Vol. 604 No. 1
1 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his plans to deal with the problems facing the scallop industry in the south east (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20111/05]
Since January, officials of the Department and I have held a number of meetings with fishermen and processors from the south east who are engaged in the scallop industry. I am keenly aware of the problems facing this sector which are not related solely to fishing effort limits but also to additional challenges posed by high fuel costs and the impacts of implementing the mandatory EU safety requirements for some of these boats.
The capping of fishing effort is one of the key ways in which we can conserve fish stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen. Scallop stocks off our south-eastern coast have declined in recent years. The decision in 2003 to limit fishing effort on scallops as well as for demersal stocks generally was driven by sound conservation reasons and was supported at that time by the Irish fishing industry.
The need to achieve a better balance between fleet size and available fishing entitlements has been apparent for some time, particularly in the whitefish sector for which I launched a decommissioning scheme in April. Last Friday, I announced a review of the overall need for decommissioning. This will involve an assessment of the need and extent of the decommissioning requirement for the various demersal and shellfish fleets, including scallops and mussels. This review is to be completed by the end of June and will give an important overall perspective. It will examine the various issues, including eligibility for decommissioning aid where strict EU rules apply. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of this review. It is a planned and structured approach and I look forward to receiving the report at the end of this month.
I note the encouragement given by the Department for the development of the scallop industry, the additional licences granted and the encouragement given to people to invest heavily in new fleet. The announced decommissioning was to include scallop fishing. Why was it not included?
With regard to the appointment of Mr. White on 30 June, will the Government take on board whatever compensation is recommended? I have no doubt that decommissioning is at the core of this issue. Will the Government have the resources to meet Mr. White's recommendations?
A moratorium was introduced in 1999 on the basis that the kilowatt days to be introduced subsequent to that would be based on 1998 to 2002 period. The kilowatt days available this year are somewhat similar to the 2002 figure. I understand the point made by Deputy Perry that the fleet has grown since 2002, particularly in 2003. The moratorium was placed on the acceptance of applications and in 2003 it was decided that those applications on hand, providing they complied with the conditions and criteria, would be approved.
The kilowatt days are affected because the stocks off the south-east coast have declined and the boats must travel to the English Channel fishing grounds. Members will be aware that fishing days are counted from the time a boat leaves port until it returns and this is the principle accepted in Europe. If fishing days were available off the south-east coast, we would not be in this position.
I am pleased that Padraig White, former chief executive of the IDA, accepted my invitation to work with the general industry, including the scallop fishing sector. I suggest we await his report.
With regard to kilowatt days, the Minister of State referred to 55 days but pressure from the banks lasts 365 days for those who invested heavily as a result of the encouragement given by the Department. What is to become of the proposal put forward by the south-east fishermen in light of the serious negotiations which took place with the Department prior to the appointment of Mr. White? The people in the south east do not want a stop-gap because they are under significant financial pressure and they want assistance.
I hope the Minister of State is not buying time.
The Deputy obviously pre-empted my reply. I am not in the business of buying time. After 24 years in this House I am not in the business of trying to deceive anybody. I was dealing with the facts of 2003 and the decision did not result from December of last year. There should be no ambiguity about that and December this year will not resolve it either. It is something which we all bought into in 2003. The 4.8 is a proposal which was made by the south and east fishermen and there are many good aspects to their proposals which I could accept. I acknowledge the work of their chief executive and some of them are quite sensible.
It is a fact that decommissioning is written into the national development plan. It is €8.8 million over the next three years to be approved by Brussels with fairly strict criteria. It focuses on species of fish which must be fished by a limited quota whereas, ironically, there is no quota and no catch limit on scallop fishing. The effort limit is approximately 80% of the effort limit in force in 2003. I acknowledge it is not enough and I would be much happier if there were more days but it is the distance from the fishing grounds that has created the serious problem for us.
I look forward to working in partnership with the representatives of the industry and with Mr. White to try to overcome the difficulties. I am the first to acknowledge that fishermen face serious difficulties and I want to work with them to find a resolution. I took the only decision that could be taken which was to introduce a number of days between 25 May and 15 June and another series of days have been introduced from 15 June onwards to ensure continuity. I also considered the consistency of landings and the interests of processors.
