Vol. 956 No. 1
27. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the extent to which he expects to be in a position to make allocations under the capital sports programme in the course of 2017; the date on which such allocations will be made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30129/17]
This question relates to the possible imminence of an allocation of sports capital grants in the current year with a view to meeting, to the best extent possible, the requirements of the applicants.
I will begin by thanking Members of this House and the Seanad for their good wishes on my recent appointment as Minister of State in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. I look forward to working with Members of both Houses and the Minister, Deputy Ross, for the betterment of tourism and sport. I also compliment my predecessor, Deputy O'Donovan, on the work he did in this Department.
I thank Deputy Durkan for his question. It is a very important programme. Earlier this year, the programme was opened and closed in February to applications. There were a huge number of applications - 2,320 - seeking grants to the value of €155 million. There is a budget of €30 million. If the Deputy knows his Bible, the loaves and the fishes story comes to mind straight away. There is huge demand on this programme. I am trying to find a way to ensure we can grant as much funding as possible to as many clubs as possible. The Department is very busy at present processing the applications. I understand that as of 23 June, about 88% of applications have been processed. Very shortly we hope to be in a position to begin the allocation process. It will most likely be after the summer recess, possibly September, before we are in a position to announce the outcome of the programme.
We have seen a huge amount of investment in it throughout the country since 1998. Some €911 million has been granted in sports capital allocations since 1998. The mark of the programme is clear to see throughout the country with the infrastructure that is there. It is something that is in the programme for Government that we hope to continue on an annual basis because we know it is having a real impact on participation levels from the grassroots right up to elite level. It is very worthwhile.
It is the first time I have had an opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment to the position he is now in and to his colleague on his reappointment. I wish them both very well and assure them of plenty of active co-operation from me and, I am sure, every other Member.
What is the extent to which the reduction of the technical knockouts from the system can be isolated whereby applicants are disqualified at the last minute? They have little recourse and their disappointment knows no bounds. I do not know if it is possible but I am asking that, in so far as is possible, it be dealt with in a way that reduces the extent of the disappointment that we, as public representatives, have to face afterwards.
I fully understand the Deputy's concern about the rates of invalidation. In previous rounds, the rates were typically one third, which is far too high. It was addressed somewhat in this programme. We expect the rates will be down to about one fifth, which is progress. It is still something we need to do more on. I am aware of it as someone who is involved in grassroots sporting organisations. Through our role as public representatives, we have a lot of contact and are aware that an invalidation causes terrible disappointment and upset, and in some instances turmoil, within clubs. The most disappointed people I have engaged with in the context of the sports capital programme have not been people who were unsuccessful but who have been invalidated. Perhaps in future we will be able to do more to ensure the rate of validation can be as close to 100% as possible. We expect to see a much improved situation this time. This means there are more valid applicants for the same pot. We will still be heavily oversubscribed but it is to be hoped the situation will be better on that front this time.
Will the Minister of State be in a position to give credit for effort in rewarding the various applicants? In some cases, some local bodies, groups and organisations put in a huge effort locally to raise the necessary funds at local level to make an application which helps to make it possible for them to proceed with their proposed project. In many cases, such efforts are not recognised. We recognise that everyone has to be treated in kind, but nonetheless special mention needs to go to those who make the particular effort to do what is necessary in their area.
The role of volunteers in our sporting organisations at grassroots level is very often overlooked, and such a role is important to sport in this country. Without the volunteers and the grassroots, we do not get the elite athletes and sportspeople coming through. What I and the Minister, Deputy Ross, would like to see at the heart of the sports capital programme is volunteers, who are behind the vast majority of these sporting applications, being happy with the outcome. That is why we are trying to find a way to satisfy as many applicants as we can and to try to give as much meaningful funding to them that we possibly can within the constraints we are operating in. We are looking at ways of doing that at present. We want as few people as possible to be disappointed at the conclusion of this process. It is hoped that can happen. I cannot state enough how important the volunteers behind these applications are and without whom we could not have sport in any meaningful way in this country.
