Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 May 1994

Page 2

We are dealing today with the Estimates in respect of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. I welcome the Minister and his officials. The members have a proposed timetable. Are there any comments and is it acceptable to the committee? There are subheads in various groups, including administration and energy. If the members wish we can subdivide them, because some of the groupings are fairly substantial — for example, civil aviation includes subheads D1 to D12. I suggest we take D1 to D6 and then the second part of that group rather than take the whole item together, because it is substantial. I have no doubt that the Minister could cope with the wide range of questions, but it would be more efficient and there would be greater attention to detail if we subdivided that group. Energy has nine subheads. Is it agreeable to the committee to subdivide civil aviation between D1 to D6 and then D6 and D12? Agreed. I will now call on the Minister, Deputy Cowen, to make his opening statement.

Vote 18 — Transport, Energy and Communications (Revised Estimate).

I welcome this opportunity to discuss with the committee the 1994 Estimates for my Department. Last year, for the first time, departmental Estimates were considered in this way and the procedure was successful in providing information on the various areas of my Department and the reasons why funds had been made available. We had an in-depth debate on all of the sectors for which I have responsibility and, as I recall, Deputies were given ample opportunity to express their views and concerns. I hope today's session will be equally constructive.

It would be appropriate for me to give the committee a brief outline of the nature and extent of my Department's responsibilities and functions. This should help the committee to understand the background against which the Estimates were framed. The transport, energy and communications sectors, for which I am responsible, have vital contributions to make in the realisation of our economic objectives. These three areas embrace a considerable segment of the commercial State sector of our economy. The commercial State bodies under the aegis of the Department employ over 60,000 and have a combined turnover of £3.7 billion. These bodies have a major role to play in the provision of essential services to the economy and in helping the whole economy to adapt and prosper.

In addition to the services provided by the State bodies, my Department's functions include issuing of licences for on-shore and off-shore exploration and development, for road haulage, for tour operators and travel agents and for the relay/transmission of multi-channel television. Two other services, the Meteorological Service and the Geological Survey play an important role in the provision and updating of vital information to many sectors of the economy.

Deputies have already been given briefing notes on the subheads. The structure of this year's Estimates has changed from 1993, mainly due to the transfer of functions of the former Air Navigation Services Office (ANSO) to the newly established State body, the Irish Aviation Authority. A number of new subheads are included in the Estimates to accomodate the financial arrangements agreed with the Authority, while some subheads which related specifically to ANSO requirements are no longer needed.

The gross expenditure provision for my Department in 1994 is £223.797 million. Appropriations-in-aid are estimated at £41.115 million, giving a net estimate of £182.682 million. The net figure shows an increase of over £70 million against the 1993 equivalent. While there are a number of variations in the Vote, the net increase is due mainly to the provision of payments to An Post and Telecom Éireann of the State's first instalment to the pensions of staff of the former Department of Posts and Telelgraphs in respect of pre-vesting day service.

As announced in his Budget Statement earlier this year, the Minister for Finance has provided £72.5 million this year to An Post and Telecom Éireann in respect of his liability for these pension payments. Ongoing costs in respect of the liability involved will arise in future years. The Minister for Finance is currently examining proposed arrangements for dealing with his ongoing liability to these two funds.

On the administration budget the provision for the running costs of my Department, the "A" subheads, is £23.836 million, which includes a figure of £1.265 million carried over from 1993. The running costs are governed by the terms of a three-year administrative budget agreement which each Department has concluded with the Department of Finance. Under the terms of the agreement the Department must show a saving of 2 per cent in each of the years 1995 and 1996 over the 1994 figure. Within certain limits, the Department is then free to manage its own administrative costs in the most cost-effective way.

In the energy area there are a number of significant developments to which I would like to refer. On electricity, Deputies are aware that last year the Government approved proposals for a major restructuring of the electricity industry designed to stimulate efficiency and create a market which will respond effectively to the wide variety of customer needs. The proposals are fully in line with the recommendations of the Culliton committee and also reflect general trends within the European Union. The ESB is being reorganised into five business units: power generation; national grid; customer services; commercial enterprise and business services, with each unit producing separate accounts to ensure full cost transparency.

Under the restructuring proposals the ESB's monopoly on the sale of electricity will end, an independent power procurement function will be established and an independent regulatory agency, funded by the industry, will be established to ensure that the market is fair, transparent and cost effective. Further extensive work is required before new regulatory arrangements can be implemented.

In addition, I recently announced that a cost and competitiveness review of the ESB would take place which would examine how the company's operations compare with best international practice. Work is under way on that review. The conclusions will serve to inform the Government in its assessment of the need for future price adjustments and on the appropriateness of the ESB's proposed capital expenditure programme. The results will also be fed into the restructuring study. I expect the review to be completed by August of this year.

On gas, the provision of adequate and secure supplies of energy to all sectors of the economy at reasonable cost is a vital part of the Government's strategy for fostering economic growth. The long term development and continued improvement of gas network infrastructure, security of supply, emergency supply and linking with a trans-European gas network are important aspects of that strategy. Also, the Government is committed to natural gas as it believes it can play an important role in the balance of energy sources, whether or not that gas is imported, both for reasons of the efficiencies that can be obtained by gas used in modern plant and because, as the least polluting of all fossil fuels, it will be central to our strategy for limiting harmful emissions. Furthermore, a diverse range of fuel supply options means that we are not overly dependent on any single source, so supply security can be maintained.

Existing reserves of natural gas — Kinsale Head and the smaller Ballycotton Field discovered in 1989 — will be depleted early in the next decade. I am hopeful that current and future exploration in our offshore will identify further reserves, but we must plan prudently in case further reserves are not discovered. For this reason Bord Gáis Éireann undertook the construction of a gas interconnector pipeline linking the UK grid in Scotland with the Irish grid.

The pipeline is complete and in December last Bord Gáis took delivery of the first gas from the UK via the interconnector. The entire project, including the compressor station in Scotland and the pressure reduction station in County Dublin, will be completed later this year. It will cost in the region of £250 million and is being grant-aided by the European Union out of its REGEN initiative at 35 per cent of approved cost. Bord Gáis is providing the remainder of the funding, mainly through borrowing from the European Investment Bank and by means of a syndicated bank loan. The pipeline will initially be used to access alternative emergency supplies in the event of a disruption in supply from the Kinsale Head platforms and to augument production as the fields decline. The pipeline will give access initially to the UK grid and eventually to the greater European grid, which will enable us to access our gas supplies from a number of sources. In the event of further indigenous supplies being discovered, the pipeline can be used to export any gas which is surplus to our requirements.

On peat, as part of its strategy for the future Bord na Móna has made two proposals to me aimed at securing the future of peat production and peat generated electricity. One is a proposal for a new 120 mW peat fired power station to be located in the east Midlands using the most up-to-date technology. This would involve the consumption of an additional one million tonnes of peat per annum which would significantly improve Bord na Móna's finances.

The National Development Plan includes a proposal to provide Structural Fund aid for a peat fired generation station which the plan identified as a key project in the energy sector. Discussions are continuing with the EU Commission in the context of agreeing the Community Support Framework, or CSF, for Ireland aimed at securing Structural Funds for this project.

The other proposal from Bord na Móna is one aimed at reducing the burden of debt while enabling milled peat to be sold on a more competitive basis. While Bord na Móna has undertaken a major rationalisation programme in recent years it is in a serious financial position with net borrowing of £180 million at the end of March 1993 and a negative net worth of £77 million. The Government is committed to the continued use of peat for electricity generation provided it is economic to do so. It is in this context that both proposals are currently under consideration in my Department.

In relation to oil, in response to the recommendations of the Culliton and Moriarty reports the Government decided that the mandatory off-take of petroleum products from Whitegate Refinery at cost recovery prices must be terminated by the end of 1996 at the latest. In order to enable the refinery to compete with market prices after 1996, the board of the Irish National Petroleum Corporation (INPC) developed a three-year plan, which was approved in December 1993, for commercialisation of refinery operations. The plan, which is currently in the course of implementation, incorporates investments costing about £26 million and marketing initiatives including a broadening of the product range. These developments will secure the 155 jobs at Whitegate, enhance our energy security and lead to reduced prices for petrol, diesel and home heating oil, thereby contributing to the international competitiveness of the Irish economy.

The greatly increased funding in the 1994 Estimates in respect of energy conservation reflects the importance attached to this area by the Government. This has been outlined in the Programme for a Partnership Government and the National Development Plan, which target energy conservation as a priority area to be promoted in all sectors of the economy. The potential for energy conservation in cost terms is significant and its economic importance is self-evident. It is my intention that a dynamic new programme will be developed and expanded in 1994 and in the following years.

This programme will be centred around the establishment of an Irish energy centre which will be set up later this year and will co-ordinate the energy conservation measures referred to in the Programme for a Partnership Government and the National Development Plan. These measures will boost the efficiency of energy use and so reduce the cost requirements in national output which will have the impact of creating employment through improving competitiveness.

A key feature of the new conservation programme will be the introduction of a scheme to provide grant assistance to carry out energy audits in all sectors of the economy. Such audits have been recognised as a major first step in evaluating the potential for energy saving in organisations and the provision of grant support for consultancy costs will encourage the setting up of companies offering an energy auditing service. An ongoing pilot project which has been developed by Forbairt in the field of energy audits for industry is at an advanced stage and will be of assistance in encouraging the increased use of such audits. Of course, it is also important that the recommendations of energy audits be implemented and for this reason assistance will also be provided for the selective implementation of such recommendations.

In the minerals development sector, one of the cornerstones of Government policy is to facilitate the creation of useful and productive new employment taking full advantage, where possible, of all our human and natural resources. The minerals industry in Ireland already makes an important contribution to the national economy and has the potential to increase that contribution significantly. We are now on the threshold of a new era in the minerals industry in Ireland as the development of the major zinc/lead deposits at Galmoy and Lisheen gets closer. These developments have the potential to provide 500 to 600 well paid long term jobs and I remain determined that both these projects will get under way with the minimum of administrative delay.

