Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Dec 2011

Transport Council: Discussion with Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport will brief us on the European Council Transport meeting which he will attend in Brussels on Monday, 12 December 2011. On behalf of the joint committee I welcome, the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and his officials. This is our first such meeting with the Minister and I look forward to a constructive dialogue on EU matters over the coming months. Consideration of developments at EU Councils is an important aspect of the work of committees and is a key factor in strengthening Oireachtas oversight of EU matters.

Members have been provided with a comprehensive brief by the Department, covering all of the agenda items and giving a general overview.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now call on the Minister to make his opening statement.

I thank the joint committee for this opportunity, the first of many I am sure, to talk about the transport agenda at EU level and where we see the key opportunities and challenges ahead for Ireland in this regard.

With the permission of the Chair, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to discuss EU issues, I would like to give a general overview of EU transport policy and its implications for Ireland and then go into more detail on the specific items on next week's Transport Council agenda.

Transport is a major part of the EU's legislative programme. It is a shared competence - along similar lines to agriculture, internal market, economic and social cohesion and others. The key objective as set out in the treaties is to develop a European transport infrastructure which is competitive and fit for purpose.

The Commission's ambitions are very high and the recent Commission White Paper on transport, which members of the committee have seen in a recent information note from my Department, sets out a comprehensive strategy for a competitive transport system that will increase mobility, remove major barriers in key areas and fuel growth and employment. At the same time, the process is aimed at dramatically reducing Europe's dependence on imported oil and cutting carbon emissions in transport by 60% by 2050.

The key goals by 2050 will include: an end to conventionally fuelled cars in cities; 40% use of sustainable low carbon fuels in aviation and at least a 40% cut in shipping emissions; and a 50% shift of medium distance intercity passenger and freight journeys from road to rail and waterborne transport, all of which will contribute to a 60% cut in transport emissions by the middle of the century.

The paper itself, however, does not contain any specific legislative changes. Transport Ministers had an exchange of views on the White Paper in June last where there was what I would describe as qualified support for its contents. In terms of its impact on Ireland's transport infrastructure, achieving the level of specifications and the targets set out would require significant investment over the 40 year perspective concerned. Clearly we are not well placed to deliver on many of the enhancements set out under the present fiscal and economic conditions. However, this should not deter us from looking at this in a positive way over the longer term.

As an open trading economy, heavily dependent on good transport links to our mainland European markets, we would welcome the type of improvements envisaged for Europe's transport infrastructure. These would certainly benefit Irish exporters and enhance Ireland's overall competitiveness. The manner and pace at which this is done will need to be given serious consideration. Ireland's peripheral location and the isolated nature of our network presents a particular set of challenges for us in this regard. For instance, the emphasis on the so-called modal shift from road to rail freight does not necessarily suit Ireland's transport needs, where rail freight is not a viable option in the way it is on mainland Europe. As an island we are clearly more dependent than most on good air and sea links, both for trade and tourism growth. Therefore, our ports and airports are a priority for investment.

As members will see when we talk in more detail about the Commission's new proposals for trans-European networks, a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate to transport policy development and we are all very alert to the potential impact of such an approach, particularly in terms of technical specifications and interoperability in Ireland's transport infrastructure.

Turning to next week's Transport Council, I will give a brief synopsis of what will happen and what position we are likely to take on the key issues for discussion. The Polish Presidency of the Commission has set a very ambitious agenda on transport and had hoped for a more ambitious outcome, particularly on the headline "TENS-T" dossier. For reasons largely outside their control they will fall somewhat short of their ambitions. Having said that, the Council will see good progress on some key dossiers. The Council should secure political agreement on the rail recast directive. As members will know from the extensive briefing provided recently by my Department, this proposal has been contentious since the Commission initially announced it in September 2010. A general approach was secured at Council last June. The European Parliament has just completed its first reading of the proposal. This should enable good progress under the Danish Presidency next year and hopefully the adoption of the directive later in 2010.

