Priority Questions.
63 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his preferred options for the future of An Post; the extent to which he has imparted his views to the management of the company; if he will endeavour to ensure the maximisation of the extent of services likely to be provided by the company in the future. [3874/05]
View answerSince taking office, I met the chairperson and the chief executive of An Post and the board of An Post. I also met union representatives from different sectors of the company. Officials from my Department meet An Post management on a monthly basis. I am advised on the outcome of the monthly meetings.
The fundamental requirement to secure the future of our postal services is to implement a change programme. Management and unions agree that change within An Post is required if its postal services are to adapt to an environment that is itself changing. The challenge remains for unions and management to complete the negotiation process that has been under way for several months. These negotiations move to the Labour Court this week and it is important that momentum be maintained to resolve all remaining difficulties. A successful conclusion to the negotiation process will allow An Post to discharge its universal service obligation for the delivery of mail to its customers in a cost effective and efficient manner, while offering secure employment to its dedicated workforce. That is what I want to see happen and I believe this vision is widely shared within the company.
With regard to the future of our post office services, the Government and the board of An Post are committed to the objective of securing a viable and sustainable nationwide post office network. There is widespread recognition that the best strategy to sustain the network is for An Post to continue adapting to its customer needs. In this regard, I have asked the Postmasters Union and An Post to work in partnership to maximise their efforts to secure existing business and to pursue new business at every available opportunity.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Notwithstanding that he is a relatively short time in his present office, what progress has been made in establishing fundamentals with An Post and its workforce. Many issues cause concern, for example the non-payment of wage, salary and pension increases, which were statutorily due and have been outstanding for some time. Another long-standing issue is the lack of communication regarding the future of the SDS package delivery service. To what extent has the Minister ascertained the cause for the loss of business in this service, given the growth of private package delivery services at the same time? A further issue relates to determining the optimum number of general post offices and the retention of the maximum number of sub-post offices.
How does the Minister reconcile the current circumstances with the fact that the services provided by An Post, which are often the only services available in certain parts of the country, are diminishing? I acknowledge that the Minister has had this portfolio for a relatively short time. Given that he has had separate meetings with An Post and the various unions, why are the disputes going to the brink — right to the edge — before the discussions which should have taken place in the first instance take place? That has happened on at least two occasions in the past couple of months.
I share the Deputy's concern that disputes in An Post that involve internal and industrial relations always seem to go to the brink. I do not think it is a good way of doing business on either side. I accept fully the Deputy's remarks in that regard. I do not want to apportion blame or suggest who might be at fault, as Deputy Durkan did not do so, but it is clear that there is something wrong. Bodies such as the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the national implementation body and people like Peter Cassells are working to ensure that dialogue continues and agreement is reached. It is clear that it is not a normal industrial relations environment. I have argued at meetings with representatives of management and unions that they should be able to reach agreement without the intervention of third parties. It almost seems to be par for the course that third parties have to intervene in such disputes after talks between unions and management break down. I agree with the Deputy the position is unsatisfactory and I have stressed that it should not be allowed to continue.
The other issues raised by the Deputy, such as the Sustaining Progress agreement and the future of SDS, are being considered by the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court, the national implementation body and Peter Cassells. The Deputy will understand if I do not go into great detail about what might or might not happen in that regard. Like the Deputy, I urge both sides to reach agreement and to make progress. On the basis of the comments I have heard from Deputies on all sides of the House, it seems that we are united in our desire to see agreement reached, the reform package put in place and an efficient and effective postal service developed. I am sure that aim is shared on all sides of the House.
Has the Minister set out the policy parameters within which he expects An Post to work towards the objective he has mentioned? Has he outlined to the company the type of postal service he would like to see emerging in this country in the future?
