Vol. 748 No. 1
45 Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Communications; Energy and Natural Resources if it his intention to recommend to Government that the broadcasting licence be reduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37433/11]
Section 124 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 sets out the mechanism by which increases or decreases of the television licence fee may be determined. In particular, it allows for the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, to recommend in a report to the Minister an annual licence fee modification. This recommendation is to be based on an annual review on the extent to which RTE has fulfilled its commitments in respect of its public service objectives stated in its annual statement of performance commitments for that financial year and the adequacy, or otherwise, of public funding to enable the corporation to meet its public service objectives.
A review of RTE's 2009 public service commitments and adequacy of funding was carried out by the BAI and submitted to my Department in December 2010. The authority recommended there be no modification made to the licence fee with which I formally agreed.
I expect to receive the authority's review of RTE's 2010 public service commitments and adequacy of funding in the next fortnight. This review will contain a recommendation from the authority on a licence fee modification. I look forward to examining this review and its findings on the adequacy of funding in RTE. This review will inform any decision I may take, in conjunction with the Government, on adjusting the current level of the television licence fee or otherwise. Any such decision will be informed by any relevant decisions taken in the context of the budget.
In making any decision on television licence fee modification, I will need to be mindful of the impact such a modification would have on the recipients of net television licence fee receipts. The legislation provides that I pay approximately 88% of net television licence fee receipts to RTE, 7% to the BAI in respect of the broadcasting funding scheme for public and independent broadcasters and 5% to TG4 in addition to its direct grant-in-aid from Exchequer funds. I will also be very mindful of the impact on persons who pay the licence fee.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The broadcasting sector in general, including the public broadcasting sector, has been facing a challenging funding environment over the past several years with a large fall in commercial advertising revenues. As regards public sector broadcasters, this situation behoves them to be vigilant on cost containment while trying as far as possible to mitigate the impact on output and programming. I acknowledge that both RTE and TG4 have been proactive in this regard but the efforts must be maintained and indeed intensified.
In addition to the statutory requirement for annual reviews of the public service broadcasters, section 124(8) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 requires the BAI to also carry out a long-term forward looking five-year review on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the funding of public service broadcasters not more than three years after the passing of the Broadcasting Act 2009. I look forward to receiving this review, which is due to be completed by the authority by mid-2012 at the latest, as it will assist in informing any policy decisions I may take on the future public funding of public service broadcasters.
Does the Minister agree it would be a great help to householders if the television licence was reduced? Does he also agree that given RTE can pay exorbitant salaries to both staff and contractors at the top end — I do not refer to ordinary workers — and it has a surfeit of money provided by the taxpayer, it would be a good idea to give that money back to the licence fee payer rather than paying exorbitant salaries to these workers on top of the generous holidays and other arrangements they have?
When the Minister speaks to the BAI regarding RTE's expenditure, will he seek a detailed outline of all the costs incurred by the station over the past year as a result of libel actions, including the awards in successful actions against the station? Will he take action on foot of that?
Given the straitened economic circumstances in which we have found ourselves over the past three years, the Deputy is correct that any alleviation of charges, fees or levies on people generally would be helpful but he should not hold out a reduction in the television licence fee as alleviating the pressures under which people find themselves. I am not sure that of itself it would constitute a significant mitigation of the burden.
I take it that when the Deputy referred to high earning people in RTE, he was referring to a small number of contract staff because in so far as I have examined this — primarily it is a matter for the board and management of the station — it is not fair to broadcast the canard that ordinary RTE workers are paid exorbitant salaries. That is not the case. Some of the first impositions in terms of reductions and so on or constraints in the cost base were imposed in RTE and a severe redundancy programme has just concluded. The Deputy is probably referring to a small number of highly paid contract staff and my understanding from the chairman and director general is steps have been taken in that regard, having regard to the contracts those people entered into in the profligate years.
Every little would help the licence fee payer and every small reduction would be a help. If the fee increased a little, many people would say that would be a big imposition and, therefore, it is important if it comes down a little.
