John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this morning's meeting is to hear from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport on the recent EU Council of Transport Ministers meeting which took place on 11 June in Luxembourg at which I understand the air passenger rights technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and market open proposals under the fourth railway package were among the matters discussed. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Pascal Donohoe. He is on a tight schedule so we will get straight down to business as he knows the housekeeping rules.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It feels like only a moment since I saw some of the members, and it is. It is good to be back at the committee to answer members' questions. I am very pleased to appear before the committee to discuss the outcome of the Transport Council in Luxemburg on 11 June. I attended the meeting and represented our country and our interests at the session. I will go through the main agenda items and mention the items covered at the Council meeting as any other business. As the Chairman stated, the Council was dominated by discussions on air passengers' rights and on the fourth railway package.

The committee has previously discussed air passengers' rights. The proposal aims to promote the interest of air passengers by ensuring air carriers effectively comply with a high level of air passenger protection during travel disruptions. At the same time, the proposal intends to take into account the financial implications for the air transport sector. At the Council, the Presidency introduced a progress report and referred to the significant progress that had been made on clarification of extraordinary circumstances and cabin baggage entitlements. However, agreement was not possible concerning connecting flights and the threshold for compensation.

The thresholds for the payment of financial compensation to passengers for delayed or cancelled flights and how connecting flights will be dealt with are the two sticking points holding up the revision of the EU regulation on air passengers' rights. Few member states intervened in the debate, but all the comments concerned these two areas. As committee members appreciate, the overall challenge is to strike a balance between passenger protection and the interests of the industry.

Ireland considers the proposals for compensation for missed connecting flights as currently drafted are anti-consumer. The focus should be on ensuring adequate care and assistance is given to passengers affected and on encouraging airline behaviour that will ultimately assist passengers in pursuing their original objective, that is, getting to their final destination. Our concern is that focusing on compensation could result in adverse airline behaviour that would not be in the consumers' interest. It is possible that airlines would either increase fares to compensate for the higher risk associated with such flights and-or significantly increase transfer times at hub airports, neither of which, in our view, would be in the passengers' interest.

Ireland along with Italy, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom spoke about the need for balance between industry and consumers. I said that while Ireland is broadly supportive of the proposal, we continue to support the Commission's original proposal for five, nine and 12 hours as trigger points for compensation thresholds in cases of cancellation or delayed flights. I informed the Council that Ireland does not agree that compensation should be payable after a three-hour delay and feels the shorter time would render it more likely that a carrier will cancel a flight.

As regards compensation for missed connecting flights, I advised that Ireland is against any such compensation and feels the focus should be on ensuring adequate care and assistance is given to passengers affected by missed connecting flights and on encouraging airline behaviour that will ultimately assist the passengers in pursuing their original objective, that is, getting to their final destination. I also set out the Irish position on the question of the use of the term "flights" as opposed to "journey" in the new regulation. Ireland supports a reference to "flights" to have a more balanced approach and make the payment of compensation for cancellation or delay specific to an individual flight and not a series of flights. Austria and Spain spoke about the need to protect consumers' rights. Luxemburg intervened to say it hoped to bring proposals to COREPER during its term of Presidency which commences next month.

The fourth railway package consists of six proposals aimed at removing the remaining barriers to the completion of the single European railway area. They fall into two groups, namely, the technical pillar and the market pillar. The technical pillar reinforces harmonisation of interoperability and safety arrangements and extends the role of the European Railway Agency. The three proposals in the technical pillar have been politically agreed within the Council of Ministers. The Presidency is engaging with the Parliament with a view to reaching a second reading agreement. The technical measures of the fourth railway package do not give rise to difficulties for Ireland.

The essential elements of the Commission’s proposals under the market pillar are the opening of the domestic passenger markets to competition by granting open access right to all EU railway undertakings; the introduction of mandatory tendering for public service contracts; and changing the regulatory framework for the governance of railway infrastructure with a view to legal separation of the infrastructure management and service provision functions. While some member states see these reforms as an opportunity for growth, others, such as Ireland, have fundamental concerns that these reforms would have very negative impacts on the provision of rail services in their countries. We have aligned with seven other like-minded small member states, namely, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovakia, Greece and Croatia. This group maintains that member states whose rail markets form less than 1% of the EU rail market should be allowed to continue direct award of public contract services. This is the most efficient way for Ireland, and other small member states, to provide rail services.

