Other Questions
33. Deputy Shane Cassells asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the deficiencies in Ireland's failed bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup which led to Ireland receiving eight votes during an organisation's (details supplied) ballot; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49196/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFirst, what was said in the Seanad last Thursday about the Irish bid was disgraceful and wrong. It was an insult and disrespectful to the efforts of Kevin Potts, Philip Orr, Dick Spring, Brian O'Driscoll, Philip Browne, Páraic Duffy, the Minister, Deputy Ross and others.
Rather than dismiss the decision last week by World Rugby as an opportunity lost, there is merit in discussing it given the Government spend of over €1 million of taxpayers' money. At the end of the day, this came down to pure old horse trading and a vote between lads and blazers - which are not my words but those of rugby men on the inside track, such as Jim Glennon. Last Sunday, he set out in writing how the votes went down in the background. He named those involved, such as Gareth Davies from Wales, and set out how in the two weeks prior to the vote it was all about canvassing.
I thank the Deputy for his question and remarks. Before I respond to the question, I congratulate France on its win. I wish it every success as it turns its attention to delivering an outstanding tournament in 2023. Wednesday's result was disappointing, particularly after the years of work put into the bid. However, in our disappointment, we should not lose sight of the fact that the technical report found that Ireland would be an excellent host country for a Rugby World Cup. Although we were not successful, it is important to highlight that fact. The chairman of World Rugby, Bill Beaumont, noted that there were three outstanding host candidates who raised the bar and overwhelmingly demonstrated that they were all capable of hosting an exceptional Rugby World Cup and stated that there was very little to choose between the candidates and this was reflected in the independently-audited evaluation report.
Ireland was up against two previous hosts and in the evaluation report we fell behind them based on the quality of their stadia, many of which are recently built as result of hosting Euro 2016 and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. We presented a different, more sustainable vision that involved investment in existing stadia to meet tournament standards. Unfortunately, the Rugby World Cup Limited evaluators did not agree. In any event, ultimately the voters did not support the recommendations. Ireland’s bid is one of which all involved can be extremely proud. I take this opportunity thank Fianna Fáil for ignoring the remarks in the Seanad and to thank that party, Sinn Féin and the Independents for their support for the bid. We had some very constructive debate on the Bill which I introduced in this House. We did have the support of the Opposition, which was critical.
I thank Deputy Cassells for the constructive remarks he makes today. Of course, we are not above criticism but it would be wrong not to acknowledge the fantastic and united support of this nation and virtually all parties behind the bid which was one of which we can all be proud. It should be remembered that according to the evaluation report all of the bidding countries could have produced a very good Rugby World Cup.
I thank the Minister for his reply. My question is in respect of the process. The Minister answered my question well in terms of his reference to Bill Beaumont, a rugby legend and member of the executive council, who defied the executive independent report because, as we know, the English backed Ireland.
I would like to speak about what those involved in rugby are saying, as opposed to what is stated in the report. Jim Glennon is a former Irish rugby forward and politician who knows the dark world of voting in both disciplines.
He noted last weekend that after all the millions of euro invested in the bid, all the travel and hard work, Ireland's prospects of hosting the World Cup had come down to this, namely, that the outcome was in the hands of our Six Nations allies, Scotland and Wales. It was time to pull out all the stops and ensure every connection with anybody involved in rugby was exploited to the full. That is what it ultimately seems to have boiled down to: good old horse trading. If that was indeed the case, what exactly was our canvassing strategy? Did the Minister meet his counterpart in the Scottish Assembly, for example, to try to organise a quid pro quo whereby Ireland would assist the Scots on the next occasion? Was there any engagement in this vein with the Welsh Assembly Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport, Dafydd Elis-Thomas? The Minister, Deputy Ross, might think I am being facetious but I urge him to consider the words of Brian O'Driscoll in the aftermath of the vote, "What goes around comes around." The former Ireland rugby captain was not holding back in pointing out what he considered to be the ramifications of this decision.