I agree it is only a small number of staff at the top of the pyramid, as is the case in all these organisations, who receive large payments. Some are PAYE staff as I understand the figures and others are contractors. However, this was only a device to break the pay guidelines. Let us not cod ourselves; these people do not bring anything to the job except themselves. I am talking about them and, in my first question, I specifically excluded the ordinary staff in RTE. Will the Minister take steps to ensure licence fee money is not paid to condone pay levels that are totally out of line with the industry norm? Other broadcasters do not offer anything like the salaries or conditions RTE provides. Will the Minister ensure in return for the licence fee income that these salaries are brought down to the average across the industry nationwide rather than remaining at the exorbitant levels we have at the moment?
It is important to bear in mind that broadcasting is suffering the same stresses and strains as the economy in general. There has been a dramatic reduction in RTE's commercial income, which is nowhere near what it was three years ago. That is a serious development. There has been a significant shift of advertising away from the traditional television platform and towards the Internet. I presume Deputy Ó Cuív would share my surprise regarding an estimate which indicates that this year Internet advertising will exceed that which relates to television. A couple of years ago, no one would have made a projection to the effect that this would be the case. However, it has already become a reality.
In addition to the stresses and strains of the economic situation, there is the convergence of technologies to consider. These aspects all give rise to a challenge for the national broadcaster. When he served as a Minister, the Deputy participated in a decision — it was probably a good one — to devote some €10 million from licence fees to TG4. The sound and vision fund also benefits to the tune of 7%. It must be recognised, therefore, that certain constraints apply.
46 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his role in the promised programme to tackle fuel poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37638/11]
As Deputy Martin Ferris will be aware, I published the affordable energy strategy, which meets our commitment in the programme for Government, at the weekend. This strategy will be the framework for building upon the many measures already in place to protect households at risk from the effects of energy poverty. These include the thermal efficiency-based measures delivered through the better energy-warmer homes programme. I am convinced, and the available research confirms the fact, that providing energy efficiency improvements to homes in, or at risk of, energy poverty, results in benefits to recipients in terms of energy affordability, tangible health improvements and overall well-being. This will be my guiding policy philosophy in implementing the 48 actions identified in the strategy. We have identified five priority measures including a commitment to review the national fuel scheme in the context of examining the feasibility of aligning income supports with the energy efficiency and income of the home, the phased introduction of minimal thermal efficiency standards for rental accommodation, ensuring greater access to energy efficiency measures, reforming the eligibility criteria for energy efficiency schemes and framing the work of the interdepartmental agency group on affordable energy on five priority work packages.
The overarching vision of the new strategy is to achieve a situation whereby households are able to afford all of their energy needs and where families live in a warm and comfortable home that enhances their quality of life and supports good health. Improving the energy efficiency of low-income homes through permanent structural improvements is the most effective means of addressing energy affordability. Since 2006, over €70 million has been expended on providing energy efficiency improvements in almost 76,000 homes under the better energy-warmer homes programme, which is administered by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland on behalf of my Department. To date this year, 16,391 homes out of a target of 20,000 have been retrofitted. Better energy-warmer homes programme is primarily delivered by 28 community-based organisations, CBOs, which work in partnership with their local networks of poverty and community support organisations to identify and address vulnerable homes. Private contractors are also engaged to address areas or technologies not covered by CBOs.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The review of fuel poverty indicated that between 1,500 and 2,000 persons may have died in the winter of 2009-2010. I am not saying they all died from lack of heating in their homes but, certainly, it was a big contributing factor. The grant scheme that was available and operating up until now has helped in many cases to encourage people to properly insulate their homes. If this scheme is no longer available or if Better Energy: Warmer Homes is linked to a type of loan procedure, the indications are that will not work out because those who cannot afford to pay energy bills are unlikely to participate in any scheme that seems to take further from the household income. Would the Minister agree that the poverty of those on low income and of the elderly who do not have the money to purchase fuel in order to heat their homes or do not have the money up-front to engage contractors to insulate their homes, is a major contributing factor in what is happening? Many are living in cold homes that they cannot afford to heat. Is there anything in the Minister's proposal that can help such people? I refer to low-income families. In fact, this problem is expanding into middle-income families.
I must call the Minister to reply.
Is there any scheme that can help those who will not qualify because of income?
I agree with Deputy Martin Ferris. It is undoubtedly the case that there are people living in the circumstances that he described. No doubt he is correct that it has a negative impact on their health, etc.