In the case of the Galmoy mine project, I have now reached agreement with Arcon International Resources plc. on the terms and conditions of a State mining licence which I propose to grant to the company subject to consideration of any representations I receive in response to the notice which I published in the national press last week. The developers of the Lisheen deposit in County Tipperary are currently finalising their planning application, environmental impact statement and related documents and it is expected that they will submit that application shortly.

The Government has decided on the establishment and the composition of a group of experts from across the various sectors concerned, to undertake a fundamental review of national minerals policy and to report this year. The objective of the review is to ensure that the contribution of mining to the national economy and, in particular, job creation, is maximised whilst ensuring that mining operates in an environmentally acceptable fashion leading to sustainable development.

My Department has recently concluded a review of the terms and procedures governing the minerals prospecting licence system. The purpose of that review was to establish means to stimulate dynamic new prospecting activity and to streamline the prospecting licence system. I am now in consultation with the minerals industry about my proposals and I hope to implement them at an early date. I welcome the considerable upsurge of international interest in minerals exploration in Ireland, thanks to the sustained efforts of my Department and the exploration industry, and I hope that the new prospecting licensing arrangement will greatly stimulate prospecting activity by existing as well as new firms and lead to worthwhile mining development in due course.

The positive economic benefits of the availability of natural gas from the Kinsale Head and Ballycotton gas fields illustrate the importance of actively promoting hydrocarbons exploration offshore. I am convinced that we still have untested potential for further significant commercial discoveries of oil and gas. The realisation of that potential, however, is utterly dependent on the existence of a sustained and substantial level of exploration activity.

It is my intention, therefore, to ensure that all the necessary measures are taken to encourage and promote further exploration in the Irish offshore. Indeed, a number of steps along this road have already been taken. We now have in place taxation measures designed specifically to attract investment in petroleum exploration offshore Ireland together with the licensing terms introduced in 1992 which were framed to attract additional interest in the exploration of the Irish offshore. These are having the desired effect.

The Slyne and Erris licensing round closed last December and I was very pleased with the response from the industry. Five licences covering 28 blocks were awarded and the companies have undertaken an extensive work programme over the area. In January of this year another petroleum exploration licensing round was announced covering 172 blocks and one part-block in the Porcupine Basin. The closing date for this round is December next and I am optimistic that we will have a satisfactory response to this round also.

It is heartening to know that a number of major exploration companies have again turned their attention towards Ireland and I am confident that this renewed interest will lead to a significant increase in exploration activity in the coming years. If this exploration effort meets with success, we can look forward to the further substantial economic and social benefits which will arise from the development and production of hydrocarbons off our coast.

I would now like to deal with transport matters. The Estimates provide for an Exchequer subvention of £106 million to CIE, over 80 per or cent or £85 million of which goes to support rail services. The level of Exchequer subvention paid over the past number of years has been considerable and it demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to public transport. Nevertheless, because of constraints on Exchequer spending in recent years the funds available for investment in the railway have been limited. This has affected the quality of services provided by Iarnród Éireann. A considerable investment in the network will be required over the coming years. A sizeable portion of the track, the signalling and rolling stock is very old and is currently in the process of being replaced.

The Programme for a Partnership Government acknowledges the valuable contribution that the railways make towards balanced regional development. In keeping with the Government's commitment to improve and upgrade the railway network, the National Development Plan includes provision for an EU assisted investment programme of £185 million on the upgrading of the existing mainline railways. In addition, a further £90 million approximately of non co-financed investment is proposed over the period subject to the resources available to CIE. The investment programme which covers all the major lines on the inter-urban network will include expenditure on track renewal, new signalling systems and modern rolling stock. While the precise level of EU contributions remains to be finalised in the context of the Community support framework negotiations, I am confident that the national plan's proposals for mainline rail will be substantially reflected in the CSF. The agreement achieved recently, and with considerable difficulty, between management and unions in Iarnród Éireann on more cost effective working arrangements is an essential component in the total approach to a more modern and efficient railway system.

The National Development Plan also includes proposals for an EU assisted investment programme of £220 million which will enable the public transport elements of the recommended strategy of the Dublin Transportation Initiative to be substantially implemented by 1999. This investment programme will include up to £200 million in expenditure for the development of a light rail transit network in Dublin.

The basic light rail system being recommended by the Dublin Transportation Initiative is for lines to Tallaght, Cabinteely and Ballymun and would cost aproximately £300 million to implement. Possibilities for further extensions to the basic network will also be reported on in the final report of the DTI which will be completed soon. The basic system cannot be constructed within the allocation of EU and other resources totalling £200 million set out in the plan. Moreover, a longer time frame than that of the plan will be needed to complete the basic DTI network.

Again, I am confident that the agreement in principle of the European Commission to these proposals will be reflected in the CSF. Anticipating that agreement my Department has been engaged in detailed work to advise on the optimum combination of light rail links, based on the recommendations of the DTI, which should be constructed over the plan period. All of the bodies involved in the planning and provision of transportation in the Dublin area are cooperating with my Department in this work. Decisions on these issues will be taken by the Government in the coming months.

The Government's decision on the choice of light rail links will be influenced by major factors such as financial viability, congestion alleviation, levels of peak and off-peak demand, social need, ease of construction, environmental impact, etc.

Civil aviation is another important area for which I have responsibility. The aviation sector worldwide has been through turbulent times in recent years and many changes have been brought about by the need to adapt to fluctuating market conditions. We in Ireland have not been immune to the problems of the industry, but I feel we can confidently say we are now addressing these problems in a realistic and positive way. On this basis our industry is well placed to meet the further challenges ahead.

Since I spoke to this committee last year there have been some major developments and initiatives in the aviation sphere. Aer Lingus is currently implementing the strategy for the future as endorsed by the Government on 6 July last year. While the airline has turned the corner, it still has a long way to go in a challenging and ever-changing environment. The strategy for the future should be seen, therefore, as the start of an ongoing process rather than a once-off solution to the problems.

Traffic at our State airports continues to grow. In 1993, 8.4 million passengers passed through Dublin, Shannon and Cork airports. This represents a 2.5 per cent increase over the 1992 figures. Given that the indicators show that further increases can be expected, it is essential we provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the greater numbers. With this in mind, Aer Rianta will embark on a capital investment programme of £225 million over the next six years, involving upgrading facilities at the State airports.

Members will be aware the Government last year approved an essential air services programme, costing £1.5 million per annum, which will help to guarantee a minimum level of service to the six regional airports. The decision was taken against the backdrop of a sharp fall off in traffic at these airports. I have since received approval from the European Commission for subsidised internal regional services. Tenders will shortly be sought through the Official Journal of the European Union for the operation of designated routes by air carriers entitled to provide scheduled air services within Ireland.

In October last my Department successfully negotiated an amendment to the Ireland/United States air transport agreement, which safeguards the future of Shannon while providing for direct services to Dublin. As a consequence of this agreement and the Government's approval of the new trans-Atlantic fleet for Aer Lingus, the company announced in January of this year that daily direct year-round services would operate from both Shannon and Dublin to New York. A further achievement in trans-Atlantic services was the agreement by the US authorities to provide passenger pre-inspection facilities at Dublin Airport, in addition to Shannon.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the setting up on 1 January this year of a new commercial State body, the Irish Aviation Authority, which takes over responsibility for air navigation services. The board and management of the new company have set about the task of establishing an effective and efficient organisation which will continue to provide a safe and quality service.

Lastly on aviation matters, earlier this year I published a Government aviation policy document. This clearly sets out our objectives and the issues underpinning these objectives. This policy document will be kept under review, having regard to the changing international regulatory environment and market conditions. We have made significant progress in addressing problems in the past year and it is my intention that we continue this process in the coming year.

As regulator for the sector, I will continue to ensure we have policies to promote a competitive and efficient network of air links. This is vitally important for developing trade and tourism. As the representative of the shareholder for the three State bodies in aviation — Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta and the Irish Aviation Authority — it is my aim to ensure the policies adopted by these bodies are commercially driven and contribute to national economic prosperity.

In the telecommunications field, it is important to remember the paramount importance of state of the art, front line telecommunications services at competitive prices in the overall interests of the development of the economy in this period, when we are witnessing some 60 per cent of inward investment in computers and electronics. Through the availability of the most modern networks and services, we have seen large numbers of jobs created in the telecommunications sector.

Employment has been provided by Dell in Bray. Dell customers throughout Europe can now, by dialling a local number, be put through to Bray and have their queries answered in their own language by one of the 300 staff employed there. GlobalRes in Cork allows a customer in Germany to book accommodation at a hotel in France. The future of job creation in Ireland and worldwide is in the development of service industries through the availability of top class telecommunications networks and services at competitive prices.

The current issues of importance are the creation of a second mobile ‘phone service; liberalisation of the telecommunications sector; and the question of the strategic positioning of Telecom Éireann. I expect to announce a tender competition for a new mobile ‘phone service within the next few weeks and hope to issue the licence before the end of the year. I expect the second licence will be of high value to the State in its enhancement of the telecommunications infrastructure. Penetration of mobile telephony will be increased substantially as a result. This issue is part of the liberalisation of telecommunications markets and we are already beginning to see the positive results of this process for Irish business.

As Deputies will recall, I advised the Dáil of my request to the board of Telecom Éireann to investigate all options on how best the company will meet the strategic challenges it faces and to report to me later in the year. I propose to await that report before coming to any conclusions on a strategic alliance.

I am pleased that the turnaround in An Post's financial position in 1992 was continued in 1993, with a record after tax profit of £4.8 million. 1993 was a watershed year for An Post, with agreement reached between management and unions on the range of measures identified as necessary to ensure the company is in a position to remain competitive in the coming years. Notwithstanding An Post's good results for 1993 and the implementation of rationalisation measures, there is no room for complacency. The board, management and staff of the company must continue to work to ensure the postal service is able to meet the challenges of the future.

I have dealt extensively in Dáil questions with the delivery problems encountered by An Post recently. These problems are being overcome and the company continues to watch the position closely. When specific problems are identified, every effort is made to satisfy the customer.