At Council, the Presidency introduced a progress report on the political pillar of the fourth railway package. The Commission noted that the key outstanding issue on the public service obligation aspect was around exemptions from compulsory direct award of public service obligation contracts. The Commission disagreed with an exemption based on market size, that is, 1% of passenger kilometres, but voiced support for a Netherlands proposal of a performance-based exemption which would allow all member states to continue direct awards based on the contract being performance based.

The group of small member states, including Ireland, which favour the 1% proposal spoke in support, with the exception of Luxemburg given its status as incoming Presidency. I intervened in the discussions to record that Ireland along with other smaller member states have fundamental concerns that these reforms would have very negative impacts on the provision of rail services in some countries. I pointed out the Irish rail sector is small and geographically isolated with low traffic densities and is operated under a single public service contract.

Given these features, Ireland continues to strongly support the so-called “1% provision” which would allow small rail markets to continue direct award of public contract services. This is the most efficient way for us to provide our rail services and there is no evidence of the scale of benefits that may result from competitive tendering of PSO contracts in small markets. I asked that these specific challenges for small markets be accounted for in any final compromise. Luxembourg noted it will put in all efforts possible to reach agreement by October and I expect a solution will be found which will not pose risks to the rail sectors of member states with small rail markets.

On governance, the key issue is for member states with separated structures not wanting additional burdens for their rail companies. Member states see the governance problem as being restricted to those member states with integrated companies. The Commission stated that ensuring equal footing of vertically separated and fully integrated structures was the challenge. I intervened to say that our viewpoint is that with continued direct award of PSO services, functional separation of the railway undertaking and infrastructure manager, accompanied by strong regulatory oversight are sufficient to ensure fair play and transparency within the Irish market.

The inland waterways item dealt with a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. The Council adopted a general approach on the proposal, which is a recasting of a directive currently in force. The proposal was discussed in detail at the Council's shipping working party between January and May this year. The aim of the proposal is to replace a previous directive with one that allows the annexes with technical parts to be referenced separately, so that they can be more easily amended, in order to aid progress towards a single, uniform set of technical standards between the EU and the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine. The proposal will have no implications for Ireland, since Ireland is one of the member states not addressed by the proposed directive and will, therefore, not be required to transpose or implement it. Ireland has deliberately chosen to stay outside the scope of the directive, given that there is no inter-connected commercial inland waterway transport in Ireland, and Irish inland waterways are not navigable for the purposes or scale of the commercial traffic envisaged in the proposed directive. Although Ireland is not included within the scope of the proposed directive, Ireland operates high safety standards on our inland waterways.

Information was given on a number of items under any other business including: the main conclusions of the interim evaluation of the EU road safety policy framework 2011-2020; the transport infrastructure financing, including an update on the first call for proposals under the Connecting Europe Facility, CEF; the outcome of the Asia Europe, ASEM, transport meeting; the Shift2Rail joint undertaking; and the incoming Presidency's work programme in the field of transport. Again, I thank the Chairman for the invitation to discuss the Transport Council and I welcome any questions that members may have.

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

I thank the Minister for the presentation. His approach to air passenger rights is appropriate. He has set out a balanced approach to examine the needs of the passenger more than the compensation. Compensation should be a last resort and only for the purpose of ensuring airlines do their best to ensure their services are on time and treat passengers appropriately in the event of an unavoidable delay. We do not want airlines, as they did in the past, to cancel flights that do not having sufficient passengers and where there is a flight an hour or two later, in order to enhance their cost base. I think and hope the Minister’s approach deals with it and I hope the appropriate protections can be put in place to prevent lower cost carriers which are attempting to provide shuttle services in certain markets from using the hour cancellation to improve their cost base. This is where the three-hour provision is important. In principle, I support what the Minister is doing. It is about the onward connection and ensuring people reach their destinations. Nobody sets out on a journey with a view to claiming compensation, although I am often taken by the fact that, in the event of the overbooking of flights, some travellers, particularly in the US, are happy to stay an extra night in a city if the airline puts them up and they can take an early morning flight.

