This is my fifth year in this position and, again, I do not propose to make an opening statement. This is an opportunity for Deputies to comment and ask questions. The gross total would have been £33.264 million, but it is offset by savings of £16 million. Therefore, the Supplementary Estimate is for £16.72 million.
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 32 - Public Enterprise (Supplementary).
Vote 32 - Public Enterprise (Second Supplementary).
I join with the Chairman in welcoming the Minister and her officials. I would like clarification on the savings of £16 million to which the Minister referred. How did they occur? I will be avoiding subheads C1, C3 and C8 as they deal with railways and because of developments in another forum which preclude me from making comments.
Subhead A7 deals with consultancy services. The original sum was £3.4 million and the additional sum is £2.268 million, giving a total of £5.6 million. What companies got the contracts for consultancy services and what was the nature of the assignments or tasks given to them? I am fascinated by the growth in the level of consultancy services being engaged by this and other Departments. Prior to the summer recess I asked each Department a parliamentary question in this regard, and the figures were quite startling. Even the reply from the Department of Foreign Affairs included pages about consultancies, some of which were large and others which were small. Consultancy is one of the large growth industries. We are forking out a considerable amount of money for consultancy services and I am at a loss to know why the work cannot be done in-house. Why is it not possible to have a separate unit in every Department to do the consultancy work for which we fork out huge amounts of money? Many millions were spent on the Eircom flotation and a huge amount of money was spent on the now grounded Aer Lingus IPO. Why do we not have separate units in each Department comprising trained experts to do the work that is currently being farmed out at considerable expense to the taxpayer? Have these companies in all cases the necessary expertise to carry out this consultancy work? Could it not be done equally well within Departments?
Subhead D2 refers to the essential air services programme for regional airports. I believe the role and potential of regional airports have been totally under exploited and under utilised. The potential of regional airports is huge. They are all located in the hub of tourist areas, for example, Sligo, Donegal, Kerry, Knock and Galway, but they seem to realise only a fraction of their true commercial potential. It is necessary as a matter of urgency to review the structure, boards and management of the airports with a view to seeing how they can make a more meaningful contribution to the regions in which they are located. For example, we see what Shannon Airport has done for the surrounding area. Knock Airport has a runway of 7,500 feet and can land jumbo jets, but the numbers have remained largely static. I do not want to be too disparaging as it gets no money and the board works voluntarily, but there is a question about its expertise and abilities and there is no real competition. For example, Ryanair runs the show in Knock Airport. Michael O'Leary can decide what to do. It has to be one of its most profitable routes as——
Sitting suspended at 5.15 p.m. and resumed at 5.35 p.m.
There is a fundamental need to reorganise and restructure the management of the airports with a view to their realising their true commercial potential. The airports are either providing a commuter service to Dublin or a cross-Channel service to various British airports. Their market in many cases is Irish people returning home. The regional airports are located in areas which have traditionally been ravaged by emigration and there is a huge population in the UK which would be willing to use them if the airports could get their act together.
We all welcomed the decision by the Minister to seek the PSO and the decision by the EU to grant it. What is the subsidy per seat for the PSO for the airports in Sligo, Donegal, Kerry, Mayo and Galway?
I agree with the Deputy's point about consultancies which are a growth industry. The Deputy asked why each Department cannot have a dedicated core of consultancy experts. That sounds desirable but, for example, we are planning the metro and do not have people in our Department who are skilled in that area. The same applies to many other areas. However, I accept and regret the fact that consultancy services have become an expensive growth industry.
Regarding the regional airports in Galway, Kerry, Sligo, Knock, Donegal, Waterford and Derry, which we are supplementing this year and for the next three years, the moneys being provided have increased by 40%, which is a huge amount. They are privately owned airports and it would be against the Constitution for me to interfere in their running. The lands are privately owned and the aeroplanes are privately hired. Under an EU mechanism, the Government applied for permission to subsidise the flights. The EU does not provide a single penny for these flights. A man telephoned me some days ago and said he was sitting behind a certain Deputy on a flight leaving Farranfore to whom he commented "fair dues to the Department of Public Enterprise, there is a big subsidy on every flight". The Deputy said the man was incorrect, that Europe was providing the subsidy, but that is not true. Deputy Dukes introduced the subsidy in 1996 and I have continued it since. The subsidy has increased since that time and the money is provided by the taxpayer. Knock Airport can be considered separately as it was left in trust to the people of the province of Connacht and there is some case to be made if the trust is not being fully realised. The subsidy per flight on theGalway-Dublin route is £55 one-way; £66 per person on the Kerry-Dublin route; £110 on the Sligo-Dublin route, and £260 one-way on the Knock-Dublin route.