Council should also see a partial general approach to the so-called tachograph proposal. Tachographs play a crucial role in checking compliance by professional road transport drivers, with the rules on driving time and rest periods. They contribute to improving road safety, drivers' working conditions and fair competition between road transport companies. The proposed regulation is designed to provide for a smart tachograph, with updated technological features that will increase the security and cost of the tachograph system and reduce administrative costs. Ireland has expressed some concerns on this proposal and these are reflected in the general approach.

There are two items under the shipping heading, a proposed directive on training of seafarers and a regulation on single and double hull oil tankers, both of which should reach a general approach agreement. I understand the committee has taken an interest in the seafarers directive and we are happy that our concerns are being addressed in the negotiations on this proposal. My Department replied to the committee earlier this week to give it an update on the issues involved.

Council will also adopt a progress report on the Commission's proposed guidelines for a trans-European network. These proposals were published in mid-October and have been subject to very intensive discussions at a technical level on the Council. The proposed regulations set out a very ambitious vision for Europe's transport network and this is linked with a major funding programme proposed in the Commission's Connecting Europe facility. Ireland has voiced particular concerns and these are reflected in the Presidency's progress report.

In the agenda under Any Other Business, there are a number of aviation related points, including a presentation of the Commission's airport package, which was announced on 1 December last. There will also be updates from both the Presidency and the Commission on various dossiers. These will include a new proposal on the exploitation of European satellite navigation systems, European aviation safety management systems, an air cargo security plan, conferences on eastern partnership on transport, and implementation of the extension of the single European sky to third countries.

En marge of Council I will have a series of bilateral meetings, one with our team Presidency partners of Lithuania and Greece, another with Commission Vice President and Transport Commissioner, Siim Kallas, and another with Commission Vice President and Commissioner for Enterprise and Tourism, Antonio Tajani. These meetings are part of ongoing preparations for the Presidency in 2013 and a means of building a strong relationship with our EU partners. There should also be an opportunity for a bilateral meeting with the UK Minister, Justine Greening, to discuss the "TENS-T" proposal, where we share many concerns regarding the proposal.

I would be happy to provide a report to the committee on the outcome of the Council meeting and I will come back to the committee in the new year, particularly as our Presidency preparations gather speed.

I thank the Minister for his opening statement.

I thank the Minister for his briefing. I am concerned that oil tankers should have a double hull. What is the Minister's approach to a European Union regulatory policy on that across member states?

As I understand, the proposal is to require that oil tankers have a double hull in order to ensure that any damage does not result in a leakage of oil and this is welcome. All oil tankers sailing under the Irish flag have double hulls so this is not an issue of major concern to us.

Other oil tankers make deliveries to Ireland and to Dublin Port.

Yes, other single-hull tankers sailing under other flags visit our ports. We are supportive of the proposal for double hulls.

One of the goals is for the country to be less dependent on fossil fuel energy by 2050 and I refer to the use of electric cars. How is the country progressing in achieving these goals? Will Ireland present statistics to the European Parliament committee?

The aim in the EU White Paper, and it is also Government policy, is to become less dependent on fossil fuels. These fuels, oil and petrol in particular, are imported and this entails money leaving the economy. We also aim to reduce our impact on climate change. We are meeting our emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol, although this probably has more to do with the recession than any measures undertaken to date. Less energy is being produced as a result of the recession and fewer car journeys are being undertaken. However, it will be quite difficult to achieve the targets. The largest single area of emissions is agriculture rather than transport and by quite a distance, although this may be a surprise to many people. In the absence of wonderful modern technologies which probably do not yet exist, the only way to reduce those emissions would be to significantly reduce the size of the national herd and this conflicts with our objective to increase food exports. We have quite a problem to overcome. This could be counter-balanced by the recognition of certain grasslands as carbon sinks under a lovely regulation called LULUCF, land use, land-use change and forestry, which is currently under discussion.