The Deputy's comments probably are more controversial than mine will be. We did everything we possibly could to secure a successful bid. On the question of lobbying, the answer is that, yes, there was lobbying and plenty of it. We are not ashamed of the fact we lobbied and put our case. Politicians lobbied and the Irish Rugby Football Union lobbied. Members of the Opposition lobbied, and I thank them for it. It was a united effort.
I would give a certain amount of credit to some of what the Deputy has said this morning. One must acknowledge that despite the evaluation report, two thirds of the people voting did not take any notice of that information and sent their votes elsewhere. In other words, decisions were not made on the basis of the evaluation report itself.
I did get involved personally in the bid, from my first day as Minister. I met World Rugby on several occasions, I introduced legislation and I travelled at least twice to the United Kingdom to lobby my British counterpart.
The expert review group looked at the question of deficiencies, including in transport and, in particular, in terms of our stadium infrastructure. Having worked as a sports journalist for more than a decade and having visited many stadiums throughout the country, I am well aware of the deficiencies we have but also the very positive gains there have been in the past ten years or so. There is no question, however, that investment is needed in stadiums throughout the country. When the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, responded to questions from me on the investment issue in the House last week, he spoke about sports capital grants. That funding is for helping clubs to get on their feet. We need to address the deficiencies in our major infrastructure with a view to implementing the municipal stadium model. That is the model in favour across Europe and it allows for the hosting of multitudes of sports. In a small country like ours, we will need to pool our scarce resources into the municipal stadium model if we are to ensure any future pitch for a major tournament in any sport is credible. That will require having infrastructure worthy of the European stage.
A sum of €50 million has been allocated in the budget for large-scale projects, and stadium projects certainly could be considered eligible candidates for that funding. I do not know whether the Deputy is giving credit to the criticisms of our stadium infrastructure. Commitments were given in this regard and they were solid, bullet-proof and Government-sponsored. I remain of the view that it was utterly credible to give an undertaking that the infrastructure would be in place on time. However, World Rugby made a judgment that it was better to have a stadium in hand than one that is promised, and that is fair enough. All I can do now is wish good luck to the French and look forward to a very good Rugby World Cup. We are very proud of the work we did in bidding for the tournament.
34. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to update the area-wide school travel plan for the Grace Park Road and Griffith Avenue area, in view of the fact there are 3,500 pupils attending 12 primary and post-primary schools in the area (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49350/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy questions relates to the need for an updated area-wide school travel plan for the Grace Park Road and Griffith Avenue area in view of the large numbers of students attending the various schools there.
A traffic management plan for a particular area is primarily a matter for the relevant local authority, in this case Dublin City Council. There are, however, some supports designed at central government level that can assist both local authorities and local entities, including schools, in better managing traffic and its impact on their area.
The sustainable transport measures grants, STMG, programme is administered on my behalf by the National Transport Authority, NTA. It provides Exchequer-funded support to the seven local authorities in the greater Dublin area, GDA, in implementing sustainable transport projects, including traffic management schemes in their areas. The NTA is responsible for deciding allocations to local authorities under this grant scheme.
The sustainable travel policy Smarter Travel 2008-2020 encourages all schools to have a travel plan. Such plans can set out ways for encouraging students to take alternatives to the car. As part of that programme, local authorities offer support via the identification and implementation of safe walking and cycling routes to and from schools and other educational institutions as well as by providing better access for people with disabilities. Some local authorities provide helpful guidance for schools on the possible content of such plans.
The Green Schools programme's travel element, known as GST, is an activity-based mobility management programme which, following a two-year pilot in the GDA, has been in operation nationally since 2008. This may be of interest to the 12 primary and post-primary schools in the Grace Park Road and Griffith Avenue area. It is rolled out in schools that have completed the first three themes of the Green Schools programme, which are litter and waste, energy, and water. Schools take two years to complete the travel programme. GST is funded by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, with moneys provided through the NTA to An Taisce, which operates the programme.