Are those the figures for one-way travel?
They are all subsidy figures for travelling one-way. The figure for Donegal-Dublin is £119; and, as a cross-Border gesture, we subside Loganair on the Derry-Dublin route at a rate of £80. It is huge money. I have asked what each air ticket costs as I cannot understand how it could cost £260 to travel from Knock to Dublin and the same amount for the return flight. From memory, there are five flights from Galway and Kerry, two from Sligo, one or two from Knock, one from Donegal - it is seeking two in the June-July PSO - and one flight from Derry to Dublin. They are the subsidies for a one way flight and they are huge.
The Deputy mentioned Knock. There have been some developments in the matter of the Knock Airport board. The Mayo county manager is coming to see me on Thursday to talk informally about Knock and I will see what arises from that meeting. There is no doubt that much more could be done for Knock Airport.
When is that meeting?
On Thursday. The manager is in Dublin for something else. He said he would be in the Department, I think, in relation to another matter and he asked to see me about that issue.
Perhaps the Minister might deal with Shannon because there has been a campaign, as she knows, for a public service——
One cannot do that if commercial flights are operating. Waterford does not get a PSO because it has a flight to somewhere outside London. Any airport that has commercial flights to other places does not get a PSO. The Chairman is right in that there were calls.
I would like to ask a few questions which, I hope, the Minister and her officials can answer. I intended to ask about the consultancy service but that has been dealt with by Deputy Higgins. I understand that the public service payment is to cover the cost of free travel.
No. The only other place I have come across it is on the islands of Scotland where they run a PSO as well. It is to allow for freer movement between the capital and peripheral regions.
This is for CIE.
Sorry, is the Deputy talking about air——
I am talking about subhead C1.
I am sorry.
I beg the Minister's pardon; I should have said.
I thought the Deputy was talking about the PSO.
I am talking about the public service payment to CIE.
That is for the free travel. I thought the Deputy was talking about air travel.
It is given to everyone entitled to free travel regardless of whether they are able to avail of it. There is a general evaluation or estimation of who may take it up. If one talks to people in CIE or any of the companies, there is a feeling that they could always do with more to put buses on the quality bus corridors or to provide money towards park and ride facilities. Should that money be targetedmore at the resources needed in those companies?
Is the Deputy talking in more general terms now?
I am talking in general terms because there is a certain amount of accounting vagueness about that particular——
Is the Deputy looking at subhead C1 - public service provision payment to CIE?
Yes.
As the Deputy knows, that is £159 million. That is not just for the social welfare payment for people over a particular age, etc, who choose to travel. It is a general subvention. For example, if one is travelling from the west, the south east or from various regions, very few lines are commercially viable for CIE and, therefore, the Deputy's comment about vagueness is correct. Is the Deputy asking if there could be a breakdown, line by line, of where the subsidy is going?
I appreciate it might be impractical. I am reflecting a frustration I hear among constituents in rural parts of my area who are not able to avail of public transport.
Because there is no public transport.
Yet they know the Government feels they are being paid a subvention so that they can use public transport.
The ADM is about to bring out its distribution under the pilot programmes for rural transport. That will begin as a pilot scheme to remedy the situation in areas which have no public transport. The intention is that the service will grow until there is public transport - perhaps not on an hourly basis - for people in rural areas.
I wish to deal with a couple of subheads. We could deal with each one at some length if we had the time, but I will go through the ones I have noted and about which I want to ask. As regards subhead C3, Dublin light rail, does the Minister agree this Estimate seems to have expanded much more than other headings? The factors causing the expansion of cost for the light rail seem to be beyond our control. Can the Minister put her finger on those factors?
I do not want to deal with subhead C8 as it was mentioned already and it was discussed by this committee in another forum. The Minister mentioned money going into public transport and into areas such as rail safety. It is often given as a round figure which should be a blessing to us all. I suppose its purpose is to help avoid a crash, but it is not actually adding to a service.
That is correct, but it is rendering the service safer.
We should be clear that the money is for safety. It should not be mistaken as money for additional services because it sometimes comes across as that.
Under subhead D2, when the Minister talks about additional air services for regional airports, is this to be taken as a statement or an indication of the Department's view of the proposal for a second terminal at Dublin airport? Is the Department taking a view on that although it should be emphasising the growth of regional airports rather than adding to congestion around Dublin airport? Has the Department taken a position on that matter?
