I welcome the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, and their officials. I invite the Minister to make an opening statement.
Estimates for Public Services, 1999.
Vote 32 - Department of Public Enterprise (Supplementary).
Thank you, Chairman, for calling the meeting today and I thank the Opposition for agreeing to hold the meeting. I wish to introduce the Secretary General designate of the Department, Brendan Tuohy. I am a bit flummoxed because there are two officials, one is the Secretary General and the other is the Secretary General designate, so members can work that one out for themselves.
It is a double "Yes Minister".
It is not, actually. I note the agenda and we will do our best to stick to it. I do not like opening statements, I prefer to make my own comments. Anyway, we are giving away £107 million and we are seeking approval for that. The money basically is for three items. The first is the safety work carried out during the year by Iarnród Éireann, the second is the increased provision for the sale of Telecom shares, and the third is the seabed survey which is the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, who will deal with that.
The Supplementary Estimate for railway safety provides £80 million to cover the cost of railway safety expenditure in 1999 and mid-October to mid-December of 1998. This, combined with the £100 million allocated for next year, is an indication of what we need to do with that money.
Iarnród Éireann has responded to the findings of the independent Review of Railway Safety and its own review. It has exceeded the targets set at the start of this year in the railway safety programme. A total of 88 miles of track has been renewed compared with a forecast of 85 miles of renewed track. A total of 41 bridges have been renewed compared with a target of 24, and 44 have been painted, four more than the target. The total amount of fencing is also on target as is the number of level crossings attended to. Some of the more expensive level crossing projects have been delayed due to the need to consult landowners, county councils, etc., and we found those difficult. I know of one or two cases where we tried to get land or deal with the county councils and I hope they all get together because it is all part of the safety aspect.
Iarnród Éireann has tacked the complex issue of safety management. While deficiencies in track and signalling due to many years of under investment were clear for all to see, the need for careful management of all aspects of safety was highlighted by the independent consultants. Change in organisational behaviour and culture is always difficult to achieve.
Iarnród Éireann has adopted seven new corporate safety standards and the remaining three are due for completion by April 2000. New safety steering groups have been established for operations, mechanical engineering and infrastructure and these three groups meet on a monthly basis. The infrastructure department is employing a firm of consultants to assist it in developing safety systems and in communicating with staff. The operations department has taken on some extra staff to increase its safety management resources. There have been workshops, group meetings, one to one briefings and a newsletter. Safety related training will have totalled 26,000 person days by the end of 1999.
The future of railway safety regulation has been raised frequently by Deputy Yates and a Dáil question on this matter was put down yesterday by Deputy Penrose, to which he would have received a reply in written form because it was not reached in the Chamber. On the future of railway safety regulation, the IRMS report reviewed the railway safety activities of my Department as well as Iarnród Éireann. The existing railway safety legislation goes back to the last century and it has served surprisingly well, given its age, but the consultants concluded that it was time to create a new and modern statutory basis for railway safety. We started consultation with interested parties and the Assistant Secretary has met ICTU, the unions and management. We see the following as the way forward.
It is fundamental that the primary responsibility for railway safety should rest with the railway operator - in this case Iarnród Éireann. This primary responsibility might be best expressed in the form of a formal statutory obligation, similar to that placed on employers in respect of occupational safety under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act. It would be best to establish the railway inspectorate as an independent body funded by the Exchequer. I envisage the powers of inspection, investigation and enforcement being considerably strengthened on a similar basis to the powers of the Health and Safety Authority.
The new regulatory system should be developed around the concept of a safety statement, as is currently required under health and safety legislation, and as is becoming increasingly common for railway safety regulation elsewhere.
The railway company must prepare a formal statement that identifies hazards and propose measures to eliminate unacceptable risks. The safety case would be submitted for consideration by the railway inspectorate whose primary concern would be to ensure that the safety case properly analysed risks and rigorously addressed them. The value of the safety case approach is that it is more flexible and responsive than any regime that attempts to externally regulate all aspects of railway safety.
It would be useful also to establish a statutory railway safety advisory council that would bring together railway operators, trades unions and representatives of the public interest to consider railway safety matters. Such a council would also assist by providing a forum for addressing railway safety issues outside of an industrial relations context.
A large amount of work needs to be done before I bring the legislative proposals before the House and I would welcome the views of any party or person, be they inside or outside the political regime, particularly on what I put forward. A second safety officer, a woman, has been appointed and interviews will be held in early January for the appointment of a third safety officer. A third safety officer was selected, but the person did not take up the job. There will be three safety officers in place rather than one as was the case in the past. That is the position on this matter and I look forward to talks on it. Should I proceed with my speech?