The Minister is right to push on the 1% in the railway package. Unfortunately, we are small and burdened with high costs and very considerable subvention. I see nothing in the fourth railway package that would be in any way helpful in addressing the challenges that already exist in our rail network. It is for another day how we discuss it and continue to invest in our rail network. Is the Shannon Estuary considered an inland waterway? It is salt water, not fresh water. It is the only one that might have a commercial entity. On the basis that it is seen as an estuary, I guess it is probably not considered an inland waterway.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his points. He is correct that we want a compensation programme that encourages airlines to continue to do their best to get people to destinations on time. The original proposal from the Commission on a threshold of five hours and above strikes the right balance and we support it. We share a common analysis on the railway package. We do not have the interoperability concerns of markets that are located on the Continent of Europe. Given our market size and structure, some elements of the proposal would not be positive or allow the development of our rail market in the way we hope and for which we are planning. The answer to the Deputy’s question on the Shannon Estuary is, as he suspected, “No”.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. Regarding air passengers' rights, I see the issue of the time factor in terms of people hanging around airports. I support the idea that looking for five, nine or 12 hours seems to be much stronger than a three hour gap. We have all spent many hours in airports and for various reasons, things can happen. If it were to change, prices would rise and I am very fearful of that. Regarding the fourth railway package, the Minister is not in favour of mandatory tendering of the PSO. There is a constant drive from Europe to take it away from different countries and it is very worrying. It is a drive towards privatisation and it seems to be coming from the EU. Although we have always argued that we want to be exempt from it, it is constantly pushed on us and it is very worrying. The recent tendering of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann routes seems to be the result of this pressure from Europe.

Members of the European Parliament should be fighting our corner regarding where we are with this tendering process. Most European countries use some type of PSO and we are among the lowest users of PSO. Is it the case that other European countries are in favour of retaining the PSO and do not favour mandatory tendering? I would have expected Belgium and other countries to have opposed this process. They have huge rail infrastructure and if we were making that argument I would have expected to have received support from them.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin with the Deputy's last question about the general views regarding PSO funding across Europe. It would be fair to say that virtually all member states understand the role PSO funding can play in meeting transport needs, as there is wide acceptance that the private market will not deliver all the transport needs that societies have. The diversity of views, however, is with regard to how organisations can apply for PSO funding. There would be a body of thinking which contends that private sector companies should have the ability to apply for the use of PSO funding as much as any established state company.

The Deputy began by making the point about a drive to privatisation. All of this is a consequence, and is a very large dimension, of the Single Market. There are Irish companies abroad that are winning business and employing people, both at home and abroad, as a result of how they have made great use of the Single Market. If we are seeking to benefit from the Single Market in other countries, and Irish companies do unbelievably well at that, there is an expectation, not only legal but political, that we should make that same Single Market available to organisations and companies within Ireland, just as Irish companies are able to benefit from it in other European countries. It is the other side of that coin.

The question then becomes how we can manage that, and I realise we have a difference of opinion on this. This is where national governments of member states can play a big role, by making sure it is managed in a way that still reflects the circumstances of the transport system within a country. That is the reason we are not opting for a tendering of the entire bus market in a mandatory fashion. We are making it open to the National Transport Authority to determine what percentage of the bus market should be tendered and it has determined that at this stage it should be only 10%. With regard to the rail market, we are taking a very strong approach which reflects the fact that our rail market is fundamentally different in size and structure from those of other European countries.

While we accept that we have an obligation to comply with the Single Market, and it is in our interest to comply with it because it is one of the reasons our economy is beginning to recover so strongly, alongside that, through the work that I do, we try to ensure that our participation in that Single Market reflects the fact that our transport markets are very different from other transport markets across Europe.

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

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. The brief we have received indicates that there was much debate about very important issues. I wish to focus on two. One is slightly related to the main one about rail transport. I assume this is the TEN-T package. To put it in context, a directive relating to rail transport was brought before the committee a couple of months ago and I asked for a clarification of it. If memory serves, the clarification I received said that it was to encourage further development and investment in rail infrastructure across member states. I am sorry I do not have the directive with me and I appreciate that I am throwing this at the Minister when there are so many directives coming forward. However, the reason I raise it is to give a context for a question which relates to a submission the committee received some months ago from the promoters of the western rail corridor. That corridor is an ongoing topic for the committee.

