Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

It is useful correspondence. It is comprehensive and contains some good information, including on the issue of test centres and the strategy in that regard.

I have picked out two matters in particular, the first of which is the DART interconnector. In 2015 or thereabouts, it was brought to railway order level, which meant that all of the detailed work had been done. A significant amount of money had been spent, certainly tens of millions of euro, on the investigations into the route the tunnel would take, the environmental considerations and the civil engineering issues. I was trying to find out how much of that work could be reused. Obviously, a new study is ongoing because the reply reads: "As the study is ongoing, the amount of useable information in progressing a preferred route, leading to a corridor for protection, can only be determined following the study's outcome." Some of the same areas are being studied again. I imagine that there are not many additional routes that can be considered. Maybe we should ask the Department how much was spent getting the project to that stage. I would like us to do that. The Department is saying that a full reassessment of the route has to be obtained, but we do not want a duplication of costs. That is my concern.

I believe the whole country will benefit from this project. Someone will possibly be able to travel seamlessly from one end of the country to the other by virtue of that interconnector. Certainly, the counties surrounding Dublin would benefit from it considerably. A great deal of money is being spent on the expansion of DART, and this project is a part of that. Might we ask the Department what had been spent on it by the time it reached railway order level so that we have something to match it against when this review happens? We need to reuse information and the work that was done previously as much as possible.

I also wish to raise the issue of the Coast Guard. At the meeting, we were told that the State did not own the helicopters. What seems clear from this correspondence, though, is that this does not meant that we did not invest in helicopters. We provided a grant for helicopters that we do not own. Might we ask plainly how much capital the State invested in helicopters that we do not own?

It seems clear from the reply that this was a one-off, major purchase. It is implied that we invested in helicopters but they are not owned by the State. The amount of the total investment would be useful information to have. That was what we were trying to get at.