Members have a copy of it.
I could break it up into the three divisions if members wish.
If there are points the Minister wishes to highlight, she should do so.
Perhaps I should continue with the speech.
The Minister might finish this part.
I will finish this part and then go through the subhead.
On rail safety, the money sought is £80 million. That has been accounted for in terms of expenditure by the finance person in CIE. He has given details of what has been spent and that has been properly accounted for.
Subhead EI covers the fees and expenses related to the sale of shares in Telecom Éireann. A provision of £40 million was made in the Estimates last year to cover the costs associated with the initial public offering of shares in Telecom Éireann. The committee approved that provisionin June of this year. At that time I said the costs of the IPO would be greater and that we would need a Supplementary Estimate. I am, therefore, seeking the approval of the committee for a Supplementary Estimate of £40 million to cover the under provision in the original Estimates.
The size of the offering increased to a full 50% offering as compared with what we had anticipated, an offering of 20%. The market value of Telecom Éireann was £6.8 billion compared with an estimated value of £4 billion at the time the Estimates were being couched. The level of interest in the offer far outstripped our most optimistic projections.
All those factors had an effect on the costs of the IPO. The first two factors affected the scaled fees of the global co-ordinators, which were based on the value of the offering. The third factor affected the volume-sensitive costs such as printing, postage and call handling.
All the objectives set for the IPO by the Government were met. They were that in overall terms the IPO would be successful, that its share-ownership in Ireland would be widened, that the proceeds to the Exchequer would be maximised, and that we would obtain value for money.
Regarding the objective of widening share ownership, the Telecom Éireann IPO attracted a level of investor interest that was enormous by national and international standards. The IPO raised £3.3 billion for the Exchequer and £1.16 billion was raised from KPN-Telia, which is due to the Exchequer in February next in connection with the clawback arrangement in the strategic alliance. The amount of this payment was influenced by the price achieved in the IPO, which was the clause in the clawback arrangement that found its reward, so to speak.
Regarding ensuring value for money in the fees and expenses of the IPO, members will note the percentages vis-à-vis what other countries get when they sell companies. The fees charged by those who sell shares on our behalf are outrageous. I told the Secretary General designate I would say that because I strongly believe it. I know the fees here are lower than those charged in other countries. The fees were 1.7% of the offer proceeds and that compares to average percentage fee levels of 2.8% for similar transactions across Europe in the past few years. There is accountability in that the people concerned submit their bills and get paid, but the fees are very large. I have said this to the Minister for Finance and at Cabinet. If one goes to the market, one must pay this level of fees to those who sell shares. I wish some group, body or person would examine the prices charged by those who sell shares because the fees seem very large.
Regarding the subhead covering residual works at regional airports, the Government made available £5 million in 1998 for improvement at five of the six regional airports. The developments planned included runway upgrading, hangar accommodation and navigational and technical improvements. The sum of £3.1 million was allocated to Galway Airport. It has difficulties acquiring land from landowners and this is the second time it has had to defer its planned development. It has agreed the purchase of land with 12 of the 14 landowners this year and compulsory purchase procedures have commenced in respect of the two outstanding parcels of land. The completion of this process will not take place before the end of the year. A saving of £2 million arises and a corresponding provision has been included for next year's Estimates. Donegal Airport and Waterford Airport have to complete their improvement works and they advised that they will submit their claims before the end of the year.
Regarding the subhead that covers international telecommunications interconnectivity, we have gone through that and it is very important. The final contract with Global Crossing stipulates that all capital payments will be made by IDA Ireland on behalf of the Government, thus giving rise to a saving of £11.11 million. We had included that sum for the Department, but the IDA will now do that business and that money will be allocated to it. The remaining £0.89 million has been retained to cover consultancy fees. The capacity will be sold and when it is sold to interested parties, we will get back the money. We have committed 26.5 million euros of EU co-funding to projects, which will bring the benefits of this infrastructure to more than 120 towns around the country. That work is proceeding.
The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob wishes to talk about the seabed survey.
As the Minister of State has circulated a script, he might like to highlight only the main features of it.
Thank you, Chairman and colleagues. This funding is required to undertake the first complete seabed survey of the Irish offshore territory. The Geological Survey of Ireland, GSI, is a line division of our Department. When its director, Dr. Peadar McArdle, first brought this to my attention, I was greatly enamoured with it. It is an exciting developmental project. We immediately took it on board with the full support of my senior colleague, the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke. I found it easy to sell the idea to the Minister for Finance and I am grateful to him and the Government for their approval of the project.