Subhead D8 looks like an almighty waste of money given that has to do with selling Aer Lingus. Expenditure of £3 million could have been avoided. Even with the wisdom of hindsight, it was ill-advised. As regards subhead D9, I notice only three airlines have applied for the airline compensation. Why have only three airlines applied?
Aer Lingus, Ryanair and Cityjet have applied.
The Minister may not know.
They are the only airlines that applied.
That is fine.
We did not force them to apply.
I can imagine.
The remaining Irish licensed airlines have informed the Department that they will not be submitting claims. Aer Lingus submitted a claim for £5 million, Cityjet for £155,000 and Ryanair for £250,000. This claim is from the person who wanted to deny State aid to Aer Lingus, but he is willing to look for and avail of this measure.
It is strange that there was a saving in relation to energy conservation. It was not a saving of energy but of money. Energy conservation is one of those areas that could produce savings. According to the Energy Centre, household efficiency could result in savings of £75 million per year in terms of energy use. We should focus on savings in energy rather than on putting in the insulation to which subhead B2 seems to refer. Subhead B5 relates to the BNFL case and I note a figure of £6,000. I will finish on this. The BNFL case money is apparently for technical research only, not for legal costs.
What subhead is that?
I am on subhead B5. If one compares what has been said here with the Minister's election manifesto, the funding was not circumscribed simply to technical costs. Full costs were mentioned.
First, Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, who is in Brussels at a Council of Environment Ministers asked me to apologise for his absence. This is the Government's package of financial assistance to the County Louth residents for research activities. Is that what the Deputy is referring to?
Yes.
The package approved by Government involved financial assistance up to £350,000 and £50,000 for information technology which was not all spent. Payment of costs under this package has been absolutely guaranteed by the Minister but it is possible that the residents may not draw it down. Let me return to some of the other issues.
Did they have difficulties drawing on that money?
They did initially, I understand. I must say I do not deal with them——
I know. I am putting forward their point of view because they are not here to speak for themselves.
Yes, I know. I understood they did have difficulties initially but that many of those have been ironed out. Perhaps they have not, but that is what——
They will be glad to hear that is what the Minister thinks.
Perhaps it will not be——
Perhaps they will act on it.
The Deputy asked about subhead C3 which pertains to light rail. He said the expenses in this area were increasing. The Deputy should bear in mind all the public inquiries and hearings which had to be dealt with and paid for. Reports had to be prepared. I can give the Deputy a blow by blow account of that. It is only right that people be consulted. I smiled when I heard an Opposition party leader saying Luas was ready to roll. It was not. There had not been any public hearings. Neither had there been any recommendations on any of the three lines. That is how costs increase. There is an auditor to oversee things. There were statutory instruments which cost £33,000. We thought we were printing it——
I have to interrupt the Minister——
A study has been carried out on the regional airports which I hope we will have before Christmas. The Deputy speaks of relieving congestion but the planes in question all landin Dublin anyway. They do not land anywhereelse.
Do they not go across the Channel as well?
The PSOs do not. They go to the capital city.
Sitting suspended at 5.53 p.m. and resumed at 6.05 p.m.
We were hearing from theMinister. I had reached the energy conservationissue.
The Deputy was asking about savings.
I was asking why money was not being spent on energy conservation.
Is the Deputy talking about radon?
No, B2 is the heading. There is a saving of \1,969,000 that has not been spent but which was allocated.
The under spend on the allocation for capital expenditure occurred principally because of unforeseen delays in the establishment of the Irish Energy Centre, as the existing human resources capacity to launch programmes inhibited progress. The main focus in 2001 has been towards capacity building in the IEC. Capacity building is one of these meaningless phrases, begging your pardon, which civil servants put in briefs for people. I do not know what it means. Does it mean more people? It involves building up the organisation to enable the centre implement a significantly bigger programme under the ESIOP, whatever that is, in 2000-06 than over the period of the ESIOP in 1994-99. Anyway, there is a delay in the legislation but this is due next week.
We were expecting the sustainable energy Bill this Thursday but it is not on the list.
Is it not? I do not know. That is the under spend.
Will that be carried over?
No, there will be no carryover. The total amount was £33 million and the savings were £15 or £16 million, so we are putting one against the other. We are looking for £16 million here.
My point is a broad one but worth making. The saving may be seen as a saving this year but when the Kyoto Protocol fines start to be handed out a huge amount will be needed. It will leave this sum in the ha'penny place.
I hope the money allocated for 2002, for the Estimates and in the budget, will make up for that. I regret the under spend but it is set against what one is looking for in total, as Deputies know. We came out with a figure just over £16 million.
Is the Minister willing to go through all the subheads together or does she want to take one at a time?