The Minister will be well aware that there are competing interests in respect of that rail corridor. On the one hand, the group we met is promoting, initially at least, an expansion of the rail corridor to accommodate increased freight traffic. The group showed us a map of Ireland which indicated that if the rail corridor were to be developed for rail freight from the north west down to Limerick and then to link up with Waterford, it would be more efficient than the current transit process which obliges one to transport freight across the country to Dublin and then take it from Dublin to the southern and south-eastern ports. We received a reply from the Minister that due to lack of funding, rather than lack of interest, there were no plans to develop the rail corridor. In light of what appears to be an ongoing promotion of the usage of rail transport, does the Minister have some thoughts on that? For example, a meeting is due to take place and Luxembourg has indicated that one of its priorities will be to meet the common objective of promoting rail transport throughout the Union.

I believe the development of the western rail corridor for freight, initially, is at least an answerable cause. I am sure the Minister is very pleased that the most recent figures published by the national transport company show a significant increase in user traffic on Dublin Bus, the Luas, the DART, on the bus expressways across the country and also in rail traffic. Those who use our rail system at present will agree that it is generally an excellent service, despite some glitches at peak times for the commuter system.

Bearing all of that in mind, perhaps the Department should give serious consideration to that and whether Europe would be able to help out financially, if it is keen on promoting the use of rail. In view of the Luxembourg priorities, there might be some way through the Minister's ongoing discussions at European level that the EU could assist the Irish Government if it were to embark on the development of the western rail corridor, for example. I am not referring to passenger traffic in this context but to freight traffic. The case that was made to us was unanswerable in terms of efficiency, cost effectiveness and usage. I do not wish to labour the point but I have a specific interest in that.

My final point is brief. Tomorrow we are meeting with a Northern Ireland Assembly committee on tourism development in the country. While great strides have been made in ensuring there is access across the island, there is a black spot in the west and north west in terms of the road infrastructure. The road from Galway through Mayo, Sligo, into Enniskillen and then north requires more funding. In fairness, this Government and the previous Government provided funding on a piecemeal basis. I do not suggest it should be a dual carriageway, but there certainly should be continuing funding for it.

I would hope that in the North-South Ministerial Council meetings he would also press for the Northern authorities to try to extend their road network from Belfast going west into Enniskillen. Until it hits the Ballygawley roundabout, the route from Enniskillen leaves a lot to be desired and the Northern Executive appears not to have spent any money on that. I appreciate that the Minister cannot say at the North-South Ministerial Council meeting that we want Northern Ireland to spend more money only for them to ask why we are not spending more in the South. I refer to that particular section of access from a tourist point of view because much of the tourist traffic going to the west goes to Galway, Mayo and Sligo, and then to Donegal. If there was an improved network, particularly the Sligo to Enniskillen route, it would be helpful in terms of increasing tourist traffic North and South.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the road and rail freight points Senator Mooney has put to me, I will begin by dealing with the point about the upgrade of the roads to which he refers. We are constantly working on that to try to make an increase in the funding available for the upgrading of our existing road network. I accept that, due to the cutbacks in maintenance in recent years, many parts of our road network are creating difficulty for tourism. We also know that continued investment in our road network is an important element of road safety. While I cannot give the Senator a specific commitment on the road to which he refers, I can assure him that in terms of the work in which I am involved in my Department, we are looking to maintain and then increase the funding available for road maintenance and road network improvements. My choice would be to work to upgrade existing roads as opposed to building new roads and other pieces of infrastructure only to find out a few years from now that we do not have adequate funding to maintain them.

On the Senator's point about freight, I will respond by making three specific points. TEN-T funding is, and has been, an important and helpful source of funding for our rail network. It has also played an important role, as I am sure the Senator is aware, in regard to our port development but in terms of rail development, it has played a role in signalling works we are looking to do across the city centre and also how we would upgrade existing parts of our rail network as part of the entire DART underground project, which looks to increase our ability to pull more carriages into Dublin at higher frequency, thereby providing an increase in the performance of much of the national rail network.

On the Senator's point about the western rail corridor, the real challenge I have is trying to fund the rail network currently open. We have the funding in place for that but it is extremely unlikely that in the near future, we will be able to fund new rail lines for which there is demand. However, in the interim, in terms of those areas in which there is an interest, I am committed to not to doing anything on those parts of land that would stop us at a point in the future turning it back into a rail line if there was a demand for that rail line to be used.