I thank the Minister for his succinctness and for sticking to the time.
28. Deputy Imelda Munster asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the new initiatives which have been taken by his Department since the vote on Brexit in Britain to ensure Ireland is prepared to deal with the expected drop in visitor numbers from Britain; his plans to ensure the tourism sector diversifies in both attracting visitors from other countries and in improving tourism amenities here going forward; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29962/17]
I offer congratulations to the Minister of State, Deputy Griffin, on his appointment to his new role. He is only in the role a wet day and the questions are coming. What new initiatives have been taken by the Department since the vote on Brexit in Britain to ensure Ireland is prepared to deal with the expected drop in visitor numbers from Britain? What are the Minister's plans to ensure the tourism sector diversifies in attracting visitors from other countries and in improving tourism amenities here going forward? Will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy for the questions. It is a question I imagine will return time and again, and rightly so, because of the present situation.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, my Department has been fully engaged in evaluating the ensuing risks for tourism and, together with the tourism agencies, working to address those risks. The Department's analysis of the situation was greatly assisted by the all-island sectoral meeting I hosted with the industry in January which examined the impact of Brexit on the tourism and hospitality sector. From a departmental perspective, we will continue our work across Government to ensure our concerns are high on the agenda. For tourism, the priorities include maintaining a liberalised aviation regime, preserving the common travel area, avoiding a hard Border and retaining British-Irish visa agreements for third countries.
The tourism agencies are engaged in the operational aspects of preparing for Brexit. Tourism Ireland is responsible for marketing Ireland as a tourism destination overseas. In broad terms, its strategy involves two main elements. First, it has taken steps to revise its marketing effort in Britain to make it more relevant in a Brexit environment. As well as this, it is implementing a market diversification strategy. This aims to attract more visitors from markets which deliver longer stays and, therefore, higher revenue returns. The significant increase in visitors from North America in early 2017 is evidence of this.
For its part, Fáilte Ireland is also working on a number of fronts to assist the diversification and development of our tourism industry and the attractiveness of our tourism product offering. Ongoing work to develop the main experience brands and enhance visitor experiences is aimed at boosting our appeal to key target markets and priority consumer segments. With regard to training and business supports, Fáilte Ireland offers a suite of supports to enhance the competitiveness, enterprise capability and sustainability of the tourism sector. In addition, it is creating a new Brexit response programme that will focus on delivering a capability building programme for industry.
I will provide more detail on tourist numbers from Britain and other specific areas in a moment.
As the Minister will be aware, Britain accounts for 40% of visitors to the island of Ireland, the largest number of any country. To date, the approach taken by Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland has been to market existing amenities. While some grant aid is available to develop amenities, it has not been enough to encourage visitors to some parts of the country. It appears that areas where tourism is weak but has significant potential have been left to their own devices and have not been prioritised or developed. Will the Government consider the establishment of a targeted policy plan to assist areas with significant tourism potential to help increase tourist and visitor numbers?
The Minister repeatedly claps himself on the back for the increase in tourist numbers from regions other than the United Kingdom. It seems that all is well because other regions will make up for the decline in tourist numbers from the UK. However, Britain accounts for 42% of visitors to Ireland and the number of UK visitors decreased by 7% in the first six months of this year. This is a very serious development because people from the UK tend to visit parts of Ireland that are not holiday hot spots, as it were. What exactly does the Minister propose to do to mitigate against the effects of this substantial decline in tourists from Britain? When the Brexit result became known, the Minister indicated it would not have any impact on the tourism industry. Unfortunately, it is having a major impact on tourism, as the figures published this week indicate.
To respond first to Deputy Munster, I do not know if she is asking that any specific areas be targeted. Does she have in mind County Louth?
I am thinking of County Louth and east County Meath, as well as the cross-Border tourism potential of the Newry and Mournes district and south Armagh. All these areas have significant tourism potential and are not being targeted for development.
