I thank committee members for their invitation to brief them ahead of the Council meeting tomorrow and Friday. There are two dossiers on the agenda: the regulation on trans-European networks in transport and another on ground handling services, which is part of a wider airports-package liberalisation announced by the Commission in December. We need to identify and upgrade our trans-European networks in transport in order to deepen the Internal Market, increase trade and economic integration among member states and ensure that Europe does not fall behind other countries that are rapidly improving and developing their infrastructure, especially in Asia. It makes sense that the lead is taken on this issue at Union level.
At my last appearance here ahead of the transport Council in December, I outlined some of our concerns with regard to the TEN-T regulation. I understand that on foot of a subsequent hearing with officials from my Department specifically on the TEN-T proposal, the committee wrote to the European institutions setting out similar concerns with regard to the infrastructure specifications and governance structures and penalties that might be imposed on member states. This was very helpful, and I thank the committee for its actions. The compromise text, which we will discuss tomorrow, addresses many of these concerns. Specifically, the new proposal recognises the different characteristics of our rail network, which is considered to be an isolated network, and it will now be exempt from some of the more demanding and costly specifications being applied to the rail network on the continent, such as full electrification. There will also be new exemptions in duly justified cases for road transport infrastructure. The new proposal also contains stronger language to ensure that economic cost-benefit analyses are applied to any projects of common interest being funded. I strongly welcome this. Ireland contributes to the European budget and we do not want taxpayers' money spent on projects that do not stack up. It is also consistent with the commitment in the programme for Government to proceed with major new infrastructure projects only when finance is available and the cost-benefit analysis is favourable. Had the previous Government adopted this approach, hundreds of millions of euro would have been saved in planning projects that we now cannot afford to build, and on building projects that are now being subsidised by the hard-pressed taxpayer.
We have also secured some flexibility on the binding dates of 2030 and 2050 to deliver the core and the comprehensive networks. Critically, the implementation of projects will now depend on several factors, such as the degree of maturity of the projects, compliance with national and EU legal procedures and the availability of financial resources. There will be a review clause which requires the Commission to take into account the economic and budgetary situation at national and EU level when assessing the implementation of the core network. There is also a degree of roll-back on the governance structures envisaged to oversee the delivery of the core network. Overall, this represents a watering down of the draft regulation, which makes it more acceptable and affordable for Ireland. On the downside, from a European perspective, the regulation is weakened, and it will be harder to achieve the objectives of the regulation as a result. It is likely that the European Parliament will seek to harden it again.
A key concern remains the overall cost associated with delivering on the ambition contained in this draft regulation, given Europe's economic and fiscal outlook and the capacity of member states and private investors, particularly in Ireland, to deliver the level of investment in question - over €500 billion on the core network, according to the Commission's own estimates. Members should be aware that in Ireland's case, between 70% and 100% of the cost of any TEN-T project will fall on the Irish taxpayer either upfront or over a prolonged period in the form of a public private partnership. For this reason, it is my policy to limit the core networks to infrastructure that has already been built, in addition to a small number of projects that are already advanced, that have a positive benefit to cost ratio and that we are confident that we can fund. This is no place for aspirational projects; the directive is more about imposing onerous and expensive obligations on member states than it is about securing EU grants.
The other element of the package is the Connecting Europe facility, which is the funding programme proposed by the Commission to assist the development of the core transport network. This is being negotiated in parallel through various Council formations in the finance arena. These negotiations are linked to the wider discussion on the new multi-annual financial framework. My Department is working closely with colleagues in the Department of Finance to ensure the best outcome for us in these negotiations.
With regard to the ground handling dossier, the Presidency hopes to secure a general approach agreement tomorrow. The proposal was published only on 1 December last by the Commission and has been the subject of very intensive negotiations at a technical level since then. It is part of a package of measures that aim to foster the competitiveness of European airports while increasing their performance in terms of efficiency, quality and capacity. The ground handling proposal is part of the so-called airports package, and its particular objective is to stimulate competition among ground handling suppliers while ensuring a level playing field and a high quality of service in the sector. Access to self-handling and third party ground handling at Irish airports has been liberalised under a previous directive, Directive 96/67, and subsequent statutory instrument. There are currently a total of 13 self-handlers and 36 third-party handlers operating at Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports. The system of issuing, reissuing and revoking ground handling approvals is administered by Commission for Aviation Regulation.
Some member states had concerns about the mandatory nature of the ground handling approvals system and the application of harmonised standards put forward in the original Commission proposal. As a result, the Presidency proposed a compromise, essentially making it a voluntary approvals system. This in turn created problems from our perspective, as our approval system is already mandatory. At our request, the Presidency has incorporated the relevant elements of the original directive into the new regulation to address our concerns.
There are also a number of items on the agenda under any other business. These are updates and information pieces from the Commission on issues such as the recent Costa Concordia accident and the ETS aviation dossier. I am happy to answer questions on these issues and, as a follow-up, to provide the committee with a report on the outcome of the Council in due course.