The cost of the project is £20.7 million, which will involve work and expenditure over a period of seven years. We have the largest seabed area of any country in Europe. The scale is 900,000 square kilometres. To put it in perspective, it is ten times the size of our land area.
This project is developmental and it will impact on many areas such as the mineral industry, oil and gas exploration and exploitation, fishing, offshore acquaculture, shipping, coastal zone management, coastal engineering and erosion, renewable energy developments, wave energy - which is one the Chairman's pet subjects - and dumping at sea.
The Geological Survey of Ireland is heading up the project and is responsible for managing it. The project is being undertaken in conjunction with the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the Marine Institute, fisheries interests, the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies, the oil and gas exploration industry, third level colleges, the Naval Service and other specialist agencies.
A substantial amount of preparatory work was required, hence the requirement of this amount of money for which we are seeking approval today. This work involves travel to consult experts in Europe and North America and initial procurement of specialist computer hardware and software. I commend the project to the committee.
I welcome the Supplementary Estimate. To a certain extent I would welcome a larger Estimate to deal with a range of issues but, while I have some questions on it, we will support the Estimate.
I wish to digress briefly. I intend to write to the Minister today about this issue because I did not get an opportunity to raise it yesterday at Question Time which was the last Question Time for this Minister before Christmas. I am a little confused about the appointment of a new aviation regulator. The person is being recruited with effect from 1 January and the appointment is to deal with the vexed issue of charges.
Among other things.
Aer Rianta's discount schemes end on 1 January. Is it the case that until the legislation is introduced the aviation regulator cannot make decisions? What is the up to date position regarding that legislation and is there a gap? In other words, should we introduce emergency legislation to deal with the position from 1 January? I am concerned about this because we probably will not meet the Minister again before then.
With regard to the Estimate, I will deal first with the railways. I welcome the Minister's decision to establish an independent railway inspectorate, a new regulatory system and a railway safety advisory council on a statutory basis. I have been lobbying for this for the past 18 months——
That is true.
——and this is the correct course to take. There is an inherent conflict when somebody who is dependent on the revenue of the railways is also responsible for safety, with no segregation of the track aspect. This is a small country and we will probably need a different approach from larger countries.
Two or three years ago, after the A.D. Little report, it was alleged that the signalling system in Heuston Station was held together with sticking plaster. We had hundreds of miles of jointed track, some of it nearly 100 years old. We should not ever be in that position again. There should be a voice in the shape of an independent safety officer, to make this an apolitical issue. Commuters would be reassured by the annual reports and so forth. I quickly came to the conclusion that there are not any circumstances under which CIE will say rail travel is not safe because then it would not have any passengers. Trying to get CIE to articulate a demand for safety expenditure while reassuring the public at the same time was inherently contradictory. I pay tribute to the Minister for this development. I hope a timetable can be put in place to ensure that this can be up and running by the end of next year. In my experience, unless the Minister sets a firm political deadline, matters such as this tend to drift with the pressures of work.
I hope the overcrowding issue will be dealt with in the terms of reference. This was raised at Question Time in the House yesterday. There is concern on all sides of the House about this issue and I do not draw comfort from the fact that there is a paucity of international regulations in that regard. On an interim basis, particularly if this development takes a long time, something should be done about the 1,900 level crossings. If there is to be a serious accident, it is unlikely to be caused by a derailment due to train speed restrictions and the work that is taking place. It is more likely to occur at a level crossing. There is also the issue of the 15 red lights that were breached and about which I was informed when I raised the matter in the Dáil. I am aware that the Paddington and Southall situations are not applicable here, given the volume of tracks and multiplicity of journeys in the UK, but I am concerned about these matters.
I have found the management of Irish Rail somewhat evasive in answering queries about the new locomotive drivers and maximum hours and miles. Apart from technical failure, driver error is one of the principal reasons for rail accidents. We must be extremely careful, leaving aside the pay and conditions, about driver fatigue and I hope it can be brought within the ambit of this body in the interest of safety.
We could look at extending some of the railway safety conditions to other public transport sectors, when this inspectorate is up and running. I refer to marine safety, buses and so forth. At least in the case of buses there are insurance limits with regard to the passenger numbers on the buses and the overcrowding problem is not as bad as on the railways. Perhaps my suggestion could be examined.
On subhead E.1 in relation to Telecom Éireann, my perspective on this is concerned with the strategic considerations. I recently met the IBEC telecommunications users' group and it outlined a series of complaints. One related to the unbundling of wireless local loop technology. It felt that the ODTR had retreated into her shell as a result of the number of volleys she had received and that this required new legislation. The Department, however, was not clear that it required new legislation and said she was empowered to do this licensing. Essentially the users' argument was that 99% of our telecommunications infrastructure is in the hands of Eircom.