The NTA has also produced a toolkit for school travel which is designed, in particular, for use by schools that are currently not engaged with the Green Schools programme but are specifically interested in addressing travel planning for their location. The NTA's toolkit presents a set of possible measures for promoting a reduction in car usage on the trip to and from school. It also encompasses measures aimed at mitigating the impact of traffic on the community around the school.
This area has 12 primary and post-primary schools and 3,500 students commuting every day. Moreover, there are plans for one of the schools to increase its intake and, in addition, plans for increased housing in this already congested area. I am urging that the Minister's Department be the driver in bringing the various groups together, including the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, the Department of Education and Skills, the local authority and the NTA. While my question concerns a specific area, there are implications for other locations. How up to date and proactive are all these authorities when it comes to devising a traffic management plan involving schools in a particular area?
As I said, the local authority should be the lead in this. I am not attempting to pass the buck in saying that I do not consider myself to have any great role in this. If I can play a constructive role in bringing people together, then I will do so. However, the first port of call probably should be the local authority when it comes to bringing stakeholders together. My guess, moreover, is that it is a matter for the local authority to make any decisions in this regard. What we can provide is certain environmentally friendly ways of controlling and managing traffic. Clearly, if there are plans to increase student intake, as the Deputy indicated, the traffic certainly will get worse. I will ask one of my officials to get in touch with the local authority to see whether there is anything we can do together, apart from promoting the programmes to which I referred in my reply.
It really is about joining the dots and ensuring people talk to each other, and there is an awareness of changing demographics. For instance, traffic counts were done for the environmental impact statement that preceded the construction of the Dublin Port tunnel. How often are such assessments conducted before plans are done up for different types of infrastructure projects?
We all agree it would be great to see more children walking or cycling to school instead of being dropped off by car. Where road transport cannot be avoided, it is much better to have 20 children in one bus, ideally an environmentally friendly bus, than one child in 20 separate cars. The problem is that when it comes to planning for and addressing these issues, people are operating in isolation to each other, whereas a coming together would be much more effective.
Traffic plans are hopeless if one does not have an environmentally friendly way, which the Deputy addressed, of getting children to school which gets them out of cars. We have a larger role here, not just in Dublin or the Deputy's area but on a national level, to get children cycling and participating in walking, cycling and sustainable travel initiatives, which are in my Department's remit. In 2014, as the Deputy probably knows, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport engaged Cycling Ireland to develop a new national cycle training standard specifically for schools which would ensure a standardised level of cycle training around the country. The new standard, Cycle Right, which was launched in January 2017, has been rolled out since the start of 2017 to as many primary schools as funding allows. This new cycle training standard, which includes an on-road element, will result over time in an increase in the number of children choosing to cycle to and from school. It is expected that between 12,000 and 15,000 children will avail of the training in 2017. I will ask an official to contact the local authority and I will ask the school to look at the green schools programme and cycle right programme.
35. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when the BusConnects programme will provide its first low emission public bus; the fuel source of these vehicles; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49352/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraI recently asked about the make-up of the bus fleet and what powers its engines. I got a reply saying the Minister was strongly committed to facilitating the uptake of low emission technologies in the public transport sector, that his Department has established a green public transport fund to support the uptake of low carbon technologies within the public transport sector and that the BusConnects programme will have the entire Dublin fleet converted to low emissions technology by 2030. When will we see the first of these new cleaner vehicles and what will their power source be?
As the Deputy is aware, BusConnects, which was launched earlier this year by the National Transport Authority, NTA, is a plan to transform Dublin's bus system fundamentally so that journeys for passengers by bus will be fast, reliable, punctual, convenient and affordable. It represents a reimagining of bus transport for the Dublin region. It encompasses the revamping of all aspects of the bus system, including the ticketing technology, the road infrastructure, the bus stops, the network of routes, the fare structure and vehicle emissions.
In budget 2018, I secured a four year multi-annual capital envelope of over €770 million for the BusConnects programme. As part of the BusConnects project, a decision on the optimum fleet technology will be made very soon where either a single technology or a combination of technologies will be selected. A fleet acquisition plan will be developed to transition the bus fleet to low emission vehicle types, with the first vehicles under that strategy to go into service during 2018. By 2023 half of the bus fleet, approximately 500 buses, are expected to be converted to low emission vehicles with full conversion expected to be completed by 2030.