We will struggle on the transport side. The previous Government's plan was to make a significant shift to public transport but to do so would require major investment in public transport which we cannot now afford. It will be a combination of incremental improvements in public transport and also an increase in the cost of motoring, which has begun in part in the budget and which will continue. Changes in technology will allow for cars with lower emissions and electric cars in particular. The banning of conventionally fuelled cars from cities by 2050 is probably unrealistic, in my view. However, it is 40 years hence and if one looks back 40 years to 1970, many things have happened since then. It is the objective but it will be difficult to achieve our targets, both on the agriculture side because we want to increase food production and also on the transport side, given that we do not have the funds we would like to invest in public transport.

I thank the Minister for his presentation to the committee and I thank his officials for their attendance. The Minister has a significant and extensive brief. Is waterways transport discussed at the European meetings? Some European countries use their canals very effectively for transporting various types of products. I have seen sand, vehicles, people, all being transported by canal. Would the Minister regard waterways transport as a means of contributing to the policy of fewer cars on the road? Many years ago the canals were widely used and it is a lost opportunity not to use them again. Is there any interest among European Ministers in considering this form of transport ?

It has been discussed infrequently. The Deputy is correct to say that canals and rivers are used extensively in central Europe in particular. The Rhine is navigable to a long distance and this is not the case in Ireland. I need to study such a proposal in more detail but I doubt if there are significant opportunities for the use of our canals and rivers. They are difficult to navigate beyond a certain point and the canals are an extremely slow means of transport. I regard the opportunity for tourism and leisure as being the best option for the use of our canals. The Royal Canal goes through my constituency and is now open to traffic. However, it would not be possible to have a dual usage for the canal because slow-moving cargo barges would block passage for pleasure cruisers.

A significant difference between Ireland and mainland Europe is that the Continent is densely populated and freight transport by rail is extensive. A train can be loaded in Berlin and off-loaded in Paris. This is not the case in Ireland and most of our freight is carried by road because our population centres are quite dispersed. One of my concerns about some of the drift of European policy is the drift to freight haulage by rail from roads which will not work in Ireland. We could do more as regards rail freight but not in the way possible in the Benelux countries, for example. I am doing my best to resist a one-size-fits-all approach.

I thank the Minister for his attendance. I refer to the tachograph proposals and the existing compliance. Some concern has been expressed recently by people associated with the road haulage business that there is significant non-compliance with the regulations. The "Prime Time" programme interviewed drivers who admitted they were under pressure to deliver freight to the ports and in many cases they were forced to breach the regulations in order to make a sailing on time. There were also other allegations of unsafe practices. Are the existing tachograph regulations strictly enforced?

I agree with the Minister about the one-size-fits-all approach as regards European inter-operability. Irish Rail and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport recently attended the committee to discuss the impact of the ending of the derogation in 2013. It seems this is an academic exercise because Ireland is in the unique situation of not having a land connection to the rest of Europe, unlike the United Kingdom which has a channel tunnel. The likelihood of other railway operators coming to Ireland to compete in the railway market is deemed to be unlikely. In this case, should the derogation be extended for the time being? I note the ending of derogation would result in the need to restructure Iarnród Éireann and I ask what are the proposals in this regard.

In reply to Deputy Corcoran Kennedy about our inland waterways, these are not included in the EU navigable inland waterways because our canals do not meet certain criteria for that level of transport use.

In reply to Deputy Kenny's question about tachographs, compliance can always be improved. The RSA and the Garda Síochána do a good job but we know there is non-compliance. The EU has plans for a far-reaching proposal which is still in preparation. Under the plans, tachograph machines in vehicles will be linked to the global positioning system, GPS, in order that they can be tracked by satellite. It is also planned to combine the new plastic card driving licence with the tachograph card to prevent people from faking or switching cards. The use of the GPS would allow one to track trucks and determine for how long drivers are on the road, whether they are taking breaks, etc. We will eventually adopt this system but installing the required equipment would impose high costs on the industry. For this reason, we will probably move relatively slowly to achieve our objective.

Deputy Kenny is correct on interoperability of rail services in the sense that our railways have a different gauge from those of other countries. Even if there was a tunnel or bridge between Ireland and the rest of Europe, our trains would not be able to travel on European railways. Incidentally, I met an official in Brussels who asked me if there was a tunnel between Ireland and the rest of Europe. Sometimes, one wonders how much those in the European Commission know. I was pleased to inform the individual in question that there was no such tunnel, although it is possible such a tunnel featured in the Transport 21 programme.