I have made clear to both sides that I would like to see an efficient and effective postal service that provides customer satisfaction by meeting the needs of customers and employees. It is inevitable that change is needed to put such a service in place. The more I examine postal services throughout the world, the more I understand that change has to happen in Ireland quickly. The broad parameters on which I am working involve the development of a postal service that is geared to delivering for the customer and providing good employment for workers.
64 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on the recent collapse of Media Lab Europe; his further views on whether this amounts to a serious setback in the area of research into new and digital technologies here; his plans for a new research facility for the digital hub project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3698/05]
View answer65 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention was drawn to the crisis at Media Lab Europe in Dublin prior to its closure; if so, the date on which his attention was drawn to the crisis; the steps he took to avert the job losses and recoup the Government’s investment in this company; the total spend by the Government since the conception of this project; and the plans for the staff of the company, its site, equipment, expertise and innovations. [3859/05]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 64 and 65 together.
Media Lab Europe, MLE, was formed by an agreement between the State and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was in operation since early 2000. It was established to conduct non-directive research in the field of digital media.
The Government invested €35.5 million in start-up capital for MLE. Property was also purchased for MLE to the value of €22.5 million. The property remains in State ownership. The Government has met all its contractual obligations arising from the venture.
While it is acknowledged that research will generally require State support, the uniqueness of the MLE model, as presented initially to Government, was that it would be self-funding by 2005. However, the financial situation deteriorated significantly in recent times due to MLE's being unable to raise the necessary sponsorship and corporate income required, as envisaged in its business plan. In February 2004, the Government liaison committee, comprising Departments with an interest in the MLE operation, wrote to the board of MLE requesting it to undertake a fundamental review of its business model and produce a strategic plan. The board submitted its strategic plan to the Department on 7 May 2004 and it included a request for additional Exchequer funding of €9 million over three years.
Following this review, there were extensive efforts to agree a restructuring plan for MLE that would allow it to move forward on a sustainable basis. These included detailed independent assessment of MLE's strategic plan and its progress towards achieving its high-level objectives; discussions with the relevant Departments; discussions with the research and educational agencies and third-level institutions; discussions with the business and development agencies; direct negotiations with MIT and discussions with the board and executive of MLE. However, a package acceptable to the Government failed to emerge and the decision was taken that no further Exchequer funding would be provided. The board of MLE took the decision to wind down operations.
I am considering the options for a new research entity at the MLE facilities. Issues being addressed include the need to secure the following: greater focus on sustainable research and more directive research in a new business model; better links to Irish universities and third level institutions generally; improved corporate governance in accordance with general guidelines for State bodies and effective management.
Considering the importance of the ICT sector to the Irish economy, the significance of digital media in the broader ICT sector and the need for commitment to research and development in this field, there is a need to make a comprehensive assessment of what model and structures should be put in place as part of a new research entity. It is my intention, therefore, to initiate a consultation process with third level institutes, industry, Government agencies, the private sector and the digital hub to establish what the research focus, structure and objectives of the new entity should be. Drawing on the results of the consultation, Government will make decisions regarding the shape of a new research entity. It is envisaged there will be an open tendering process for any new entity to be established on the site and that Irish third-level institutes and universities will be eligible to apply.
I thank the Minister for his reply. It was regrettable that he was not taking questions on the first day of the session, on which I raised this issue. I hoped we might have had a full-scale debate.
Does the Minister agree that the Committee of Public Accounts or the Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, or both, should investigate State expenditure at the location in question, with particular reference to grants to MLE? Would he welcome such an investigation? Does he agree that the MLE project was, to some extent, the Taoiseach's pet project and that he did not invigilate it closely? Was the Taoiseach not remiss when the project began in that he did not set out clearly its objectives? Is he not personally liable in this regard?
The Minister stated the net amount spent in start-up capital for MLE was €35.5 million. Will the State receive any revenue from the liquidation? Is there any other return to the State? What was the size of the workforce within six months of the closure and on the date of closure? What will happen to the fine researchers and graduates that worked for the company?
