I welcome the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, and the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob. Today's meeting will consider the Revised Estimates falling within the remit of the Department of Public Enterprise: Vote 32 - Department of Public Enterprise. The proposed timetable for considering the Estimates has been circulated. It allows for opening statements by the Minister and Opposition spokespersons and then an open discussion by way of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Estimates for Public Services, 1998.
Vote 32 - Department of Public Enterprise (Revised)
A speech has been circulated but I do not intend to read it as everyone know the information it contains. I will be a year in office on 26 June. I entered the Department with high hopes and I am glad to say I still have them. As the Chairman and Deputies Stagg and Yates know, all Government Departments are different. My Department was given a new name, which I enthusiastically endorsed. Over the years, the Department has pushed forward a new agenda. It is clear the winds of change are blowing into the semi-State sector. I hope that, working together, we can manage this change rather than it overwhelming us.
Privatisation in the UK happened in an incoherent fashion. In the utilities sector, this opening up benefited a small group of people, not consumers or workers. I acknowledge the previous Government's contribution to the beginning of the privatisation of Telecom Éireann. Its 1996 Bill allowed a strategic alliance and an option for sale next year. We followed up that with ESOP, the sale of Cablelink, which is 80 per cent owned by Telecom, the IPO, which will happen next year, and the bringing forward of the derogation date, which was decided in 1996. However, what was right in 1996 is not necessarily right in 1998.
We hope change will emerge in all the semi-State bodies, depending on their position as regards legislation, EU directives, finances and plans. There is no single blueprint - each operates at its own pace according to its business and profitability. However, the needs of the consumer must be central to this. They have or will have to become competitive because of the opening up of the internal market and the globalisation of industry. Aer Lingus had difficulties in 1993-94 because of this, and TEAM are having difficulties now. The era of subsidies and handouts is gone. Even if one had all the money in the world, State aid is not allowed in the EU and should not be allowed here if companies are to look to the future and become coherent.
If we are to change semi-State bodies and open up markets, workers must be involved. Good examples of this are two Bills which were discussed by this committee - the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill and the Turf Development Bill, both of which I inherited. These Bills did not undergo major changes. However those that were made will have a lasting and beneficial effect on both companies involved. I recall the "double whammy" debate on the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill, of which I took great heed. I was lucky I could go back to the Department of Finance if it resulted in undue hardship in Aer Rianta. We changed the number of union representatives on the boards of subsidiary companies. These changes were made because I listened to the debate and it demonstrates how well this committee operates.
Employees must be involved in the change and must make difficult decisions. Technology has made older work practices irrelevant and employees should be able to avail of share options. There are different share options - some companies give 5 per cent, as was the case in Aer Lingus before I entered office. ESOP gives 14.9 per cent as the balance was purchased and those involved had their pensions. If employees have shares in a company, they will work well. It is a simple concept.
The customer must come first, then Europe and then the workers. The way we deal with the regulatory authority for each utility is also important. This is exercising everyone's mind. One cannot have regulation without accountability. The matter of the attendance of the regulator for the telecommunications industry at this committee is an example of this. She is an excellent professional and is moving ahead with great speed. However, because accountability was not stipulated, everyone assumed she would be accountable. According to the legal advice taken by Ms Doyle, she was not accountable, although she attended the committee. The Government is removing itself from the operation of semi-State bodies in a partial way. This balance must evolve.
The Department is segmented because each semi-State body is separate. Management is occasionally of a fire brigade nature because certain issues must be dealt with daily. I hope as we move towards the idea of strategic partners and ESOPS, the State's involvement, like a nanny's apron strings, will be needed less. If I get my way and if we are long enough in office, I hope that a particular Department may be redundant. I am sure the civil servants do not want to be redundant but the State must not be running things in which it should not have an interest.