That leads me to the third point. In terms of the freight opportunity to which the Senator refers, Irish Rail is currently looking at the freight capacity that might be needed in our economy in the future to determine the role rail could play in that regard. Irish Rail's freight business has changed hugely in recent years. The Senator will be aware of the reasons for that, one of which is that our road network has got so much better and has provided an alternative way of moving the same material around, but Irish Rail is now examining the freight opportunities that could be there in the context of an economy that is changing.

For example, and this is something Deputy O'Donovan will be aware of, one of the aspects it is considering is whether anything could be done that would link up our ports network with a rail network, specifically in regard to freight. That comes back to a question the Senator asked me. That is the kind of work we would then be applying for support for under the European Union's TEN-T programme. That is broadly where we stand on the rail network, the freight opportunities for it and for the western rail corridor.

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

I am very grateful to the Minister for his clarification and I appreciate the demands on funding. I have no doubt whatsoever that most of us would agree there is a need to maintain our existing road network. Representatives of the National Roads Authority appeared before this committee and told us there is something like a €300 million shortfall in terms of maintenance funding alone, and I appreciate the challenges facing the Minister, but the submission made by the representatives of the western rail corridor addressed that issue. I am hopeful the Minister's Department has read that submission because Irish Rail, which was with the group that day-----

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was in with the group.

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

-----support what the Minister is saying, namely, the development of the western rail network would link up with Foynes, for example. The current system of freight transport to the eastern and the south eastern ports was inefficient. We have an existing infrastructure, which I appreciate needs funding, and I understand everything the Minister said about the funding challenges. However, I would hate to think the Minister would leave this on the back burner. If there is any opportunity arising out of what seems to be a unanimous position in Europe about promoting rail transport, I ask that there would be some mechanism whereby the Minister could get some financial help from Europe for a specific project of this nature.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assure the Senator that there is no question of the interest in anything being left on the back burner. There is a fire burning brightly under many priorities and projects people and communities want to progress. In terms of the challenge facing me, Irish Rail is looking to progress rail opportunities. The National Roads Authority has very good road projects, not to mention our bus companies which have very good plans on how they can expand their bus fleet to meet the needs of our economy. We are trying to make the best use of the scarce funding available to us. Ultimately, I have to make a choice in terms of the forms of transport into which we put funding because they will all be competing for the same overall pot I then secure.

I understand the point the Senator has made. I am aware of the issue, and of the reports to which he referred. I hope I have described adequately the way in which we are trying to progress that kind of proposal.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To back up what Senator Mooney said, Iarnrod Éireann and West-on-Track emphasised the freight issue, in particular, and that the cost of getting that up and running would not be as great.

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

And of benefit to the economy.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For instance, a number of needs have been listed for the Killala power plant for the supply of timber that has been announced. I accept that does not relate strictly to the issues we are discussing but-----

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

It is in the context of the promotion of rail usage.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is, and to give an example of the interplay we now face, I know that the plant to which the Chairman referred has a number of specific needs which we can address at another point but if we look at the development taking place in our timber industry and the changes now taking place in agricultural communities due to the abolition of milk quotas, all of those have profound and direct consequences on the transport needs of those sectors. I met representatives from the felling industry and the timber companies and they are saying they will need a road network that is capable of carrying, with increased frequency, very large trucks carrying large amounts of timber.

All of the leading dairy companies and farming organisations have raised with me the separate issue of transport needs arising out of the abolition of the milk quota. Ultimately, we will have to examine how best moneys can be spent on different parts of our infrastructure to ensure at least some of those needs are met. I know the rail network plays a major part in that but there is a great deal of cost involved in the maintenance and new build of rail infrastructure. We are currently trying to find a way of balancing all of that.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The points have been well made.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the discussion drifted on, it has prompted me to raise another issue with the Minister, which I accept it may not be possible to address in the short term but which I would nevertheless like the Department to consider, namely, job creation around our ports. As an island country, we are totally dependent on our ports. In the context of our earlier discussion around TEN-T, in my estimation three Departments have responsibility for ports to some degree or another. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government deals with foreshore issues, on which legislation has been promised but in respect of which nothing has yet happened. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine deals with issues around pier and harbour infrastructure development and marine activities. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport also has particular responsibilities in this area. The result is a disparate set-up, which may be a throw back to how governance in relation to ports was dealt with previously. If we are serious about the creation of hubs of employment, this issue needs to be addressed. Dublin Port Company, which is in the Minister's constituency, is probably the most obvious example in this regard. Port of Cork Company and Shannon-Foynes Port Company, which is my constituency, are very successful. However, management at these companies, in terms of the infrastructural issues with which they are faced and the plans they have at arms length from Government, are pulling their hair out.