I am glad the Minister stated he will initiate consultation with local universities and research institutions. Does he not agree that the Government having embarked on this project without having fully consulted the Dublin Institute of Technology and Trinity College Dublin, both of which were within a mile of the company, was arrogant and foolish? Does he agree that the Taoiseach made this decision?
Will the Minister comment on the fact that 50 people have been left without jobs and that the Liberties, an important area of our city, has been left without a flagship project? Bearing that in mind, does he not deplore the fact that four chief executives departed the company, one after the other, with golden handshakes worth up to €400,000 although they had only served for very short periods?
On the last question, that four chief executive officers left over a period of five years is a clear indication of the correctness of the decision made and of the fact that MLE certainly had its difficulties. The company made its own decisions in this matter and it had nothing to do with the Department. The company was a stand-alone company and not a semi-State company and therefore the decision on job cuts was the responsibility of the board. This also holds true for the decision to liquidate the company. The latter decision was made on foot of the Government's decision that no further funding would be made available.
At the time of liquidation, the number of staff amounted to no more than 50. Many of these were researchers and were not employed by the company on a full-time basis. They were contracted to work for specified periods. A number of students were also employed, who were obviously associated with colleges and continued to do their research.
On the question as to whether there was any return on the €35.5 million invested or whether the State expects to obtain further returns, the buildings are and were State-owned. That the company employed people over the five years of its existence resulted in the lodgment of a number of patents, thereby resulting in some returns to the State. The details on achievements over the five years are available on the Department's website.
How much?
Allow the Minister to respond without interruption.
On the question of whether the committee shadowing my Department or the Committee of Public Accounts should investigate the matter, nobody has alleged that there was any wrongdoing in respect of this issue and therefore I would not use the word "investigate". My Department and I would certainly have no objection to co-operating if a committee wanted to seek the background details on the matter. I would certainly not term it "an investigation".
Does the Taoiseach have personal responsibility?
I am the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The body was under my aegis since I took up that position. It is my responsibility.
The Minister did not set it up, however.
We made a collective decision in that regard. It was a Cabinet decision and not an individual decision by the Taoiseach. I recall the relevant memo coming to Government. It was an exciting project and it was unfortunate that the dip in the dot.com sector and the general recession occurred when they did because the company could have delivered had economic conditions remained favourable.
What steps are being taken to ensure that the digital hub is successful and is not associated with the failure of Media Lab? Does the Minister not agree that the departure of four chief executive officers in such a short period should have rung alarm bells for the Government?
It should have set the red lights flashing.
Exactly. The concerns and scepticism of many when the project was initiated should also have come to the Government's attention when the company failed to achieve self-funding status and was unlikely to do so by 2005. Has the Minister met the staff of 50 whom he mentioned, the innovators and researchers since the announcement of the closure?
Was he aware of the work of the south-west inner city computer clubhouse which, in its infancy, provided excellent opportunities for young children in a disadvantaged area targeted by RAPID and the drugs task force? These children never hoped for such opportunities. What will happen to the clubhouse on the site of Media Lab and will money be set aside to ensure it will continue while the Minister decides the future of the rest of the project?
Were the patents of Media Lab held by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the State? What is the breakdown of the money which I hope will accrue from much of the innovative work conducted in Media Lab? I visited it shortly before the announcement of its closure. It is to be hoped that some of the projects and patents will make up for some of the bad investment. Has the Minister visited the site and, now that it has closed, has he any intention of doing so to speak to the staff and ascertain their hopes for the company?
I visited the site at least twice in the three months since I took office to see Media Lab and the digital hub. I am aware of the clubhouse and the work done there. We brought Mrs. Kofi Annan to visit it and she was impressed by the activity there. That continues as does the Government's commitment to it which will remain in place.
In the files covering its five years of existence and the departure of four chief executive officers, there is no item to suggest that this was raised in the House or that people called for the closure of Media Lab as a result of what was happening there. Nobody raised any serious concerns about it.