Is the Minister of State aware that 30 June is the final date for scallop fishermen to comply with EU safety regulations? The Minister of State is quite new to the job. Is he aware that in light of the poor performance of the aquaculture sector of the national development plan, the Government has failed to deliver the NDP objectives? Is there a possibility of a compensation fund for those heavily burdened with debt and suffering significant financial pressure as we speak?
I have asked Padraig White to consider all these factors. As an indication of the urgency with which this matter is being treated, I spoke to the fishermen and Friday and Saturday and Mr. White was in the south east on Monday and yesterday to familiarise himself with the situation. I look forward to receiving his report and hope we can eventually reach a satisfactory conclusion. I am aware of the importance of 30 June. Unfortunately I have no control over that date as a European directive defines the standards for vessels of more than 24 metres. Deputies Perry and Broughan along with others have been very helpful in assisting me on Committee Stage to deal with all the other vessels that are smaller than 24 metres. I hope the House will decide to give me the authority to allow more time. Unfortunately I do not appear to have the authority to make such an extension. However, this matter does not just relate to 24-metre scallop fishing vessels, it relates to 24-metre vessels regardless of the type and species of fish. I am aware of the issue and I will work with the Deputy.
2 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on the proposed takeover of a company (details supplied); his further views on competition in broadcasting here resulting from the fact that the Irish cable platform may be controlled by the main satellite platform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20109/05]
I have no function in this matter, as the companies mentioned by the Deputy are private companies. In my capacity as Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources I have no role inapproving the ownership of companies that provide broadcasting services to the public on a subscription basis nor do I license such companies.
I have made clear in the past that I am of the opinion that Irish viewers will be best served by a broadcasting environment that includes a strong public service broadcasting presence in the form of RTE and an independent TG4, together with private broadcasters. As the uptake of digital television services continues to grow, Irish broadcasters will face increased competition from trans-frontier broadcasters. I expect that Irish broadcasters will continue to seek to reach Irish audiences through a variety of platforms. Currently Irish broadcasters reach their audiences through a combination of platforms including terrestrial, cable, MMDS and satellite. Technological advances are likely to present broadcasters with new opportunities for reaching their audiences and it is to be expected that Irish broadcasters will avail of such opportunities across all available platforms.
In the history of communications in the State we have got at least two major decisions wrong. Some 20 years ago we allowed the cable network to be acquired by RTE and Telecom Éireann, which effectively meant the cable platform was taken over between two other platforms. The kind of developments that took place in Belgium, France and many other countries even including the United States became impossible. Is this not a matter about which the Minister should be concerned?
Is it in the public interest that the same individual, namely John Malone of Liberty Global, should be in a position to acquire control over the entire cable platform in Ireland while at the same time being the most significant shareholder, after the Murdoch family, in News Corporation, the entity that controls BskyB.
It is not appropriate to name people in the House.
Media correspondents in The Irish Times and Irish Independent and others have covered this matter. As the Minister knows this individual is known as the “cable cowboy”. In reality this cable cowboy will control the entire cable platform. The Minister made a fair point in saying we would have a united cable platform. However, in addition he is the second largest shareholder in BskyB in the satellite platform. Does this not therefore allow for a repetition of the mistake made by the Minister’s predecessor 20 years ago and the mistake made by another Minister a few years ago with the sale of Eircom?
I have also asked questions of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on this point. Is it not the responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to initiate a Competition Authority investigation? Is it not true, as we have been informed by the media, that an elaborate financial warehousing operation was mounted by John Malone of Liberty Global whereby Morgan Stanley appears to take over NTL to preclude an investigation by the Competition Authority? Is this not a very serious matter affecting competition in our telecommunications industry? In Austria Liberty Global is operating a triple play. We have a television network, pay television, a phone roll out and a broadband roll out. Is it not important to ensure that both platforms be kept distinct?
The Deputy has raised many questions and issues that are not of direct relevance to the question he tabled and not of direct relevance to my role as Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. As he has pointed out this issue may possibly be one for the Competition Authority. As the Deputy knows the Competition Authority is independent and has undertaken many investigations into matters of competition in a variety of areas without any prompt or direction from the Minister, which is as it should be.
Any competition concerns raised are unlikely to focus on the competition between broadcasters and rather on the impact on consumers who purchase pay television packages. It is difficult to see how platform ownership issues could impact negatively on broadcasters, which is the area for which I have responsibility. There may be an exception in one area. If the owners of a platform were to act in a discriminatory manner by refusing to carry certain companies' broadcasts, those broadcasters could seek a remedy through competition law. However, that is a matter for the Competition Authority.