I can assure him that the grant scheme to which he refers will survive the budget. Together with the jobs initiative announcement earlier in the year, we will have spent some €100 million this year on the retrofit programme, which will have done the job on maybe as many as 60,000 homes with the happy spin-off of providing 6,700 jobs in the process.
If there is not a copy of the Affordable Energy Strategy in Deputy Ferris's pigeon hole, it should be there by tomorrow, as for all other Members of the House. It sets out 48 specific actions with timetables for implementation. All of the evidence shows that it is the poor standard of thermal efficiency in houses that is the single biggest contributor. One can give as much as one likes on the fuel allowance, for example, but if the house is very badly insulated, much of it goes up the chimney. Such efficiency is the priority and we hope to integrate it with the schemes that are there already.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has assured the House that post-budget the grant scheme in place will survive. That is encouraging for those who are hoping to make the improvements necessary.
Regarding fuel poverty, is it possible for the Minister to intervene with the regulator regarding the prices of ESB and Bord Gáis to ensure that energy is affordable and there will be no further hikes over the winter? The people are desperate to maintain heating for their families and, in particular, their elderly. A ministerial intervention, if it takes that, should be forthcoming.
I am happy to communicate my view again publicly to the regulator, which is that any further changes in energy prices this winter ought to be downwards.
Yes.
I accept entirely that we are price takers in a global energy market and that gas prices, in particular, have gone up almost 30% in the last 11 months or so, which has a very severe impact on the provision of energy, including electricity. That is a very serious situation.
In reply to Deputy Ferris's question, I would hope the discussions we have been having over the past six months with the banks and the energy supply companies will lead to a new partnership between Government, banks and energy supply companies that will enable us to progress to a pay-as-you-save scheme whereby we could engage in retrofit far more widely than is the case at present and that could remunerate the cost of doing that out of the savings made in their energy bills.
I have not forgotten that some six months ago or so I met the Construction Industry Federation about the role it might play in this regard, given there is a significant dimension of this that would create employment. As I was asking him questions about the standard of heat efficiency in Irish houses, one member of the CIF said to me: "To tell you the truth, Minister, most of the houses in Ireland are only shelters from the rain." I did not remind him that he had built a good deal of them himself, but if that is the standard, we need to address it as our first target.
47 Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will examine the way electricity and gas companies market their products to domestic users; and if he will establish mechanisms that provide greater transparency and accessibility to information with regard to the various prices on offer from the different suppliers (details supplied). [37435/11]
Responsibility for the regulation of the electricity and gas markets is a matter for the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, which is an independent statutory body. I have no statutory function in the regulation of marketing for either the business or domestic sectors.
The regulator has informed me that it is in the process of outlining procedures for clear and comprehensible presentation of tariffs to domestic customers. The regulator requires all suppliers to put in place a marketing code of practice, setting out all their practices and ensuring that the information they provide to customers is accurate at the time of distribution. The regulator is currently consulting on its guidelines in regard to marketing, with a view to strengthening the protection for customers.
Contained in the consultation is a proposal to standardise the way in which suppliers present tariffs to customers to ensure that customers can compare offers. The regulator also recognises that, as the markets develop, suppliers may choose to offer different products with different types of discounts and services associated with them. In order to ensure that customers can understand and compare the tariffs they are being offered, the regulator considers it appropriate to put in place requirements regarding the presentation of tariffs. This will ensure a level of consistency for customers when looking at different information. The regulator is also proposing that suppliers must notify household customers of changes to tariffs 30 days in advance of the changes taking place, with the exception of where a customer has signed up to a more flexible tariff. This is to allow customers the time necessary to shop around and consider their options in advance of any changes taking place.
Furthermore, the regulator stipulates in its proposed code of practice on marketing that suppliers adopt a transparent and fair approach to the marketing of their products and services and in the arrangement with customers. This includes ensuring that agents do not provide misleading information or apply undue pressure to any person in order to gain a customer.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to ensure marketing material is easy to understand, accurate and specifies clearly the product being marketed and the period it covers.