That may seem heretical but when the semi-State bodies were set up there was a need for them because no one else would supply such services unless the State itself did so. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water and think that we are in a great free world. I believe in a gradual disengagement. Since their inception, the semi-State bodies have provided a huge service. A strong work ethos permeated them and continues to do so. We must hold onto that and the public service contracts which apply in many semi-State bodies. That is the position we are in after one year in office. There is much work to be done and we are here to discuss the Estimates for my Department.
I am honoured and delighted to work with the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob. We work closely together and, as well as being good colleagues, we are good friends. There is no need for me to say that he undertakes his duties with great enthusiasm and support, both for me and for the Department.
I now call on Deputy Yates who has ten minutes.
It is not possible in ten minutes to properly analyse all the work of the Department. Using the Minister's own terms, I thought I might give her an end of year school report, including what I thought were the good points.
Can I give my view on the Deputy as well? There has to be a quid pro quo.
No, that does not arise.
The chairman will have to tell these two to behave themselves.
We will send in the school inspector.
Send for the inspector.
A lot of good things have happened, like the Minister's decision on Cablelink. I also welcome the derogation in telecommunications. Europeat has been put in place and the Minister has referred to the relevant legislation. However, I would like, as it is my job, to focus on the critical aspects of where I think the terms "could try harder" or "more application" would apply.
"Must do better". That is right.
I will skip through the areas about which there is public concern because I do not have much time. The first area is the railways. I welcome the decision to set up the consultancy study on safety, which I called for. However, I do not get from the Minister a feeling of where we are going after 1999 in terms of the next round of EU structural funding. I do not expect the Minister to tell me how much structural funding ECOFIN and the Commission will give us, but I do not have an investment blueprint.
CIE carried out its own consultancy study and came up with a requirement of £600 million. If that sum is needed for the permanent way and automatic signalling, leaving aside the rolling stock and capacity requirements, it strikes me that there is an accident waiting to happen on the railways. I want to signal my concern about that. The whole process should be accelerated so that we will have a phased plan of investment and every radial route on the railways will have a modern permanent way and automatic signalling.
I and others have been most critical of the decision on Luas. An implementable, although modest and limited, plan could have been given the impetus to start construction. Instead we have gone for an even bigger wish list that has moved it into the most distant future at a time when gridlock is becoming chronic.
I specifically asked the Minister in the Dáil about the EU rebate on the £20 million for design and construction. The Minister was confident that would be cleared up but has there been a decision? This committee heard Mr. Eoin Keegan and Mr. Michael McDonald of Dublin Corporation say how they would spend the £114 million. Perhaps the Minister could let us know what can be done from a public transport perspective to ensure EU funding will be kept in the public transport sector, in Dublin in particular.
On the Maynooth line.
Having dealt with the railways and Luas, I want to move on to TEAM Aer Lingus. As far back as January it was my analysis that there was a huge gap between the craft unions and Aer Lingus management. I got the clear impression all along that Aer Lingus management's position was that if FLS does not buy TEAM they will consider closing it down in the long-term. Notwithstanding the legal complexity of the letters of comfort, I detect a level of complacency and exactly how fraught this issue will be if FLS walks away from TEAM. I do not believe there is any other interested party. In whatever final form the FLS deal transpires it must be politically proactively led to a successful conclusion.
Many people in TEAM do not realise the full gravity of the consequences of this deal not being concluded. I have nailed my colours to the mast on this issue. I regret, however, that from the beginning the Minister has not bitten the bullet. I know the TEAM people and have taken a lot of stick from them. To some extent they are in a different world. I am looking at the airline and the serious situation that could arise if TEAM is wound down over five years. I think FLS will invest and will secure new orders.
I am disappointed in the Government's handling of the liberalisation of road transport passenger services. There is an anachronistic legal farce concerning travel clubs. As we speak, buses are coming to Dublin every morning from Wexford, Waterford, Kilkenny, Tralee, Cork and Galway, but they are operating illegally. The law is an ass at the moment. We need to introduce a new Road Transport Act which would licence competition. Bus Éireann is the only licensed operator on those routes and that situation has pertained for a very long time. Legislation is required and only politicians can provide it.