The public transport fleet has a central role to play in promoting and normalising the use of alternative fuels - alternatives to petrol and diesel - within wider society, which is essential if we are to decarbonise the transport sector by 2050. Transitioning the public transport fleet is important for leadership and demonstration. However, according to the latest emission inventory estimates, public transport emissions accounted for only an estimated 4.6% of total land transport emissions. If the Deputy breaks that 4.6% down, approximately 3.5% is produced by buses and 1.1% is produced by rail services.
Last week, the 2018 Climate Change Performance Index was published at the UN climate talks in Bonn. It contained the not-so-surprising claim that Ireland is now the single worst performer on climate change action in Europe. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is a central holder of responsibility for this shameful accolade. What have we been doing with the bus fleet all these years? Dublin Bus responded to one of my questions last week. It stated that of the 1,006 buses in operation, zero operated on electricity, zero were hybrids, 530 were purchased in the last six years and every single one of them runs on diesel. It is a crazy situation. The fumes from diesel engines are lethal to humans. The nitrogen dioxide that is produced forms tiny particulates that can lodge in the lungs and leads to dangerous outdoor air pollution that has become the biggest killer in the world at 3 million deaths per year. If there is any diesel in the make-up of low emissions engines, it would be a disaster. Has the health danger been taken into account by the Minister's Department?
Much of what Deputy Wallace said is right. We are bad performers and we have missed our targets. We do not have a record about which we could hold our heads high. Public transport is a contributor to that. There is no point in denying it. We are making large strides, particularly in the bus area but also elsewhere, with ambitious and renewed targets to remedy the situation of which we cannot be proud. The NTA has published, as part of the overall BusConnects project, its proposals for transitioning the bus fleet in Dublin to low carbon emissions. It intends to seek funding from the green public transport funds for the incremental additional cost of buying environmentally friendly vehicles and envisages that similar vehicles will be purchased for use in the regional cities of Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford.
Paris, Madrid, Athens and Mexico have announced that they will ban diesel vehicles in their cities by 2025. We will fall even further behind those cities. Even if we convert to electric vehicles and trains, if the electricity that powers them is dirty and comes from peat, oil, coal and gas as it does at present, we will still have a problem. The burning of coal at Moneypoint will still be happening in 2025 and probably in 2030. We will have coal-powered buses, which is worse than them being diesel-powered. Scotland has increased its power generation from renewable sources from 20% in 2009 to 43% in 2015. In Ireland, in 2015, 8% of our energy was from renewable sources. We seem to be letting the private sector lead us on renewable energy. It is like expecting it to fix the housing crisis. It just will not happen. Unless the State takes a proactive role and gets serious and honest about dealing with climate change, we are not going to change things very quickly. Our record on climate change in Europe is going to get worse before it gets better.
The State takes climate change seriously, as does our Department. It was not taken seriously enough in the past and we had targets which may have been too ambitious but were there all the same. The green public transport fund was established to cover the difference in price between those buses which were diesel-fuelled, hybrids and other forms of environmentally friendly, low emissions vehicles. That fund is part of the carbon reduction programme, to support the uptake of low-carbon, energy efficient technologies within the public transport fleet. The fund is intended to address the price differential to which I referred. Funding will also be allocated from that fund to accelerate electric vehicle uptake rates, following a recent recommendation from the low emissions vehicles, LEV, task force, as part of the 2018 budgetary estimates process. This will include the introduction of a new tolling centre regime to incentivise ultra-low emitting cars. Further details will be finalised by the LEV task force. I acknowledge the Deputy's point and ask him to remember that buses only represent a small part of emissions.
Cars are the bigger emitter.
36. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the details of the works to be carried out on the N22 Ballyvourney to Macroom road in view of the fact that the expenditure allocations 2018 to 2020 document states that the land transport programme for 2018 will include planning, design, land acquisition and advance works; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49439/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraSince 2013, when the compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, were confirmed for the N22 Macroom bypass, tendering for construction has been the next key milestone in that project. The process could take much of a year, including putting it out for tender and assessing the details afterwards. It does not need to be held up with any of the other processes, such as land purchase, archaeological issues or fencing. It can be done at the same time.
Will the Minister release it to tender for construction in the next year? What are his plans? What kind of works is he lining up to be carried out on the N22 over the next year?
As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding in respect of the national roads programme. The planning, design and implementation of individual road projects is a matter for Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2015 in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Within its capital budget, the allocation of funding to individual projects is a matter in the first instance for TII in accordance with section 19 of the Roads Act.
This road scheme involves the construction of 22 km of new carriageway from just east of Macroom to west of Ballyvourney, including a bypass of Macroom town. The scheme will address the inadequacies on the existing road layout in a variety of ways, including improving road safety, increasing the capacity of the road, improving journey times and relieving congestion in Macroom town. TII is responsible for implementation of the project within available budgets. The scheme has full statutory approval. TII has progressed land purchase and advance works on the project, including archaeology and site investigations. The tender documentation for the construction contract is also being prepared, and EirGrid and Cork County Council have sought procedural advice from An Bord Pleanála in respect of pylon relocation.
The Ballyvourney to Macroom upgrade scheme was included in the Building on Recovery capital plan, and TII has been progressing preparatory work related to the project. As the plan provides for the gradual build-up in capital funding for the road network, with funding backloaded towards the end of the plan period, the construction programme for the major national road improvement projects will ramp up from 2020. Construction of the Ballyvourney to Macroom scheme is scheduled to start in the first quarter of 2020. However, within this context, I understand that TII has progressed land purchase and advance works on the project, including archaeology and site investigations. I also understand that the tender documentation relating to the construction of the project is being prepared. TII allocated €4 million to this scheme in 2014, €5 million in 2015, €3.8 million in 2016 and €14 million this year.
The question is fairly specific. It is on the outline of works the Minister intends to see carried out on that much-needed project over the coming year. He has spoken about the archaeological work and the fencing work. These were part of the original contract, yet they were plucked out and presented as advance works while the substantive project was parked. These works are independent of the substantive project. They do not need to hold back the release of the tender for construction. The tender itself is clearly being prepared. Will the Minister release the project to tender for construction in the coming year? He Minister is talking about potentially beginning work in the first quarter of 2020, but a job of this scale could take much of a year to go through the tendering process. There is no need to wait for the other stages to be complete. It is something on which the Minister could start in order that it could be ready when the archaeological and fencing works are finished. From what I can see on the ground locally, much of the fencing work is in fact pretty much finished. The Minister has outlined various figures in respect of land purchase. This funding has been drip-fed over recent years. It does not need to hold up the works. It is independent and the tendering can take place in parallel with any of the other stages.
I cannot give that commitment to the Deputy in this situation, and I do not think he expects me to. A lot of progress has been made. I will not say that it is ungrateful, because I do not expect gratitude from anybody for anything, but it should be recognised that TII has been allocated progressive and increasing amounts of money. I will repeat that €4 million was allocated to the scheme in 2014, €5 million in 2015, €3.8 million in 2016, and €14 million this year. The commitment is there. As far as I can see, and the Deputy can contradict me, we are only talking about the timing. He is talking about something happening almost immediately while I am talking about 2020. I cannot tell him that I will advance that at this stage, but I am not going to reduce the commitment we have made to this particular project in any way.
I do not believe the people of Macroom are ungrateful. They are frustrated and they are sick of waiting for the bypass. They have been waiting for many years and have seen the drip-feeding of funding for land purchase, funding which has decreased and increased over the years. We want to get to the stage where the project happens and we are able to drive on that road.
There are ways in which the Minister can speed up the process. I have shown him one such way. The tender for construction can be run at the same time as other works are being carried out. These works do not need to hold the tendering back. There are ways in which the Minister can carry out the process much more quickly. We are offering him solutions. We are asking whether the Minister will take them, run with them and make the road happen more quickly than he has projected in his figures. It is possible.