Some of those areas are in Ireland's Ancient East, which is a great success story. As the Deputy is aware, I do not get involved in operational matters or tell Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland how to run their business. I will, however, convey to both agencies the sentiments the Deputy expressed. If she thinks of a specific area with significant tourism potential which has not been realised because it has not been focused on, I will relay that information to the tourism bodies.
We must acknowledge that we have managed to do reasonably well, despite the appalling effects of Brexit. I do not, as Deputy Troy stated, clap myself on the back about this. The decline in visitor numbers from the UK as a result of Brexit is not my fault and the recovery in tourism is not in any way to my credit. The dramatic fall in visitor numbers from Britain can be ascribed almost completely to the decline in the value of sterling. It does not have anything to do with anybody here.
To hell with it then. Is that the Minister's attitude?
I am monitoring daily what is being done to compensate for this decline. That is the issue on which Deputy Munster asked her question. Tourism Ireland has been very active in Britain and on the issue of market diversification. While the figures to which Deputy Troy referred reflect exactly what is happening, they also show that overseas visitors increased by more than 3% in the first five months of 2017. As we approach the peak season, it is particularly encouraging to note that visitor numbers from all areas apart from Britain have increased, with North America particularly buoyant. As expected, there has been a significant decline in the number of visitors from Great Britain. I note, however, that the tourism agencies are working to counteract the impact of this on the areas most affected.
There has been no focus on some areas in Ireland's Ancient East, while other areas are heavily marketed in campaigns and so on. Areas such as the Border area around north Louth, beautiful south Armagh and the Newry and Mournes district are weak in terms of tourist numbers because promotional activity, funding and development have not been forthcoming. Will the Minister agree to implement a plan that focuses on areas that are weak on tourist numbers but have significant potential? Thus far, these areas have been neglected and we seem to get a deaf ear from Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland when we raise the matter with them.
We are looking seriously at other areas, including the lakelands area, with which Deputy Troy will be familiar and on which I will respond in a Topical Issue debate later. People also believe that this area is neglected or not fully covered by Ireland's Ancient East, the Wild Atlantic Way and other big ticket tourism projects. I have had discussions with the tourism agencies about ways of targeting various places and they are very open to ideas. Micro-management is probably harder to sell abroad. The brands that are working at the moment are working very well. That is only my opinion, however, because it is the tourism agencies which have the expertise in this area.
If an area is genuinely neglected and a good case can be made for it - there are undoubtedly some such areas - I will certainly convey this to the agencies and relay the response I receive to the Deputy. I do not wish to interfere or direct the tourism agencies to spend millions on specific areas because I do not have the relevant expertise. However, I will certainly put the matter to them if the Deputy wishes.
29. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he or his officials have had discussions with the Minister of State with responsibility for rural and community affairs regarding the possibility of providing matching funding from his Department and the CLÁR scheme of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs for the repair of non-county roads under the local improvement scheme; if so, the nature of these discussions; if decisions were taken as a result of the discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29952/17]
Many public roads in rural areas have not been taken in charge by local authorities. Many lead to houses, public facilities and strands, which are very important to the Wild Atlantic Way. When I was in government these roads were co-funded by the Departments with responsibility for transport and rural affairs, respectively. Is the Minister or are his officials engaged in discussions with the Minister - or the Minister of State with responsibility for rural and community affairs, as he was until recently - on providing funding to these so-called local improvement scheme, LIS, roads?
I thank the former Minister for his question which is on an issue on which I am rapidly being educated as it is raised virtually every day in the House, either as a Topical Issue matter or in another form. It is an important issue and I understand the difficulties in which people find themselves. I will respond to the Deputy's question on discussions in a moment.
In the first instance, maintenance of private laneways and roads not taken in charge by local authorities is the responsibility of the landowners concerned, as is the case with all private property. The local improvement scheme, LIS, whereby a contribution can be made towards the cost of repairing such non-public roads, is governed by section 81 of the Local Government Act 2001. The section provides that, as Minister, I can make funding available to road authorities in respect of the LIS. In turn, a road authority may assist with local improvement schemes within its functional area, subject to the limitations set out in the Act and compliance with any terms and conditions set out by my Department. The local improvement scheme, therefore, operates under a specific statutory remit.