If we are to have e-commerce, which the Minister is promoting, and the Celtic tiger roaring forward, telecommunications are vital. Therefore, we are dependent on Eircom. At present, neither Esat, Telecom, Ocean or anybody else is doing much more than piggybacking on Eircom's infrastructure. One would not like a situation like that which developed with Cablelink in Dublin where Cablelink investors, Telecom Éireann being the majority shareholder, did not wish to invest in it. Everybody else, in terms of the convergence of technology, was out of the picture.
There are huge issues here. We are dependent of Eircom if we wish to proceed with the roll out of all types of telecommunications. Similarly, when there is a systems failure, the fine is a paltry £1,500. An international telecommunications users' group contacted me about it. One could be crude and say that the only gesture Eircom would give the public was a two fingered one but the truth is not too far from it. There is no obligation on service providers to deal with losses.
We have to revisit the regulatory regime for telecommunications. The Minister pointed out in a recent Adjournment debate that it is a separate company and she does not have a role in it. I had been under the impression that KPN was a long-term strategic shareholder. That is what was stated in 1996. I am also told by the CWU that when the ESOP was introduced, the union was told that KPN was a long-term shareholder. When did KPN change its mind? I presume there is not a link with the attempt by Telia to buy Esat. If it left one company to get into another one, it would be somewhat confusing. The two devolopments could well be unrelated.
Can anything be done about this in terms of a regulatory role? Given the effective monopoly position of Eircom, is it possible to limit anysingle shareholder to 29.9%? If British Telecom or the French or Dutch telecom operators bought not only the stake - it would be good for the company to have a strategic long-term partner - but attempted a take over, it would be great in the short-term for the shareholders. However, I do not want a position where they might decide that they are much more excited by the international opportunities in the Argentine economy than in the Irish economy. We would be left in the slow lane. These are policy considerations.
In view of the way matters are likely to develop in terms of either a take over or Eircom being totally separate from the Government, there is a need for a new regulatory regime, including service obligations. There is also a need to consider infrastructure in terms of assisting others to put in the cable if Eircom cannot do so.
Will the Minister elaborate in relation to the Estimate on how the matter panned out? I accept a much higher price than originally anticipated was secured, but did it dawn on people during the time of the IPO? I understand the legal position but when did it dawn because I knew Telia was on the way out. It was well explained in the prospectus, but when did KPN decide to go? There are strategic considerations in that it would have the strength to invest another couple of billion pounds in the economy to develop the system.
There was a sharp intake of breath when the Minister introduced the fees estimate for £40 million and one must breathe properly to allow one to digest the total of £80 million. Will the Minister give a breakdown of what Merrill Lynch and AIB Capital Markets are receiving? They indicated different prices for the sale as the CWU noted? The parliamentary questions I tabled on this matter have been ruled out because of the issue of collective responsibility but will the Minister explain how the price was agreed?
I consider the other issues non-contentious. However, the Minister's speech states the number of recipients of State shares was 574,000 but Ithought it was 474,000. Perhaps it is a typographical error.
It was the higher number.
That is fine. The saving regarding Galway airport is straightforward and the issue of the IDA picking up the tab for the other matters is fine. I welcome the expenditure and regulatory position on rail. There is a need to work out the detail and establish terms of reference to deal with the issues of level crossings, overcrowding, etc. I have specific queries regarding Eircom which are in the public interest and need to be answered.
I do not know when the major Estimate will be discussed but my proposal for a White Paper on transport was constructive. Yesterday, the Minister of State mentioned the 70 years of neglect in relation to the Road Traffic Act, 1932, and the competition issue. A White Paper on the best way to get to grips with Dublin transport and traffic gridlock and to deal with competition and other issues is necessary. Representatives of Aer Rianta and Ryanair have appeared before the committee. There is a cat and dog fight going on between the two but there are issues in relation to an access transport policy - how we will deal with getting people in and out of the country over the next ten years. There is much activity because of the change in deregulation in Europe and the commercial approach of each company and a White Paper on transport which makes decisions on these issues would give back political control to these matters.
I am delighted the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials are present. Any amount in the Estimates of the Department of Public Enterprise for public transport is welcome given international comparisons which show Ireland at the bottom of the league in relation to public spending on one of the Department's main responsibilities, the rail and bus companies.