On the energy issues, I am very concerned about third party access to the gas grid and the second interconnector, which I spoke at length about on Second Stage in the Dáil. The material the Minister sent us on the ESB was so indigestible that I did not digest it.
Did you see the material the Deputy used to put out?
As regards the legal framework, I would like a session for the spokespersons to brief us on all the complexities of this Chinese waltz, involving a power procurer, power generator, transmission system, and whether there will be a pool system such as in the UK. Even the shorthand is incomprehensible. Third party access, the second interconnector and the EU directive on electricity liberalisation need to be looked at.
I have been doing some research in recent months on multi-channel TV and I have to be scathing of the Government's approach to this matter. Between the regulator, the Minister's Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, nobody is prepared to take responsibility for the fact that 329,000 households have access to RTE services only. I feel strongly that it is a human right to be able to watch multi-channel TV.
The report was a cop out as regards the legal framework for digital TV and the question of community deflector groups. The regulator appeared before this committee. She made promises and produced a consultant's study but we are no further down the road. Basically, everyone has shunted this issue from Billy to Jack. Meanwhile, elderly people, who have nothing much to live for except their TV, have been cut off. They are confined to RTE in Donegal, Killenaule, Cork and the south-east. It is totally unacceptable.
How much longer do I have?
About one minute.
I would like three minutes in which to speak about telecommunications. Last week my party launched a policy document dealing with this area, which is aimed at making the information age more applicable to ordinary people through the use of the Internet, personal computers, etc. The Minister stated that there has been a £340 million reduction in call costs but there has been a decrease in charges on an international scale and Ireland is way out of line in that regard. The Forfás and Competitiveness Council reports showed that in some cases trunk calls in Ireland are four times more expensive than in Sweden, the cost of local calls - calls throughout the entire Ireland should be treated as local - is way above the EU average and international calls are more expensive here than anywhere else. Charges for leased lines and access lines are also too expensive.
I congratulate the Minister for her work in respect of ESOP and the IPO, which are important developments. However, given that problems involving Telecom Éireann have been resolved, it is time to consider the position of customers. I have spoken to international experts and in my view it is reasonable to reduce telecommunications by 50 per cent over a three year period in view of the prices which obtained on 1 May. Microsoft did not locate in Ireland. Therefore, within three years 90 per cent of all businesses should have access to broadband capacity - 100 megabytes - and all residential homes should gain access to it within five years.
Telecom Éireann is not licensed. I believe the company should be licensed and regulated. Interconnection, which will be the key issue in terms of providing transparent competition, must be introduced. I would like the legislation pertaining to the regulator to be amended so that the Minister would be obliged to report directly to the Oireachtas. The price capping arrangements should be used to drive prices down in the short-term and responsibility for them should be subsequently shifted to the director.
To develop broadband capacity, a capital fund must be put in place. Such a fund should comprise the proceeds of the IPO in addition to the next round of Structural Funds - £250 million. Esat will run major fibre-optic cables from Dublin to Cork, Galway, Waterford and elsewhere but it will not run them to every nook and cranny throughout the country because it would be uneconomic to do so. With the advent of ADSL and the possibility for eight megabyte lines, we must establish a fund to provide pound for pound financing to all telecommunications providers. This will ensure a national provision of broadband capacity. That will be critical because areas which do not have access to broadband capacity will not attract the next generation of industry. It is vitally important that this sector of telecommunications and information technology be developed.
I welcome the Minister's establishment of a strategy team to ensure Ireland is identified as a key location for investment. However, there is a series of areas where the regulator has not produced reports, including the radio frequency spectrum and the cost of universal service obligation. The regulator is an able person but either her office is under-resourced or there are too many teething problems. These are key areas in terms of Ireland's competitiveness and this is the most compelling national economic issue with which the Minister will be obliged to deal.
I thank the chairman for his indulgence. I hope the Minister will respond to my points on the railways, Luas, TEAM Aer Lingus, road transport services, MMDS and telecommunications.