As the Deputy is aware, due to cutbacks in roads funding, it was necessary for the Department to stop making separate allocations to local authorities in respect of the LIS. The scheme remains in place and road authorities can use a proportion of State grant funding, namely, 15% of the discretionary grant this year, for the LIS should they wish to do so. I have undertaken to review the possibility of a separate allocation for the scheme, taking account of provisions of the programme for Government once the capital plan review has been completed.
Up to yesterday, I did not have any discussion, nor had my officials, on the provision of funding from my Department and the CLÁR scheme for non-public roads under the LIS, but I am always open to discussion and engagement with any of my colleagues. Any such discussion would, however, have to take account of the specific statutory provisions governing LIS and of the responsibilities of private landowners.
In anticipation of this question, I spoke with the Minister, Deputy Ring, about the possibility of our Departments matching funds via, for example, CLÁR with a view to promoting the LIS. I told him that this question would be raised and asked whether we could do that. He is a man of great enterprise and interest in issues like this and he said that we should go for it or discuss it. I will be having discussions with the Minister about this. I do not promise that anything will come of it but, as a result of his comments, we will examine the matter and see what we can do.
I am aware of the significant pressure on rural Deputies in terms of the LIS and community involvement scheme, CIS. I am sympathetic towards them. As Deputy Ó Cuív will know, there is a commitment - certainly an aspiration - in the programme for Government in this regard.
These are not private roads that have been taken in charge, but public roads. If the Minister tried to close one of them, he would quickly find out that they were not private roads. In many cases, one travels down a public road that has been taken in charge only for the tar to end because the rest of that public road has not been taken in charge. Let us be clear about it. Departmental officials saying that these are the private roads of landholders is typical of how they treat rural people. Many of these roads were tarred and should have been taken in charge at that stage but were not.
The Minister with responsibility for rural development is sitting on a pot of gold. He has so much money that he cannot spend it this year. Can the Minister who is present, Deputy Ross, come up with €5 million between now and the end of the year to match €5 million from his colleague and get some of these roads done quickly instead of just talking about them? I am delighted that an enterprising and active Deputy is the Minister for rural development.
I will be brief. Previously, CLÁR moneys were used to fund county roads that had been damaged by forestry traffic. Those roads were built on poor ground in rural areas and, after being hit with heavy forestry traffic for months on end, were destroyed. Typically, they were a low priority for councils because they were in such isolated areas.
If the Minister, Deputy Ross, is going to speak with the other Minister, Deputy Ring, about reopening CLÁR funding for use in the LIS, the scheme for public forestry roads also needs funding, given that some rural communities use these roads regularly as their main routes home.
I hope that I have not stepped on a hornet's nest by being agreeable.
It looks like the Minister has.
I will not give Deputy Ó Cuív a hostage to fortune by making a commitment of €5 million or any other figure. He would not expect me to.
I would.
I will not do it. If a way of matching funds and reopening the LIS can be found, I am prepared to consider it. We are committed to going down that road. It was included in the programme for Government and is intended to be an early beneficiary of economic recovery. On the Deputy's prompting, I would be happy to speak with the Minister, Deputy Ring, about the issues that Deputies Ó Cuív and Aindrias Moynihan raised with a view to doing this. There is no way that we will not explore the possibility. If there are drawbacks or if it is impossible or a bad idea, I will tell the Deputies that. For the moment, however, we will enter into talks about matching funding and determining whether this is a possibility.
30. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the status of the introduction of primary legislation or a statutory instrument in respect of the implementation of EU Regulation No. 598/2014; and the likely timescale for same. [29944/17]
For 16 months, I have been asking the Minister about the transposition of EU Regulation No. 598/2014 by way of primary legislation or statutory instrument. It is a critical issue for residents affected by night-time noise around Dublin Airport, particularly in the context of the new runway and the impact of noise in terms of sleep disruption and so on. Will the Minister clarify whether he is introducing legislation and, if so, when? Will it be a statutory instrument?