European Commission proposals for the development of the postal sector across the EU envisage measures which would open up the sector to increased competition. While these measures have yet to be finalised and agreed by the EU, it is imperative that An Post be in a position to meet the challenge of increased liberalisation in its sector.

Before concluding, I pay tribute to the boards, management and staff of the agencies and State-sponsored bodies under my aegis, who continue to give dedicated service. Our State sector plays a pivotal part in economic activity and continues to display resourcefulness and resilience in serving the State and keeping pace with international developments. Members of this committee do not have to be reminded that the State sector is facing unprecedented challenges and enormous changes. The safety nets of State granted monopolies are under threat in a single European market which seek greater liberalisation and opening up of competition in every service sector.

The pace of technological developments is such that it is effectively opening up what appeared to be protective and protected markets. The winds of change are strong and cold and the associated challenges have to be urgently addressed. Firm and decisive remedial action by Government and the State bodies concerned is urgently needed, otherwise we will not survive as a trading nation in an open and increasingly competitive world wide environment. Aer Lingus is the prime and current example of a State body affected by these developments and by its own financial problems. Other bodies — for example, Telecom Éireann and the ESB — are moving to the top of the queue of bodies which must adapt and cope with the changes and challenges which will not go away.

There is also a need for Government Departments to respond to the challenges being posed by the rapidly changing economic scene. Against this background the Taoiseach announced last February a Government initiative designed to develop strategic management in the public service. The central thrust of the Taoiseach's initiative is about increasing effectiveness of Government Departments and agencies in all their forms. Each Department secretary and head of office is now required to put in place a process of strategic management. My Department had already begun this process.

The Programme for a Partnership Government and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work set out our policies and objectives. These documents are the essential milestones in the road ahead. I look forward to the achievement of high standards by my Department and its associated State bodies in making their contributions to the development of the national economy.

Deputy Hogan will now make a statement on behalf of the Fine Gael Party.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their extensive briefing in relation to the various departmental issues, which cover a great level of economic activity. I had hoped to discuss the Estimates before we spent the money, rather than discussing them after the money has been allocated. It would be more worthwhile to get some indication as to how the Department intends to spend money in 1995 and later on this year rather than engaging in a historical debate. Perhaps the Minister will accept that suggestion and encourage a more enlightened debate on these issues before the horse has bolted from the stable.

I agree with the Minister that the role of the State sector is of great importance to this country. Many State companies have helped to build up natural resources, energy resources, aviation services, telephone services and postal services, which directly affect the consumer and the public. Great changes will take place in the State sector in future and the Minister referred to this in the context of EU liberalisation.

I was disappointed the Minister did not tell this meeting where the Government will get the resources to make certain State companies more strong in order to withstand the competition which will inevitably arise in the future. Various companies, such as Telecom Éireann, the ESB and Bord na Móna, have issued many statements that they have grave financial difficulties in meeting the challenges posed by outside competition. As the Government is not in a position to allow more borrowing, the taxpayer is not in a position to give more money to these companies, and the consumer will greatly resist increased charges, as happened in relation to Telecom Éireann. Perhaps the Minister will clarify if his agenda includes the partial or total privatisation of any of the sectors under his remit in order to allow venture capital or private investment to accrue to those companies, which would give them the necessary financial strength to withstand such competition. Perhaps he could clarify whether the objectives and policies set out in the Programme for a Partnership Government will result in partial or total privatisation of any State company. The Fine Gael Party has no ideological hangup in relation to this matter, but promises and commitments have been given in the Programme for a Partnership Government.

The public and the workers in those companies are entitled to know where the Government stands on these issues. They are also entitled to know if the companies will be in a strong financial position to withstand the winds of change which the Minister referred to. More money will be required in order to make the companies more competitive. I have no doubt they could be strong and competitive if their non-core assets were examined with regard to sell off. Every opportunity should be examined to invest private money or venture capital in these companies or in part of the businesses of these companies in order to make them strong. The Minister knows the companies I am referring to. He should make a clear and unequivocal statement about the role of Government in State companies and the provision of finance, in terms of venture capital, to make the State sector strong to withstand the competition. Perhaps he could tell us if the Government has made decisions in this area.

The Minister indicated that many future developments will take place under the operational programme for his Department. Everyone knows that considerable confusion has resulted from the original National Development Plan, which was published in October 1993. Various proposals and financial commitments were made in that plan and these must be taken into account in this Estimate and over the next five years when deciding the type of programmes to be implemented. Perhaps the Minister could clearly indicate what projects will and will not be undertaken in the next five years, how the money will be provided in order to implement the National Development Plan and what investment proposals will be made in the near future.

There is a certain amount of confusion about whether the light rail system for Dublin will go ahead, the time-scale for it, the amount of money needed and the number of extensions which will benefit the people of Dublin and the Dublin transport system. The financial shortfall is not reflected in the Estimates being debated here today. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when we will know what is contained in the amended National Development Plan and the operational programme. I am not being cynical about this, but the Minister and the Government should ensure that they will not be accused of having something to hide before the European elections on 9 June. It is better to know what proposals are in the amended National Development Plan and it is important for this to happen sooner rather than later.

The Minister referred to various developments in his Department. As regards energy, the Minister indicated that a regulator will be required in the near future in view of the competition from other sources outside the country in generating electricity. A similar situation will arise in other State sectors. When will the legislation be published to establish the regulatory regime to allow such competition to take place? There is significant over-capacity in electricity generation here. The Minister is aware of a number of power stations which are nearing the end of their usefulness. There is a proposal for a new peat generating station in the east midlands. When this peat generating station is constructed — it would be remiss of me not to say that it is in the Minister's constituency and I am sure he would like to make an announcement on that as soon as possible — will it have implications for other power stations in the Minister's constituency? Perhaps the Minister would clear up anxieties which workers have in respect of that proposal. Meetings have been held in the midlands to express concern about this, particularly in the Rhode and Ferbane area, with which the Minister is familiar. The Minister should take this opportunity to clear up anxieties which workers have because they believe there are winds of change in respect of their future, particularly in the context of the new peat generating station which will be constructed in that area.

I am glad the Minister referred to Galmoy and Lisheen. I am familiar with these developments because they are in my constituency and, therefore, I have a vested interest. I welcome the development in mining activity in this area. A long and protracted planning process has been followed in order to allow work to go ahead so as to exploit the mineral resources which are there. It will be a largely underground mining operation, which will lend itself to a more environmentally friendly regime. Concerns have been expressed by some local people, but the majority welcome this development, the economic activity it will generate and the employment it will create. I hope it will come to fruition sooner rather than later.

I was concerned when Dr. Tony O'Reilly, a shareholder in Arcon International Resources plc., recently indicated that he was frustrated by the planning procedure which must be followed in respect of mineral exploration and exploitation. It is unwise for Dr. O'Reilly to make a statement along those lines. While he may be frustrated by the planning process, he must acknowledge that the public are entitled to articulate their concerns through the process which has been followed by Kilkenny County Council. Officials of Kilkenny County Council are guardians of the environment on behalf of the people, so, too, are officials of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. I have confidence in the officials of both bodies to ensure that the public good is fully taken into account in regard to this proposal.

Dr. O'Reilly should take the view that it is better that there is consensus and public support for the mineral exploration process which will take place in Galmoy and Lisheen and other areas, rather than confrontation with the public, which is undesirable for development in that area. If the planning process is not seen to be fair or exhaustive, he is feeding a process of confrontation.

The Minister also mentioned aviation. During the last general election there were no problems in relation to Aer Lingus and, perhaps, if decisions had been made by the Minister of the day, Deputy Seamus Brennan, the pain might not have been as severe for the workers in Aer Lingus. We all know that promises, which cannot be treated seriously afterwards, are made during an election. That is not the way to do business and the way the public sector has been treated is distasteful.

I ask the Minister whether the package agreed by Aer Lingus is sufficient to make the company viable into the future, particularly in the light of the conditions attached to the once-off State investment, which has been allowed by the EU, namely, conditions about the limit on the number of seats which may be used on various routes and the number of aircraft which may be purchased by the company. Workers are concerned that if these conditions are not renegotiated, they will impede the financial viability of the company into the future.

The Minister must put in context the agreed survival plan. He said it was the beginning of a process towards bringing Aer Lingus into financial viability. Perhaps he could make more statements about where he sees the national airline going and about the possible renegotiation of conditions attached to funding by the EU. It is similar to agricultural developments where there is a quota on all enterprises. A quota has now been imposed on the capacity of Aer Lingus to survive because of limits on the type and amount of business it may do.

Deputy Hogan has exceeded his time. I have no problem in extending the time to each speaker, if that is agreeable.

The timetable stated that the Minister was to speak from 10 a.m. to 10.15 a.m. The Chairman is being selective.

I am not being selective.

I am covering the same issues which the Minister covered.

I am prepared to extend the time, but I would like the consent of other members.

I only need a little more time.

Other members should be given the same opportunity. Normally more time is given to the Minister and he is entitled to more time.

I agree. I recently visited Cork airport. They have a tremendous operation there. Management and unions in that airport are a model of what aviation should be about because they are paying their way by borrowing money and paying it back. They do not receive any State subsidy for doing so. This is in contrast to other airports which receive significant sums of money, for example, Shannon and the regional airports. Will the Minister level the playing pitch in respect of State subsidisation of airports? The situation in Cork is farcical because it must compete with Farranfore on one side and Waterford on the other. There is probably an element of below cost selling when it comes to air fares through State subsidisation.

It is unfair that one airport should be subsidised while others are not. All airports should be subsidised — and that is farcical — or else they should be allowed to compete. The Minister must make a decision in that regard. He has, perhaps, made a decision in the Estimates that he is not prepared to give as much money to State airports and regional airports than he has been giving heretofore. Will the Minister indicate how he intends to spend that money because it has been used to subsidise air fares? Farranfore got a subsidy from the State for a domestic marketing initiative, yet some of its marketing supremos visited places in Europe in order to attract business directly to Farranfore. Perhaps that should be clarified for the other airports. The management and those working in Shannon airport are very worried about their future since the stopover has been removed and there have been direct flights from Dublin to America and from Shannon to America. Concern has been expressed by the workers there about their future. Would the Minister give some indication of whether he will go ahead with the commitment given in respect of developing Shannon as a freight terminal or whether any proposals are envisaged in that regard in the near future?