Does the chairman wish me to respond now?
We will allow the spokespersons to contribute before the Minister replies.
It was a good idea to arrange an early start for the meeting because, in the absence of the media, we can have a good private session.
It was so arranged for that purpose.
It is somewhat an exercise in futility to discuss the Estimates drawn up in 1997 for 1998 in the middle of the latter year. I would prefer if we were discussing the Estimates for 1999.
That would give the committee some job to do.
It would be more useful if we received a draft of the Estimates for 1999 before they were finalised. As the Minister stated, under Deputy Doherty's expert chairmanship, the committee has improved legislation and I am sure it would improve the Estimates if we received them in good time rather than being presented with a fait accompli.
The Department of Public Enterprise is mainly involved with policy and its implementation rather than making decisions about expenditure. The agencies to which the Department allocates funding are responsible for such decisions. The vast bulk of the costs listed in the Estimates are fixed and the Minister has no effective control over staff salaries, office costs, etc. Effectively, we are discussing policy not money.
Among the areas I wish to consider is the use of the Department as a conduit for money allocated to CIE, in light of the fact that it must negotiate with the Department of Finance to find such money. I am not sure that is the best way to fund CIE. Perhaps the company should negotiate directly with the Department of Finance rather than the Minister's Department having to do so and forward the money.
I was surprised when the Minister stated that the State should not have an interest in a range of areas with which her Department is currently involved. I recall saying to her at another meeting that if she was successful in her job she would become redundant.
Is it the Deputy's policy to make me redundant?
I am not in the business of making the Minister redundant. I assure her that I am seeking to ensure her office retains the maximum amount of authority and that it will not be devolved to regulators, quangos, private companies or other interests. I want the Minister to retain authority on behalf of the people. It is correct and essential that the State should have an interest and a direct policy input into the areas of transport, energy and communications. I know the Minister agrees with me in that regard. I may have taken what the Minister said out of context - I did not intend to do so - but I did not want the wrong message to be sent out from this meeting.
Despite the fact that the Department's work is almost totally policy driven, there are a number of juicy areas I would like to consider. When we come to the breakdown session, I want to discuss radon gas, the loss of funding from alternative energy to telecommunications, aviation, the RPII and the use of consultants by the Department, which is a waste of money because many of the experts who work for the Department are better than those hired from outside.
The chairman will be aware that I must attend the Dáil and, as a result, I will not be present when the meeting concludes. Therefore, I hope to contribute on the issues I outlined in good time.
I notice the spokesperson for the Green Party is not present. That party is constantly heckling the Government about public transport. I am surprised that party's spokesperson has not yet put in an appearance although I accept that he is usually present.
Will the mere backbenchers have an opportunity to discuss the Estimates with the Minister?
I should hope so.
If we do not, the committee's deliberations will be superfluous.
It was agreed in advance that the Minister would make an opening statement which would be followed by the statements of party spokespersons. The Minister is about to reply to those statements and there will then be a question and answer session which will allow a free for all.
I do not wish to cast aspersions on anyone but it is extraordinary that the spokespersons for Fine Gael, which has more than 50 seats, and the Green Party, which has only two, should be given the same time in which to contribute to a debate of this sort.
The usual practice is that they operate on the basis of a press release.
That is a stupid practice.
There was no difficulty in changing the arrangements to accommodate the Deputy's contribution.
I understand that. The chairman exercised his discretion.
If we continue to talk about the Green Party they might turn up.
I appreciate the Deputy's point and we will change the arrangements to facilitate him.
Thank you, chairman.