Whatever the Deputy wants. If he wants to stay the night, fair enough.
I am here anyway, it is all the one. I am in no rush.
I am, but go on. If the Deputy prefers to go through them one by one in order to get a better answer then we can do that.
It is probably easier and less confusing. On A7 a question was asked about the consultants involved, who they were and how much each got. Can the Minister give us a breakdown in that regard?
I can supply that separately. It would require a disk. Deputy Jim Mitchell asked a question about that and we supplied him with a disk with the reply. We can arrange for Deputy Stanton to get something similar.
I am surprised the Minister does not have the information today.
It would be very long. The £2 million under the subhead is for Aer Lingus. There is no question about that. I thought the Deputy was referring to all consultancies.
No, I was referring to the additional amount.
The extra amount is for Aer Lingus.
So that is all going to Aer Lingus. How did that come about?
It came about through the hiring of consultants.
This is under subhead A7.
Yes, it is subhead A7, which deals with consultancy services.
Right.
It involves expenses related to the sale of shares in Aer Lingus and the hiring of consultants.
Yes. I thought that was subhead D8.
No. I have it down as £2 million for Aer Lingus. Some £3.4 million was provided in the original Estimate and an additional £2.268 million was required for Aer Lingus.
That is fine. Is subhead A7 entirely separate?
Subhead A7 in my book deals with consultancy services.
Is subhead D8 a separate matter? It concerns fees and expenses relating to the sale of shares in Aer Lingus.
Yes, it relates to fees but it is the same £2 million.
No.
Sorry, I made a mistake. Subhead D8 relates to the list of consultancies undertaken or committed during 2001. I presume the Deputy is referring to the additional money.
Yes.
What is the extra £2 million in A7? I am advised by the officers from my Department that subhead A7 refers to additional consultancies across a range of projects. We will supply the committee with the long list of such consultancies. It happens that approximately the same amount, about £2 million, is also required for the sale of shares in Aer Lingus.
I am glad we worked that out, as if I had not pursued it——
The Deputy is right.
——I would have thought that two separate allocations of £2 million were to be made for the same matter.
We will send the Deputy the list.
That is fine. The original out-turn for consultancy in 2001 was £3 million.
Yes.
It has increased substantially. I reiterate the comments of my colleagues, who are concerned about the increase. We would like to know the reasons for the increase, as it seems extraordinary that it has almost doubled.
It is not extraordinary when one sees the list outlining the extra consultancies and the reasons for them.
It would be useful if we had the list.
The Deputy will have it tomorrow.
I am not entirely satisfied that the Minister does not have the list, but we will move on to subhead C1, which deals with public service provision payment to CIE. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the payment among the various CIE companies?
Yes.
Does the Minister have it now?
Yes. If the Supplementary Estimate is passed, Iarnród Éireann will get £9 million and Bus Éireann will get £7 million. The finances of Dublin Bus are not in the same state as the other two companies and a Supplementary Estimate is not required.
Dublin Bus is okay.
Dublin Bus received a subvention in the original Estimate.
There is a statement on the reasons for a Supplementary Estimate for the CIE companies. It says that CIE companies are, for the first time, incurring operating losses and no longer have the capacity for short-term borrowing.
Yes.
Can the Minister explain that?
From an unpractised financial point of view, I imagine it is difficult to get short-term borrowings from financial institutions if one is constantly incurring operating losses.
The implication of the comment that all CIE companies are, for the first time, incurring operating losses is that——
No, all CIE companies have had operating losses some of the time. There was a question last week in the Dáil about the fact that, for many years, CIE claimed in its annual report that a profit was made. I did not think it was right that CIE chairmen did not mention that profits were only made after a large subvention from Government. CIE's method of reportinghas changed, however, and losses are nowreported.
Yes. The Minister commissioned a report earlier this year on Iarnród Éireann.
It was called The Way Forward.
Are there moves afoot to implement the report?
Yes. I want to praise the three wise men, Kevin Bonner, Bill Attley and John Dunne, for the work they put into the report. Deputy Richard Bruton is familiar with them from his time in the Department. They were very busy when compiling the report and one of the first things they did was to sort out the Maynooth line, which was the subject of many Labour Court recommendations. I have contacted the chairman of CIE about the list of recommendations drawn up by the three men. The central recommendation was that there should be an internal labour relations mechanism, similar to that in the ESB, to allow disputes to be resolved without recourse to the Labour Court or the Labour Relations Commission. I have asked the chairman to ensure that recommendation is implemented and trade unions are keen that this is done by 1 February 2002. The Department of Public Enterprise has ensured that Iarnród Éireann is familiar with the recommendations and implementation has been sought.
