Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The meeting is now in public session. No apologies have been received.

This is a special meeting with the Vice President of the European Commission. It is a great honour for this committee to have the opportunity to engage with the EU Commissioner for Transport, Mr. Siim Kallas, and I hope I pronounced the Commissioner's name properly.

As we all know, on 1 January 2013 Ireland will assume the Presidency of the Council of the European Union for the seventh time. It is notable that the Presidency will coincide with the 40th anniversary of Ireland's accession to the then European Economic Community in 1973. Clearly, Ireland will have a significant role to play in influencing the agenda of the EU during that six-month period. The overarching priority for the Presidency will be to support a range of measures to secure sustainable economic growth and job creation, restore macroeconomic stability and enhance economic governance within the European Union.

During the Irish Presidency of the EU, the Houses of the Oireachtas will host eight conferences of committee chairpersons meetings commencing in January 2013 with the final conference taking place in June 2013.

These will include two meetings of the committee of the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of the European Union and also the conference of the chairpersons of the sectoral committee such as employment and enterprise, agriculture, communications, energy and education. It is proposed to hold a meeting of the chairpersons of the communications, education and transport committees in June 2013. The subject matters that may be discussed are the digital agenda, broadband and an intelligent transport system.

I am delighted to welcome the Commissioner for Transport, Mr. Siim Kallas, to Leinster House. I am sure I speak for my colleagues when I say how honoured we are that he has chosen to come before the committee. I trust that he had a pleasant time this morning with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar. The commissioner is accompanied by Mrs. Desirée Oen, a member of his cabinet, and Mrs. Barbara Nolan, head of the European Commission Representation in this country.

I must advise Mr. Kallas that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also advise Mr. Kallas that the opening statement he will make to the committee and the proceedings of the meeting will be published on the committee's website.

Members of the committee 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 invite Mr. Kallas to make his opening statement.

Mr. Siim Kallas:

I am happy to be here for several reasons. First, I am originally from Estonia, a small country which has certain historical similarities with Ireland which has always been admired as a country by Estonians. It is very nice that I am here for a second time. On the first occasion I met the then Prime Minister and also had the opportunity to visit the Irish Parliament. I have pleasant memories of my visit in 2003. I am happy to talk to the committee about European transport policy. I will make some introductory remarks and then will be available to answer the questions of members.

The Chairman mentioned the Irish Presidency. We met today the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, with whom I have had many previous meetings. The Irish Government is preparing seriously for the Presidency which is also important for the transport portfolio, given that some important issues will have to be handled during the term of the Irish Presidency. I would like to refer to some of them.

I wish to start with a general observation. Two and a half years ago when the European Commission started its new term, transport was considered as a nuisance – only as a problem. It was not mentioned in any European strategic document. It was only considered as a problem in terms of CO2 emissions and considered to have other bad accompanying features. Now we recognise at European level in all strategic documents that transport is a very important sector of the economy. A total of 8 million people earn revenues from transport, which is a big number. The figure in terms of GDP is approximately 4%. If one calculates the numbers involved in transport in conjunction with equipment manufacturers, the percentage becomes even higher. For example, 12 million workers are employed in car manufacturing. Transport is a big sector of the economy and also an important sector philosophically. Again, coming from a country where mobility has been restricted for understandable reasons for a long time, we especially consider that freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital is one of the essential values of the European Union which can also be felt in countries such as Estonia.

It is important to provide for transport policy. Our White Paper states clearly that the curbing of mobility is not an option. It is only one sentence in point No. 18. This is an important sentence for me and the European Union transport policy because there are also other views; that one should force people not to move because transport is bad. The official position is very clear. Mobility is a great European value which we must maintain, support and develop. That means also that we need physical infrastructure. It is not only a question of rules and texts, but we must also develop physical infrastructure.

One interesting project for European integration was developed in 1930. Its author was a man called Dannie Heineman. He developed a blueprint for the future European Union and all the elements he outlined are present today such as an authority to guarantee the functioning of the Internal Market, the Central Bank, the European Court of Justice and also infrastructure, including railways. He called for a trans-European network of railways which he considered as important as other elements of European integration. People have always considered that the European Union is of great value for many reasons, but mobility is one such value.