In legal terms we have an international railway link, namely, the Enterprise service on the Dublin to Belfast route, and there are two railway companies on the island, Iarnród Éireann and Northern Ireland Railways. It is not that we do not have a land connection with the rest of Europe but that we do not see the service in question as an international rail link, even if that is legally the case.

Deputy Kenny is also correct that it is unlikely an outside operator will enter the market. It is not inconceivable that a private company will wish to run the Enterprise or DART service in future. It may be an unlikely scenario at this point given that both services make significant losses and we do not subsidise or plan to subsidise private transport but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

The Government and Irish Rail accept that we will not seek a further extension of the derogation. In any case, it is probably too late to do so as the derogation concludes in 2013. As a result, we will have to adopt a similar approach to that which was taken in respect of the ESB, which was split up into a supply and a network company, namely, the ESB and EirGrid. Similarly, Bord Gáis has been split up into a systems operator, Gaslink, and a supplier, Bord Gáis. Irish Rail will have to be split into a network company that will run the railway infrastructure and an operating company that will operate train services. A regulatory impact assessment will be required on this matter, as will a further Government decision. Irish Rail is making significant losses and splitting the company would increase costs as it would require the establishment of two separate companies with two separate boards. The National Transport Authority would probably have some regulatory role but a different regulatory system would also be required. While this is a tricky issue, it is the route we will follow. It is not inconceivable that private operators will be interested in running services the State can no longer operate, although I do not envisage such a scenario arising in the foreseeable future. We will proceed with the approach I have outlined.

I welcome the Minister and his team. Besides the cost of updating the tachograph system for road transport drivers using smart technology, what other concerns does the Minister have about this proposal? Will he advise the joint committee of any other directives that may be forthcoming from Europe in transport? What will be his priorities during Ireland's Presidency of the European Union in 2013? Will he provide an update on the roll-out of speed cameras?

We only received the paper on the tachograph at the most recent Council meeting. As the idea is as yet undeveloped, we will seek more detail on exactly what is proposed, how it is to be delivered and what it would cost. The proposal is not yet fully developed and requires a little more work.

On other directives, there is the so-called "Recast" proposal on European railways, the TEN-T to which I referred, which seeks to draw up a map of all trans-European networks and the airports package which addresses slots, ground handling, capacity assessment, etc. As we received the document on the airports package only the other day, I have not yet had a chance to study it. We also have the social maritime package and the sports element of the Erasmus for All programme with which the Minister of State, Deputy Ring, is dealing. I referred already to the rail package. We also have the passenger ship safety directive, the air passenger rights package, which will be interesting, and the ETS proposal for the maritime sector which applies the emissions trading system for carbon emissions to the maritime sector. Significant work is being done on the directives front.

The Presidency in 2013 will be relatively low key on the transport side. We will no longer have informal meetings, for example, and will try to save some money by holding formal meetings only, all of which will be held in Dublin Castle. This will be an austerity Presidency. The era of Ministers bringing European politicians to visit their constituencies is at an end unfortunately. The work done on transport during the Presidency will depend on what is on the agenda in 2013. I expect that the TEN-T directive will be concluded during that period. Given that Ireland has led the way in Europe on road safety, we may consider doing some work on this issue, which would be a major undertaking. Penalty points are not interoperable across Europe, in other words, one can drive from Germany to Luxembourg and on to France or anywhere else and in each country a different system of penalty points and licensing applies. We may do something on that front. Transport will not be one of the key focuses of the Irish Presidency. Another reason for this is that 2013 will also be the year of The Gathering initiative and any additional resources available to the Department will be focused on that event.