There was a recommendation for Iarnród Éireann to be given its own management structure, separate to that of CIE
Yes.
Will that be pursued?
Yes. Legislation is being prepared to ensure that happens. All bodies have duties under The Way Forward, and the Department of Public Enterprise has responsibilities in relation to strategic policy and legislation. As I said at a meeting of the mini-CTC signalling inquiry, Deputy Jim Mitchell set out a plan in the 1980s to break the head company into three separate entities in a fine Bill. The idea of creating three distinct companies and ensuring that there is a diminution of the power of the parent board is being taken on board 15 years later.
Is the Minister concerned that Iarnród Éireann cost the Exchequer £9 million more, and Bus Éireann cost £7 million more, than was estimated at the start of the year? Does she have any proposals to address the situation?
I remember the 24-page viability plan compiled when Deputy Lowry was the Minister with responsibility for this area. If it is necessary to run a rail system to serve large parts of the country in a non-profitable way, as this Government believes it is, there will be operating losses. There has been an increase in the number of journeys taken between Dublin and other towns and cities by rail and bus. Increased services give rise to increased operating costs, for example hourly bus services require more buses and more operatives. Labour costs have increased in each of the companies, although this worked out well in Iarnród Éireann and Dublin Bus, where it had been the case that one had to work inordinately long hours to get a decent wage. Trade unions brought forward many labour relations proposals, which led to great increases in remuneration and more sociable working hours.
I thank the Minister for her replies to Deputy Stanton's queries, which served to answer some of my questions. As regards transparency, I am far from happy with the manner in which subsidies for transport companies are decided. I would be more content if representatives of Iarnród Éireann came to this meeting to defend its budget performance in 2001 and to seek an additional £9 million on the grounds that, while it met its passenger number targets, something else happened. We should have some means of assessing performance against projection and noting that Iarnród Éireann has done well given the circumstances.
It is the same with Dublin Bus. The company refuses to give any information about its performance on a route by route basis. Even though it has no competition, it regards this information as commercially sensitive. That is ludicrous as we pay for that information and it should be made public. Does the Minister share my frustration that, if we pay the piper, we should be calling some sort of tune or at least holding the company more effectively to account? Is there anything she can do as Minister to change this so there is greater transparency regarding the subvention?
My second question is related. I accept that the issue of competition has been somewhat shunted onto a siding due to consultations and so on, but as we open the market to competition the issue of a level playing pitch will become more important, as will the matter of cross-subsidisation by companies. Bus Éireann faces competition on routes and the Minister is under an obligation to be able to say, with hand on heart, that there is no unfair competition or instances in which CIE uses its financial might to make life impossible for new operators. However, the company is preventing the Minister and the Department from operating such scrutiny. This is an important issue, quite apart from the figures in the Estimate which are substantial. It involves elected representatives getting a handle on things. It would be worthwhile if the Minister could do something in this regard.
I share the Deputy's concerns regarding the need for transparency. In their report, the three wise men said there would have to be greater openness among CIE companies as to how they carry out their business. CIE gets its subvention in one lump sum and decides the amount which each of the three companies receives. There is a lack of transparency as to how the subvention finds its way to each company.
I am sure everything is above board in financial terms, but customers for whom the company is run are at a loss if they do not know this information and I will convey this point. When the recommendations of the three wise men begin to be implemented they will have significant implications. I discussed the issue of transparency with them at a meeting shortly before they issued their report. The transport forum was set up under the PPF and it is about to issue its report.
There is a significant amount of competition on new routes. We have issued about 22 licences and have seen how competition on the Dublin Airport route is working well. The buses on that route are brand new and the drivers are smart. The fare is £4 return.
It is £4 for a single ticket.
The operators, whether Bus Éireann or whoever, are very keen to attract customers and competition works well on the route. Other routes have been opened to competition such as those from hotels to various locations. It is hoped that new routes in suburban areas or to and from particular centres will be opened to competition. We will soon issue a report in this regard.
Cross-subsidisation is emerging as an issue in Europe. There is no doubt that cross-subsidisation was involved in the necessary purchase of many new buses over the past four years. There was no other form of public transport at that time. Europe is beginning to examine whether cross-subsidisation affects or deflects competition. This is an issue for the future.
These issues are not for the future.
They are only beginning to be examined in Europe.
Let me ask a blunt question. Do Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann give the Minister information on a route by route basis regarding performance, losses and passenger numbers? If not they are failing in their duty. If they provide the Minister with that information will she furnish it to us so it can be in the public domain?