The White Paper was presented a year and a half ago and we have pursued several of its objectives. On the current position, I will outline the main points of today’s discussion, the most important being the budget. We are discussing the future European budget and will know by the end of November whether we will have an agreement. This is very important for the Irish Presidency also because if the agreement is reached, there will be one type of work to deal with accompanying legislation. More than 70 legislative Acts will be required, including the documents on a trans-European network. If there is no agreement, difficult negotiations will continue.

One could ask what is at stake. One year ago the European Commission proposed a budgetary change that had two very important new elements, one of which was to create an instrument to connect Europe’s facilities. A total of €50 billion will be spent on the instrument, including €31.7 billion for transport and approximately €10 billion for energy and IT infrastructure.

Another important element in this proposal is research and development, which is in the hands of the distinguished Irish Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, with whom we have close and good co-operation. This is to substantially increase our funding for research and development. We will see what happens. We are fighting for that instrument. I will outline the reason the Connecting Europe facility is important. First, additional resources are needed to take down barriers and eliminate bottlenecks in the functioning of pan-European infrastructure. Another important element is that this will allow us to develop connections between the eastern and the western parts of the European Union. I do not want to go into the details but if we do not have this instrument we will not have the resources or the legal framework to finance cross-border projects. If we compare the €50 billion for the Connecting Europe facility with the €4.5 trillion spent from 2008 to 2011 on supporting the banking system we can see clearly that the cost of infrastructure support is a modest one. This is a hot topic; let us wait and see what happens in that regard. The European Commission is participating in the negotiation process but members know as well as I that this is in the hands of decision makers at the highest level in the European Union. It is a complicated issue, especially concerning the position of this country's big neighbour, but it is also an issue for others. This is a crucial moment for our transport policy. What will happen with the Connecting Europe facility? If this goes in a satisfactory manner we understand there will be cuts, but the cuts have certain limits. Members will understand from their budgetary discussions that we can cut finance policies but in certain moments we must abandon policies because we cannot do anything without the available resources. I do not know what will be the limit. We must wait and see how it develops. That is the Connecting Europe facility.

With regard to the Irish Presidency, Ireland has different items to deal with, but the big issue in Europe is the so-called fourth railway package or railway reform, and it is a terribly difficult issue. What is the problem? If we compare with other areas of European integration - the Internal Market and other sectors - we can see that railways are the most fragmented and most nationally separated system in the European Union. If I look for any political commitment to overcome that fragmentation, I do not see much of it. Every country wants to defend its special features. We do not always understand the reason. Every change in railways needs investment and certain rearrangements, but behind technical specifications there are always countries. Sometimes agreement cannot be reached, but let us hope there will be agreement.

The railway package is about two things, the first of which is European infrastructure. It is not the objective of the European Commission to intervene in national affairs but we have an objective to create something which has added European value. That is important for me. I always tell people in the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport that our role is to do what cannot be done at national level. Second, it is about the Internal Market. We still have isolated sectors in the railway area. Free competition is avoided and rules for public procurement are neglected; therefore, we want to have a fair and transparent economic environment for the functioning of the Internal Market in the railway area. That is the second important point. The list of details is very long and members will probably have an opportunity to discuss this during the Irish Presidency because it is an issue that will come before the Irish Presidency.

The third major hot topic is the necessity of adjusting our aviation policy in terms of our airspace. The situation is bad. We have one major issue which can only be discussed; it is not a legislative proposal, but I will probably come forward with some infringement procedures. Member states have decided to move gradually towards a European common airspace. During the volcanic ash crisis, in which I had an instrumental role, we saw clearly that no member state can close or open its airspace alone. It is impossible. Therefore, we need some kind of functioning European airspace. Member states decided more than a decade ago to develop this common airspace, the so-called functional airspace, and 4 December will be the date on which the functional airspace blocks no longer function. It is very clear. We will then launch some infringement procedures, but the process has slowed down and nobody has any real enthusiasm for developing it. This is important, because if we realise the so-called single European sky project through air traffic management reform, it will reduce the amount spent on fuel by 10% or 15% as well as reducing CO2 emissions, because the management of air traffic will be based on satellites and certain computer systems. It will be much more flexible and we will have fewer delays. It will function better and everybody is calculating that it will bring benefits. That is the single European sky project.