In relation to Telecom Éireann, I notice that the Minister in his statement said that he advised the Dáil after the event in respect of any discussions with outside investors in respect of the sale or otherwise of half of Telecom Éireann. I am glad that the Minister has clearly indicated that there is a proposal on the table from Cable and Wireless and that other proposals are invited for the purpose of selling off part of this State asset or attracting outside investment. I do not disagree with that, but has he the agreement of his Government in respect of this matter? The Tánaiste clearly indicated that partial or total privatisation of this or any State company would be a serious breach of the Programme for Government. Therefore, clarification is needed there politically, if the Minister is in a position to enunciate Government policy in this matter in respect of a sell-off of any part of this State company.

The rebalancing package introduced by Telecom Éireann has made an emergency service out of many daily calls and changed considerably the weekend call patterns of residential domestic users. It has dramatically increased the number of three minute calls. I was amused that the Taoiseach at a meeting in Kilkenny spoke about the increasing competitiveness of the Irish indigenous sector and at the same time we were increasing the costs of small business by increasing their telephone charges. At that meeting Mr. Pat O'Neill, the managing director of Avonmore Foods plc., said that it would be much cheaper for him to make his international business telephone calls through London rather than through the national system. This clearly indicates that he has serious problems about the rebalancing package in terms of the costs his company incurs in respect of telephone charges and the resulting lack of competitiveness.

The Minister deals with a tremendous amount of economic activity in his Department. I need some information in respect of his policy on various matters and particularly in relation to the role of the State sector, the issue of privatisation and the operational programmes when they will be published. I look forward to his replies during the course of the meeting.

The range of activities that the Minister is responsible for is not reflected in the Estimates before us. In fairness to the Minister, I am glad that his speech addressed the wider policy questions which arise from the Minister's responsibility for the main utilities in this country. I wish to take up those policy questions which the Minister raised in his opening statement and to which Deputy Hogan has also referred. Towards the end of his contribution the Minister stated that the State sector is facing unprecedented challenges and enormous changes and that the State monopolies are under threat in a single European market due to the liberalisation policies being pursued. That is very much the case. Each of the public utilities, which up to now have been State monopolies, are under threat in the context of the liberalisation policies being pursued at EU level.

While I appreciate that the Minister has consecutively examined each of the State monopolies for which he is responsible, we are still lacking a coherent Government policy on the position of these State companies in the context of EU liberalisation and on the question of liberalisation itself. We have a commitment from Government, stated in the Programme for Government and regularly reaffirmed by both the Minister and by spokespersons for the Labour Party interest in Government, that the Government is committed to retaining these public utilities in public ownership. If the question of the privatisation of these utilities is raised, it is immediately denied.

While in theory there is a Government policy that these public utilities are to remain in public ownership, in practice they are being privatised or prepared for privatisation. The Minister's present responsibility in Government seems to be to dismantle the legacy that Séan Lemass left this country, the various State monopolies that were put in place. That course of action can be justified by reference to the changing winds of world trade, EU liberalisation, changes in technology and so on. We need a clear statement of where the Government is going in relation to these State monopolies, which needs to be publicly debated. It needs to be debated at this committee and addressed both by the trade unions representing employee interests in the various companies and by the consumer interest as well.

In regard to the decision making we have been getting in relation to the State monopolies, I do not know whether it is planned in pursuit of a Government policy that has not been announced or whether it is purely ad hoc. It needs to end and we need to address the whole policy question. The main event in the course of the last year has been the Aer Lingus affair. We could usefully learn some lessons from what happened at Aer Lingus. It had been known for quite some time that Aer Lingus was facing a changed situation in relation to international competition, that the aviation industry had changed quite dramatically. The writing had been on the wall since the mid-1980s. The position in relation to the European Communities policy on liberalisation was clearly on the way from 1987 onwards; yet in this country a number of private air companies were allowed to compete against Aer Lingus for its most attractive business.

That, in turn, produced a response from Aer Lingus; for example, in relation to the London route, where there was excessive subsidisation of prices which in turn produced the kind of financial crisis that had to be addressed in the course of the last year. Throughout that period there were calls on the Government to produce an aviation policy. Sensible people argued that a Government policy on aviation was needed and, in the context of that policy, decisions should be made in relation to Aer Lingus, the other air companies and the airports. Instead of that, the Minister stated at the beginning of the crisis last year that there was an aviation policy. We then had separate decisions and the revision of those decisions in relation to Aer Lingus, airport policy, the stopover, etc. When the whole issue was agreed with the unions the Shannon issue was addressed in a fashion and we then had the publication of an aviation policy. It was a classic case of putting the horse behind the cart. One would imagine that lessons would have been learned from that experience.

The Minister identified in order the next items on the agenda; he said "Other bodies, for example, Telecom Éireann and the ESB, are moving to the top of the queue of bodies which must adapt ...". They are next on the agenda in that order - Telecom Éireann and the ESB. We have already had some indication in the Minister's speech of the creeping privatisation which is taking place already. The Minister stated that the ESB monopoly on the sale of electricity is to end; there is to be a tender for the second mobile phone service, and in relation to air traffic there will be a tender for the internal services. All of these are individual ad hoc decisions taken out of the context of overall policy.

In relation to Telecom Éireann, we now know what was known well in advance of the crisis at Aer Lingus. We know that there is a changed international scene in relation to telecommunications; we know that the technology is changing; we know that Telecom Éireann will have to participate in some strategic alliance if it is to play the role it should be playing in the economy and if it is itself to exploit, rather than be a victim of, the changing circumstances in telecommunications. I would have expected that by now the Government would have published their policy on telecommunications.

Before we proceed any further with tendering for the second mobile telephone service, leasing out lines to companies like Esat to cherry pick some of the more attractive areas of the telecommunications business, or the strategic alliance, the Government and the Minister should produce a policy on telecommunications which should be debated and on which decisions can be based and assessed, rather than, as happened with Aer Lingus, having decisions first and policy later.

As in the case of Aer Lingus, events now happening will prejudice the position of Telecom Éireann at a later stage. In the course of the last year we have had, for example, the so-called rebalancing of telephone charges which, no matter how one looks at it, means that the domestic consumer subsidises the international business of multinational companies and others. We also had the Minister's decision to redefine or clarify — I am not quite sure which — the definition of voice telephony services which allowed Esat, against the expressed advice of Telecom Éireann, to lease lines from Telecom Éireann at a reduced rate, because the Minister has not yet responded to Telecom Éireann's request to increase the charges for leased lines.

Telecom Éireann is, therefore, providing leased lines at a reduced rate to its competitors who can then provide voice telephony services in the most profitable areas of Telecom Éireann's business. Esat and such companies are not interested in providing a telephone service to remote villages in County Donegal or County Laois; they are interested in competing for the most profitable slices of Telecom Éireann's business — the international business. This is also the case with the reported interest of Cable and Wireless in Telecom Éireann's business. The aspect of Telecom Éireann's business which is targeted by Cable and Wireless is the international business.

In much the same way as there were companies like Ryanair cherry picking elements of the air business a number of years ago, which subsequently led to a problem in Aer Lingus, there are now a number of private telecommunications companies proceeding to cherry pick elements of the telecommunications business.

The Minister announced that the second mobile phone service is to be put out to tender. Before we even get to the point of Telecom Éireann concluding a strategic alliance we will have a situation whereby some of its most important and profitable business will already have been sliced off by various interests in the international business, making Telecom Éireann a less attractive proposition for whoever might enter into a strategic alliance with it. I want the horse be put back in front of the cart — the future of Telecom Éireann and the question of a strategic alliance should be addressed in the context of a telecommunications policy. A policy on telecommunications should be published before we have any more ad hoc decisions and creeping privatisation.

There were a number of references to constituencies and reference was made to the peat burning station in the Minister's constituency and Galmoy in Deputy Hogan's constituency. The only reference to my constituency in the Minister's speech was to Cabinteely when the possibility of the extension of the light rail system to Tallaght, Cabinteely and Ballymun was mentioned. In the course of questions in the House the Minister has been asked on a number of occasions to clarify the effect on the original plans for his Department in the National Development Plan of the reduction in the amount of Structural Funds which would be available to his Department. So far we have not managed to extract that information from the Minister with any degree of precision.

Reading between the lines of the Minister's statement this morning, it would appear that the light rail system is for the chop. The Minister talks about a longer time frame than that of the plan which will be needed to complete the basic DTI network. I interpret the paragraphs dealing with the light rail system in the Minister's speech as stating in rather circumspect language that the light system is being put on the long finger and that it will be a long time before the light rail reaches Cabinteely, Tallaght, Ballymun or any of the terminal points of the system. I know the Minister said the Government will make a decision on these issues in the coming months but what we want here is a clear statement as to what exactly, as far as the light rail system is concerned, will be done during the lifetime of the present plan? When will it be started, how far will it go and what will be is its time scale? It is possible to give that kind of information, rather than this vague statement saying that the system is being put on some kind of a long finger.

The Minister, in his speech, dealt with the question of natural gas at some length. He also referred to our limited reserves and the UK-Euro interconnector. The cost of that interconnector, at approximately £250 million, is substantial. This cost might have the effect of discouraging the spread of the natural gas network within the country. I know plans were afoot to extend it to Shannon, which is one of the major industrial areas in that county. Indeed, it would be welcome and extremely beneficial to industries there. I welcome the fact that the natural gas network has a interconnector with Britain. In view of our reserves, it is vital for its long term survival. However, I would be concerned that the cost might discourage the spread of the natural gas network. Has the Minister any proposals to deal with that?

On subhead B9, I welcome the replacement of the western aid electrification scheme with the farm electrification grants scheme and the increase in its amount to £500,000. There are some difficulties relating to the package, Chairman, in that the conditions governing it are restrictive. Would it be possible to make some alterations, especially in the case of new farmers coming into the system? It is restrictive as far as those earning off-farm income are concerned. Those two areas would need to be examined if the scheme is to be a success.