I do not have information on speed cameras as they are operated by the Garda. However, as far as I am aware, all cameras are in place and operational. People believe speed cameras and GoSafe vans are collecting substantial sums for the Garda and Government but they operate at a small loss of approximately €2 million per annum which must be absorbed by the Department of Justice and Equality. Speed cameras are highly effective. One of the measures being considered in the Department, which may of interest to the joint committee, is changing the vans to enable them to capture motor tax offences. At present they capture only speeding offences. To improve enforcement in the area of motor tax, we are examining the possibility of altering the vans to enable them to capture images of motor tax discs. This would be important in increasing revenues and providing a little more money to maintain the roads.

I will raise again the issue of airports, on which I questioned the Minister at a meeting of our internal committee. Will he elaborate on comments by the Minister for Finance on making it more cost effective for airlines to bring tourists to the country? This ties in with the question I asked the Minister the other day on Mr. Michael O'Leary's criticism of the Dublin Airport Authority for being excessively expensive relative to Knock Airport. In response, the Minister explained briefly that the reason is that the Government frequently bails out Knock Airport. I ask him to elaborate on his explanation.

A number of issues arise in the aviation sector. Dublin Airport Authority airports work differently from the regional airports, including Kerry and Donegal airports. The DAA airports in Cork, Dublin and Shannon operate entirely on a commercial basis and do not receive any form of subvention from the State. If they ever received a subvention, it will have been perhaps 30 or 40 years ago. The regional airports in Knock, Kerry, Waterford and Donegal operate on a slightly different basis in the sense that the Government pays for necessary capital works on the runways, buildings and so forth and at the end of each year picks up any "subventable" losses as they are known. It is, therefore, easier to be competitive and charge airlines less when the Government picks up one's capital costs and operating losses. This facility is not available to State owned airports and it is a little ironic that the State subsidises private airports and does not subsidise airports in public ownership. It is a little ironic. We actually subsidise the private airports, not the ones in State ownership. It is something we might need to think about in the longer term. I have signalled a change in policy in that regard. We have removed subsidies from Galway and Sligo and it is our intention over the next number of years to phase out subsidies for the other regional airports, to create a level playing field. However, there is a recognition that Donegal, in particular, is very remote. There is no railway to Donegal or anywhere near it and the A5 will eventually go there, but it will be some time, so there is a particular case with Donegal which justifies the public service obligation, PSO.

With regard to the DAA, it depends on who one believes. A comparison of charges between DAA airports and others indicates that its prices are slightly below average. Airlines usually negotiate special deals. I would like if a special deal was negotiated between Ryanair and the DAA, but one must meet people half way if one wishes to make a deal. One cannot have it all one's own way. We have continued to offer the abolition of the travel tax. It is down to €3 from €10 and we are prepared to abolish it but we must get something back from the airlines in terms of new routes and additional capacity.

The airport charges will not go up for the next number of years. They will either not increase at all or only increase in line with inflation, so they will be flat for the next couple of years. The charges imposed by the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, for air traffic control are going down by 25% to 30% in the next few years. One might not think it but airport charges are due to decrease slightly in the next few years.

What we need is deals on growth between the airlines and the airports whereby if the airlines introduce new routes and bring in more passengers, they will be charged far less for those extras. That is already done. The new long haul routes such as the new Emirates routes, for example, will not pay any airport charges for the first five years. If a route was reopened to San Francisco or Los Angeles, for example, and it is a major objective to reopen a route to California, the airline would not pay airport charges for five years. The same would apply to Canada. Ultimately, however, airlines are businesses and they know better than us whether they can fill the aeroplanes, and they will not open these routes until they can.

There are new routes coming on stream, which is encouraging. The route to Washington will reopen next year and the new route to Charlotte opened this year and is going well. The Emirates route will open on 9 January and that will mean there is only one hop to New Zealand. It will really improve access to Asia. There are also the additional flights into Ireland West Airport in Knock. Lufthansa will also fly to Knock. Ireland West Airport has been very effective at getting new business into Knock. Hopefully, those additional flights will be very successful. Tourism Ireland was very supportive in getting those routes into Knock and in helping to market them. I understand Aer Lingus intends to announce some new routes in the next few weeks as well.