I agree with Deputy Yates that the spending on safety measures and the thought being given to this area are most welcome. However, I hope the focus on safety will go beyond the state of the tracks. This is vital because we do not want incidents similar to the Paddington rail crash or other disasters. The recent debacle involving train stations also needs to be considered. Overcrowding starts because of lack of attention to crowd control at train stations. Given her apology on the radio to Mr. Tom O'Neill, the visually impaired man involved in the recent incident, the Minister is aware of how serious matters become at Tara Street station in Dublin where there has not been a station master for the past two years. Mr. O'Neill has been in contact with a number of Deputies and is still awaiting a response from Iarnród Éireann to the public outcry following the incident. There is a need to consider customer relations in the light of the alarm about such safety issues.
Regarding the passing of red lights in the rail system, I hope I can be reassured on the reported incidents that occurred when trains were almost at a standstill or moving at slow speeds. There should not be breaches, but I understand they did not involve trains travelling at high speeds through red lights. In the interest of customer confidence, I ask the Minister to reassure me that the incidents were not as bad as they sounded.
I am not sure if the Minister can say whether the money in the Estimate for safety matters will also address overcrowding on buses. Rail has been the focus of safety concerns but I do not believe the insurance limits with regard to the number of people on buses are being met. There are many reports of incidents where I am sure an insurance company would not stand over the number of people on buses. This applies to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann but particularly to Bus Átha Cliath. I know from experience that there are many dangerously overcrowded buses at peak times.
The issue of access for wheelchairs in many rail stations still causes difficulties for the people concerned and their families. In the context of safety, I hope the needs of wheelchair users will start to be taken into account, although I acknowledge work has been done in this area.
In relation to the Telecom Éireann flotation, subhead E1 states that the Estimate exceeded £40 million. I am aghast at the extent to which that Estimate was misread and that the Department has spent £40 million on items over which it has control. Is it related to tendering or the cost of advertising? I ask the Minister for a breakdown of the figures in that regard.
I am interested in the seabed survey but I am equally interested in the involvement of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.
We had to fight to keep it. There were predatory hands.
It is appropriate to ask questions about where the areas of responsibility begin and end. I could ask similar questions about the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. There is a certain quaintness about some of the associations in Departments. The RPII harks backs to days when nuclear power was the responsibility of the Department of Energy. That Department could have also had responsibility for the seabed survey and mining at sea. Is that taken into account by the present regime or do the areas of responsibility need more fine tuning? I appreciate the Minister's interest in this matter.
I hope the seabed survey will be used by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, given the problems of over-fishing, lack of stocks and the long-term damage to the seabed as a result of certain fishing methods which are allowed to continue. It may be unusual to speak about this issue today but I have no option if the seabed survey is the responsibility of the Department of Public Enterprise.
As regards the Galway airport saving, will the figure for next year be capped at £2 million or will it be increased to meet the cost of next year's project because things do not get cheaper as the years go by? Will the £2 million continue as a fixed sum?
I would like more attention to be given to the responsibilities of each Department. As regards the RPII, if the Minister for Finance is resisting the introduction of a grant scheme for radon gas, as was reported at Question Time yesterday, perhaps he would see the point more clearly if it was the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children rather than the Department of Public Enterprise, which has looked for different grants on many occasions. This is a life and death issue in many cases.
The Supplementary Estimate provides an increase in funds to STAD, which I welcome. However, the reference is made: "independent residents, not for the Department to be involved in other than the commitment made". Should the Department be more proactive in trying to convene an alliance of countries opposed to nuclear pollution, given that Ireland is affected by it? Our leadership in that regard is awaited.
Subhead C1 refers to the payment of interest charges on the DART. It seems incredible that at a time when we are talking about the need to increase spending on public transport, we are continuing to pay interest on a loan for the installation of the DART. I thought it would be sound economic practice to clear the loan and then to start from a level playing pitch. To continue to pay interest seems like reluctant funding of public transport rather than forcing CIE to go to the banks to get private money. When we talk about the economically non-viable services of CIE, are we talking about accounting viability or the viability of people moving from one place to another? We should change our mindsets so that we regard services as viable only if the economy and society are viable.
I welcome the provision of 150 extra buses under subhead C5 which are badly needed. The more we have the better. Given that we are trying to promote the use of LPG, it was unusual that it was not mentioned in the budget. Perhaps the Government will consider granting assistance to companies to change to LPG so that we have fewer buses polluting the cities.
I am interested in subhead C4, which refers to the £20 million for Luas. I presume that is funding for 2000 and that more money will be provided after that.
Once it begins, it cannot stop.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify what sums of money will be available.
Some £90 million will be provided in next year's Estimates.
It will stop if the money is not available.
It will take a lot of spending to get through £90 million.
Much needs to be done in public transport generally. Luas is only one section of it.