I am sorry, as this is the second time that I have had to apologise to the Deputy. This issue is not yet resolved even though it should have been. We had hoped to resolve it much earlier than this. We have had a few false dawns.
In anticipation of the Deputy's question, I met the Attorney General yesterday and asked him what was happening with the issue. He replied this morning, telling me that he had met the Parliamentary Counsel and advisory counsel, who are dealing with the draft regulations, yesterday afternoon. The up-to-date position is that the Parliamentary Counsel expected to finalise the seventh and, hopefully, final draft of the regulations yesterday evening. The advisory counsel will review the seventh draft and expects to revert to my Department with that draft by the end of this week with a view to arranging a meeting to finalise the draft next week. The Attorney General hopes that his letter is of assistance and has asked me to telephone him if I wish to discuss the matter further, which is an offer on which I will take him up.
The statutory instrument to give effect to EU Regulation No. 598/2014, which deals with the regulation of aircraft noise emissions, is not yet in place, much against my expectations and hopes. I had fully expected that it would have been by now. It is a source of equal frustration to me as it is to the Deputy. I spoke with the new Attorney General yesterday morning, and he has assured me that the matter is being given top priority in his office. I assure the Deputy that it shall continue to be treated as a priority issue by my officials.
The entry into force of EU Regulation No. 598/2014 marks a significant change in the way that aircraft noise emissions are managed throughout Europe and the statutory amendments required in Irish law to give effect to it are complex. Without going into the detailed and technical legal issues at play, which are a matter of ongoing work among my officials, the Attorney General's lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen, there are two areas that are taking more time to get right than was imagined at the outset, the first of which is the independence of the new noise regulatory body. There is broad agreement that the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, is best positioned to take on this role and do it to the highest standard of professional competence. It has a strong and internationally verified track record in the area of aviation safety and inspection, functions for which it already has legal responsibility. Making it responsible for noise regulation makes sense but the legal intricacies involved in making it the competent authority for the purpose of the EU noise regulation entails ensuring that the noise regulation function is fully and demonstrably independent of all other activities carried out by the authority.
The second area of focus is on ensuring that there is clarity about how environmental impact evaluation will work in future and a clear delineation between the roles of relevant bodies, including the noise regulator, the local authority and An Bord Pleanála.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The issue of the need for, and the nature of, primary legislation on noise regulation is one that will only be clarified when we have finalised the statutory instrument. At this stage, it is fair to say that, should primary legislation be required, it is unlikely to be done in 2017. The Deputy should, however, be assured that I will be more than happy to provide her with more information once there is clarity on this matter.
It goes without saying that it is shocking that this situation has not been resolved. I am unclear from the Minister's answer as to whether we are discussing just a statutory instrument or primary legislation. If we could even have clarity on that, it might give some assurance to residents.
The regulation is supposed to improve the position of residents who are already living with the impact of sleep deprivation and noise annoyance. They know that the directive is being put in place at a time when the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, is quite open about its attempts to undermine the existing restrictions on night flights, which will have a negative impact on residents' lives.
I understand what the Minister is saying about the need for clarity and the independence of the IAA but will it be primary legislation? Can we at least have information on that?
What about the idea of the Fingal Organised Residents United Movement, FORUM, resident's group working with the collaborative working group linked to the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA? Has that been set up or is that also still awaiting the diktats of the Attorney General?
Is the Minister not at all embarrassed to give the answer he has given to this question? Just like Deputy Daly, I have raised this issue consistently for the last 12 months. Consistently, Question Time after Question Time, a resolution has been imminent. The resolution, however, has not come to bear. As a consequence of that, the residents in the area are totally and utterly frustrated, as the Minister himself claims to be. The only difficulty is that the residents cannot do anything about it whereas the Minister can. The Minister is also stunting growth at the airport. I used the airport in the last number of days and on my return flight the plane had to circle for 15 minutes because of capacity issues on the existing runway. I advise the Minister that it might be better for him to concentrate on the legislation under his own remit in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. If he did, this matter could have been resolved at this stage.
