in Galway for a long time. The issue of light rail was considered in the preparation of the draft strategy. However, it established that there is insufficient demand to justify the significant additional cost of developing a light rail system and the public transport network set out in the strategy will remain bus-based.
Under the regional cities programme, the Department provides funding to the NTA for the development of bus lanes; green routes, to which the Deputy referred, other bus priority measures and safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists in the regional cities of Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. The NTA manages this programme on behalf of the Department. In the period from 2011 to 2015, around €60 million was provided by the NTA to the local authorities and transport operators in the four regional cities for bus priority and other public transport measures, of which over €10 million was in respect of projects in Galway. Overall funding for this programme in 2016 is €13.5 million, of which Galway has an allocation of €2.14 million.
I got that reply in June and read it. The Minister is reading it out to me again. Where is the written report from the NTA that sets out for me where it found that light rail was not justified? That is my question.
I will ask my Department to furnish it to the Deputy.
43. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if a comprehensive impact assessment has been carried out in respect of the effect that the proposed runway at Dublin Airport will have on 2020 emissions reduction targets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21987/16]
This question must be seen in the context of the claims by the Dublin Airport Authority, daa, that the development of the second runway will have very positive benefits in terms of the economy and job creation. I have no doubt that this is true but it is a very one-sided analysis if there is no full impact assessment regarding emissions and the environmental costs associated with the development. What studies have been done in that regard?
I thank Deputy Clare Daly for substituting for Deputy Wallace. I am not sure who is the more formidable adversary in this House this time, but I will give her the same answer I would have given Deputy Wallace. The Deputy will be aware that the daa holds statutory responsibility for the management, operation and development of Dublin Airport. In line with this responsibility, it is a matter for the daa to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to facilitate the development of the airport and that there is sufficient capacity to meet existing and future demand.
It is my understanding that the runway development was subject to a rigorous environmental impact assessment, EIA, as part of the full planning process. At that time, the environmental impact statement, EIS, clearly stated that the impacts of the runway on carbon emission would not be significant and that mitigation measures such as improved aircraft engine efficiency, efficient airport operations and international climate agreements would address aviation carbon emissions. I also note that the 2020 national reduction targets under EU Decision 406/2009/EC (Effort Sharing) do not include international aircraft emissions so the north runway project will not have any direct impact on these targets.
Aviation emissions are to be addressed separately under an agreement reached at a meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, in 2013 to establish a global market-based measure for aviation emissions. It is anticipated that the details of that global scheme, which will apply from 2020, will be finalised at the ICAO general assembly in September 2016. Currently, aviation emissions from flights within the European Economic Area, EEA, are subject to an emissions trading scheme known as the EU ETS scheme. This scheme imposes a cap on the emissions of individual airlines such that all intra-EEA flights to and from Dublin Airport are covered by this scheme.
The Minister is correct in saying that the daa is responsible for airport development but the rigorous EIS that was carried out will be 13 years old by the time the new runway is operational in 2020. Obviously, our understanding of emissions and climate change has developed since that original permission was given almost ten years ago. One of the difficulties is that we had originally tabled these questions to the Minister for Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources only to have them referred back to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. There is a certain conflict in that regard.
Some of the issues are very pertinent. Aviation is responsible for about 5% of global carbon emissions. In respect of best practice, some environmentalists would say that there should be a moratorium on usage. If one looks at Dublin Airport, particularly post Brexit, one can see the number of passengers the airport now gets and the number it would need to offset the costs of the second runway that will inevitably drive up the number of flights and emissions. At the very least, a revised analysis of this would be necessary.
The Deputy will probably be aware that at the moment, the daa is in the process of examining the scope of a further EIS for the purposes of seeking a review of the operating restrictions foreseen for Dublin Airport under the existing planning permission for the north runway and has recently gone to public consultation on this matter. This consultation provides an opportunity to contribute to the content of an approach adopted in the EIS.
The problem is that the new scoping exercise for the new EIS is, as the Minister says, to look at lifting the restrictions imposed on the planning permission which is almost ten years old. There is a real problem with that on a number of fronts. First, our understanding of the impact of noise and environmental damage from aviation has progressed substantially in the past ten years, yet even at our lower level of understanding, An Bord Pleanála decided that permission could only be given with these restrictions. It is precisely these restrictions that the daa is attempting to lift, which will undoubtedly have an enormous impact. The Minister says it has done that as part of the new process. In fact, it is not really sure why it is doing it or where the information from that scoping exercise will go because it depends on what the Minister does in transposing EU Regulation No. 598/2014, which is the subject of other questions on the agenda which will not be reached. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to how he is going to deal with the transposing of that directive.
The issue of emissions is obviously separate from the issue of noise. Both issues must be separated and will be rigorously addressed. I assure the Deputy that I will watch very closely the activities of the daa in mitigating noise. I can give her the assurances I gave her previously in the House that it is imperative that the interests of the residents are looked after, that the inconveniences and disturbance they have suffered are regarded as a very high priority and that the mitigating measures are adequate and satisfy normal, decent standards so that people are not disturbed to an extent that makes their lives miserable while the runway can go ahead.