It was a five-year experiment which was due to be reviewed in 2005. That review began in 2004 because at that stage, three of the chief executive officers had moved on. There were difficulties of which the Department was well aware. It asked the company to produce its strategic plan which it did three or four months later in the middle of 2004. Officials in the Department, and my predecessor, regarded the plan as inadequate. Experts were brought in whose report came to me shortly after I entered the Department.
There was a general commitment to making this work and we did all we could to reform Media Lab as it was, to give it an extra lease of life and continue but that was not possible. That is the basis of our decision. We are still committed to and believe strongly in the concept of research into digital media. We will try to put something different but related to digital media research into that area.
The Minister is covering for the Taoiseach. He has effectively thrown his body in front of him, which the Taoiseach did not do for the Minister in his previous office during the controversy about third level fees. The Minister's remarks are not true. I contributed to the debate on Committee Stage of the Bill on 6 March 2003, supported by Deputies Coveney and Eamon Ryan, both of whom expressed concern. We all wanted to see a successful digital village or district in our city. Our concern grew as time passed. The Taoiseach set the project up under the wrong auspices. That was the problem, as the Minister has effectively conceded today.
The Minister has proposed some dramatic initiatives in the past, although the electronic voting machines are rotting away somewhere. Could he not be more ambitious and study Kuala Lumpur and other cities for examples of a proper digital district with everybody on-line? This could be a pilot scheme with perhaps six or eight other pilots the country. The Minister should drive the project and build on this serious set back.
Is there a timeframe for the work the Minister suggests of tying Media Lab to a university or some other third level institution?
There is a timeframe for consultations, namely, the end of this month and early next month. I hope we will receive expressions of interest. The tender document has been released inviting these by the middle of this year when they will be assessed.
In response to Deputy Broughan I wish to enter a caveat that we should not allow the failure of the experiment with Media Lab to overshadow the success of the digital hub concept. There are over 40 companies working there employing approximately 400 people, and significant work is taking place in the local community, which is a beacon. Ironically, Media Lab was destined to be the flagship of the digital hub which has now superseded it and is self-sustaining.
It is a pity my socialist friends in the Labour Party did not give me more support on the third level fees issue. We might have made more progress on it if they had.
66 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his policy with regard to the fish processing industry on the west coast, in particular in Killybegs; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many factories have no fish to process and that several fish processing factories have closed; and if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that at the same time as this is happening, a company (details supplied) in Scotland is expanding significantly to cater for Irish boats, which are now bypassing Killybegs to land their fish. [3885/05]
View answerFor many years, County Donegal, in particular the Killybegs area, has been to the forefront of the Irish fishing industry, and has been a vital source of permanent and seasonal employment opportunities in coastal communities as well as boosting the local economy through ancillary industries. The pelagic processing industry is going through a period of change arising from various factors which have impacted on the industry. A critical factor is the high price being paid for mackerel across the market. It is probable that some ongoing restructuring of the processing sector will continue as firms position themselves to provide long-term sustainable jobs for the area in a competitive international market.
EU measures to strengthen control in pelagic fisheries, introduced in 2004 as a consequence of concerns about illegal landings right throughout Europe, will continue this year. The effective implementation of these measures is critical to ensure the medium to long-term sustainability of fish stocks and to maximise the market prices for vessel owners respecting quota allocations. I responded to industry concerns about the impact of these new procedures and secured at last December's Fisheries Council a commitment that the Commission would bring forward proposals that will allow fish to be weighed after transport from the port of landing while ensuring full control and accountability. The Commission brought forward informal proposals in this regard, which are currently being evaluated.
Equally importantly, new arrangements have been put in place in designated landing ports in Ireland that allow for weighing of fish and the subsequent addition of refrigerated seawater. The new system addresses to a significant extent the quality and other concerns expressed by the industry last year. By working together, we will ensure the pelagic seafood sector in Donegal maintains its pre-eminent position and remains an economic linchpin of its coastal communities.