The road is happening and it is going to happen. It is not happening at the pace which the Deputy, understandably, would require. The considerable sums being spent on the project are proof of the commitment to it. The option of accelerating the construction of some of the Building on Recovery schemes, including the Ballyvourney to Macroom scheme, was considered. This was not possible within the overall funding envelope available, however, given the moneys needed to meet the Government's commitment to contribute £75 million sterling to the first phase of the A5. Unfortunately, there are other very expensive projects to which we have made commitments and we must keep those commitments as well.
37. Deputy Margaret Murphy O'Mahony asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the role his Department will play in the National Disability Inclusion Strategy 2017-2021; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49288/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe National Disability Inclusion Strategy 2017-2021, NDIS, was launched by my colleague, the Minister of State with special responsibility for disability, Deputy Finian McGrath, last July. This is a whole-of-Government approach aimed at improving the lives of people with disabilities. The NDIS contains precise and measurable actions and timescales for delivery, including in the areas of transport and sport.
Monitoring of the implementation of the strategy is being overseen by the national disability inclusion strategy steering group which comprises key Departments, the National Disability Authority and the disability stakeholders group. My Department is represented on this body and works with relevant State agencies and public transport operators to progress the implementation of specific transport and sport actions under the strategy. My Department and its agencies also work closely with the other Departments and agencies to deliver on cross-sectoral or cross-departmental actions.
My Department has in place an accessibility consultative committee, ACC. Its role is to monitor and review progress on the implementation of actions under the NDIS. Membership of the ACC is drawn from organisations representing people with disabilities, members of the disability stakeholders group, key agencies under the aegis of the Department, as well other relevant State agencies. Meetings of the ACC are scheduled to take place at least two weeks in advance of meetings of the steering group. The most recent meeting took place on 18 October.
I can assure the Deputy that my Department and its agencies are committed to engaging actively with the strategy, including the continued development of accessible public transport in recognition of the importance of such services to the lives of people with disabilities. In this regard I should mention that the four-year capital envelope for public transport announced in budget 2018 includes a multi-annual allocation of almost €28 million for the accessibility retro-fit programme for the period 2018 to 2021. This funding is a trebling of the previous allocation. It relates to accessibility upgrades for existing older infrastructure and is additional to the investment in new infrastructure which, as a matter of course, is nowadays designed to facilitate accessibility.
I hope this plan will go ahead and that it is not another pie in the sky dream of the kind the Minister's Government often comes up with. Bus Éireann provides a very good service in west Cork, yet if people with disabilities want to travel from any town in west Cork to the city, they must give 24 hours' notice. In an age in which we want everyone to be equal, I find this very hard to swallow. Even if the bus is disability-friendly, there are towns in which the bus stop is not. A lot of work needs to be done in this area.
I also want to raise a few issues which affect people who are visually impaired.
Those who are blind or visually impaired cannot drive and, therefore, public transport is their only means of transport. Accessible public transport is vital for their independence. Availability goes hand in hand with accessibility.
The Deputy may have missed my earlier reply to Deputy Munster. The Government has trebled its commitment to disabilities in the recent capital plan in addition to what was already being spent. There is no doubt that my Department and the Government are fully committed to disabilities.
The Deputy made a very good point in respect of Irish Rail. She would accept that a pilot scheme is now being operated by Iarnród Éireann on the DART to try to bring down the number of hours required for notice from 24 hours to four hours. I will report back to the House when a result is obtained in that regard. It is a very important development.
I did not miss any of the earlier debate; I do not do that. Does the Minister agree with the recommendation of the National Council for the Blind that a complete review and revamp of the transport service in Ireland should be undertaken in order to increase public transport availability for everyone, including those with impaired vision? The programme for Government pledged to: "invest to make public transport services more accessible for people with disabilities. Examples of such investment include increased wheelchair access to bus and train stations, bus fleet enhancement and audio announcements on train and bus services, to aid the visually impaired." I ask the Minister to comment on that commitment.