That was a very interesting session. I thank Deputy Yates for his remarks about the telecommunications industry. I was not long in the Department when I realised it would be very important for Ireland and would spill over into how we perform economically in terms of incoming industries. The Forfás report was a catalyst. It was very succinct, sharp, bright, and laid out much of what needed to be done. When it was published we were concluding matters relating to ESOP. The convergence of ESOP matters, which were successfully concluded, the Forfás report recommended that Telecom Éireann should divest itself of Cablelink, consider its prices and in general the derogation issue should be examined. I met the board of Telecom Éireann and most of those matters were discussed. However, I moved when I saw that derogation was going to have the greatest psychological effect on the industry and would-be investors because they would know we meant business. The advisory group was set up and headed by an American who will visit Ireland within three of four weeks. It will aid incoming industry in this sector.
Deputy Yates is correct in that there is a need for the minutiae of that to be worked out so that, for instance, there will be lower Internet charges and increased awareness and access for people to the Internet.
I welcome the move by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin to give every school access to the Internet. However, ordinary people should also share in this. The Deputy did not send me his document, but I sent him all mine. I congratulate him on operating a great deal of interest in his document and, as one who was in Opposition previously, I know how difficult that can be.
Deputies Yates and Stagg called for a railway safety study, which has been put in train. That will not just look at track, as A D Little has already done that. It highlighted two lines, Longford-Sligo and Athlone-Ballina-Westport, on which renovations must be carried out in a short time. The investment plans will be costed in a study which I will receive in September and they will be brought before Cabinet. I have already brought the A D Little study to Cabinet and it has been discussed. The Cabinet is aware of the need for a great deal of investment in railways and Iarnród Éireann. Germany has the most up to date track, signalling, carriages and the piquancy between that and the sad event which occurred brought home to all of us what could happen. I wrote to the German Transport Minister, Mr. Matthias Wissmann, about it. Safety must come first.
The decommital of Luas money will come before a meeting of the Community Support Framework on 25 and 26 June. The Cabinet discussed the matter and I hope a considerable amount of funding will be put into Dublin transport. Deputy Stagg referred to the mobile assets issue and it has been benignly viewed by the CSF and the Commission so far, which I hope lasts until 25 and 26 June. It is the first time there has been agreement to look at that.
The TEAM issue is fraught with difficulties. I received all the documents which I read and reread. There were three votes for the move from Aer Lingus to TEAM between 1989 and 1990. Carrots were dangled before the workers, promises were made and everyone hoped it would be the industry of the future and that Ireland would have a great future in aircraft maintenance. One weeps to read eight years later it has been dashed. The workers moved in good faith and with high hopes on foot of very heady expectations laid out by their betters. They were no sooner in than there was a downturn. There was restructuring in 1993-94 and a plan was formulated in 1995 to run until 1999 which outlined how the company's losses would diminish annually. In addition, money was loaned by Aer Lingus.
Broadly speaking the company has kept to that plan. Last year it lost £1.4 million when it hoped to cut losses to £1 million. This year it looks as if the company will break even, which is more or less in line with what was laid out for 1998. The difficulty is that workers have not received the wage increases which everybody else received under the various national wage agreements because that was a condition of the Labour Court agreement which they entered into when the examiner went in. They agreed to forswear the agreements and that they would work to a very rigorous plan. They did and they are almost au courant with that.
The market is strong. People are travelling which means airplanes need to be overhauled and top prices are paid for this. However, this will not always be the case. The workers have looked for parity, the payment of back money which they agreed to put to one side and the going rate in future. The straw which will break the camel's back is parity because it will cost between £17 million and £20 million to make up the back money. If the company is just at break even, who will take on this burden and maintain it on an ongoing basis at a time when the market is at its most buoyant? That is the harsh economic situation. They simply must go to FLS as it is the only real player. Two others players are involved, McEvaddy and GPA Express, but I do not regard them as being at the races. I hope to meet the principal in FLS next week. It has made a fair offer. It has good expertise and intends to transform the business into a state of the art one. It guaranteed it will look for redundancies.