The Government has no plans to close down the fish processing industry on the west coast. The Deputy will recall the Government investment of €50 million in the major new harbour development at Killybegs. We want a return on that investment through more fish being landed at Killybegs. My officials and I will work closely with the industry with a view to attracting more of the vessels into Killybegs.
One would get the impression from the question that the fish are being caught south of Donegal and are bypassing Killybegs on their way to Scotland. Deputy Perry will be aware that in December and January the fish are largely off Norway. They move outside the line east of 4°W and then into the waters of Scotland and Norway, and fishermen are taking full advantage of the prices there. However, I would prefer that they landed their fish in Killybegs, providing jobs for the hard-pressed processors and seasonal workers.
There are no fish left in Irish waters. The overfishing the Government has allowed has caused the problem.
The Indecon International Economic Consultants report on fish processing in 2001 stated there were 29 pelagic fish processing companies at that date. There now appear to be 14, which suggests that up to 15 companies have closed in the past three years. Is this a huge concern considering the economic spin-off not alone to fish processing but to the supply chain of that industry?
What changes are necessary in our domestic quota management to reflect the new fleet development and reduced quota for key species? There has been a dramatic change in emphasis in regard to different species. Is the Minister concerned with the closure of 15 companies since 2001 and that, as we speak, Peterhead in Scotland is investing heavily to accommodate Irish boats?
I presume Peterhead is investing to accommodate Irish boats because the fish, unfortunately, are close to there at this time. The Deputy will know from his contacts in Killybegs that during the early part of the year record prices are available in that area.
I accept we have a responsibility to work with the producers and processors to develop the industry. This means not only providing jobs at sea but, equally important, jobs on land in the processing plants that have made major investments but are having problems at present. While the boats can follow the fish and land their catches into the nearest ports or where markets are most lucrative, processors cannot.
Fewer processors are operating in recent years due to the reduction in the quota for pelagic fish. As the Deputy knows, the decision on mackerel as a straddling stock is out of our hands and is decided by the EU and Norway. However, with regard to stocks over which I have some control, when I visited Brussels this year there was a proposal to significantly reduce the horse mackerel quota. Through negotiations and networking, I secured the status quo for horse mackerel and achieved a substantial increase in the blue whiting quota. I hope we can work with BIM and the industry to ensure a concentration on blue whiting so that more of it is taken ashore for human consumption purposes.
It is unsustainable fishing.
With regard to Annex IV on the weighing of fish, there is serious concern that up to 20% of the catch can be water. Will the Minister provide a timescale for an interim measure to deal with this in the coming weeks?
I recognise the problem. My officials and I spent seven hours working with the industry to try to overcome it. I assured the industry I would raise the matter when I went to Europe. I did so, and secured a political commitment from my 24 European colleagues.
Will the Minister provide a timescale?
We are working on that at present. It will be sooner rather than later but it is being actively considered. The draft, of which the Deputy is aware, was presented to the Government and the industry — processors and producers. I hope there will be a favourable decision that the industry can buy into.
In the meantime, with regard to the Annex IV regulations, measures were introduced in recent weeks, which have been beneficial if not ideal.
Why are foreign factory ships allowed to fish at will in Irish waters with no monitoring on board or at the time of landing?
They are not necessarily landing into our ports so we have no jurisdiction over that. I presume the Deputy is suggesting there should be observers on boats——
Yes.
——and that there would be no slipping of fish or discards. I have no difficulty with that and the Commission is considering it at present.
67 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to recent statements from a company (details supplied) that it will not develop any further wind projects here; his views on whether such statements are a direct response to the energy regulator’s comments that there is no need to develop the wind energy sector at this time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3884/05]
View answerThe energy regulator's letter to me took the view that additional wind energy projects can be developed without special support. It did not suggest that there is no need to develop the wind energy sector at this time. I have put the letter from the Commission for Energy Regulation out for consultation in the context of finalising the work of the renewable energy development group. I have already received some responses.