I will instruct my officials to ask for this information.
That would be a welcome move. Dublin Bus should be included.
I agree. This is public money so what is the reason they should not provide that information?
I agree. The issue of cross-subsidisation is not far off. I do not represent a provincial area, but presumably Bus Éireann is already competing directly with private operators on routes such as Dublin to Galway. There must already be a need for the Minister to know whether a large subsidy is going to the publicsector which is not available to privateoperators.
If buses are purchased solely with Exchequer funding, or a combination of Exchequer and EU funding, though that is no longer the case, that constitutes a subsidy to a particular company.
It needs to be reported on a route by route basis so we can attempt to monitor whether there is fair competition.
Bus Éireann now receives a subsidy. However, when Bus Éireann, as distinct from Dublin Bus, started its Expressway services from major towns and cities to the capital it was expected to be financially self-supporting. However, the company is getting a subsidy of £7 million, but I do not know what it is for. I will obtain the information for the Deputy, but it may take some time.
The company claims the information is commercially sensitive, but it has no competition.
It does face competition.
Not on the number 66 route.
That is true.
I apologise for being late. Is there is a sum in the Supplementary Estimate for CIE?
That is what we are debating.
Have these sums to be voted by the Oireachtas?
Yes.
What kind of accountability is required of semi-State companies which receive these moneys? Are they accountable to the Oireachtas?
The only such company with which I am dealing is CIE as no other semi-State company receives a subsidy. We are only debating CIE in the context of subsidies. These companies are accountable. The company is before the sub-committee regarding the mini-CTC system.
If the Oireachtas votes moneys are the companies which receive those funds accountable to the Oireachtas for their use?
In broad terms yes. They are accountable to a committee as they cannot enter the House.
If the Oireachtas wishes to question a company on any issue of public concern can it do so?
Yes.
They have been before the committee on several occasions regarding different issues.
It is up to the committee to invite companies to talk about their business.
Their reports are provided to the Minister and laid before the Dáil.
Is there not a difficulty with this process at present?
Will the Deputy repeat that?
If the Oireachtas is investigating matters is it entitled to question such companies?
The Deputy is talking about the judgment given by the court. Far be it for me to condemn anyone, but I hope the committee is back in business very soon.
So do I. I am sure we will have much to say about it if not. Do we have the power to inquire into a subsidised company?
In my opinion you have the power to inquire how money given by the taxpayers and voted by the Oireachtas is subsequently spent.
That is what we are doing here.
An outside body is trying to stop us doing that.
It is not trying to stop us doing what we are doing today. Should Deputy O'Flynn be here? Is he not one of the accursedlot who cannot open their mouths with regard to CIE?
I did not mention anything about that matter.
For the moment anyhow.
We will leave it for the moment.
I hope it is only for the moment.
With regard to subhead C1, the Minister has given us the breakdown of the additional sum required. Has she information regarding the current requirement of the breakdown of the £75 million?
Does the Deputy mean which company the money went to in 2001? We are only dealing with a Supplementary Estimate.
I am curious about the other information.
Perhaps we have it in the Book of Estimates. We will get it for the Deputy.
The figures given for PSOs range from £55 to £260 for Knock. Are those figures per flight or per passenger?
That is per bum-on-seat. It is astounding. I asked last week about the Knock PSO. The numbers of passengers on the flights are tiny and this accounts for the distortion.
The prices are prohibitive. That is the problem.
I certainly think the PSO is prohibitive.
That is interesting.
Subheads E4, E5 and E7 deal with information technology and communications. Additional funding is to be provided to undertake work needed under subheads E5 and E7. However, in subhead E4 at least six of the contracts are not being followed through. It seems contradictory that we are providing money under subheads E5 and E7 while there is a surplus of money in another subhead. Is it not possible to amalgamate the three subheads?
I see the Deputy's point. Subhead E4 deals with major contracts. Some of these have not been taken up. From now on we are dealing with these on a rolling basis. We are not leaving them with the firms who were awarded them. Subhead E5 deals with a community initiative and amounts to £4 million. It is a separate subhead dealing with small community groups. Subhead E7 concerns the digital hub, which I inherited from the Department of the Taoiseach. It used to come under his Vote and is now under mine.
To return to Deputy Stanton's question, the breakdown of CIE subvention in 2001 is as follows: rail services received £83 million, Dublin Bus got £62 million, Bus Éireann got £10 million and the interest on an old DART loan was £5 million. I do not know what the DART loan is about.
DART was not charged interest. The State carried the interest on the loan for the DART infrastructure.
I take the point about the three subheads dealing with one topic.