When Cablelink, which became NTL, was in State ownership it had a record of non-investment before being sold. Having such an entity in public ownership or ownership other than private ownership does not automatically ensure that investment will take place or that it will benefit the consumer.
The Minister is in office at a critical moment in the history of Irish telecommunications. While it may not become apparent for many years to come, would it not be very serious for us if, in effect, the entire cable platform and satellite platform had the broadcasting market cornered as we move into the era of digital television? I am still awaiting answers from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I again ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under sections 16 and 23 of the Competition Act 2002 to investigate the manner in which this transaction has taken place, focusing on the financial warehousing operated by Liberty Global and Morgan Stanley on behalf of the famous cable cowboy, John Malone. It should also investigate whether this is a constraint on media competition under the terms of section 23. When asked what shaped his political strategy, Harold McMillan answered, "Events, dear boy, events." Events in this case could mean that a large part of our broadcasting, cable, broadband and phone network is being taken over by a single company representing a major economic force. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the man on the bridge and has responsibility. He should ask the Competition Authority to investigate. The Minister should also investigate the consequence of this for our telecommunications market.
I do not want to repeat what I have said before. The Deputy has raised a number of concerns. I have indicated where the responsibility for those lies. I will undertake to bring the Deputy's concerns to the attention of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I will refer him to the matters raised here.
3 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he proposes to direct ComReg to enter into negotiations with the various mobile telephony service providers to eliminate roaming charges island-wide; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20112/05]
I have no function in the setting of pricing for phone services. The regulation of telecommunications operators, including pricing for mobile services, is the responsibility of the Commission for Communications Regulation, or ComReg, in accordance with the requirements of the Communications (Regulation) Act 2002 and regulations made under the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications.
Earlier this year I welcomed the publication of a joint ComReg and Ofcom report which was published in January 2005 on cross-Border telecommunications issues. The report covers cross-Border mobile telephone roaming. I am delighted that ComReg and Ofcom have adopted a common approach to tackle this issue of mutual concern to businesses and the public on both sides of the Border. On 24 March 2005 I issued a press release with my Northern Irish ministerial counterpart, Mr. Barry Gardiner MP, following a joint meeting with ComReg and Ofcom, which expressed concern at mobile phone customers being caught by roaming mobile signals along the Border and incurring international charges for what they think are national calls.
I support the report's call for the mobile operators to enter into joint arrangements on a cross-Border basis to offer customers all-island tariffs. While I acknowledge that a number of operators already offer all-island tariff options, it is disappointing that where these are available they are limited to bill-paying customers and business contracts. I would like to see all-island rates extended to pay-as-you-go mobile users who represent around 70% of the mobile customer base. I appreciate that entering into such arrangements would involve business decisions which are a matter for the operators.
I have already taken the opportunity in meetings with the operators to raise this issue and will continue to do so. I will also raise the issue with the new Northern Ireland Minister concerned.
The Commission for Communications Regulation and the Northern Ireland communications regulator issued a report in January 2005, as the Minister stated. They were established in 2004 and were set up to examine solutions to inadvertent roaming charges. Despite all the spin, promises and reports, little has been done. A token gesture has been made to business people who can well afford to pay the charges. Two companies provide most of the services, O2 and Vodafone. For prepaid phones, customers pay at least 56 cent roaming charges to make or take a call, while O2 charges 59 cent per minute. This looks like a cartel in operation. There is no incentive to reduce these charges and the companies know that one will charge 25 cent for receiving a text message while the other will charge 49 cent for receiving a text message. This cannot be allowed to continue.
I was at a meeting of Clones Town Council last Monday week.
The Deputy must ask a question.
Does the Minister think it is right that this issue is so grave that a town council would invite all public representatives from the Cavan-Monaghan area to come to a meeting to discuss it? Does he agree that this is hitting people most who can ill afford it? If I am in Northern Ireland but on my way home to the Republic, the strong signal will follow me home and I cannot take a call without incurring international roaming charges. Does the Minister think that is right? There is no real will to address this. We set up a high powered group which has done little about it as the charges are still in place. The report suggests charging €7.50 per month plus VAT to take calls in Northern Ireland, but not to make calls.
This is a major issue. Residents on the Border are being hit harder than most by the regulation. It is not too bad for someone from the South on a one day visit, but residents in the Border areas live with this daily, including many who can least afford it. Will the Minister address this as a matter of urgency?