To aid the process of price comparison, the CER recently launched a system for accrediting websites that compare energy suppliers' gas and electricity prices. Under this framework, a website providing an energy price comparison service will only be accredited by the CER if it meets defined standards, for example, in terms of its accuracy and reliability. This will help provide energy customers with the confidence to use these websites, assisting them in "shopping around" for the best tariff deal.
Price comparison websites can be an invaluable tool in helping energy customers to decide the best deal for themselves. To assist customers in reliably comparing different energy tariffs, the new framework will accredit a price comparison website only if it meets certain prescribed standards, such as independence, impartiality and accuracy. There will also be a monitoring system whereby any CER-accredited website that fails to meet these standards will have its accreditation removed. This should help energy customers in comparing tariff offers and in getting the best deal to suit their needs.
I welome the Minister's announcement that the energy regulator is putting in place new procedures for a marketing code of practice etc. This is not before time. There are four companies operating in the gas and electricity sector — ESB Electric Ireland, Bord Gáis, Airtricity and Flogas. These suppliers do not make it very clear that their headline offers are for new customers only, and that after the initial contract period elapses one reverses automatically to the standard prices. There appears to be no requirement on the supplier to notify the customer when the initial offer elapses. Thus, the supplier benefits from the inertia of people who do not have the time to clinically analyse each monthly bill to see what is happening with the rates they are being charged. They might think their initial teaser rates are still operating when they have actually expired.
I agree with the Deputy. It is very important that there is sufficient transparency to allow customers and competitors to compare and contrast. The Deputy is correct about that. Of course, this market has seen changes in recent years and there is now competition in it. In those circumstances, it is important that there is the ability to compare and contrast and that there is adequate transparency. It is timely that the regulator will promulgate these codes, and I welcome that.
Energy prices have already increased by approximately 25%. Weather conditions this winter might be similar to those of last year and the previous year. Consumers have benefited from a reduction of 20% when they switch supplier and statistics show that about 50% of them have switched. If they get a 20% deduction, by next spring they could be facing an increase of 45% when these offers are removed. I am sure the Minister will keep in contact with the regulator to ensure that in these straitened times customers will benefit over the next number of months to the maximum extent from the deregulated market.
I can give the Deputy that assurance. It is the case that due to various global developments the price of the raw material being imported into this country has risen dramatically. That has had the effect the Deputy described on domestic prices. That will be especially difficult if we have as severe a winter as last year. I am happy to point out that since the new Government took office the weather has improved and November this year was quite mild.
48 Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources when it is expected that approval will be given by the EU to the REFIT programme; the reasons for the delay in approving this programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37434/11]
REFIT 2, the next phase of the renewable energy feed-in-tariff, REFIT, scheme, is designed to support up to 4000 MW of onshore wind, landfill gas and hydro technologies. There is also a new REFIT scheme for biomass technologies, known as REFIT 3, which will support a range of technologies, including combined heat and power, CHP, and anaerobic digestion as well as for co-firing of biomass in the peat power plants.
Separate state aid applications were submitted to the European Commission in relation to these two new schemes. I am pleased to inform the Deputy that earlier this month my Department received the state aid clearance decision from DG Competition for the REFIT 3 biomass technologies application. Government approval is currently being sought to open the scheme and once this has been obtained, the scheme will be formally launched and open for applications. I am advised that the second state aid decision from the European Commission on REFIT 2 for onshore wind, hydro and landfill gas should be forthcoming shortly and, once obtained, I will immediately seek Government approval to proceed to open the scheme.
New renewable electricity generation is supported in every member state and is necessary to underpin delivery of the European Union's ambitious 2020 renewable energy and climate change targets. It also displaces imported fossil fuels in our electricity generation and improves our overall security of supply. The REFIT scheme was announced in 2006 for certain categories of renewable energy, including wind and hydro power. It received state aid clearance in 2007 and projects under the original scheme continue to build out. There is just over 1200 MW of REFIT supported generation included in the 2011/12 PSO decision.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The REFIT scheme was successful with Ireland achieving and marginally surpassing its 2010 renewable electricity target. Under the new renewable energy directive, 2009/28/EC, Ireland has been set a new legally binding target of 16% of all energy consumed in the country to be from renewable sources by 2020 across the transport, heating and electricity sectors. This is a more than a threefold increase on where we are today and will be challenging to deliver. As set out in our national renewable energy action plan, a large proportion of the mandatory target will be delivered through the electricity sector, and REFIT will play a key role in ensuring sufficient new renewable generation is built out.