We proposed a so-called airport package but what happened last Monday in the European Parliament was spectacular, and I would like to share my frustration about it. The package contains one ground handling proposal. Ground handling is a socially sensitive area but it is important in terms of organising air traffic and for airlines. I personally met the leadership of the European Transport Workers' Federation and asked its members what they consider to be the most important issues to address if we proceed with this reform. They said that some of the provisions were in place. The Frankfurt Airport proposal went to the European Parliament.

During the last parliamentary term, I was responsible for budget discharge and lobby registration and now see how the process works in reality. The lobby from Frankfurt airport did not want to have any opening and succeeded in having a vote such that the European Parliament transport committee rejected the proposal. Nobody else was involved. It is not a problem for trade unions; it was Frankfort airport. It was a case of Lufthansa supported by the Government of Hessen. The federal Government was not instrumental. That is life.

There are other elements to be considered. The so-called slot proposal was discussed at the last Council meeting in Brussels on 29 October. The compromise made amounted to nothing. It sometimes happens in Europe that when one tries to find compromises, it results in a document that changes nothing. This is exactly what occurred in this case.

The airport package and airspace issues in general will definitely be discussed during the Irish Presidency. I just wanted to identify the hot points. If the level of progress is really bad, we will consider the withdrawal of the proposal as a whole. Then there will be nothing to do in this regard for the Presidency. If we continue, it will be a matter for the Presidency.

The emission-trading scheme for aviation comprises a very difficult issue, as members know. Europe has adopted a big decision that its airlines, and those from other counties, should pay for carbon dioxide emissions. It is too much and too early to say there is a trade war but there is much conflict. Tomorrow, the International Civil Aviation Organization will probably release a compromise proposal. In so far as I know, it will be acceptable, allowing us to avoid the trade war and solve the emissions trading scheme conflict. The conflict arises in the first instance with the United States, but there are other countries that follow suit. I am positive at this stage.

Although I discussed finances, railways and airlines, there are many other issues also. However, I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time. Other issues that will arise concern innovation, clean transport and road transport. We can discuss these in detail, if necessary.

I assure the members that we are co-operating very well with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn and making a substantial contribution to innovation and research work, which are essential for transport, especially intelligent transport systems. The latter are extremely important in terms of creating intermodal transport networks. There are many details to be considered in respect of transport, as members know. There are many positive details on which we can really move. It is a nice area in which to work.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Commissioner Kallas for giving of such a detailed overview of the challenges that face the Irish Presidency.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Commissioner Kallas, his member of cabinet, and Ms Nolan, who is regularly in contact with this committee and other committees of which I am a member. Her interaction with the Commission generally is very good. We are fortunate that Ms Nolan is of such assistance to us in that regard.

Commissioner Kallas's presentation was very comprehensive so, consequently, I do not have very many questions. Ireland has a good track record on road safety. This is based on our progressive and aggressive approach to saving lives on the road, largely through enhancing legislative measures. Since Ireland is an island nation and since the island effectively has two jurisdictions, we have a difficulty levying penalty points on drivers from outside the State. While our drivers are subject to our law and penalty-points regime, drivers from the six counties north of the Border are not. Has the Commission any proposal for a pan-European approach to the levying of penalty points?

I will not refer to rail networks because the Commissioner will appreciate that Ireland, as an island, is more dependent on its air links than its rail links. Has the commissioner any views on the consolidation that has begun to take place in the aviation sector in recent years? I do not expect him to discuss the Ryanair-Aer Lingus proposal which is before the Commission at present. From a broad policy perspective, would it be better if Ireland had fewer larger airlines, or would it benefit more from having a greater number of smaller airlines?