It is being addressed as a matter of urgency. However, one can only go so far on issues like these. I have no powers to direct companies on how much they charge. We have been trying to involve the two regulators and they have been exerting as much pressure as they can. They have been encouraging the companies to introduce an all-island tariff. They have also provided better information for consumers on tariff options and on how to avoid inadvertent roaming. Both regulators are co-operating and they are trying to create joint arrangements North and South.
We should not concentrate on this in just a North and South context. I have expressed the view to the companies concerned that we should move very quickly to an all-island market in telecommunications companies, similar to the energy market. The UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should be treated as one market. I am not as pessimistic as the Deputy, but neither do I expect something to happen next week. However, the reality is beginning to dawn on these companies that consumers are becoming more aware of these issues. When there is increased competition in the market, people will vote with their feet.
ComReg has made a decision on the market dominance of these companies, which is being appealed. I cannot say anything about it for that reason.
I do not think I am being pessimistic, but I am being realistic. Children using a prepaid phone pay 99 cent per minute roaming charges in Northern Ireland to receive or to make a call. A business customer is charged 59 cent per minute. If the two companies are charging the exact same rate, that sounds like a cartel to me. The Minister has spoken about a common approach or entering into joint arrangements, but that is not bearing fruit. Both companies provide services north and south of the Border and I believe they operate in a cartel. We should encourage them to avoid imposing roaming charges.
I assure the Deputy that it is being done by me and the regulators. I will continue to back both regulators in their efforts to resolve this issue.
4 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on whether his revised projections on the provision of broadband facilities throughout the country are attainable in view of experience to date; the number of service providers engaged in the provision of such facilities; the number required to achieve the targets he set on time; the number wishing to enter this field; if he has satisfied himself that ready access to the infrastructure is available in line with deregulation and loop unbundling requirements; if he has identified the extent to which he can act by way of direction through the regulator to accelerate the provision of such facilities to achieve favourable comparison with other jurisdictions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20296/05]
The telecommunications sector is fully liberalised and regulated by the independent Commission for Communications Regulation. With the repeal of section 111 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 on 25 July 2003, the former licensing regime has been replaced by a general entitlement to provide telecommunications networks and services, including broadband, subject to compliance with standard conditions set out by ComReg in a general authorisation.
Before providing networks or services to third parties, operators are required to submit a notification to ComReg for the purposes of compiling a register of such operators.
In March 2004, my predecessor issued a number of policy directions to ComReg on competition, broadband, wholesale and retail line rental, interconnection leased lines and national and cross-Border roaming.
While access to suitable infrastructure is a major factor in the provision of broadband by the sector, the Government recognised by 2002 that investment by the sector had failed to keep pace with demand. In March 2002, the Government decided to target the widespread availability of open access affordable infrastructure using funding from the European Regional Development Fund and State funding under the National Development Plan 2000-2006. The metropolitan area networks, MANs, programme is the mainstay of the Government's broadband strategy and has given the sector access to world-class infrastructure which it could not have afforded to build for itself. Full details of the MANs programme and my Department's other broadband roll-out initiatives can be found on the website www.dcmnr.gov.ie.
It is an indicator of the increasingly buoyant state of the broadband market in Ireland that the ComReg register of authorised undertakings currently lists 169 service providers which offer Internet access using a variety of technologies, including DSL, fixed wireless, cable modem, fibre, leased lines and satellite technology. My Department's website at www.broadband.gov.ie lists 190 different service offers from the sector ranging from 0.256 mbps to 56 mbps. Of those, 25 are priced at €25 per month or less. The number of broadband users is now over 160,000, which represents an increase of more than 400% since January 2004. I am confident the industry can achieve the target I have set of 500,000 broadband customers by the end of 2006.
Is the Minister aware of concern in the industry at the strong possibility that the targets he correctly set are unobtainable despite their revision given the current speed and notwithstanding the number of service providers already in the field? Does the Minister also recognise that the level of access to infrastructure required to achieve his targets does not exist? Does the Minister believe that the lethargy of the regulator's response indicates that the directions of his predecessor fell on deaf ears? Does the Minister recognise the possibility of a long drawn-out argument in the courts and elsewhere on the infrastructure which must be made available to facilitate service providers?