The real challenge is to ensure that we are able to build out the necessary supporting grid infrastructure to enable the Gate 3 projects to develop. Grid reinforcement plays a key role in ensuring regions have a secure and reliable electricity supply. It is also necessary to strengthen the grid to be able to accept new renewable generation which is typically located in more remote areas that have weak grid systems. Our ability to get this infrastructure built is critical to achieving our renewable energy ambitions.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister that approval has been given for the biomass REFIT. However, I am surprised that he has not yet got word on the refit for the onshore wind energy project. The Minister stated in the Dáil on 19 October that he expected to get that in a few weeks. What contact has he had with the Commissioner in charge of state aids to ensure this permission will be given expeditiously?
I have not had any contact with the Commissioner for state aids but I can tell the Deputy that I have raised it directly with Commissioner Oettinger, the energy Commissioner. I expected that we would have it by now. The Deputy asked me in his question to specify the reasons for the delay and to be honest with him. I do not know the reason it is taking so long. I am advised we have complied with everything that has been requested from us. The application is submitted and I presume the bureaucratic processing of these applications takes this length of time. When we got the approval for REFIT 3 in respect of the biomass technologies approximately three weeks ago or whenever, we were then orally advised that REFIT 2 would follow on immediately. As recently as yesterday it has not followed on.
Is the Minister not surprised that this Europe, with its Lisbon agenda of being a most efficient and forward-thinking Europe, is totally inefficient at its heart? The Minister might inform the House when the application was lodged and how long we have been waiting because it is important that this matter be put on the record.
I am surprised at the relaxed attitude here. I understand there is 1,000 MG of power ready to be commissioned if REFIT is approved which would create a lot of employment and, as the Minister stated, would ensure a huge amount of energy substitution from fossil fuels. Was the energy Commissioner concerned that we are not achieving our Kyoto protocol commitments because the Commission is holding up the whole process? What did the energy Commissioner say to the Minister as a justification for his colleague not getting on with the job and delivering these approvals in good time so that we can save the planet?
We are in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. I would not boast about it because to some degree it is the step-down in economic activity that has produced that situation, but we are in compliance and it is important to say——
We are pan-European.
We are only responsible for this jurisdiction, for the moment anyway. I do not accept that there is any relaxed attitude on my part about securing sanction for REFIT 2 because that emphatically would not be the case. I went out of my way to raise it in Brussels directly. I do not have a date in my notes as to when it was submitted but I will get that and send it to the Deputy. There is no relaxed attitude——
Will it be 18 months?
I do not think it will be 18 months.
It has already been a year.
I will get the date and give it to the Deputy.
Will it be a year?
I will give it to the Deputy. REFIT 2, which relates to onshore wind, is a very important aspect of our policy on the build up of renewable capacity. The Deputy is right; there are some projects which are backed up but which I hope will proceed very quickly after we get sanction.
49 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his views on the continued delay to the LNG Project in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37697/11]
Since 2002, the regulation of the gas market has been the responsibility of the Commission for Energy Regulation, which is statutorily independent in the performance of its functions. I have no direct statutory function for liquefied natural gas projects, including specific projects like the Shannon LNG project.
I understand that Shannon LNG — a wholly owned subsidiary of the US firm Hess LNG — received full planning permission in 2008 for its proposed merchant development of a liquefied natural gas re-gasification facility near Ballylongford in County Kerry. As a commercial project, the investment decision is a matter wholly for Shannon LNG.
The LNG facility would provide additional security of supply to Ireland as it would bring diversity to Ireland's supply sources and would bring direct connectivity for the first time to the global LNG market. The prospect of such a facility is therefore a potentially positive step for the island of Ireland. Therefore, I strongly welcome the proposal by Shannon LNG to construct an LNG terminal.
I am aware that Shannon LNG, among others in the gas industry, currently has an interest in the outcome of a deliberative process being undertaken by the CER on the regulatory treatment of the gas interconnectors with Great Britain. There has been regular engagement between the CER and Shannon LNG about this matter. I have also met with promoters of the project.