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Commissioner Kallas, Ms Oen and Ms Nolan for attending. A badly drawn map of Ireland I have to hand shows Dublin, Cork, Galway and Sligo. I live in the north-west corner of Ireland in a beautiful constituency covering Sligo and Leitrim. Given its beauty, I would love to see the Commissioner visit it. A map of Ireland's infrastructure will show there is a rail line from Dublin to Belfast and from Dublin to Sligo. One will see many rail lines south of the Dublin-Sligo line. However, north of Sligo and west of the Dublin-Belfast line, there is no rail infrastructure and the roads continue to be very poor. What are the Commissioner's thoughts on the internal distribution of project funding and on infrastructural development within nations? What criteria should we be using? While many decisions are made based on population ratios, these must not comprise the only consideration.

The Commissioner referred to access and mobility, on which I agree with him completely. Access and mobility are as important - if not more important - to people in remote areas as they are to those in centres of population. Could the Commissioner speak briefly about the factors he believes member states should be taking into account regarding the internal distribution of funding for projects, including cross-border projects? Much of the road infrastructure between Galway and Belfast, including that in Sligo, is good but there are stretches of the road that are simply not fit for purpose. This does not encourage mobility and access.

Mr. Siim Kallas:

Ireland can be proud of its record on road safety as it has one of the best. Last year, 2011, was bad overall in that the decline in the number of casualties stopped in Europe. In Europe, we have substantially reduced the number of casualties but last year was not good.

Deputy Dooley has mentioned an important issue but I refer to what was actually decided in December 2010 by the member states' transport Council regarding so-called cross-border enforcement of traffic violations, which will come into force in 2013 - that is, next year. It means Ireland can punish foreign drivers. All over Europe the proportion of foreign drivers who cause accidents is much greater than that of local drivers. Under this legislation, Ireland finally can punish or stop drivers who violate traffic regulations in respect of the so-called four killers - namely, drinking, speeding, not wearing a seat belt and ignoring a red light. This legislation has been adopted but there is an issue regarding the legislative basis, about which I am probably not competent to answer because I do not understand it. Basically, a political decision has been made whereby European country X - I do not know the position in respect of Ireland's neighbouring country - can ask its neighbouring country to ask those drivers who have violated rules to pay penalties by country X's rates. While this decision is in place, there is debate about its legal basis and whether it pertains to police co-operation or transport co-operation. If it is the latter there is no facility for an opt-out, but if the former, Ireland and the United Kingdom have such an opt-out facility. During this discussion, the Governments of both countries indicated they were considering an opt-out. However, everyone, including the United Kingdom, has been positive about the substance. Consequently, I really do not know what is the present status of this legal debate, although the political decision has been made.

Air transport, like many other sectors, will consolidate. This is for sure, especially in the context of global competition. We have often discussed with European airlines where the first global company will be. Such a global company will be good. Countries such as Ireland and Estonia must have connections. As having direct connections is so vital, something must be done in this regard. I do not know exactly what but some kind of public support must be available. At present, the Commission is discussing the so-called state aid guidelines for aviation, which I believe are going for public consultation next week. It will emanate from the Directorate General for Competition, as it is a competition directive rather than a transport directive. Members can access the relevant websites or can get in touch via their representatives and can really participate in the discussion process. In this context, we must consider how to help bodies such as regional airports. I do not wish to dwell on this at length because there are many nuances. In some countries, there are too many regional airports and they are competing with one another. They may be 100 km apart but both are asking for money from taxpayers and governments. The Commission is not happy with this and it cannot tolerate it. The guidelines also seek to address this issue. The day before yesterday, we discussed the political substance of these guidelines with Commissioner Almunia. Consequently, this is coming.