I take it the Deputy's last question refers to the Eircom court case and the company's appeals to many of the orders which have been made. Whether I agree or disagree with the company is academic as it is entitled to take the action it has taken and we must afford it the opportunity to do so. I assure the Deputy, who has raised the matter before, that I have taken steps to ensure the appeals system will function well in this instance and I will announce in the next couple of days that I will increase the number of people available to the electronic appeals panel. I might as well make the announcement in the House as Deputy Durkan prefers.
Correct.
In future, a number of appeals may be heard at the same time to avoid undue delay. If people decide to go to court, I hope their cases are heard by the commercial rather than the normal courts to expedite matters. As Deputy Durkan is correct continually to point out, this is a matter of significant national importance and interest. While I am satisfied the directions of my predecessor are being implemented and pursued by the regulator, appeals mechanisms are in place in this area also which may slow things up. The fault is not with ComReg.
I dealt with access to infrastructure in my initial reply. I would like to see speedier progress. We saw the example of the local loop unbundling that has been challenged and appealed, which is certainly not the approach I like to see people take. I would like people, especially the incumbent, to accept the process is in the national interest and that they should co-operate fully with it. There is a great deal of business potential in the process for the incumbent and, apart from the competition which comes in, it will be good for the industry.
Deputy Durkan also asked about concern in the industry that the target might not be achieved. All these questions are related to one another and I have responded to each. I would be concerned if we did not reach the target which is the minimum required. While we hope there will be a sea change in attitudes, we intend to ensure through ComReg that the benefits of local loop and unbundling and an open market are available to all consumers as soon as it is legally possible. Some of the actions which have been taken over the past two or three years have shown what can happen. The recent report demonstrates that prices for telecommunications have fallen in Ireland by approximately 20% over the past 12 to 18 months as a direct result of deregulation. Companies can well afford to allow them to fall further, which is what we would like to see happen.
In the event that the degree of acceleration sought by the Minister and consumers does not materialise, is there an initiative the Minister can take to ensure the primary targets he has set are met at the earliest possible date in the national interest?
While I am open to suggestion, I do not see what other initiatives are available. We have the MANs programme, school broadband and group and county broadband schemes, all of which are playing a role. Short of moving in and buying the exchanges back or coming to some arrangement with Eircom, which I can imagine would be very popular politically, I do not see what can be done.
How much would it cost?
While I am prepared to explore it if necessary, MANs will provide competition for that infrastructure. Eircom will have to make up its mind and decide whether to be in the market. If it continues as it has and we continue to develop the MANs programme, I can see it becoming attractive for other companies to come in to provide the last mile of access. That is the route we will go if we can.
5 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the reason behind the proposed introduction of a new national postcode system; the timeframe for the introduction of such a system; the overall anticipated cost of the new postcode system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20110/05]
Deputies should be aware that Ireland is the only country in the EU which does not have a national postcode system. A system of postcodes is regarded internationally as a necessary element of a modern, efficient and competitive economy. The Commission for Communications Regulation, the remit of which includes postal services, produced a report following a consultative process in November 2003. The report, which is broadly in favour of the introduction of a postcode system, is a useful contribution to debate on the issue.
I am favourably disposed to the introduction of postcodes. The case has been made that a national postcode system would offer significant potential benefits for the postal business, public utilities, businesses and consumers. I established a working group comprised of people with experience of the postal sector and a representative of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which is the lead Department for the Irish spatial data infrastructure initiative, to consider the introduction of a postcode system in Ireland. This group produced its report earlier this year.
The report found that the introduction of a publicly available postcode could deliver many potential benefits. The purpose of a postcode system would be to improve efficiencies and quality in the postal sector, stimulate mail volume growth, assist utilities and emergency services, address the problem of non-unique addressing and facilitate competition by making it easier for new postal operators to enter the market. These improvements collectively will boost the country's competitiveness.
Following on from the recommendations of the working group report, consideration of the feasibility, design and implementation of a practical postcode project proposal will be advanced, including establishing the cost of implementing such a postcode and how that cost should be met. In accordance with the recommendation of the working group that project managers be appointed to lead the postcode project, I have asked the Commission for Communications Regulation to appoint the project managers. A national postcode project board, comprising representatives of Departments together with public and private sector organisations, will be appointed by me to assist the project managers with their work and to present a proposal describing in sufficient detail a model that is the most efficient, effective and publicly usable postcode system by 31 December 2005. I expect the new postcode system will be implemented by 1 January 2008.