The commissioning of the THORP nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield represents a major hazard for this country and our environment as a whole. I know the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is highly involved in monitoring emissions and discharges. In the context of this estimate, is there any evidence to show that radiation levels in this country have increased? Has it been necessary to increase the finance available to the Radiological Protection Institute to monitor this new hazard? Does this Estimate adequately cover the Radiological Protection Institute in its new role in monitoring the THORP plant?

In his opening statement, the Minister referred to a number of matters relating to peat development. The Minister also referred to a proposal for a new 120 megawatt peat fired power station. The Minister said the National Development Plan includes a proposal to provide Structural Fund aid for the station. It does not. The summary says this proposal would go ahead, but the plan says a feasibility study is underway. This has all the necessary qualifications to allow the Government not to make a commitment. There is a difference between the two presentations which I find highly significant. Where does the feasibility study currently stand? Has it been completed or made available to the Minister? Can the Minister say what the position will be on foot of that study?

The Minister also said that discussions are continuing with the Commission, the aim of which is to secure Structural Funds for this project. Is this a separate discussion on this project? Is the Union support framework in this sector finalised? If so, does it include a specific allocation for this project? How does it fit in with the overall scheme of the CSF and is it one of those that will have its funding reduced, compared to the exaggerated amount indicated in the National Development Plan? This was before the 8.5 per cent reduction in the overall allocations for that plan were announced.

What will the consequences be if this project goes ahead? The Minister stated that the construction of this new power station would involve the consumption of an additional one million tons of peat per annum. Is this amount in addition to the amount of peat per annum now used, for example, in the power stations at Rhode and Ferbane? Are we to conclude from the Minister's statement that this station would operate in addition to these two stations?

I am intrigued by the other proposal on the peat sector that the Minister says he is considering. This is a proposal from Bord na Móna aimed at reducing the burden of debt while enabling milled peat to be sold more competitively. That statement is what I would call one of the classic teasers. The Minister makes the statement but does not tell us the proposal. If my memory serves me correctly, both this Government and its predecessor were delphic in their reaction to proposals to remove this burden of debt from Bord na Móna. The Minister said that the board had net borrowing of £180 million at the end of March of last year and a negative net worth of £77 million. That is fine; this has been the situation for some time. However, could the Minister tell us about the proposal aimed at reducing this burden of debt and how would it deal with this situation?

The Minister is aware that there is widespread concern about structures erected around our landscape by telecommunications companies and the ESB. A great number of people are concerned about the potential health risks of these structures. Would the Minister clearly indicate if he would engage an independent group or give additional resources to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland? That would satisfy the requirement regarding the safety or otherwise of these installations from the health viewpoint.

Deputy Killeen mentioned the funding of the pipeline and asked if it causes a problem in terms of the operability or the day to day management of the gas network. It does not and, as I mentioned earlier, the funding of the pipeline has been undertaken through a number of mechanisms, mainly the extensive grant under the REGEN initiative and the syndicated bank loan. It was a good commercial deal from the viewpoint of Bord Gáis, and, more importantly, it was completed on time and within budget.

The situation regarding Shannon is under review by Bord Gáis. It is a day to day management decision which Bord Gáis must make, based on the expected rate of returns from such an extension. It is an issue we raised with Bord Gáis to ascertain if, in addition to what we were doing for Shannon, anything could be done with regard to extending the pipeline to Shannon. It is a commercial decision for Bord Gáis and we should not interfere in the day to day decisions of semi-State companies, which should be taken in their own interest. However, it is considering the matter following our proposal.

Regarding the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, radiation levels and so on, we advised, in reply to a number of parliamentary questions and special notice questions, that the RPII has strengthened its radiation monitoring. Environmental radioactivity monitoring is undertaken by the RPII to determine the effects of these discharges on the Irish marine environment and on the Irish Sea.

Significant reductions in radioactive effluence from Sellafield occurred during the early 1980s and since then there has been a further slow decline in contamination levels. Radiation doses to typical consumers of fish are now as low as 0.1 per cent of the International Commission for Radiological Protection annual dose limits for members of the public from controllable sources of radiation.

While the principle objective of our monitoring programme is to obtain an estimate of the radiation exposure of the Irish public, it also enables us to detect unrecorded discharges, examine trends and generally relate the quantities reported as having been discharged with the institute's own monitoring results. This information has been regularly published in the form of reports by the then Nuclear Energy Board from 1982, and subsequently by the RPII.

All discharges of radioactivity into the marine and aerial environment should be progressively reduced and ultimately eliminated. It must be emphasised that the occurrence of an accident at Sellafield cannot be ruled out and remains a serious and legitimate concern for this country. The RPII is continuing the intensive programme of monitoring the contamination levels in the Irish Sea to determine the effects of radioactive discharges in the Irish marine environment. Once the THORP reprocessing plant proceeded, despite our strong protest and objections, the RPII strengthened further its monitoring equipment. In this respect a significant investment has been made. For example, equipment, such as krypton-85 gas, to undertake this extra monitoring has been purchased. It is important to ensure that we set out the exact position. While there is no cause for alarm, there is no room for complacency either and in this respect the RPII undertake a scientific and vigilant approach to the issue.

Regarding the issue of the peat fired power stations, there is a reserve in the east midlands area of approximately 30 million tons, which makes the examination of the feasibility of a peat fired power station that would consume one million metric tons per year an issue to be considered by Bord na Móna. It undertook a detailed feasibility study on this and that is with me for consideration at present.

On the feasibility study, it should be emphasised that the question of a capital grant is an important aspect of ensuring that the proposition is economically viable. For this reason we have sought assistance from the EU Commission in the context of the Structural Funds negotiations. These discussions on the energy operational programme are ongoing and we hope to have a decision by the end of June 1994 confirming the position.

Deputy Dukes, coming from the same sort of constituency as myself, can be assured that I am especially interested in this matter. During all the negotiations, that, whatever about the initial response from the EU Commission regarding the prospect of EU assistance for a power station, I have refused to take it off the table. I have made it clear that I regard it is a flagship project within our own operational programme and that we wish it to proceed. I am confident that we will get the requisite aid to allow us to proceed.

The EU Commission has never grant aided a power station anywhere in Europe previously. However, not only from the viewpoint of the importance of the peat industry and regional development but also from an economic viewpoint, it is an important and feasible proposition, given the state of the art technology that is available and the efficiencies and rationalisations that have been undertaken in the area of peat production by Bord na Móna over the past four or five years.

Regarding the effect this development has on existing plant and power stations, consideration must be given to the consequences if there is no new plant. Bord na Móna is selling tonnages into existing peat stations at a progressively decreasing level as the stations come to the end of and, in some instances, exceed their designed life. The status quo is not therefore a tenable position. Bord na Móna has repayments to make on borrowings and it needs a secure source of supply in terms of purchases of milled peat in the required tonnages to make the revenues available to meet the repayments. To agree to the status quo therefore would be to accept that the future of peat production in Ireland will not continue in the long term. We must ensure that there is maximum use of indigenous resources in our energy policy. The rationalisation and increases in productivity which has taken place in Bord na Móna, coupled with the new technology that is available, allows peat to be an economic proposition.

I am confident that sanction will be granted to proceed with this plant, and in that event the use of existing plant will also be maximised. All power stations have finite lives. For example, the plants at Arigna and at Allenwood, in Deputy Dukes' constituency, have closed. Plants such as these were built in the late 1950s and early 1960s and have a finite life, depending on the number of units within each station. In view of this, if there is to be a future for peat, there must be an investment in new technology. These issues will be addressed in the overall context. The status quo is not an option. We are working on a scheme to reduce Bord na Móna’s debt. The board of the company has been instructed to reduce this debt and has been successful in doing so in recent years. It is clear that the level of debt is such that the company needs decisions to be made on power stations in terms of tonnages so that they can work out projections to enable them to reduce the debt. The Europeat I power station is an intrinsic part of the repositioning of the debt.

The RPII deals with nuclear installations and radiation. In relation to electromagnetic radiation, expert reports on the masts in Galway and Cork, which were commissioned by my predecessor, Deputy Molloy, were provided by Dr. McManus. They show there is no cause for concern in relation to health because of these issues. This concern is being raised in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the system, in some instances by people for their own purposes. There is no cause for concern, I have said this in the House on innumerable occasions. We hope that the weight which the Department's message carries will be taken on board. I do not see any reason, in the absence of evidence, for any further study. The emission of radiation is miniscule and is well below all international standards. It is about one ten-thousandth of what is regarded as normal and acceptable.

I thank the Minister for his clarification about the RPII in respect of electromagnetic and non-ionised radiation. He is mistaken if he feels the concerns of people are not genuine and are being used as a decoy by people operating illegal deflector systems to exploit the situation. The Minister knows this and has been well briefed on it. He could release the studies which have been carried out on the matter and on which he has based his decision. He could give copies of them to me. He could also give me a copy of the McManus report. I have not recieved it altough the Minister indicated he would send it to me.

It is available and I will have it sent to the Deputy.

There are also other studies on which the Minister may have based his decision. I am concerned that health boards do not have the resources or the manpower to examine this matter. The Minister said on many occasions that he would consult the Department of Health about this. When I asked the South-Eastern Health Board if it examined the issue, it told me that neither it nor the Department of Health would have the resources or the competence to do so. The Minister clearly indicated there will be a major change in the operation of Bord na Móna so that it can reduce its debt. He is clearly talking about an issue to which I referred, that is that part of the company will be hived off and that venture capital or private investment will be sought from an outside source to assist the company to reduce its debt.

My understanding of the proposal for a new power station is that the funding for it will provided by a consortium of interests, including private interests. The Minister told us he is seeking funding from the EU under the Community support framework. If funding under this framework emerges, it will only be a proportion of the total cost of the project. What other investors has the Minister in mind? It seems clear that in its present position Bord na Móna is unlikely to be a major player as it has a negative net worth of £77 million. Has any progress been made in finding other investors?