I am happy to seriously consider that and discuss it with the National Transport Authority, NTA. Those who have sensory or visual difficulties have problems with public transport and those should be remedied. We are trying to approach this on a multi-faceted level. The commitment is there and it would be wrong if the Deputy did not acknowledge that and the progress the Government is making. It has made several commitments it intends to keep and some of which it is already keeping, as well as the commitment I referred to regarding timing. The NTA is continuing to roll out its accessible bus stop programme. It has launched a campaign in which I was recently involved to stop people putting buggies in the wheelchair zone. I have referred to the pilot project on the DART. It has also increased grants for taxis. We have introduced a series of measures backed up by investment and will continue to build on that.
38. Deputy James Browne asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he has contacted his British counterpart regarding the ownership of Rosslare Europort, County Wexford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48307/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraHas the Minister contacted his British counterpart regarding the ownership of Rosslare Europort; and will he make a statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy for his question. I have not specifically contacted my UK counterpart in relation to the ownership of Rosslare Europort. The Deputy is aware that Rosslare Europort is unique among State-owned ports as it is not a commercial company operating under the Harbours Acts but, rather, is operated as a division of Iarnród Éireann. Technically the port forms part of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company which is a 19th century joint venture company currently comprising Iarnród Éireann on the Irish side and Stena Line on the Fishguard side in Wales. Each partner is wholly responsible for its own area of operations and liable for financial liabilities and profits associated with its part of the company but the overarching company structure still exists.
The status of the port and whether that potentially inhibits its development was most recently considered in a strategic review commissioned by my Department and carried out by Indecon economic consultants. The report concluded that the creation of an independent port authority would be extremely difficult because of the port's complex legal structure. Instead, it was recommended that the port remain in public ownership and that the possibilities for increased private sector involvement be investigated.
Iarnród Éireann's engaged consultants to assess market interest in order to assist in its consideration of how best to move the matter forward. The assessment was largely positive in terms of the potential for increased private sector investment in the port but identified possible implementation issues due to the complicated legislative basis of the port. Following the assessment, my Department sought and received detailed advice from the Office of the Attorney General on the matter which identified a number of legal issues with any such proposal. Those issues remain under consideration by my Department.
As the Minister rightly points out, the ownership situation of Rosslare Europort is historically complicated. Effective ownership is held by the British and Irish Governments, with two operators over the port. The Government should seek to engage with the British Government to decouple Fishguard from Rosslare Europort because the current ownership is significantly inhibiting the development of Rosslare Europort. It must be unique for a rail operator to control a port. In terms of the port management, some €2.34 million profit was made by Rosslare Europort in 2015 but that was funnelled out of the port and into Iarnród Éireann to subsidise other aspects of the company. Such profits should be retained by Rosslare Europort to develop the harbour and particularly so in light of Brexit. What are the Minister's thoughts on preparing ports such as Rosslare Europort for Brexit and also in terms of its ownership situation?
It has been over four years since the Indecon review into Rosslare harbour was presented to the Minister's Department but it has only recently become available for public viewing, although it is mostly redacted. Nothing has changed during those four years in terms of how Rosslare Europort operates nor how the Department has approached its ownership and management. The key recommendation of the Indecon report was option five, which concerns the potential to develop a long-term concession agreement for the port. A steering committee was set up but four years later nothing has happened. Rosslare is the only port or airport in the country that is served by a rail link. More vessels arrive annually there than in any port in the country except Dublin. That is the situation prior to Brexit. However, the Department does not seem to have any idea how to develop the port or stop it from falling into disrepair.
I point out to Deputy Wallace that the most recent audited financial results from Iarnród Éireann for 2016 show the Rosslare Europort division made a surplus after tax of almost €2.5 million.
In spite of the Government, not because of it.
That is what it managed to do.
Where is that money going? Where is it being invested?
