Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)

If the NRA was to seek a reduction in the tolls then the operator would seek compensation from the State for the shortfall. Guess who would pay for it? The taxpayer. The NRA operates the other two national road toll facilities, namely, the Dublin Port tunnel and the M50, and the revenues accrue directly to it. It is responsible for setting the toll rates charged for using these facilities and it can adjust the rates annually in line with the rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index.

In the case of the M50, the average annual inflation rate for 2008 of 4.1% would have given rise to an increase in toll rates of 10 cent. The NRA decided not to increase the toll on all vehicle categories at that time. For 2010 all toll rates, except the car toll, have been reduced by 10% in line with deflation. The car toll has been maintained at €2 for the third consecutive year. In effect, this means that the car toll is in line with inflation when measured over the period 2008-09. All net revenue generated from tolling on the M50 is used by the NRA to cover the buy-out clause of the Westlink and the M50 upgrade. Any revenue loss arising from a reduction in these tolls would have to be made up by the taxpayer generally rather than directly by the users. I do not think the taxpayer would favour that.

The Dublin Port tunnel is used primarily for traffic demand management purposes and not to raise revenue. The tunnel relieves surface road congestion in Dublin city by diverting heavy goods vehicles from Dublin Port directly onto the motorway. This has positive knock-on effects for bus users, pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the city quays, including better quality air and safer travel. It is, therefore, not appropriate that this toll be adjusted in line with inflation but that it is determined on the basis of ensuring it continues to function effectively in terms of traffic management.

In January 2010 the NRA made significant reductions in port tunnel charges in order to alleviate congestion in the city because the tunnel could safely accommodate extra exiting capacity as a result of the progress on the M1 and M50 roadworks and the opening of the new Macken Street bridge. Peak rates reduced from €12 to €10 and a new off-peak rate of €3 was introduced.

As regards airport charges, the Bill would require me to invoke powers under section 10 of the Aviation Regulation Act to direct the Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR, to publish a proposal to reduce charges. In fact, I have no such power. Section 10 of the Aviation Regulation Act allows the Minister for Transport to issue general policy directions to CAR. There is no provision for the issue of specific directions in regard to charges. In this context it is the responsibility of CAR, under the Act, to balance a range of different considerations, including traffic forecasts and projected operating costs, together with investment costs, before arriving at its decision on charges at Dublin Airport. It would not be appropriate to interfere in that legislative arrangement.

CAR made its determination for 2010-14 as recently as 2009. In making this determination it reviewed all relevant factors, including the projected operating costs, the commercial revenues, traffic figures and financial commitments relating to the major investment programme at Dublin Airport. CAR's analysis did, therefore, take into account the projected cost environment in the economy and it has set very stringent operating cost targets for the DAA in the 2010-14 regulatory period.

Overall, the Bill seeks to be populist but in reality it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the realties of transport charges. It ignores some of the basic facts, such as its claims that the CIE companies are heavily loss making and are engaged in major efficiency programmes to rectify this and that driving test fees do not reflect the full cost of providing the service, despite the efficiencies which have been achieved, and the fact that the theory test and the NCT have been awarded by competitive tendering and the fact that CAR already determines airport charges by a rigorous process.

In short, the approach embodied in the Bill is, in so far as transport charges are concerned, grossly over simplistic and would be greatly detrimental to services and, therefore, to the consumer. The Bill tries to perpetuate the myth that there is such a thing as a free lunch. One would have thought that even Fine Gael would know that is not true. It should also know that we have a very sophisticated electorate which is not easily fooled by populist rhetoric. If Fine Gael believes it can fool the electorate with Bills such as this it will learn to its cost that it cannot.

In the transport area the effect of what Fine Gael proposes is very simple.

Instead of ensuring those who use the services pay the full economic cost, they want to transfer the cost to taxpayers even though many will not be using the services. I do not think the taxpayers of this country will thank them for that.

See this speech in context