I take the Minister's point about the difficulty in relation to existing peat fire generating stations. He went to some pains to point out that he believes the status quo is untenable. Consumption by these stations is declining and this is likely to be the situation for some time. Surely this means that even if the proposed new generating station comes on line, there will not be a net increase of one million tonnes in the offtake of peat from Bord na Móna for electricity generation. We all hope the board will find other markets for its peat but there will not be a net gain of a million tonnes for generation if we have a new power station using a million tonnes and consumption in the existing stations continues to decline.

Chairman, could you inquire why the television monitors up to 20 or 30 minutes ago showed that the committee had adjourned?

My sight is not that good.

Channel three of the monitor in my office has been showing since some time before 11 o' clock that the committee had adjourned.

Deputy Dukes was here at 10 o' clock and would have known the committee was not going to adjourn.

It is kind of the Deputy to point this out but others rely on information from elsewhere. Had the committee's meeting been on the air and Deputy Coughlan was shown to be speaking, I would have rushed here.

The meeting is not being televised and it would not have been possible to see Deputy Coughlan so the Deputy has to come and see for himself what is happening. I have no control over what appears on the monitor. The matter will be checked out.

That is why I am asking you politely and diffidently, as is my normal custom, to inquire.

I will do everything possible to seek an explanation.

With regard to the points made by Deputy Hogan and to re-iterate my point, were there not powerful vested interests seeking to maintain the illegal system, my assurances on the health factor might have been accepted by people a long time ago. It is in the interests of people making money from operating outside the system to continue to heap confusion on confusion and latch on to any argument which may help continue the resistance of people to the new system.

In relation to the peat station, the first thing is to establish its feasibility and, because there is a capital grant involved, the wherewithal of that capital grant has to be established to allow us to proceed. Decisions will have to be taken on the questions of ownership and what consortia will tender for the job at that stage. It may well be the case that if the EU Commission provides the funds, it will want to see an independent evaluation, that the job is tendered for on an open basis within the rules outlined at EU level and so on. Such EU compliance will probably be involved anyway.

Is that for construction?

For construction. The people who will build it will also, presumably, operate it. As I say, I have an open mind on that — whoever comes with the best tender which will enhance the feasibility and economic viability of the project will obviously have to be given great weight. Everybody in that field acknowledges that competition in that whole area is the way forward. As I say, the question of ownership and so on will not be addressed until we establish that we can go ahead with the project on the basis of funds being available for it. I have an open mind on how we are going to do it, as, I think, does everyone in the business.

On the question of net tonnages, obviously when one goes through the projections there will be an increase in tonnages at a certain point and then the other ones would start to decrease significantly. As I said, the question of one million tons of peat to that station is a big increase. There are increased revenues available to the board as a result of that.

If we do not have a new station we cannot consume the peat; if we do not consume the peat we cannot maintain the jobs — not only in Bord na Móna but future jobs in the whole midland bog region have to be developed. There are 30 million tons of peat there which we want to see developed and this is the only way in which we can do it. I would be confident that we will get over those problems as we go ahead. However, I have an open mind on the whole ownership and tendering questions. Those decisions have not yet been taken.

We will now move to subheads C1 to C5 on road and rail transport.

My question is in relation to the Dublin Transport Initiative. I do not need to point out that the current traffic situation in Dublin is absolutely chaotic. We have a chronic situation developing week by week. I am told that the answer to all this is the Dublin Transport Initiative and that the recommendations it is going to make will sort out this problem once and for all. However, we have been waiting for some time to get the final report of the Dublin Transport Initiative. When will the final report be issued? It is very important that it would be published as soon as possible.

I know that the Minister deals with the rapid rail transit network in this Estimate but very much linked to that is the whole question of roads, in particular the port access route. We must have a port access route in that Dublin Port is choked and it is impossible for it to operate efficiently. The northern leg of the road is extremely important. I know that it does not come under the Minister's brief but it is very much linked to public transport. The question of the light rail transit network and which sections are given priority would be linked to whatever decision is taken in relation to the port access route.

Arising from that, would the Minister know at this stage if there are any plans to develop a new DART station for the Fairview area of north Dublin? It is something which is talked about in various interim reports. Does the Department have any information in relation to the provision of that much needed service in the Fairview area?

On this part of the Estimate I notice that the Minister — possibly because this was prepared some time in advance — did not refer to the new Arrow service which he inaugurated the other day and which we are all delighted to see. We all hope that the Minister could hit the bullseye on other occasions as easily as he did on that occasion.

Has the Minister or Iarnród Éireann given any consideration to extending that service to Monasterevin, Portarlington and eventually possibly even to Portlaoise? I do not think that it would be an exaggeration to say that Portlaoise is part of the commuter belt around Dublin. Kildare certainly is. Iarnród Éireann is already receiving quite a deal of business from residents in the Portarlington area, as the Minister would know, and Monasterevin. There is a perfectly good station in Monasterevin which could do with some refurbishing and would be a very valid part of the network.

I know that the Minister may not like to talk about this too much because the other day, owing to what might be called a little glitch, the Minister was left standing on the platform in Kildare station while the rest of us were waiting for him in Naas and Sallins. We had to send the train back to get the Minister. I am delighted that he arrived, but it was not really the best kind of event to mark the opening of an Arrow station. One does not often get a chance to send the arrow back to where it came from.

Would the Minister also take on board the fact that while this new service is a substantial improvement for commuters on the line, it will continue to run into difficulties, as it has for the last few days, for as long as Iarnród Éireann's difficulties with its mainline trains remain unresolved? The Minster knows perfectly well that to make that service work properly, the schedules of the mainline trains have to be properly observed and a portion of that line services the west, south and south-west. If Iarnród Éireann continues to have problems with its locomotives and other rolling stock on those services, they will get in the way of the arrows flying from Kildare into the heart of Dublin.

Will the Minister's view of the programme of rail improvement deal with this particular issue, because without it the Arrow service will lose some of its bloom? That would be a great pity because the idea is an extremely good one and it is a perfectly good extension. The same difficulty arises with the service to Dundalk, although I do not think that the difficulties there have been as great because there has been some investment in recent years in the main line rolling stock on the Dublin to Belfast line.

Would the Minister ask Iarnród Éireann to pay some attention to what is happening on the mainline trains which use the same line as the Arrow? As the Minister probably knows, for a period last winter there were days when whole trains seemed to disappear. They seemed to get as far as Portarlington and then disappeared in a way which kept the next train from appearing as well for quite some time afterwards. It is a problem and to make the Arrow service work properly we need to make sure that the mainline services are not interfering with it.

Is it confined to one ferry company or could others qualify? I am not certain whether there is more than one operating. The Rossaveel service to Aran and the Doolin service are much more popular. It is important in terms of service to the island, to maintain the Galway service. Is it already committed to one company or is it available to be taken up by other companies?

The service is covered by a five year contract which started in 1990 and which will be up for review in 1995. There is only one as we do not think the traffic is sufficient to merit two.

There is a slight change with regard to the famous Arrow train. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Transport he launched the Bombardier buses and they would not go. When I launched a train, it did not wait for me, at least we are going from one extreme to the other. Before I sat down for my celebratory meal someone asked me if there was any chance of it coming to Monasterevin. The minute one puts anything in place, the next parish is looking for it.

Much work has gone into the scheduling and the system being put in place which is a huge success. I am sure everything can be examined but I would not like to raise expectations at this stage. Obviously a certain amount of surveying would have to done. The project would have to be viable and it is a commercial decision for themselves at the end of the day.

I join the Deputy in saying that it has the prospect of being an excellent service. There are already some developments in the areas near the station. A residential development there will certainly bring in some much needed economic activity. This was the experience in relation to the DART and other projects.

CIE realises that a quality service must be provided if passengers are to be taken off the roads. It is a quality service and I hope it will be a success. I wish it well. It would not have been possible without EU funding.

I take the point about the mainline rail. Under successive Governments there has been an historic under investment in our railway system. We now have a development plan and there will be a significant investment of EU money and money from the company's own resources arising from improved management and financial performance. I congratulate the outgoing chairman, Mr. Conlon, who is retiring shortly. He has done a great job in that whole area.

We are now in a developmental phase and there is a need to buy new rolling stock and to upgrade the signal system. An extensive track renewal programme is under way which will continue for the period of the plan. This work is necessary if we want to be able to stand over our railway system, particularly from a safety point of view. Investment is necessary and we are anxious to go ahead with it.

Deputy Haughey mentioned the DTI. The report will be published next month and should be a best seller. For the first time, there will be an integrated approach to our transportation system.

Dublin has major traffic congestion which is worsening. It will deteriorate further if we do not take serious measures to address it. The DTI is basically saying that there has to be an integrated approach in terms of buses, roads, railways and the commuter services. The light rail network is a flagship project in the development plan and, despite what Deputy Gilmore said, it will be going ahead.

The DTI was not set up for the purpose of ensuring that things would happen between 1994 and 1999. It is an ongoing process and has a much larger timeframe for implementation because there are many things to be done. The DTI has a pro public transport ethos.

There will be a significant investment in public transportation in the city as a result of the acceptance of the main recommendations of the DTI. We have negotiated a significant amount of money from the Structural Funds which will enable us to do many things in this area. I set out the cost of these projects in my speech and we have to work within the existing and expected resources.

The proposal to extend the DART to Fairview is a worthwhile suggestion which was made to the DTI. It will be referred to in their final report. We must operate within budget constraints and we are not able to do everything. However, we hope to many things over a period of time. The main priority is the light rail network which is an absolute must. Other projects take priority after that. Money will be allocated specifically for new traffic management systems and we will examine how best to spend this money based on the recommendations in the forthcoming report.

The port access option is one of three options being considered by the DTI committee. We will know on the publication of the report which one they favour. I accept the Deputy's point about the northern port access. Access to the port is vital and they have looked at the various objective criteria in assessing the best option. Each option has advantages and disadvantages but they will decide in favour of one of them which will be made known as soon as the report is published.