I am aware of reports that the company referred to in the question has decided to invest in other locations. This is obviously a commercial decision for the company and I have no way of knowing whether it is directly linked to the Commission for Energy Regulation letter.
My objective in regard to renewable energy is to put in place regimes that will give fair and reasonable returns and incentivise bankable projects while taking into account national competitiveness and the interests of consumers. If, as a result of the work of the renewable energy development group, we succeed in putting in place a regime that meets this objective, it is reasonable to expect that additional projects will come forward, over and above those already committed. I want to see our target for 2010 being met in full, as a minimum.
Is the statement by the Commission for Energy Regulation in effect an example of the regulator making policy and doing the Minister's job? Is it the Minister's job to set the ultimate parameters of the types of energy this country will use? Is this a step too far by the regulator? Has the regulator a busy time ahead given that we are only days away from full market opening on 19 February?
Does the Minister's statement mean we cannot expect any other alternative energy requirements, AERs, and that AER V and AER VI will be the last? To what does the Minister attribute the failure to bring on-stream more megawatts of wind energy given the existence of those two schemes? Have the issues that arose in regard to the integration of wind power into the national grid been dealt with in the new grid code? Is the Minister satisfied there are no more technical problems in regard to integrating wind into the national grid?
Does the Minister have ideas to bring forward on market support mechanisms for wind power? The company to which I refer, Airtricity, stated more than a week ago its enterprise would be devoted to the other country in western Europe with massive wind resources, namely, Scotland. Is the Minister disappointed this trailblazing company has had to turn away from Ireland because of what it feels is a lack of commitment, by the Minister's predecessor in particular, to the development of wind power?
The British target is still to have up to one sixth of energy created from wind and renewable energy sources by 2010. Given our resources, is the determination of the Department very poor in this regard and, therefore, is the regulator's comment unfortunate?
As I said in my original response, the regulator took the view that wind energy projects could be developed without special support. The regulators are entitled to their view. It is not a policy decision by me. The current policy is that by 2010 we will provide 13.2% of our energy from alternative sources. What will emerge following the current review of the renewable energy development group, plus the wider review of the electricity market etc., which I have already announced, will form the basis for any new policies, not anything the regulator might say.
The Deputy mentioned the word "failure" in regard to AER VI, AER V and the other AER programmes. He is being unduly negative in this regard. My information is that the target of 13.2% will be met, which is reasonable. I agree with the Deputy that we must be much more ambitious in the future. When the renewable energy development group and the short-term analysis group have reported, we will need to have a wider debate on setting targets in the future.
The Deputy asked whether there were any more technical issues. I am not sure whether there are more technical issues, but some of the same technical issues are causing difficulties or being used in highlighting the difficulties with wind energy and putting it onto the grid in particular. The Deputy referred to some of them, such as code compliance, wind turbine modelling, wind forecasting techniques and so on. I am reliably informed at this stage that there is 80% certainty of the wind conditions a minimum of 24 hours beforehand, which appears to be good odds. There are other things like constraining off. The physical problems that must be overcome include grid development. The Deputy is correct that in some parts of the country the grid is weak. Wind farms would operate best in many of these areas.
On market support mechanisms, I said at the outset that one must balance a number of conflicting issues when making decisions such as this. There must be fair and reasonable returns for the people who initiate these projects, but one must also take into account national competitiveness and the interests of consumers. The more grants that are made available, if one decides to go that route, the greater the cost to consumers. The company concerned would like to see a system in place similar to the renewable obligation certificates, ROCs, system in the UK. My information is that this would be much more expensive for the country and consumers. For that reason, there is no proposal to go down that particular route at the moment.
What percentage of our electricity comes from renewable sources today?
I do not have the figure off the top of my head, but it is less than 5%.