I am delighted with the overview of rail safety. We had a long and acrimonious debate during the year on rail safety and the contents of reports. I am delighted with the improvements this year and I congratulate the Minister for being on top of her brief. I also welcome the fact the Minister will establish an authority to monitor rail safety, which is a step in the right direction.
As regards the flotation of Eircom, concerns have been expressed that Merrill Lynch and others are laughing all the way to the bank. The fees were too high. Did they give the wrong advice to the Minister for Finance? Was the initial flotation kept artificially high so they could reap the reward of a larger commission? People are saying the shares were offered at too high a price. Have the Minister and the Minister for Finance conducted an investigation into whether the right advice was given? I know the Minister also expressed concerns about it.
There are two telehouses, one at East Point and one at Citywest. I understand the cable will come in across the Atlantic and also from North America. The telehouse is like the old telephone exchange. The lines are sold to the service providers, such as Esat and Eircom. Did the Minister forget to consider a telehouse for Cork? Would companies which purchase or rent fibre optic cable have an unfair advantage if a telehouse was located in Cork as they would be able to purchase or rent it at wholesale rates rather than having to go through the service providers, such as Esat and Eircom? Would that be an unfair disadvantage to e-commerce companies operating in Cork and the south-east region?
At this stage, the Minister might like to answer some of the questions.
I thank members for their very positive contributions during the course of the debate. I know we often have 'barneys', but I listen very closely to the points. Despite the fracas we had, I was very influenced by what Opposition Deputies said during the discussion on railway safety and the arrangements with the independent safety experts. Why would I not be? Apart from having travelled on trains and being born and brought up within about five yards of the main railway station in Athlone, I do not know anything about the technical matters involved. People's advice, remarks and submissions are of great help.
The first question was in regard to the aviation regulator. He has taken up his job but he is an interim regulator until the legislation being drafted at present, is passed. Therefore, he will not be in place until the law is passed.
The subsidies were to be lifted at the end of June, but we asked that they be left until the end of December, which is fast approaching. The section in the Department dealing with aviation received a letter last week from Europe saying it was about to start proceedings on state aid. I can make that letter available. I will send a copy to the Deputy when I reply to his letter.
What will be the name of the Bill?
Which Bill?
The Bill to give legal effect to the regulator.
I suppose it will be called the aviation regulator Bill. It is on the B list.
I will write to the Minister about that.
I will send a copy of the latest letter from Europe on the matter. The Deputy welcomed the railway safety ideas, which mostly mirror what he and others have been saying. There is an anomaly, in that those who are responsible for passenger numbers and revenue are, ultimately, also responsible for safety. That responsibility will rest with Iarnród Éireann but there will be other measures and legislation. We need a timetable and a political deadline for that. We are aiming towards the middle of the year.
The issue of level crossings was also raised. Track, level crossings, fencing and signalling all contribute to the running of the railways. The issue of level crossings is proving difficult because of landowners, in the main. County councils also have concerns which must be worked through.
The Deputy asked about locomotive driver hours. The new proposals, which are being balloted on at present, will eliminate seven day working by drivers. They will now work five out of seven days, if the proposals are accepted. Those proposals are consistent with the agreement reached by the social partners at EU level in respect of railways. I hope they will be accepted, but that is another matter.
Deputy Sargent raised the matter of extending safety to buses. Bus standards are dealt with under the Road Transport Acts. The Department of the Environment and Local Government sets the rules in relation to the number of standing passengers permitted on buses and drivers enforce those requirements. Walking up Kildare Street at 6.30 p.m. the other day, I saw a bus driver refusing people entry on to a bus because it was full. However, the trains remain a worry. Deputies Yates and Sargent spoke about the crowds at train stations. As we said repeatedly in the Dáil, there is not any EU or national legislation in that regard. The only option would be to tell people they could not get on the train. However, I will talk informally to Ministers in Brussels tomorrow, who must have reached the same conclusion because all cities are crowded.
Deputy Sargent raised the issue of accessibility. There is £10 million in the national plan to address accessibility issues.
Deputies Yates and Sargent also raised the issue of the telecom users group, which I hope to meet. In regard to unbundling the local loop, Etain Doyle, the regulator, has issued a consultation paper. We are awaiting her recommendations.
I agree that £1,500 is a daft fine. It is based on the 1972 Act, which has been in existence for 28 years. The Bill which we are proposing to address regulatory issues in telecoms will deal with that and many of the issues raised by Deputy Yates about a new regulatory regime for telecoms. This is an interesting debate.
Deputy Yates asked if any one shareholder could be limited. That could not be done under the present law because we have a free market. If it were limited, what firm would take over? There is nothing which would allow me do that and to limit the market would be bad for business.