The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, in terms of the flora and fauna which we are very fortunate to have, also has a remit in this area. Other unelected organisations such as An Taisce also have a remit. The Department of Transport did a very good piece of work on the categorisation and identification of ports in the context of funding under TEN-T. Another piece of work now needs to be done on how we can utilise our key pieces of infrastructure, namely, the ports, to develop industries. In places like Antwerp and Rotterdam, swathes of industry have grown up around the servicing of ports yet in Ireland, which is an island country totally dependent on its ports, there is not the same degree of focus in that regard. There is massive potential in the independent port companies being a little more empowered and under the remit of one Department. Perhaps the Minister would comment on where are we at in terms of TEN-T funding for infrastructural projects such as the development of Foynes and the rail network.

I have previously raised with the Minister the major disappointment in relation to the M20 project, in particular, the corridor between Limerick and Cork, which are the second and third largest urban centres in the country. While I welcome that we are finally going to have a continuous motorway from Galway to Limerick, the worst national primary road in the country linking any two urban centres, with the exception of the Limerick-Waterford road, is the Limerick-Cork road. It is a disgrace. The stretch of road from Buttevant to Charleville and from the Limerick county bounds to Macroom is a death trap. The fact that this issue has fallen off the radar is of major disappointment. Perhaps the Minister would update me on what is happening in that regard.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister has to leave at 12 p.m., I will allow a brief supplementary from Deputy Fitzmaurice and Deputy Ellis before calling the Minister to respond.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the main issue arising today appears to be the European rail network. In the context of TEN-T, funding is to be provided to develop the ports, rail and road network along the route from Foynes Port to Limerick, Limerick to Dublin and from Cork to Dublin and on to Newry . All of the road and rail networks in the west, from Derry to Galway, which up to 2011 were eligible for this funding, are no longer included. As stated by Deputy O'Donovan, this funding could have been used constructively to develop the rail and road network from Cork to Limerick, Limerick to Galway, Galway to Sligo and Sligo to Derry. Lest people are not aware of it, there is no rail infrastructure along the route to Knock Airport. It has been forgotten about. The proposed route to be developed, as per the map provided, is alarming.

Reference was made to bringing more carriages into Dublin, which is good and everybody welcomes that. However, to make a pound one has to spend a pound. If we do not utilise this funding to develop the rail corridors in the west and to develop the road infrastructure from Castlebar to Dublin, and dissect the country with another road from Derry to the south, this country will not be accessible for businesspeople wishing to locate outside Dublin. We need to ensure this is done. I accept there will be no return from this on day one. There was no return from the gas pipe network from day one. The reward will come down the road as the volume of people doing business here increases. I urge the Minister to rethink this proposal.

I have examined all of the TEN-T proposals for Ireland. In my view, the west has been forgotten about. Does the Minister agree?

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My first question is in relation to cabin baggage entitlements. As the cost of taking large baggage on a flight has increased and continues to rise, people have resorted to travelling with only cabin baggage. Any changes in this area will affect cost for most people. Are any changes proposed?