Irish Ports operate as an independent commercial company and planning and preparation for Brexit are operational matters for the ports. I am planning to soon meet my British counterparts and I undertake to Deputy Browne that I will raise the issue with them. As the Deputy said, it is a complicated historic issue that might have to eventually be resolved by way of simultaneous legislation in Ireland and the UK. The situation is very complicated. It should not be so but is because of its historic nature. I will raise the matter because there are serious and historic matters involved. If Chris Grayling is there, I will raise it with him and otherwise I will raise it with whoever is at the December meeting of the Commission.
I thank the Minister. He is correct that it will probably require legislation in both jurisdictions to resolve the matter. Seamus Brennan looked into the issue when he was Minister. The Minister might ask his officials to look back over the files in that regard. Rosslare Europort has massive potential. However, 80% of volume of goods currently going to the continent go over the UK land bridge and if there is a hard Brexit there will be tailbacks in the port. It needs to be developed to meet those demands. The profits being made by Rosslare Europort to which the Minister referred are being funnelled out of the port into Iarnród Éireann. At the very minimum, Irish Rail should develop a separate, stand-alone company to develop the port in order that profits are kept there and it can be developed as a stand-alone entity.
I acknowledge the importance of the port. It is in Deputy Browne's constituency. It is the second biggest sea port in the State in terms of ship movements, tourist traffic and unitised freight.
Despite what was said here, revenue is up 1% overall year on year at €10.6 million reflecting a 4.5% increase in passenger cars and a 4.3% increase in roll-on roll-off freight units, while the importation of trade vehicles and light commercial vehicles was up 8.3%. Obviously, the effect of Brexit could be very dramatic on this port and is something which is worthy of being addressed at the next meeting with the British Cabinet Secretary.
Before we take the final question I remind Deputies that if they had stuck to the time limit, the Minister would have answered an additional three questions. A total of 20 minutes was lost by people going over time.
39. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the progress of general safety works and the tender documentation for the consultancy service for the proposed overbridge on the Piltown bypass on the N24; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49342/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraWhat progress has there been on the general safety works and the tender documentation for the consultancy service for the proposed overbridge on the Piltown bypass on the N24? Will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
As I have indicated previously, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, in conjunction with the relevant road authority, is responsible for the implementation of individual road projects.
I acknowledge the Deputy has particular concerns about the section of the N24 near Piltown and has raised this issue with me on a regular basis. I also visited the area to see this section of road for myself.
I understand that the Deputy was also able to raise his concerns directly with the chief executive of TII during the recent Committee of Public Accounts discussion on TII's 2016 financial statements.
As the Deputy knows, TII has provided funding to Kilkenny County Council to implement some interim safety improvement measures at the Inkbottle junction and the Tower Road junction. I understand from TII that these safety works are substantially completed, with the exception of some additional signage that will be in place by the end of this month.
As well as these short-term measures, the appraisal of long-term options relating to upgrading this section of road and the provision of an overbridge has been under way. TII has indicated that this work has progressed to the point where Kilkenny County Council has tendered for consultancy services relating to the proposed upgrade. It is understood that the Council received tenders on 10 November 2017 and that the council is carrying out a tender assessment with a view to submitting a recommendation to TII for approval before the end of the year.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank him most sincerely for visiting and taking a keen interest in the N24 and the problems in Piltown.
Hear, hear.
Ten lives have been lost there as the Minister is well aware. We need an upgrade. The two-plus-one system is not exactly perfect. We objected to it when it was proposed by the National Roads Authority, NRA. We said it was not good enough and wanted a motorway system but instead it went for the two-pus-one system. It has not worked. Two dangerous junctions are involved, where ten lives have been lost. While improvement works have been undertaken at these junctions, that is not satisfactory and it is still dangerous. We want the process to go forward to amalgamate the two junctions and put in an overbridge. That will solve the whole problem.
I thank the Minister for his interest. Will he make sure that TII pushes this forward without delay? At a recent Committee of Public Accounts meeting, I raised this matter with the TII and it gave a commitment to progressing this as fast as possible.
I acknowledge the Deputy's commitment to this. He has raised it on several occasions, with the chief executive of TII at the Committee of Public Accounts and as it is a safety issue I will continue to give it priority.