I can always depend on Deputy Troy to come in on the back of a question where he thinks there is a vulnerability. It is a pity he did not ask the question himself. I will certainly answer Deputy Daly as fully as I can.
Under Standing Orders I am permitted to ask a supplementary question.
Of course the Deputy is permitted to do many things. I am just commenting on the opportunities and initiatives which he takes and that it is a pity he did not ask, or think to ask, the question himself.
I have submitted a written question to the Minister.
Of course I am embarrassed by this. I am acutely embarrassed by this because the Deputy is correct, she has been asking for 16 months. She has probably been asking this question since before I came into office. The answer I give to her is this - if it is with the lawyers, it is with the lawyers. As the Deputy can see from the letter which came back, I am harassing the Attorney General to produce an answer. I cannot take precipitative measures when the Attorney General is making a decision of this importance. It is very important that we get this right for the sake of the runway, for the sake of the residents to which the Deputy has referred, and for the sake of the nation. Whereas it might seem to be a difficult legal problem delaying everything, if we get this wrong we will be in an awful lot of trouble. The answer is that we are still looking at a statutory instrument. The original legal advice of the Attorney General was that the designation of the competent authority should be done using secondary legislation and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
I am a bit struck dumb by the last point. Is the Minister now saying clearly that there will be no primary legislation?
I am not.
The Minister is not saying that.
I am not.
He does not know.
That is a huge problem. This is completely unacceptable. We are talking about a draft being finalised by the end of the week, but I still do not know what that draft is about. Will it be the regulations to deal with a statutory instrument or guidance for primary legislation? It is already the situation that Dublin Airport has one of the most relaxed sets of restrictions for noise and that the residents are suffering from that. They are also acutely aware of the statements by the DAA that, once this body gets up and running, the DAA intends to move to lift the night-time restrictions on flights linked to the new runway. The residents are not opposed to the new runway, but they want it to be balanced with their quality of life. Out there on the ground there is a road network which is in upheaval and there are problems in the airport. It can be seen happening on the ground yet the legislation has not caught up and it is unacceptable. Could we be given copies of that information as soon as possible - towards the weekend? I beg for clarity on whether it will be primary legislation or a statutory instrument. Can we even say one way or another? It has to be sorted before the recess.
It should be sorted before the recess, I agree. I will provide copies, yes. The moment I get that, I will let the Deputy know. I assure her of that. I will let her know the moment I do because I am aware of the fact that she cannot ask another question for a long time. I will certainly let her know immediately.
On the issue of whether it will be secondary or primary legislation, if the Attorney General advises that primary legislation is required to finalise any aspects, the introduction of any such legislation to the Oireachtas is unlikely to occur in the short term. My immediate focus is on finalising the necessary secondary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the new EU regulation. As the Deputy knows, the primary legislation, if there is any, will focus on the longer-term strategies such as planning, superseding decisions and other things like that. The statutory instrument will concentrate on the need to set up the structures necessary to establish the competent authority. We do not know yet, but we are concentrating on getting the statutory instrument out as soon as possible.
31. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport further to Parliamentary Question No. 230 of 23 February 2017, and in view of the recently formed Athlete Commission for the period 2017 to 2020, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the board of Sport Ireland will not consider funding for the Olympic Council of Ireland in 2017 until the Moran inquiry has been finalised and published; his views on whether this will hinder the preparation of Ireland's future olympians' preparations for domestic and international sports events; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29949/17]
In a nutshell, Sport Ireland has been in the position since 2016 that it cannot release funding to the Olympic Council of Ireland, OCI, while the Moran report sits in the Office of the Attorney General. Some 25% of the OCI's funding in 2016 was not drawn down and the funding for 2017 will not even be considered by the board until the Moran report is published. There is an urgency about this. I listened to the Minister's earlier response but that, in a nutshell, is a really serious problem.