I am glad for another opportunity to put this on the record, after which I will not comment on it again. The smaller Telecom prospectus was sent to all 500,000 shareholders. It is quite explicit and states "the Irish State" quite clearly under the heading "Principal Shareholders". It is very readable. I remember saying that I wanted the print to be bigger. Perhaps that is due to my age, but I hasten to add I still have not got glasses, although I am sure I need them. The first version was unreadable and I said the print had to be made bigger. The print is very clear. It states that KPN and Telia agreed not to sell any of their shares for a period of six months from the completion of the offers but would be free to sell their shares thereafter by way of a stock market offering or otherwise. It is in very big writing and is crystal clear. It is ridiculous that anybody could attempt to deny that, when it is in the offering.
In regard to when they told us, I got the final telephone call at 7 p.m. on Friday, 26 November. They had, clearly, been talking about it but nobody knew what their final decision would be. I was informed formally at 7 p.m. that Friday.
Deputy O'Flynn also raised the matter of the share price. The shares, except for two dips, have been higher than the share offer price. They are at £3.27 today. A share which is higher than the share offer price clearly represents good value for everybody. The Government and the taxpayers are getting good value. The Deputy asked me last year to get £2 billion for public transport out of the moneys from the sale of Telecom. I do not know where the money came from, but I got £2 billion. Corporate Ireland got its money. Shares are still above the initial share price offer.
In reply to Deputies O'Flynn, Yates and Sargent, the Cabinet sub-committee received advice from two sources, Merrill Lynch and AIB Capital Markets, on what should be the offer price. I have said this publicly. We struck a balance between the two advised prices, one of which was something like £3.27 and the other was £2.95. Doctors differ, as the committee will be aware, and one knows what happens then. That is how the price was arrived at. I have made clear my feelings about those advisers. I suppose beidh lá eile ag an bearach with regard to that matter.
Deputy O'Flynn asked about the telehouses. There will be two telehouses, one of which will be a back-up to the other. Those are where the global crossing connectivity will land. It will allow everybody to connect into that and to spread out. They are coming in from the US to the UK and land at Kilmore Quay, which is in Deputy Yates's area. All of the connectivity at various levels will move out from that and Cork will feature prominently in one of the connectivity highways. We have launched the western digital corridor and everybody will be connected. The telehouse itself is only to service where the cable comes ashore and everything will go out from that. It will not diminish what Cork will get.
Will Cork be connected to the service directly from the telehouse operator or must it go through the other service?
Cork will connect into the global crossing connectivity.
Must it do it through Esat, Eircom or some other service provider?
It may do it through any licensed operator. It took me a while to get to grips with all of this. I do not have the intricacies of it but I understand the big picture. I will send a briefing note to the committee.
The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, will deal with the telecommunications breakdown and the seabed issue. I liked Deputy Sargent's term 'historical quaintness'.
On Galway Airport, it is the same £2 million because it has not yet got some of the land. It has reached an accommodation on £1 million of it and it is awaiting the final CPOs for two landowners. We have increased the marketing grant and each of the airports will be told about that before the end of the year.
Deputy Sargent asked about clearing the DART loan and he is right to ask: why hang on to a loan? That loan is ongoing. I will look into why we would not clear it in this enlightened age and give somebody a bit of freedom from it.
The Deputy referred to Mr. O'Neill regarding overcrowding at railway stations. I made a public apology because I thought the whole incident was poignant. I said on that same programme that courtesy, cleanliness, information and explanations do not cost a bob and sometimes they seem to be given grudgingly.
Mr. O'Neill appreciated the Minister's apology but he still has not heard from the company.
He did. He rang me or his sister or some relation of his rang me the other day to say he did hear from it.
He had told me that he had not heard from it. I am glad he did. It is better late than never.
He telephoned and we took it up.
Courtesy goes both ways.
It does, I agree, but I am talking about courtesy by the staff.
I am talking about courtesy generally. The customers must be courteous to each other also and I heard the Minister mention that too.
Indeed. I thank Deputy O'Flynn for congratulating me on rail safety. He said that Merrill Lynch was laughing all the way to the bank and I do not disagree with him. I addressed the question of receiving advice from two sources; the UK cable is coming ashore at Kilmore Quay; the role out of the broad band to all areas, and disabled drivers.