The difficulty is that from a tourism point of view I am anxious that people will fly into the country, but the airlines need to fill the aeroplanes going both ways. Notwithstanding comments I made last week, one of the problems for airlines is that outbound tourism is falling. The number of Irish people flying out is decreasing and that makes it harder to justify routes.

The people are listening to the Minister when he tells them to go on holiday in Ireland. It is the Minister's fault.

I thank the Minister. To return to the primary purpose of this meeting, could you give the committee further explanation of the EU Council guidelines for the development of the trans-European network? I understand that the Irish position is generally supportive of the proposal but there are concerns about its governance and the technical specifications being included. Given that the report will set out an infrastructure or architecture for the trans-European transport network over the next 40 years, will you outline our current position on that issue? More specifically, what are the concerns that arise from those discussions?

The trans-European networks are an attempt to draw up and define the core transport, energy, waterway and other networks that connect all of Europe. It started as an idea that we should draw up the core motorways and railways that connect Europe, but that changed when everyone tried to add in everything. Member states, being the way they are, started adding roads that are really not trans-European networks, so the Commission responded to that by dividing it into a hierarchy, with the core ones that really are networks and the comprehensive ones that might not be. Then it decided there were too many in the core, so now there is a third layer. I cannot remember what it is called.

Mr. Caoimhghín Ó Ciaruáin

It is called corridors.

Yes. The corridors are the genuine trans-European networks. Below that is the core network and below that is the comprehensive network.

The difficulty for us is what we do and do not include in it. A major issue is the high level of specification. Under the directive as it stands, if we include a railway as a trans-European network, it must be electrified. If we sign up to the directive, we would be legally obliged to electrify any railway we put on the map by 2030. That is not something we can commit to or afford. It might not even be worth doing. There might be better ways to spend money than electrifying railways. In the longer term one might be able to envisage doing it on the line from Belfast to Dublin and from Dublin to Cork, but even that is debatable. A similar issue arises with the national roads and motorways. If they are included as part of the network, they must be to a certain specification.

One of the issues we are discussing is whether we should assert that Ireland is different. As an island we do not need to electrify our railways, so should there be a separate set of rules for Ireland or should we just remove our railways from the network altogether and say they are not part of a trans-European network? A call has to be made in that regard. The problem is that once one starts setting separate criteria for different members state, the project breaks down. It is not a trans-European network if the definition of a network is different in each member state.

On the other hand, there are potential opportunities. There will be some funding from the European budget, out of the Connecting Europe Facility, for core projects between now and 2030. We would not like to freeze Ireland out of the opportunity to secure European funds for some upgrades between now and 2030. However, it is only 30% so we would have to provide 70% and once we sign up for it, we must do it. The issue is with the specification and the balance between the opportunity to get some funding and the potential risks of committing oneself to major projects. There are European criteria for this, so it is not at our discretion to include anything we wish. Therefore, a road that carries only 7,000 or 8,000 cars per year cannot be a trans-European network.

Would there be implications if Great Britain signed up to it and we did not, with regard to what Deputy Kenny mentioned earlier, for example, the derogation of the railway systems and other matters? Would that create further complications for us?

All the railways in Britain are electrified and they are connected to Europe through the Channel tunnel. It is not in the same position as Ireland with the railways. What we have regard to with Britain is that if one has, for example, a trans-European network that starts in Belfast, goes through Dublin to Rosslare and it goes across to Wales, the British people must accept that it continues there. It is not a trans-European network if it stops just outside a port in Wales. We have to discuss with the British exactly where they see these routes going.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I have two questions, as the Minister has answered the other questions I intended to raise. We welcome the announcement of additional flights into Knock. Are subsidies being paid to Ryanair on the new routes into Knock? The Minister mentioned the recent announcement of the suspension of road funding for the next number of years. I am more concerned that we encourage the carriage of more freight on our rail links, particularly to the west of Ireland. The quality of roads is part of the Minister's responsibility. The figures on freight from Dublin to Ballina are very encouraging and increasing all the time. I am interested in the route from Dublin to Sligo. I would like to eliminate the concerns expressed to me by road users about the volume of heavy freight traffic. A lot of goods could be transported by rail rather than road.