As for the distribution of projects concerning infrastructure, there is no arithmetic model. When preparing for parliamentary hearings I asked my people about the same issue - namely, what calculations can show that one project is better than another - but there is no arithmetic model. As Deputy Colreavy mentioned in his question, the reality is that implementing the project will bring economic growth. While accessibility will bring growth, no one can calculate ex antehow big this will be. While there is an understanding that this will bring growth, again, there are nuances in Europe. Some countries have been successful in implementing lots of transport projects, but thereafter one must maintain new roads and so on and there will be new difficulties in future. I do not wish to mention specific countries, but some have been too active. Obviously, this is a matter in which political decision-making and commonsensical calculations must be put together in order to assess and then select necessary projects. This of course is a matter for the Irish Government because, at European level, we are dealing with cross-border projects. If we have money, then we will see what projects it is possible to finance. However, I note that were the member states' governments to give us €500 million, we would have one type of policy, but were we to receive tens of billions, we would have another type of policy. Obviously, however, this issue always will be in the hands of the member states.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the Commissioner and his officials. I wish to focus on maritime policy. As Ireland is an island nation, 90% of its goods are exported through a handful of ports and it is critically important for commerce in Ireland to maintain an effective maritime sector. The Commissioner might outline to the joint committee how the European Union is supporting and might continue to support the maritime industry with regard to the Motorways of the Sea project and the Marco Polo initiative, whereby funding could be maintained to encourage goods to be transported by sea, thereby encouraging lower fuel emissions. The proposal is to divert goods from the highways and railroads of the European Union. While diverting such traffic from roads and rail would be of major benefit at a European level, it also would be perceived as being critically important in an Irish context.

My second point pertains to roadworthiness standards. It is not such a long time since Ireland introduced vehicle testing. In the European context, can the Commissioner outline to members a flavour of the challenges facing the Commission and his directorate in achieving a European standard throughout the 27 member states?

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo everything that has been said in welcoming the Commissioner. As he quite correctly noted, Ireland and Estonia share common interests and common priorities within the wider European Union context. I have two questions, the first of which pertains to a matter I raised at this joint committee some weeks ago and about which I wonder whether the Commissioner is aware. There are proposals from the United Kingdom's Government to introduce a levy of £100 on access by commercial traffic into the United Kingdom. I am unsure whether the Commissioner is familiar with this proposal and I have no further details, other than that when the secretariat checked on foot of my request, the response was that it was no stronger than a proposal. Obviously, however, it is being discussed. The Commissioner can understand how difficult this would be for Ireland, as has already been indicated, as an island nation with a political divide. If the Commissioner is not aware of it, perhaps he or his cabinet might inform themselves because this measure will obviously be of great importance.

My initial reaction was that it was anti-competitive and went against the Treaty of Rome, but I am not sure what the details are. I wanted to take this opportunity, as it is within the Commissioner's remit, to inform him if he was not already aware of it.

My second and final question concerns the EU budget, which the commissioner has emphasised. He is right in that we are perhaps more aware of the nuances of our nearest neighbours because we are so close to them and receive all their news media. There is no question but that Mr. David Cameron will veto any proposal that relates to an increase and, at best, he will perhaps accept a freeze. The Commissioner may wish to expand a little more but, like the rest of us, he too is in somewhat of a limbo in that he is waiting for these decisions to be taken at prime ministerial level. It occurred to me, however, that it might be worth exploring at some point.

One of the difficulties we find is in dealing with Britain as a eurosceptic nation, which has become increasingly eurosceptic as a result of this administration. It is quite obvious now that Mr. Cameron is a hostage to his significant backbench eurosceptic body. There seems to be a lack of information coming forward from the European Commission and the European Union in informing the general public in Britain. I am not saying this is easy because one is up against a hostile media. For example, last night on the BBC - which is the television news of record, reporting impartially and objectively - all they reported was the debate surrounding either a freeze or an increase. They talked in percentage terms but no information was given to the general viewer as to what exactly the figures were. As 1% of the EU's GDP it is a relatively small figure. However, it was presented in such a way that the percentages represented something extraordinarily large that would impact adversely on the British taxpayer. That is why I raised the issue. There seems to be an information deficit but I appreciate that the commissioner is up against a hostile media in the UK.

Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to welcome the Commissioner and his staff, as well as Ms Barbara Nolan from the European Commission's Dublin office. It is estimated that it would cost €3 billion to electrify Ireland's rail network. We are not in a position to fulfil that cost at the moment, but I would like to hear the Commissioner's opinion on that. We are an island nation and are not connected to Europe as such, which will post difficulties for us.

What is the Transport Commissioner's biggest current challenge? What would he like to see being achieved during Ireland's EU Presidency?

Ireland has some fantastic roads but we are missing rest stops and service stations along motorways to enable drivers to take a break. Would a proposal for a rest stop every 50 km be appropriate for a country like Ireland?