I suggested initially that we would divide the various subheads in the civil aviation group. In view of the small attendance I think it will be possible to take them all together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Some time ago the Minister published a document on air transport policy which did not impress me. It was rather vague and imprecise and had nothing of any consequence to say about air transport policy. Will the Minister arrange an opportunity for the House — or this committee if appropriate — to debate that document? A number of issues arise which we should examine, particularly in light of the recent emergence of one or two new carriers who are anxious to provide services. It remains to be seen whether that will last but we all hope it will.

Issues which are important for the future development of air transport services are glossed over in that document. It seems a pity, given that the Minister has gone to the trouble of publishing a document, not to have the opportunity to go into it in more depth. The Minister should consider either making some arrangement for the House to examine the document or having it specifically referred to the committee so that it can be debated. I understand that we cannot decide off our own bat to debate the document as it would have to be referred to us by the Government.

There is a proposal in subhead D6 to continue the special promotion measure for Shannon airport in 1994 and to provide the same amount of money, £500,000, that was provided in 1993. Will the Minister indicate the results, if any, that have been achieved by this? In subhead D7, there is a provision of £250,000 this year for the marketing promotion fund for regional airports, a reduction of almost £1 million on the figure provided last year. Will the Minister indicate the results of last year's operation and what has changed regarding the regional airports? I would be interested to know because I have not seen any positive changes for those airports. What is the basis for reducing the figure from £1.224 million in 1993 to £250,000 this year? Will the Minister give details of what will be covered by subhead D8 and the £1.25 million for the essential air services programme for regional airports?

There is a provision of £100,000 in subhead D10 for an Irish Aviation Authority safety audit. Will the Minister say what is involved? I note there is £1 million in the following subhead for payments to the Authority for the provision of exempt services. If I am not out of order, given that we are discussing civil aviation matters, it is a little strange that a sum of £26,531,000 is provided for the air navigation services office under two separate subheads in subhead F, miscellaneous. Is accounting for this a temporary provision? It seems that classifying £26.5 million under miscellaneous expenditure, when there is a whole section of the Estimate for civil aviation, is a little odd. I wonder how the Department of Finance has allowed that type of rather artistic presentation to be used. It seems that the £26.5 million should be properly accounted for under subhead D of the Estimate.

There is much concern in the Shannon area that the only outcome of the task force report appears to be a suggestion that regional interests must come together in a coherent, integrated fashion. If that is the case, although I do not believe it, it would be inadequate.

There is an urgent need to undertake a major programme of imaginative measures. Many measures have been suggested independently of the task force report, although I am sure many of them have been suggested in it. There will be a substantial cost and it would be better to address the matter head on and put as many as possible of these provisions in place in the short term to allow Shannon to become independent.

I commend the Minister for his excellent efforts in relation to one element of the proposal, which is the CIS freight hub and possible customs pre-clearance for freight there. This is an imaginative proposal which holds great possibilities for the future and it may be possible to develop the US freight hub also. I do not know if the Department has examined the possibility of the shuttle shopper concept, modelled on Sharjah Airport in the United Arab Emirates. That proposal has been put to the Department independently of the task force report and it would offer excellent opportunities in Shannon. Its implementation would be expensive in the short term and would not be covered under the type of budget provided for in 1994. There is a need for ongoing research and development within the airport. The end of the task force report is not the end of finding ideas and implementing them. This should be examined.

There is much concern also that there appears to be no element of control of Aer Lingus operations at Shannon. There was a suggestion that there would be such control. Some of the unease in the area would be reduced if that was done. These initiatives and others are the type of provisions that would replace what has been lost in Shannon. It would give it an independent role and bring it into the future with some hope.

The essential air services programme for regional airports under subhead D8 is welcome. Coupled with the £250,000 for marketing, it provides reasonable help to the regional airports. However, I am concerned that Aer Lingus is providing a subvention to Dublin Airport on the free run from the regional airports to the transatlantic service. I am not sure if that is designed to be — or will be — of any benefit to the regional airports. It will have the effect of conferring benefits on the Dublin leg of the transatlantic route as opposed to Shannon. To counter that, Shannon services from the regional airports ought to qualify under the essential air services programme for regional airports. Is there any provision to do that? There are attractive services at Shannon, for example, Aeroflot, and we would like people in Cork, Waterford, Knock, Donegal and Sligo to have the same access. It might be appropriate to deal with that under this subhead. I have number of other good questions, Chairman, but I do not want an accumulation of yellow cards.

The Deputy is at liberty to put questions if he wishes.

On the acquisition of land and buildings in respect of State airports under subhead D1, there was controversy recently in Fingal County Council regarding lands in and around Dublin Airport and rezoning decisions. Aer Rianta has a considerable amount of land in that area. There appears to be some conflict between what the local authority would require and what Aer Rianta wishes to do with that land. Perhaps the Minister could indicate Aer Rianta's plans in respect of that property? There is a block of land on the opposite side of the motorway, away from the airport, and I am curious to know its plans for it.

On Shannon, why will the Minister not publish the task force report? Deputy Killeen seems to know everything contained in it and he may as well tell us the rest of it. There are obviously good and bad parts in it. Perhaps the Minister should take the opportunity to publish the report as soon as possible to give us some indication of Shannon's future development.

I congratulate the Minister for his vigorous administration of the Department in the past year and for tackling many difficult problems in the State industries. In that context, is the Minister concerned about the ongoing developments in TEAM Aer Lingus and the possibility that there may be some dramatic action by the workforce in the period before the take-over of a new chief executive? Can the Department do anything to hold things until the new man is in situ and can evaluate the situation for himself in the context of the restructuring plan?

On subhead D1, I wanted to make the same point as Deputy Hogan. On the northside of Dublin we were very concerned about all the rezoning of land. As far as we can see, Aer Rianta will in future need the partnership between the two Government parties both of whom, as part of their European election manifestos and their ongoing programme, have the idea of extending the industrial and air-linked zone around Dublin airport. There was great concern about the fact that we may have to pay through the nose for this land because of the unfortunate events in Fingal County Council.

On subhead D7, the marketing and promotion fund for regional airports, I notice there is a fairly significant decline of 8 per cent in that fund this year. I wonder if the Minister was concerned at the fact that one private airline — I think it was Ryanair — recently saw fit, when the Government had gone down the road to try to provide a competitive niche for it, to give up some of these routes and not carry out what many people would consider to be an essential service for the Irish regions. The Government was quick to support the airline but it has not taken an opportunity to support us in return.

On subhead B4, the Radiological Protection Institute, I welcome the fact that the Minister has extended the situation by 6 per cent. However, local representatives along the east coast are concerned with trying to track what is happening about emissions from Sellafield, although I know the Minister is trying to put a good monitoring network in place. A flotilla of Irish ships is heading for Sellafield on 5 June 1994 and as I am hoping to captain my own ship there I wonder if the Minister would be interested in coming on board.

A Deputy

Is that a Labour Party ship?

Deputy Gilmore referred earlier to the question of air transport policy; what it is and what it has been. There has been a liberalisation in the air transport business for ten years now and that has been increasing all the time. Any analysis concluded that people were wrong to identify it as a cyclical problem when in fact it was a structural problem. That process was irrevocable and the need to address costs and competition was either not done in time or, when it was done, the wrong type of pricing policies were adopted. It meant that the whole base of the company was put under threat.

The air transport policy we have been adopting in the Department for many years has been a progressive one which recognised the realities to which I just adverted. It is for our airline companies to work out the framework within which they will operate in that context. Trying to buck the market or the trend proved to be a disastrous policy. Deputy Gilmore blamed the airline policy and I do not want to go into all that again but I do not accept that analysis. We have to look at all this from the point of view of Ireland Incorporated. Far more people are now coming into this country as a result of competition in the air transport business. To identify one Irish airline as being responsible for the demise of another fails to recognise the fact that even if that competitor went off the face of the earth commercially there are others to take its place. Therefore, the paramount issues are the identification of markets within which these airlines operate as well as aggressive marketing techniques and initiatives to build, not just market share but revenues, to restore profitability on those routes. For companies at different ends of the market to get involved in price wars would be to return to the bad old days which brought nothing but problems for everybody. That tough lesson has been learned.

Because we have a liberalised and competitive situation in air transport, not just in Ireland but throughout Europe and the rest of the world, the competition reacts to the improvements we make. Competition does not stand still. It responds, for example, to perceived improvements in our own national airline company. Therefore, we are involved in an evolving process and we have to respond. If we do not, we will simply not come up to scratch. The Government is determined to overcome these difficulties. However, to say that the markets and the competition react, and, therefore, to refer to everything as if it is set in stone, does not confront the ever evolving difficulties and changes in the real business world in which these companies operate.

Our air transport policy has accommodated that change in the air transport business. We have always looked at it from the point of view that we are the regulator in the business of ensuring that as many people as possible come to this country, developing revenues and building our tourist industry. On many occasions in the House I outlined the benefits of advocating and implementing that policy where numbers increased from 440,000 to 2.2 million. That is a lot of extra business. The fact that we did not make profits on that increased volume of business is a different matter and a problem that should not be laid at the door of the regulator. Those are commercial decisions that have to be taken by those involved in the business. We believe that our policy has been successful. We are not the originator of problems in the market. As a regulator, looking at the situation in terms of Ireland Inc., it has been a very successful policy. If sense prevailed in the market place between Irish airlines and non-Irish airlines we might not be in the difficulty that we have had to confront.

At the request of ICTU we collated that policy and brought it together in one document. We believe that that is the way it will go. If anyone looks at European developments and what the committee of experts, who are looking at things for the EU Commission, says about the crisis in the European air transport business they come down to the same type of analysis. We simply have to live in that competitive situation, make sure that we thrive and prosper in it, and do whatever is necessary to remain in the market place.