Ryanair does not receive any subsidies from the State. It receives very substantial subsidies in other parts of Europe, particularly in Spain. It is not something we want to get into. It is very expensive to subsidise airlines. It receives indirect subsidies because many of the airports it flies into, including Kerry and Knock, are subsidised by the State. We have joint marketing campaigns with it, which cost about €2 million, to market its routes into Ireland. It matched that funding. The total cost was €4 million. We have similar arrangements with all airlines, not just Ryanair.

On roads, getting as much as we can onto freight is a good way to go. As the Deputy mentioned a huge amount of freight comes from Ballina from Coca-Cola and other places. Irish Rail pulled out of freight a couple of years ago because it was losing a fortune on it. It is now rebuilding its business but is only running services it considers profitable. Whatever it does has to be done on a commercial basis.

The problem with rail transport is that goods have to be loaded onto a truck to get them to a train station, and then need to be loaded onto trains and back onto trucks to get from the railway to the next place. It involves three journeys rather than one. A haulier can pick up goods at a door and bring them to where they need to go. Unless the railway travels into a premises it involves three journeys.

The rail spur now goes right into Dublin Port which is helpful. Something similar could be done in Foynes in Shannon in the longer term to connect the Pallasgreen mine to Foynes. It would be expensive but it is an option. Rail freight only works for bulk goods such as mining products, trees and timber. It does not work very well for other goods. The all-Ireland freight forum has been set up to bring freight groups together and work out what can be done.

We discussed the railways directive with Deputy Kenny. There are a number of private operators on the railways. If there are opportunities to get the private sector involved in railways it will be less on the passenger transport side and more on the freight side, in terms of running trains from mines and factories to ports. I understand the figure is 3% or 4%.

The Minister mentioned penalty points. Most countries have different ways of dealing with road offences. How close are we to a more harmonised situation in Europe in terms of sharing information between different states on whether a person has committed an offence? Are we moving towards such a system?

On cross-Border speed limits and signage, when one crosses the Border the speed limits change from miles to kilometres. Has any pressure been applied to change the situation? It is very confusing for people on both sides of the Border when the speed limit is 120 km/h in the South but 70 mph in the North. Will Europe impose some rules in regard to that?

There has been very little progress made on the European front in harmonising penalty points because every country has different systems, offences and numbers of penalty points for each offence. With the introduction of the European driving licence an opportunity arises. The new licence, which is like a credit card, will be introduced in 2013. It will have a chip with lots of information on it. After that things will progress.

I am not sure what the situation is in the UK. I understand it has a derogation to use imperial rather than metric measurements which is kind of stupid. I take the Deputy's points. It is an issue for tourists who may be driving to the Giant's Causeway and do not know why the speed limits have changed. I will mention the issue to Ministers Kennedy and Attwood the next time I see them. I imagine they will have divergent views on whether the UK should go metric. We are not going to go back to using miles, therefore the UK will have to go metric.

We are making very good progress on bringing things together on a cross-Border basis, because people drive from Ireland to Wales and England, and between the North and South in much larger numbers. We have an agreement with Minister Attwood that we will have joint penalty points in the four areas which cause most accidents, namely, not wearing of seatbelts, drink-driving, speeding and the use of mobile phones. We are working out the details on that. We will have to bring the number of points in line. For example, one receives three points for speeding in the North but two in the South. We expect to do that in the next year or two. It will be a long time before there will be a common system for detailed offences such as a bridge strike.

I am told the UK considers the mile, the pound and the pint to be sacred.

It would be very helpful if there was clear signage at the Border about the change in speed limits. There is no indication; they just change.

I agree. I will discuss it with Ministers Attwood and Kennedy at the next sectoral meeting.

I thank the Minister for attending and briefing the committee. I wish him well in his work in the Council on Monday.

I thank the committee for its interest and work. It is very busy because of the number of briefs it has to cover. I appreciate that it is dealing with all of the matters I have sent it.

The joint committee adjourned at 11 a.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 December 2011.
Barr
Roinn