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Commissioner. How will climate change and fuel security impact on the airline industry in future? What challenges will we face in that area? Do our waterways feature in the EU's transport strategy? I take the Commissioner's point about transport always being seen as a problem and that he does not necessarily want to view it in that way in future. How cost effective is rail in the movement of people?

I also wish to register a complaint which is a hobby-horse of mine. The EU ruled against insurers in Ireland on gender equality, whereas prior to this ruling female drivers could get cheaper insurance. The reverse now exists whereby we are being discriminated against because we are safer drivers. I think that EU ruling is quite unfair.

Tom Fleming (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome Commissioner Kallas and his staff to the joint committee. As has been said already, we are so dependent on marine and air transport for access to this island nation. Our regional airports are important not only for transport within this country but also for access to the UK and mainland Europe. We have a public service obligation which operates in peripheral areas, including two of our strongest regional airports in Kerry and Donegal. Both airports are very dependent on the tourism industry and are a key to attracting investment to both those areas. What is the Commissioner's opinion on renewing these vital public service obligation contracts to these particular airports? I cannot see a real future for them without EU subsidies. They are important for rural development and connectivity both within and outside the country.

Marine transport is also important for tourism. A few years ago, a ferry service was revived between Wales and Ireland, sailing from Cork to Swansea. There was a major effort, particularly from Deputy Harrington's constituency of west Cork, in conjunction with Kerry. Private moneys were contributed along with local authority finance to revive that particular route. Unfortunately, it has been abandoned and due to certain laws and regulations it was impossible for the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to subscribe funding to it. Nonetheless, that is a vital service and, given our current economic circumstances, we need to get that route back up and running. Can support be obtained from the EU for that service due to our special case as an island nation? The European rail network is a vital priority and is pivotal, but we have to make up for it with air and sea transport systems.

Mr. Siim Kallas:

We have at least nine issues of maritime policy which will be discussed during Ireland's EU Presidency. We will see if we can make progress with all these issues. The passenger ship safety review will come up, but it is not linked to the Costa Concordia incident. We have already prepared it. The maritime labour convention has basically already been decided politically.

The ports policy is in preparation and will be discussed during Ireland's EU Presidency.

The so-called Blue Belt project is an important and positive issue, which probably addresses many nuances in the questions that have been posed. It was launched by the Belgian EU Presidency a couple of years ago. We will push ahead with this, together with the Commission's tax and customs departments. This will be a really positive development for the transportation of goods by shipping within the EU. It will take down all the customs barriers and other formalities, making life much easier. We will have a report on the Blue Belt project during the Irish EU Presidency and will discuss it then.

The expanding of the European Maritime Safety Agency's activities will be an issue during Ireland's EU Presidency. This has been a sensitive issue, but the agency has been tremendously efficient and good. For instance, the information provided by it is used to fight piracy. The agency was first established to avert environmental disasters at sea after the Erikaand Prestigeoil spill disasters. Maritime security is now part of its work and the Irish Presidency can progress the expansion of its activities in this area.

Roadworthiness tests were discussed at the last Council meeting and will be again at the next one. The issue is also being discussed in the European Parliament and we are flexible on it. The basic idea is to improve the technical condition of older vehicles and motorbikes as their roadworthiness is one cause of road accidents. There needs to be some harmonisation in how to test vehicles for roadworthiness and how frequently it should be done. Vehicles cross borders and one member state does not want a vehicle from another country blowing out black smoke, for example, when it is not permitted. This issue will be discussed at the next Council meeting.

The question on an access charge for commercial traffic in the United Kingdom is very interesting. I do not know the exact details, but the issue of road pricing will also be discussed in the near future. I do not believe there will be tough proposals. However, from a European viewpoint, we can intervene if there is discrimination in how the charge is applied. The charge must be equal for a citizen of the member state as well as for other EU citizens. Accordingly, the United Kingdom and Austria cannot charge just vehicles from other countries for access to their roads. It must be remembered 24 member states already charge for road use, either through the eurovignette, tolling systems and toll roads. There will be a financing cap in this regard. In countries with heavy vehicle and transit traffic tension is increasing that these users must pay more. I raised this issue in my own country 15 years ago and it can only be done as part of a package. If one introduces road-charging, fuel excise tax which is used for road maintenance must be reduced.