Deputy Broughan referred to TEAM Aer Lingus and in that context there is an urgent agenda to be addressed in TEAM. The problems have to be solved within the context of the company. The question of viability and commerciality must be taken into account and solutions found within the company. The Labour Relations Commission has been asked to play its part. It played a successful role in the past in relation to the main business of the company. However, I do not underestimate the problems that must be addressed and there cannot be any further delay in resolving them. The airline maintenance business is increasingly competitive and if we wish to compete in that market place we must have the best international practices. If not we will lose the business and put the project under threat. That is not in the interest of the employees and certainly not in the interest of TEAM Aer Lingus. This urgent agenda is being addressed at present and I look forward to an early resolution of those problems.

We are finalising our consideration of the report of the Shannon task force. The report was a very good exercise. I thank Gillian Bowler, chairperson of the task force, and the other members for their work on our behalf. As Deputy Killeen said, ultimate responsibility for a future prosperous Shannon lies with the interests in Shannon. However, the Department intends to do all it can to assist them. The task force was asked to report on the development of more business in both passenger and freight traffic at Shannon. Some good ideas were generated but require further examination as to their feasibility. Other ideas can be implemented as soon as a structure is established to do so. We are finalising our arrangements in that regard.

The report is positive. The development of the infrastructure in Shannon, as in Cork and Dublin, is a matter for Aer Rianta which has development plans for Shannon. It is the airport from which I travel to America and one can see that work must be done there which will be carried out by Aer Rianta. The report will be published when we have finalised our decisions on it. It will be seen as another contributor to the development of Shannon following the change in the compulsory stop.

It is heartening to see that transatlantic traffic increased by 20 per cent this year. Bookings are very good. When I was in New York on St. Patrick's Day I met representatives of Aer Lingus and they were buoyant about the change. Shannon, in addition to Dublin and the rest of the country, will benefit. The new fleet is an indication of our good faith. The increased freight capacity of the airbus justifies the commercial decision for an all year daily service from Shannon to JFK which was not the case in the pre-compulsory stop days. There is a greater commercial emphasis as the decision was taken on commercial grounds only. It is important that Shannon be allowed to develop.

The Deputy expressed concern about the independent management of Shannon. He knows that the strategy for the future is that it will be controlled and managed from Shannon. That strategy will be carried out. If there are perceptions that such a course is not being followed, I will address them.

The £500,000 fund was made available this and last year. It is not the fund for the development of Shannon airport. That amount would clearly be inadequate. However, it might help us to provide the money needed to market Shannon more aggressively than in the past, to get a more focused approach on the marketing of Shannon and to increase business there. That is an important recommendation in the task force report. Perhaps we have too many people doing similar jobs with, perhaps, one not sufficiently aware of what the other is doing.

We allocated money last year to regional airports to avoid their closure. There has been a significant downturn in activity in regional airports. That is why we sought permission for an essential air services programme from the Commission last year. The programme would maintain a minimum daily service to the regional airports. We conducted a study which shows that from a socio-economic viewpoint the regional airports are important to the local economy in terms of the catalytic effect they have on economic developments and so forth. The Commission was unable to accommodate us last year so we allocated £1.5 million to a marketing programme for the regional airports to ensure that they continued in existence. We now have agreement on the air services programme initiative and we will be tendering for that business shortly. The money was quite successfully spent. Knock and Kerry airports have imaginative marketing programmes which are generating new business. We asked the EU Commission to arrange for the invitation of tenders for the essential air services programme for the regional airports in the next couple of months.

Deputy Dukes referred to the £26 million. That figure is in the 1993 outturn. In 1994, as the IAA is not included, we have not allocated money under those subheads.

It was under miscellaneous expenditure in 1993.

I can give the Deputy the technical answer to that shortly.

I covered the points raised. We have made much progress. However, it is important that people do not feel that the work on the problems of Aer Lingus or those in Irish aviation is completed. We have a long way to go and it is important that the recovery programme for Aer Lingus is successful. There are problems in TEAM Aer Lingus which must be addressed now and the mechanisms to do so are being put in place. We cannot delay in that regard because the losses are significant and cannot continue. I hope we will resolve that problem.

Perhaps the Minister would discuss the conditions attached by the EU to the Government's subvention to Aer Lingus. Is there any hope of renegotiating those conditions in respect of the limits on seats and aircraft?

There are potential business opportunities to be gleaned in some parts of the country through small expenditure on tarmac for local airfields. In Kilkenny, for example, the business community identified a level of demand for the transport of business people from existing airfields, which can accommodate slightly larger aircraft, to destinations in the UK in particular. Is there any grant assistance available from the Department to provide tarmac or other such facilities in airfields?

They are private aerodromes or airstrips which are not within my domain. The State airports are Dublin, Shannon and Cork and the regional airports are owned by local communities or local development co-operatives. These all have to try to survive and are doing so, in Sligo, Galway, Carrickfin and elsewhere. They receive moneys from the Government towards flights for businesses, provided on a socio-economic basis, but not for the day to day operation of the airport.

Do they not receive capital grants?

No. I can look into the matter but at present they do not.

I was also asked about the conditions attached to the equity injection. We successfully negotiated a position where the conditions do not affect the integrity of the plan. There is sufficient headroom within the conditions imposed in relation to the UK routes so Aer Lingus will not be denied the capacity to serve them. The integrity of the plan is not affected and, therefore, what has been set out in the plan as the capacity for a given route in 1994 and 1995 is not affected by the conditions imposed by the Commission. We have successfully negotiated that but we do not say so too loudly.

Before I call Deputy Dukes I have an explanation on his earlier observation about the captions on the television. The broadcast manager has sent me a note and the position is as follows. Channel 3 is the Seanad channel; channel 5 is the committee channel. The committee met yesterday in the Seanad chamber and today in G5, which is not televised, not even by the deflector system, it would seem. It was an oversight not to remove the caption on the Seanad channel, indicating the committee had adjourned its business yesterday until today.

I am grateful to Deputy Dukes for drawing my attention to this matter. Is that satisfactory, Deputy?

It is not satisfactory but it is an explanation, for which I am grateful and which I accept.

The Minister spoke about liberalisation in air transport. I am glad he is committed to it although I am not happy the air transport policy document deals properly with the issue. I claim a certain paternal pride here, having been one of the co-authors of the Commission's first document on this matter in 1979.

Will the Minister allow his liberal instincts to run further? There is a proposal for the extension of the operating hours of the Weston aerodrome in west County Dublin and east County Wicklow. This has been under review in his Department for some time and there have been serious delays in dealing with the problem.

The Minister is not currently providing grants outside the context of the national and regional airports, although it seems that on past occasions opportunities were lost for expanding the range of possibilities available for air services. I ask him to look again at the requests made for the Weston aerodrome project. There is a demand for general aviation at that site which would be welcomed by Aer Rianta, because general aviation in Dublin Airport is regarded as more of a nuisance than an advantage. This aerodrome is not too remote and is quite prepared to accept general aviation. It would then remove what the air traffic control service in Dublin Airport regards as a headache.

This is running into delays because of the view taken by the Minister's Department regarding the application. It does not threaten anything the Minister or Aer Rianta wish to do, because it is not related to scheduled airline operations, it is simply general aviation. I am grateful to you, Chairman, for allowing me to raise this matter and I hope the Minister has better success in giving this a correct caption than the operators of our closed circuit television service.

The problem here is safety, it is not simply an aviation matter. We have informed the Weston aerodrome of what is required to put the matter right. High safety standards are necessary and rightly so. The Irish aviation industry is proud of its safety record and we want to maintain it. We are awaiting a response from Weston about the safety difficulties with its proposal.

In relation to subhead F, this is a technical means of showing there was expenditure in 1993 but none in 1994. We have already established that. The Deputy did point out a typographical problem; there should be a gap between "Miscellaneous Services" and "ANSO". It reads as if ANSO comes under "Miscellaneous Services" but it does not. The Deputy's attention to minutiae is admirable.

The next subheads are important to me because I am one of the pre-vesting day pensioners and I hope to be one of the beneficiaries in the not too distant future. These are subheads E.1 and E.2 dealing with communications.

One issue has been a bone of contention from 1978, before the establishment of An Post and Telecom Éireann. Moneys were due to accrue to those companies from the State at the time of their inception. This issue comes up for debate on a regular basis. Has the Minister a view on when, if ever, that money will be paid to those companies?

Second, has the Minister any plans to establish the Telephone Users' Advisory Group on a statutory basis? Is he prepare to implement its suggestion of a "freefone" facility to Government Departments?

For the benefit of the Chairman, if for no one else, these moneys have to be paid over and there is no question of that not happening. This issue is long standing and has created much uncertainty for former employees and current employees who may have pension entitlements in the future. We share the concern that the issue is addressed. This year has seen the payment of a significant first instalment of over £72 million towards meeting that liability.

We are in discussion with the Department of Finance to devise a means of systematic payment to the trustees of this money, which is rightfully due to the pension fund. It is in everyone's interest that this be done as quickly as possible within the constraints in which we have to operate. All pension entitlements will be honoured; this is a State company and it is not intended to renege.

This year's estimate shows we have gone from merely talking about this to doing something. We are grateful to the Department of Finance for addressing this long outstanding issue which we have sought to address almost since the vesting day.

There is no intention to set up the telephone advisory group as a statutory body. I have given the reasons for that on numerous occasions.

Recently in the Seanad, Senator Neville asked me about the free telephone proposal and I told him it was a matter for each Department. Significant costs are involved and each Department may decide whether it can pay.

What does the Minister mean by "significant"?

In terms of the problem, the costs are very significant. People perceive a problem in this area. However, there are quick return call facilities in our Departments and new guidelines have been issued. I am not aware of any increase in the level of dissatisfaction with the way our Departments deal with people who use the telephone to make queries.

As no one wishes to speak on subhead F and subhead G, Appropriations-in-Aid, we will conclude the Estimates for Transport, Energy and Communications. I thank the Minister, his officials and the Deputies who participated in this debate. The committee will meet again tomorrow at 11 a.m. in the Dáil Chamber, when we will resume consideration of the Consumer Credit Bill, 1994.

The Select Committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m.

ERRATA.

In the Official Report — unrevised — of 19 May 1994, E2 No. 8, columns 381 to 464 should read columns 565 to column 648.

Barr
Roinn