This issue, currently under consideration, is an extremely complex regulatory question, not least given the implications for gas and electricity business and domestic consumers. The regulator's ongoing deliberative process in this regard is at a very advanced stage, with a decision expected to be made in the next two months. The regulator's own process has been delayed, ironically, by the formal complaint made by Shannon LNG to the EU Commission, alleging that the options being considered in the regulator's consultation amount to unlawful State aid.
The importance of LNG for north Kerry and west Limerick cannot be emphasised enough. We are concerned with as many as 450 jobs to start it up. Reports, true or otherwise, have been consistently circulating in the area that Hess LNG is on the brink of pulling out because of the possible €10 million tariff per year to use the national gas pipe network. The regulator has told Shannon LNG that it must pay to use the gas pipeline that connects Ireland to the UK and that will cut costs by €10 million. The parent company, Hess LNG, sees this charge as unsustainable and as a consequence, has been considering its future. The company has invested up to €50 million in the project to date.
The Minister said he expected a decision from the regulator within the next two months. I heard in September that the decision would be in October, yet now we are at the end of November.
I have to call on the Minister.
Can the Minister give a firmer response? Will it be in two months or in the next few weeks?
I assume the Minister is aware of the unemployment situation in the north Kerry area, which is more than twice the national average. Can he comment on that?
The Deputy is right. I did say that I expected a decision at the end of October or early November, as I was so advised. I believe that is what would have happened were it not for the rather unusual step by the company to lodge a formal complaint with the European Commission against the process underway by the regulator. One can understand the lodging of a complaint against a decision of the regulator but it is unusual to see an action taken against an anticipated decision by the regulator.
This regulatory issue is complex. Under the current regulatory regime the coming on stream of this liquefied natural gas, LNG, project will have implications for gas network tariffs set by the regulator. The same applies to the Corrib field. This, in turn, will have implications for general wholesale gas prices bearing in mind that the model is based on Irish prices following United Kingdom prices plus an additional amount for the price of transport through the interconnectors. In an environment in which gas from the Corrib field and LNG meet some or all of Irish demand, the interconnectors built and owned by Bord Gáis Éireann would become under utilised and their proper remuneration by the reduced number of gas customers becomes an issue. In such circumstances, the prices for the consumer would go up and there would be a windfall gain for the multinationals.
Deputy Ferris is likely to be minded to agree with me that this is not the outcome we seek. We have no wish for prices to be pushed up as a result of a stranded asset, that is, the interconnector, and a windfall profit to the multinationals, much as we welcome them here, whether they are associated with Corrib or LNG. I have met the company and I have met several colleagues who have made representations to me, including Deputy Ferris, the Minister, Deputy Deenihan and Deputy Spring. Others have made representations and I have met members of Kerry County Council and Shannon Development as well. We had a situation whereby we were correct to anticipate a decision at the end of October from the regulator but, ironically, the action of the company has delayed it.
It is important that the whole matter is cleared up because we are hearing different versions from different Ministers. I gather the Minister is aware of this. This should be cleared up because the people who live in the area are depending on this to proceed. As the Minister is aware, I have no love for multinationals and I am keen to ensure value for money for the taxpayers of the country — I subscribe fully to this principle as I have done consistently all my life. Some cohesion is needed from Ministers regarding what is happening here. The truth about what is holding this up should be spelt out for the people of the area. People are not aware of what is going on.
I agree it is important that the matter is cleared up not least from the point of view of the jobs that will be created. It is important from the point of view of the additional security of supply that it would give to our energy provision here as well. For this reason I welcome and support the project and I have made as much clear to the parent company, to the local company in Kerry and to Shannon Development. We are doing everything we can to bring in this plant because LNG would be a valuable addition to our diversity of supply. As Deputy Ferris suggested, the fact that there are many unemployed people in the area is something we will take into consideration and I am keen to help in any way I can. The regulator is set up by statute of this House and is independent and has a job to do in the interests of consumer protection, competition and so on. I cannot interfere with that but I will be helpful in any way I can. I have signalled only recently following a request from my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, my willingness to meet the county manager and I am pleased to do so.