I have been thinking about a White Paper on transport since Deputy Yates mooted it during Private Members' business in the Dáil. We are doing many of the things which needed to be done. I am afraid that a White Paper might slow matters when we have laid out the funding for the next seven years and we have got a grip on the safety issue, although there is much more to be done. Whether bringing together that matter, aviation - with which we will be dealing shortly - and marine access in one document would slow decision making while a White Paper was being compiled is the question. Perhaps I should have dwelt on it two years ago or even a year ago, but I will give thought to whether it would bring matters together and mark out what we will do or whether it would slow up what we will do. I certainly will think about it. It is a thoughtful suggestion.
I addressed the issue of telehouses. I will forward the breakdown of the fees to the Deputy. It is a complicated matter but if one gets the figures in black and white, they are not complicated. It is just that there is huge money involved.
Deputy Sargent raised the issue of trains breaking red signal lights. IRRS in the review noted that a total of 90 "signal passed at danger" incidences occurred between 1993 and 1997. A further 31 SPAD incidents were notified to the Department in 1998. There have been 17 such incidents in 1999, albeit only up until the end of October but at least there has been a diminution. The majority of the incidents represent minor misjudgments by train drivers, that is, the trains stopped within yards of passing the red light, and none of the incidents resulted in injury. However, one must recognise the potential within any one of the incidents. Because rail lines are being improved, those which are awaiting improvement must be travelled at slower speeds. However, habits are difficult to overcome. I was amazed by those statistics. That answers most of the questions.
The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, might like to respond to the question about the seabed survey.
Behind the 'historical' quaintness comment of Deputy Sargent lies his oft stated view that certain functions and responsibilities might be better placed elsewhere. That is not something which I can deal with for him this morning. That is for others to decide. There are elements of that, of which I have heard the Deputy speak before and with which I can readily agree. He expressed concern that the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources should be involved here, but that Department is hugely involved. While the GSI has responsibility for managing all aspects of this seabed survey, that management function will be carried out under a steering committee which will involve the Departments of the Marine and Natural Resources, Public Enterprise and Finance. It is expected that this survey will complement the Marine Institute's national strategy for research, technology, development and innovation which our colleague, the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, launched earlier this year. It will also complement the work of the institute's marine data centre.
As already stated, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources will play a major role in this area. The survey will be of huge benefit to that Department and others in the future. For example, responsibility for monitoring the dumping of waste at sea - be it nuclear material or otherwise - rests with the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the survey will be very helpful in that regard. At present, little is known about Ireland's seabed area and that is something we are about to put right.
Deputy Sargent threw a very wide loop when he referred to nuclear safety. I wish to address his concerns in that regard because that subject is close to our hearts. He referred to Ireland seeking the co-operation of other countries. I assure him that our efforts in that regard are ongoing and that we are using every available international forum to try to achieve our aims. Deputy Sargent will also be aware that we have enlisted many sympathetic countries to our cause. However, he will also know that many countries are far from being sympathetic. The great nuclear powers are diametrically opposed to our views. For example, these countries are endeavouring to cash in on what took place at Kyoto by claiming that their industries are clean and not responsible for harmful emissions. We see that as a total nonsense.
In terms of co-operation with other countries, Ireland has been taking a lead role in that regard. The best example of this is the role we played in the OSPAR Treaty signed in July 1998 and which is dedicated to the protection of our marine environment. This treaty is a substantial achievement, obviously yet to be realised, and Ireland played a major part in its development. The debate on the treaty and monitoring it are ongoing and the lead role played by Ireland is internationally recognised.
We have had a very thorough consideration of the Estimate.
What about Scandinavia?
I noted the Minister's replies, some of which I welcome and some of which I will deal with on another occasion. Our upcoming discussions will involve the aviation industry, the future of Aer Rianta, GSH, the regulatory Bill, etc. I await our deliberations on those matters and I ask the Minister to indicate whether those deliberations will take place this year or next. Will some of those issues be determined before or after Christmas?
I take this opportunity to thank the retiring Secretary General of the Department for his work over the years.
I thank the Deputy for his comments. With regard to aviation, it appears that we will consider the position of Aer Lingus the week after next and Aer Rianta's situation will be considered after Christmas. The regulation Bill is being drafted and I hope it will be ready for introduction at the beginning of the next session. I intend to make the reports public prior to the finalisation of the decision making process and, therefore, I believe it would be good for me to come before the committee again at that stage.
For the information of members, I am meeting the national shop stewards of the hotels today at 3 p.m. I will be glad to convey the good wishes of the committee to the retiring Secretary General and to the Secretary General designate.
I thank the Chairman, the Clerk to the Committee and the staff for the work they have done throughout the year. This committee works very well and it did a great public service in the way it invited John Hynes, Etain Doyle and others to appear before it. These individuals had an opportunity to tell their tales, however torrid they might have been, and members had a chance to question them. That is good work. I wish everyone a happy Christmas.