It would be far more sensible to have them all under one subhead.
I think the Department of Finance insisted on this arrangement.
The objectives set out in subheads E5 and E7 seem to be contradicted by what is happening in subhead E4. The objectives are running counter to what is happening on the ground.
That is true. There are new bids out now which deal mostly with county councils and corporations.
In subhead C3, dealing with the Dublin light rail project, the Minister refers to an increased allocation for a number of developments. What are these developments?
This subhead provides funding to meet the expenses relating to the light rail project, such as the cost of holding public inquiries, project monitoring and the provision of independent advice. The subhead was short by £900,000. The cost of engaging consultants to design and conduct the competition for the operation of the light rail services was more than anticipated. These are the people who are going to run the light rail. The competition will be completed shortly after Christmas. An auditor oversaw the competition and his fees were £12,000. There were also printing costs. Following new arrangements introduced by the Government Publications Office in relation to printing statutory instruments, my Department was obliged to meet the cost of printing statutory instruments.
The consultants who conducted the competition also requested an additional £361,000. This is outside the terms of the original contract and the request must be evaluated to determine if the payment is necessary.
Who are the consultants?
I will get that information for the Deputy.
Is the cost of the Luas carriage which was on display included here?
Yes, that will be included. There was no cost to the Department and it is included under public information and consultation.
Is it under the subhead we are discussing?
No. In January 2001, the mandate of the light rail advisory and action group was extended to cover the monitoring of arrangements for public communication about the project. This is the advisory group I set up under Pádraig White. No extra subhead is required for public consultation or information.
How much did printing cost?
It amounted to £33,175. It was previously done by the Government Publications Office but now each Department has been told to pay for its own.
With regard to the sum of £900,000, did the consultants fee amount to £361,000?
No, the sum of £361,000 is the extra amount involved and the cost of the consultants is included in that. The fee for the process auditor was £12,000. There were also sums of £33,000 and £24,000 for the light rail advisory and action group. The advertisement cost of two statutory instruments amounted to £12,000 and that cost was carried into 2001. The extension of the consultant's contract and the contract for the light rail monitoring committee amounted to £457,853. Did the members of the committee get these figures?
No. Is it correct to conclude that the amount paid to consultants totalled between £800,000 and £900,000?
Yes, but we do not know if we have to pay £360,000.
The consultants got a lot of money.
Yes, it can be taken that most of the moneys I have outlined were paid to consultants. The name of the firm is Booze-Allen Hamilton.
With regard to subhead D9, dealing with airline compensation, it is significant that compensation payments of over £1 million per day over the first four days were made. Given that this was what was allowed taking a minimalist approach, it illustrates the scale of the impact. Have all the claims been allowed and was further compensation sought? Has the Minister sought information on what the EU would allow over the next two to three months using a similar yardstick? It would have a bearing on our capacity to pursue the State aid issue.
There is a continuing issue around the Aer Lingus pension fund. Retiring members believe they have been very poorly served by it. Can the State do anything to deal with pension fund issues at the company? It will arise in the new restructuring and when dealing with previous servants.
I understand the Minster granted more money to rail safety although I cannot find it in the subheads. She kindly responded to a parliamentary question indicating that more money had been granted. The Eastwall Bridge on the Eastwall Road has been knocked continuously and has been closed, with severe knock-on effects on traffic congestion on the north side in the same vicinity as the port tunnel, which adds to the aggravation. Even though the Minister has provided more money for rail safety, Iarnród Éireann has said repairing the bridge will cost £17 million and is not a priority. It is turning its back on motorists who must sit in traffic jams at the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of pounds. It is perverse that a public company can create this disruption to members of the community. Perhaps the Minister has not been briefed on this but there should be some way of charging the company for the social cost of its failure to repair its property.
I am unable to say if work on the Eastwall Road will be done next year.
It will but the original plan was for the work to be done last August.
I am not sure if it will be done next year although it should be. I have received numerous letters and telephone calls. However, because we are following IRMS safety procedures, which entails a five year roll-out and an expenditure of £500 million, the Eastwall Bridge has not been detailed. Nevertheless, the situation at the Eastwall Road has become a danger to life and I will ask the assistant secretary to ask CIE for its immediate plans.
There is speculation that action will be taken next spring.
There is nothing definite about that. Following requests from members of the committee I referred the matter of Aer Lingus pension rights to the Minister for Finance because I have no responsibility for the subhead covering the public service. The Minister dealt with the matter and advised it did not require any further precedent.