On the issue of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, the British euroscpetics and the EU budget, the Commission has tried hard to resolve it. I was responsible for the budget discharge in the previous Commission. I had big meetings, particularly in the United Kingdom, about how moneys were spent in the European Union. These meetings were good. There are some weak points in spending that need to be addressed. Several months ago Mr. Radoslaw Sikorski's, the Polish foreign Minister, made an interesting speech in Blenheim Palace about Britain's role in the Union. I strongly recommend that members read this critical speech on British myths about the Union and how ridiculous the notion is that the UK Government thinks it can be alone outside the Union. Funnily, it was not widely published in the UK newspapers. Press freedom is very special. There was only one article on the speech in the Financial Times,but it did not receive a wider circulation.

The electrification of railways is the main concern of the Irish Government. The biggest strategic challenge facing transport is connecting Europe and improving existing transport infrastructure. There are other challenges such as air transport and external relations in transport. There are standards in place to ensure rest areas for drivers along roads. We have introduced a smart safe parking system and an IT solution to allow drivers to locate these areas. They are contained in road standards, but it depends on the provision of investment to achieve it.

Fuel security for airlines is a major issue in Europe. It is important to introduce fuel efficiencies in this regard. For example, Rolls Royce, the leading producer of aviation engines, informed me a 1% reduction in the level of fuel consumption through engine improvement would lead to savings of a year's supply. Fuel costs are of paramount importance to the airlines. We have adopted a research and development programme, Flightpath 2050, chaired by Mr. Tom Enders, chief executive officer, European Aeronautic Defence and Space, EADS, which has been established in conjunction with the Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. Its main aim is to direct research and innovation in aeronautical design to reduce fuel consumption. There have been experiments using blended fuels and bio-fuels.

Air transport specialists say that air transport will be the last mode which will change from fossil fuel to bio-fuels, but some blending is possible.

New investments in railways are so large that they cannot be done only on a commercial basis. On operational costs, well-organised railway networks are profitable. High speed trains such as Eurostar and many busy regional networks are also profitable. The passenger transport railway network in my country is not profitable but the Government supports it. We calculate that one can take people by taxi from point A to point B for the same cost but, of course, people like railways very much and politicians always must do what people like. There is a limit, but we still support some public service obligations.

On the matter of airport state aid guidelines concerning Greece's investments which also can promote tourism, this is a tricky question because it can go too far. One cannot see clearly what are the limits for air transport, but some countries use Regional Development Fund moneys to promote tourism and also help airlines to bring tourists. It is probably a more reasonable way.

On gender balance, it is the Court of Justice which decides. The Commission is very much in favour of promoting gender balance. How to do it is another question. In general, some countries are very successful in this regard.

On supporting a ferry service, the question is mostly of money. In my country, the ferry service between islands and the continent is supported by public service obligations. It depends on whether there is the political will to do it, how to support it, what they decide on money and how fairly it is used. It is a question for member states.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Kallas is under pressure of time but Senator Brennan has a brief question.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one question which is a hobby horse of mine. There are miles of wire barriers on the central reservations of motorways in this country whereas they have been retired from motorways in other countries in the European Union and in the United Arab Emirates. Other countries felt they were not adequate to stop a heavy goods vehicle from traversing the central reservation onto oncoming traffic on the other side. Would Mr. Kallas care to comment as to their adequacy? I get concerned when I see them being retired from motorways in other countries.

Mr. Siim Kallas:

I do not know. I have no strong opinion. I will take note of it.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Kallas might respond on the matter.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there an EU guideline?

Mr. Siim Kallas:

There are guidelines for road construction but I really do not know about this issue.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Kallas sincerely for coming before us this afternoon. It is evident that he has a great knowledge of his brief and I thank him for sharing that with us. No doubt the Irish Presidency will be successful because we will work very hard to ensure that will happen. I also thank the members and everybody for bearing with us this afternoon.