My second question relates to air passengers' rights and safety. In a recent incident on board a plane, a person died during a short haul flight from Dublin to Spain. I have been told that while it is a mandatory requirement that a defibrillator is available on all long haul flights, there is no such requirement in respect of short haul flights. We have previously discussed the issues that can arise in the context of air travel, including lengthy waiting periods in airports and flights of up to six hours. I understand from what I have been told that the availability of a defibrillator on short haul flights is not mandatory. This is an issue we need to tackle urgently. While there is no guarantee in the incident to which I referred earlier that had a defibrillator been available the person's life would have been saved, one should have been available. Will the Minister undertake to have regulations in that regard clarified and updated if necessary?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

l will begin with Deputy O'Donovan's question as to current EU funding. I have provided letters of support for a number of projects across the country and these are now with the European Commission and are being considered. On his point about how we support ports and the need for a single Department to have responsibility for ports, the Taoiseach will decide the structure of the Government and the roles for Ministers.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Minister be averse to the idea? Does he see the logic of my argument?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the Deputy's argument although I am not sure I would agree with it because there is so much in each of the areas to which the Deputy refers. For example, there is so much complexity and law in the area of the foreshore issue that in my view it is best left in the Department with expertise in the area. Similarly, areas relating to marine development clearly sit better within the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This is why I believe the approach taken by my own Department offers the best way of trying to pull much of this together. We will be publishing legislation soon on the tiering of the ports into national, local and regional significance. This will give a framework in which choices can be made regarding who does what and it will define the structure and the relationship with the local authority. Ultimately, this is the best way of ensuring that each port can play a role in the overall development of the country but it must also be recognised that not every port can carry out the same role. For example, the needs of the Deputy's local port of Shannon-Foynes would be very different from the needs of some smaller and medium-sized ports. The approach of tiering our ports offers the best way of pulling together all the resources that are needed in Government in an effort to develop the ports.

I refer to Deputy Fitzmaurice's point. It is not in our remit to define which kind of projects are acceptable for funding for TEN-T. The European Commission decides the kind and size of projects and we then apply for funding. On the Deputy's point about the west of Ireland, comparable areas in other European countries have not applied for TEN-T funding and have not received it.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the line of core funding for railways, airports and roads. I can show the Minister that there is a difference between Ireland and England in this regard. I cannot guess the criteria used by the Minister's Department.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can answer that question. The reason is that the European Union has a definition of what is the core transport network and we apply for it. The reason it is different for the UK is because of its different population densities and size. I work to influence the definitions but once the definitions are set it means that different countries can apply for funding in different ways.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why was the west included up to 2011 and it was taken out along with the change of Government?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take a look at the change of definition and how it has changed over time. Based on the definition set by the EU for a core transport network for a country, we then make the very best use of that framework as it is set down and we draw down the funding for it. We have a very good track record in this regard. I cannot say whether there has been a change in that definition over time but I will get the answer and I will write to the Deputy with that information.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be possible for the Department to give me information on the criteria used in the case of Ireland? I have been trying to get this information for the past month.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we provided it to the Deputy-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I was looking for was not provided.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Deputy received this document which I have here?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but the exact information I was looking for was not provided.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The document I have here lists the criteria. If the Deputy tells me what information is not included we will provide it to him.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were asked to provide documentation and we provided it. If it does not answer the Deputy's query, if he tells us what is missing we will provide it.

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

On a point of clarification, the Minister has said that the Commission decides. How does the Commission decide on what projects are to be funded?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Commission will look at all the applications. We make an application and the Commission looks at the applications-----

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

What specific applications?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A range of applications from ports to railways and everything else. I can provide that information to the Senator.

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

What percentage of funding is received from Europe?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It depends on the project.

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

On average, is it 60%, 50% or 70%?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it is between 10% and 30%.

I refer to the questions from Deputy Ellis. I now have the information in reply to his second question about baggage entitlements. Cabin baggage entitlements did not feature in the Commission's original proposal in 2013 but it has emerged that some other member states are looking for it to be included in the regulations currently under discussion. We are not supporting it and we do not believe it should be included. In reply to his question about defibrillators, my understanding is that airline companies have contended that they are not convinced that the availability of a defibrillator would have made a difference in the circumstances. I do not have the information to hand on the legal requirements but I will revert to the committee secretariat with it.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think this decision should be left to the airline companies. The companies can argue whatever they like but this is a health and safety issue. I would have thought the EU would have very clear regulations in this regard. I was led to believe that it is compulsory for long haul flights to carry a defibrillator but short haul flights are often many hours in duration. The Department needs to follow up on this issue because it is not acceptable that any company should have a leeway on this.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not speculate as to the answer because I was not expecting that matter to be raised. However, I will send that information to the committee secretariat.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today and bringing the committee up to date on last week's meeting.