Airline compensation for the four days over 11 September will be addressed at a Transport Council meeting on Thursday and Friday in Brussels which I will attend. We are seeking to have the measures in place during the four days extended indefinitely. I have arrangements to meet four or five of the Ministers seeking this. The impact is continuing.
What would be the compensation for 30 days?
It would be over £30 million. If we could get it it would be helpful to the ongoing development of the company. I do not wish to elaborate because serious talks on the matter are under way. Some countries with a national flag carrier are seeking to have the four days compensation package extended.
That concludes the select committee's consideration——
We agreed to consider the Vote subhead by subhead and we are only half way through our deliberations.
I thought you were finished.
We also have a Bill to consider.
We are asked to approve £2 million under subhead C8 covering expenses for the railway procurement agency. The legislation is awaiting Committee Stage and is supposed to be enacted before the end of the year. The reason for the Supplementary Estimate is to cover the cost of office accommodation, computer services and consultancies. Will the Minister indicate if it is envisaged that the agency will be established before the end of the year?
It will if the legislation is passed.
If the legislation is not passed will there be a requirement for the money?
Yes, because it must operate on an interim basis. It is dealing with the light rail project and will be dealing with the metro. The legislation is required.
Is it established at present?
Yes, on an interim basis.
Is this funding to be allocated to the agency?
Yes.
It is not just for the start up but because it has been established.
Yes, on an interim basis.
I do not wish to delay matters because the Minister is anxious to proceed to the Bill.
We all are.
We have already considered subhead D8 covering the fees and expenses relating to the shares in Aer Lingus.
I will forward members with the information they have sought.
Who were the consultants?
The consultant was AIB Goodbody. We will send that list to the Deputy to save time.
Under subhead D9, airline compensation, can we have a breakdown of the claims from Aer Lingus, CityJet and Ryanair?
It was £5,251,000 from Aer Lingus, £155,000 from CityJet and £250,000 from Ryanair. We have certified Aer Lingus for payment while CityJet and Ryanair are being assessed.
Is that the full amount?
Yes.
How many other licensed airlines are there?
There are 16, but only those three made applications.
Will the Minister outline the social groupings under the community initiative?
I published all that on the website and sent it to every Deputy. Some 450 groups applied and 71 received funding of between £50,000 and £130,000. They were assessed by an outside group, much to my own cost as no one in Athlone got any money and there is great caterwauling about it. The bodies that applied included women's, community, island, school drop-outs' and return to work groups. I launched one recently in the Ballyfermot IT centre. They were directed at helping groups who might have no knowledge of IT to gain it.
On energy conservation, subhead B2, what was the £2.662 million earmarked for and on what was it not spent?
It was to do with the Green Paper on sustainable energy. I regret not knowing more about it as it is the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob's responsibility; I should know more about it. ESIOP, that is, the EU programme for the operational spend of moneys under the national development plan for the Irish Energy Centre, disburses this money. There was a gradual annual increase to allow the centre to develop but it did not develop quickly enough to enable the money to be spent.
Given the importance of the Kyoto agreement, I urge that this be examined.
I agree with the Deputy.
Foot and mouth disease caused problems with farm electrification. There were savings of £60,000 and £170,000 regarding the Estimate. The outturn in 2000 was £104,000. How many applications were made this year? Last year, 560 of 700 applications were approved.
A saving of £60,000 is anticipated under this subhead. Invoices totalling £52,000 were processed. While foot and mouth disease slowed work, it is anticipated that the slack will be picked up and invoices for approximately £60,000 are expected before the end of the year. The outturn is not expected to exceed £110,000. I do not have the information on applications.
It is curious that there were several hundred applications last year. That seems high in this day and age.
A certain percentage of one's earnings must be from farming before an application can be made.
Will the Minister refer to subhead B7, the radon remediation grant scheme?
That money was in this year's Estimates. Again, this is the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob's responsibility and he is committed to it. We expected it to be applicable this year but we are awaiting an amendment to the Radiological Protection Bill to allow that money to be spent. We need legislative approval to spend money on it.
Under subhead E4, information communications, there is a massive saving of £10 million. It is disappointing that this was not rolled out faster as we need to develop this sector. One company went into liquidation because of the sector's financial difficulties. Will the Minister comment?
We were disappointed because we got the money and there was a competition under which firms were selected. Unfortunately, the technological sector went into a slump world-wide and many firms, which had taken up the bids, went to the wall. The ongoing competitions will not have to wait; it will go directly to the next bidder.
We have bids in since 19 October which will be decided before Christmas. County councils and corporations submitted bids, which is a good idea because they are in the civil engineering business. Cork, in particular, has an interesting bid.