Mr. Frank Allen:

Indeed, but it takes a little time for the total budget to cascade to the various allocations. I can say with confidence that the matter is being taken seriously. I am hopeful that the money will be allocated but until such time as there is a letter in the post indicating the money available for 2018 and subsequent years, it is very hard for me to answer the Deputy's specific question in the affirmative. I can go so far as to say we have been informed. I am confident, however; that is the best way to put it. If there were a problem, I would take the opportunity now to say the matter was not being taken seriously, but I am not saying that in any way. I am confident it is being dealt with very seriously.

On the point on the competitiveness of the journey time, such competitiveness is a critical aspect of getting people out of cars and onto public transport. It is not the only aspect but we need to work on that. There is the overall package, including pricing and everything else that goes with it. With regard to competing to get people out of cars and onto bus, rail and other public transport options, if people have free parking at their origin and destination, it is almost impossible for public transport to compete. That is the reality. I do not believe we should be embarrassed that we are getting people on public transport just because they have to pay large amounts for parking at their destinations. We are providing a high-quality service. The consistency of the journey time is very important, as are reliability and the investment that needs to be made. The investment is being made and will continue to be made to make journey times more consistent and tight. We are absolutely committed to that.

Reference was made to industrial relations issues and the newspaper report that the chief executive had intervened in a negative way. Were the chief executive not actively supporting and participating in critical negotiations and discussions, as well as making sure every possible avenue was being explored, I am not sure what he would be doing. I would want the chief executive to be giving support actively and making sure that if proposals are put on the table, they are costed in order that one can see what is going to be done. Those who regard the idea of the chief executive having an input as negative in some way should realise that is what he is paid to do. I have no concern. When I saw the newspaper report stating the chief executive had been involved, I said that is what the chief executive is paid to do. I do not accept, therefore, that a strike is proposed because the chief executive intervened negatively. That is not the case.

With regard to the anonymous letter to which Deputy Troy referred, I got one in the post in recent days. I presume it is the same anonymous one about the sponsorship of an angling event. I did not know that this event was going to take place. A fair question would be whether, if I had known the company was providing sponsorship for this event, I would have believed it would be a good idea. That might be a fair way of expressing it. Iarnród Éireann's participation in professional networks, whereby our rail staff engage with, get to know and learn from the experiences of staff in railways across Europe, is a good thing. Sometimes that involves more informal social activities. I believe approximately €20,000 was Iarnród Éireann’s contribution to the sponsorship of this event. It goes to various countries around Europe. I do not know how often it comes to Ireland. It was a very long time ago. On the question whether I believe building networks through which Iarnród Éireann staff can learn from experience elsewhere, I do not have a difficulty with that. On the question of whether we could have found a river somewhere closer to one of our railway lines in the Republic of Ireland, I am pretty sure it should have been possible to find one, bearing in mind I do not know anything about angling.