It could be. I thank the Deputy for her question. I hope it will not develop into a serious problem. It may do if it is allowed to fester and this situation is allowed to continue. I take her point. I am aware that Sport Ireland has not as yet allocated funding for the Olympic Council of Ireland, OCI, in respect of 2017. I can advise the Deputy that the position remains that the board of Sport Ireland intends to consider the funding allocation once Judge Moran's report has been published. We have been through that already. I will not go through all the details around Judge Moran's report unless the Deputy would like me to.
While I acknowledge that the current suspension of funding has implications for the OCI, I do not believe that the current regrettable situation is going to hinder unduly preparation by athletes for Tokyo 2020. It is important to bear in mind that the annual funding provided to the OCI by Sport Ireland is specifically earmarked for administration and vouched programme costs rather than direct supports for individual athletes. It is also pertinent to note that the OCI has significant alternative funding streams, including funding from its parent body, the International Olympic Committee, the IOC.
Accordingly, I consider that, pending the resolution of matters concerning funding by Sport Ireland, the OCI will be able to continue its important and valuable work in preparing our athletes for the winter Olympic Games in Korea next year and also for the summer Olympic Games in Tokyo in 2020.
In relation to the publication of the Moran inquiry report, the timing of the publication of the report will be subject to consideration of advice sought from the Attorney General. It is my hope to complete such consideration at an early date and that I will be in a position to publish the report as soon as possible thereafter. I am in touch with the OCI regularly. Indeed, I had a meeting with its chief executive, Sarah Keane, recently. I will be keeping in close touch with it in the near future. We will, of course, not allow the publication of the Moran report, or its lack of publication, to dictate the decision on funding more permanently in any way.
It is really important that is the case. It is one thing ensuring money for the athletes; the administration which allows that to happen is another. It is my information, on 27 June, that the trial of Pat Hickey and Kevin Mallon in Brazil is not even scheduled, and may not happen for a very long time. There is big queue because of some unrest. I know that €1.5 million has been earmarked or spent to date on the costs around this. Is the OCI carrying that cost?
The Times, Ireland edition, reported an OCI official as saying that the final cost will only be known when the legal proceedings in Brazil have been brought to a conclusion. Those costs are factored into administration, as is not releasing the funding to allow the organisation to proceed.
The Minister referred to the near future. It appears the Attorney General saw this complaint before he did. I ask him to comment on that. Can he give an indication of a timeline which is critical?
If I am wrong about this, I apologise. I think the Attorney General got the letter simultaneously with me so I do not think there is any differential there. I will let the Deputy know when the Attorney General reports to me. I know it will not necessarily be available in the public arena immediately because I will not be taking questions here again for a long time. I know the Deputy has an interest in the matter.
I cannot comment on legal proceedings in Brazil or when they might happen and would not do so. If, in the unlikely and unhappy event that the Attorney General provides advice that the report should not be published under any circumstances, that will not be the determining factor for me in talking to Sport Ireland about funding the OCI. It is really important that athletes are not deprived of funding just because of that incident.
Does the Minister have a contingency plan if that is the case? When would that kick in, if the Attorney General says that the report cannot be published under any circumstances?
That is a fair question. We should have that contingency. We should anticipate whatever might be said by the Attorney General. If he says we should not release the report under any circumstances, we would have to consider that very seriously. The knock-on effect that would have on Sport Ireland funding the OCI would have to be considered as a matter of urgency and consequent action should be taken in response to that. I do not think we could hang around to wait for the report to be issued or for something to happen in Brazil. We would then have to ensure the athletes are looked after and funding provided. It should not hinder in any way the Irish team going to the Olympic Games in 2020.