The Minister did not give any figures regarding one of the most important issues I had asked about — cost. Does he accept it would cost upwards of €6 million for An Post to implement the type of system which the Minister favours? I welcome the fact that we have a chance to discuss this with the Minister on the floor of the House. I raised the matter here in recent weeks but the Minister was unable to be present.
The report of the postcode working group appears to be ambiguous on the matter. In 21 out of 32 countries where postcodes are in use the post only reaches the delivery office area or a higher level and in eight further countries the post reaches a subset of that. The vast bulk of post in these countries cannot be delivered to the door. Is it not a fact that An Post already has a remarkable geo-directory? I have a guide to the technical data which in effect give a spatial grid reference for every property in the State, including the Minister's house and mine. That being so, is it not incumbent on us to go past the archaic postcode technology used in other countries and to follow the most up-to-date technology? The report is ambiguous and does not provide any detail on cost. Given the struggle An Post has had in recent years, the last thing it needs is an extra €6 million, €10 million or more on its cost base. We are very nervous of the Minister in this regard, given that he is the €50 million man.
The $50 million man.
Some €50 million worth of technology is stored in warehouses around the State and we do not know if it will ever be used. We are quite nervous about this. Given that a business case has not been made in the report, is it not the case that the end result will be a facility that will inflict a load of junk mail and such literature on households and businesses?
It is not true what the Minister said at the outset that this country does not have postcodes. We have had postcodes in Dublin for the past three or four decades.
What about Dublin 4?
Yes, the famous Dublin 4. I live in Dublin 17. Is it not the case that those postcodes have been used repeatedly, especially in the property market to categorise areas and people most unfairly? If it were possible for us to have a postcode which was just as private as our credit card number, as the broadcaster Pat Kenny said recently, should we not do that and use the technology we have rather than return to an older technology which has all kinds of implications?
I note that the report does not comment on issues of privacy and the socio-economic categorisation of the population. It did not even investigate those areas. Is this something which the Minister and his project team should reconsider before spending perhaps tens of millions of euro on what may turn out to be a madcap scheme?
I am delighted with the Deputy's conversion to automation.
Easy now. The Minister should not become overly enthusiastic.
He appeared to condemn me for introducing a very effective, efficient method of voting and counting votes but he has absolute and total faith in the geo-directory to which he referred and that is available to An Post.
It is here on my desk.
It is based on the same kind of technology that is used in the voting system. I am delighted with Deputy Broughan's conversion. Perhaps he will look again at some of the benefits of the voting system now that he has been converted.
Can we convert the ballot boxes?
The Deputy appears to know the shape of the postcode system although I do not know what it will be. I hope the people whom we will appoint will have enough sense to look at the systems that are in place. The Deputy has shown that this information is widely available. I hope they can learn from the 32 other countries to which he referred and devise a system that will overcome the pitfalls he has rightly pointed out. I have a level of faith in the people who will be appointed as managers of this project that they will go that step further to make it an effective and efficient postcode system.
I can only go on what An Post has said to me. It has the geo-directory to which Deputy Broughan referred. I asked An Post if we could translate this into a postcode system but it appears that the geo-directory product is not a postcode system but an address database that is linked to geographical co-ordinates. It provides a unique identifier but An Post informs me that it is not a postcode system. Apart from anything else, I believe postcodes should be a public good. They are a public good and they should be available to everybody. Everybody should have the information on the system. It should not be the property of a private company that wants to make money just for the sake of it. I am sure the Deputy, who would claim and would bow in that direction to be a far greater socialist than I——
It is spreading out to everyone. Even the Taoiseach has been affected.
Deputy Broughan is real Labour.
——would like to see this as a public good rather than for it to be operated as a private concern.
In regard to the other point the Deputy made about inflicting costs on An Post, it has not been decided who will operate this system.
It is usually the incumbent postal operator.
If the group makes that recommendation to me, that is fine. Obviously that will be taken into consideration. It could also say that it should be operated by a separate State or semi-State body or that it should be controlled by a Department and operated by a private company in the context of public good. A number of different models could be used. I have not made up my mind and will not until I know the recommendations of the group.
As far as I am concerned this is a public good. Whatever about the costs of setting it up as a public good, those costs will not be inflicted on An Post as a company. One of the terms of reference of the group is to create a system that pays for itself on an annual basis, such that it would not be a burden on An Post or any other utility that happens to run it.
I hope those consultants are not the same ones that came up with the ballot boxes.