32. Deputy Imelda Munster asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for the future of Shannon airport in view of recent reports that the airport is due to be downgraded and in view of the fact that it has failed to reach targets under its business plan regarding passenger targets and aviation jobs targets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29963/17]
I ask the Minister to outline his plans for the future of Shannon Airport in view of recent reports that the airport is due to be downgraded and in view of the fact that it has failed to reach targets under its business plan regarding passenger targets and aviation jobs targets. I ask him to make a statement on the matter. I know Shannon Airport is separated from the DAA. I am raising the issue because of the concerns over the downgrading of the airport's operations and its staff losses.
I thank the Deputy for her question.
Shannon Airport Authority, SAA, a subsidiary of Shannon Group, has statutory responsibility for the management and operation of Shannon Airport and as such the issue raised by the Deputy is an operational matter for the company. Within that context, I will try to be helpful, but that should be acknowledged. That said, there is no proposal to downgrade the airport.
I understand that the need to evaluate business processes and practices in Shannon Airport in the context of productivity and competitiveness was identified in the run-up to the separation of the airport from DAA back in December 2012.
In this regard, one of the proposals on which the company has had recent discussions with staff and union representatives is to operate at category 9 on a flexible basis rather than operate permanently at that level, 24-7, all year round. This would contribute to a more efficient operating model at the airport without any material impact on flight operations.
Since independence from the DAA at the end of 2012, cumulative traffic at the airport has grown by over 24%. Prior to that, Deputies may recall that passenger traffic through Shannon Airport had fallen for five straight years; the airport lost two thirds of its passengers between 2006 and 2012. The first priority for the independent airport was to halt that slide and then reverse it. A decline of that scale was always going to be challenging to address, but it is to the credit of both management and staff that Shannon Airport has made significant progress in achieving that. Last year, almost 1.75 million passengers passed through Shannon Airport compared with just 1.39 million in 2012.
Also, since the establishment of Shannon Group, the number of globally recognised aviation and aerospace companies around the airport has increased from 40 to 50 companies, employing 2,400 people compared with 1,600 in 2012.
Like any business, SAA is conscious of the need to control its costs so that it can remain competitive and continue to attract new airline business in an increasingly competitive international marketplace.
On the first day of 2013 when Shannon Airport separated from the DAA, a very impressive business plan outlined the benefits for the airport. It predicted 2.5 million passengers by 2021 and 3,000 new aviation jobs within five years, but Shannon Airport has failed to come anywhere near those figures. Despite these failures, the airport authority had announced an investment plan. However, this investment plan appears to be downgrading the airport and its operations and reducing staff numbers. It is essentially the opposite of the 2012 business plan. It appears to be lowering the status of the airport from category 9 to category 7. It will also limit the number of larger aeroplanes that can fly there and will mean that emergency stops can no longer take place at Shannon Airport. Is the plan now to reduce Shannon to a regional airport or to an airport that will only deal with a small number of airlines flying to a small number of destinations?
I call on the Minister to give a very brief response as we are over time.
There might be a slight confusion about categorisation. The Deputy is right that Shannon Airport is proposing to operate at category 7 when no category 9 services are flying through the airport and to flex up to category 9 when category 9 services are scheduled to operate through the airport. Operating at category 9 on a flexible basis, rather than operating permanently at that level 24-7 all year round, will enable the airport to operate at optimal manning levels in order to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible. This will contribute to a more efficient operating model at the airport without any material impact on flight operations.
What is proposed is not a downgrading, but an optimal use of resources in line with best business practice, ensuring that resources are deployed more efficiently as and when they are required. My Department has no policy or role regarding categorisation of any airport in the State, either State-owned or non-State-owned. This is a matter for each airport.
Let me deal with emergency flights briefly.
Very briefly.
Shannon Airport has no designated status as a diversionary airport. The airport is, however, an "extended range operation with two-engine aeroplanes" approved airport, capable of accepting diversionary traffic, including in emergencies. In instances where the airport is not operating to category 9, airlines are required to declare an alternative airport in case of emergency, prior to departing their original airport.