TEAM could continue for one year or 18 months, but what would happen then? Who would pay the £20 million given that Aer Lingus cannot? The company is trading profitably and would be giving money to a company within it which is not trading profitably if it took on the £20 million. That is the dilemma. What I said last December still holds true - it is in their own hands. The workers have a chance of keeping their jobs if they take the FLS deal. There is no guarantee of jobs in the future in that firm if this continues. If there is an economic downturn or a downturn in prices or if parity is won they will immediately be in debt to the tune of £20 million. There is no other option.
Having said that, browbeating and shouting at people and declaring they must do A, B, C and D is the incorrect way to proceed. The position must be explained exactly to them. I have been visited at home over the past few Saturdays by ordinary employees of TEAM, who I was very glad to meet and listen to their stories - it made for some listening. I received some documentation from them, which I had also received through the Department. They are all people with dependants, families, homes and hopes which they now see dashed. They said to me that they went along with the political, industrial and trade union imperatives of that time that they are to believe me when I tell them there is a future in FLS.
The situation is extremely complex and difficult. I hope to meet more employees in that informal way, as well as meeting them formally with their union heads. I have hope in that process and in the process in which management are engaged. I urge them to negotiate it at an intimate level because it is very hard to persuade large numbers. It is their stated intention to do that.
Does that mean reballoting?
Yes, they will reballot by 1 July.
The Deputy did not like the ESB's document in regard to EU directives. The first one was woeful, the second was better and this one is a bit better again. I would like to be at the information session because when we talk about TEAM, CIE and Luas in the Department I keep saying we have not seen anything until we get to the ESB. That legislation will be woeful. There are two Bills, one for the PLC and the other for the main aspect. We are working through it, however. It is a good idea to share our views because there is no way I or any Deputy will understand it all.
I know Deputy Aylward is extremely interested in MMDS, as are many others. It does not seem to have impinged on the midlands.
More is the pity.
It is a huge emotive issue. There is no point in saying I am shunting it off to the regulator. She was questioned by this committee and she has the decision-making power. The issue has been clouded by the recent revelations. However, the policy of exclusivity was thought of by an earlier Minister in the mid 1980s, when exclusivity was the order of the day and the then Minister agreed with it. We have been served notice by Princes Holdings that they are taking court action because they did not get exclusivity. The deflector groups have fought a good hard fight.
The regulator has done her study and has received submissions. She will come to me at the end of August or beginning of September with her proposed policy. When she appeared before this committee she was asked if people have a right to TV reception; she said quite frankly that she thought they had. I do not know what she will propose but I cannot jump in ahead of her and decide to do something about it.
Deputy Dukes was the Minister in the months leading up to an election. I am not giving out because I understand elections and that he had to try to come to some cobbled-up arrangement before the election. That was very fraught, if what one reads is correct, and it faltered; the Cabinet decided on the last day not to run with it because of what could happen. That has now happened to us and we have been served with notice. I hope we will be way ahead on that by September.
The regulator has made what she quaintly calls "courtesy visits" to me during which we talk about matters politely. She sees all that has happened and sees the chance to make a policy to deal with it quickly. She will have to be like Solomon.
The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, will talk about the energy interconnector and the telecommunications policy. I am not aware of the hows, whys and wheres of Microsoft because it is an IDA matter. We hope to attract industry through all we have done. I will return to the Deputy in regard to Telecom. There must be more broad band investment - otherwise it will not be up to speed.
Deputy Stagg made the point that we should be dealing with 1998 Estimates, which would not be a bad idea. The secretary tells me the Deputy used to talk about that. It would strengthen my hand if we could talk about the 1998 Estimates but I do not know what the Department of Finance would make of it.
The Deputy said CIE should negotiate for its own money and not use me as a messenger to bring it back to them. I do not know how that was set up. As it is, CIE must negotiate with the Department. I know the Deputy has his own ideas about regulation and personal authority. I hope we can divest ourselves of it, but gradually rather than in a big bang sense. Deputy Jacob will deal with the issue of radon and the RPII.
Reference was made to consultancies, and I know the Deputy was not just talking about the last one. The recent Comptroller and Auditor General's report related to 1996 and 1997. We have a list here of what was done over the two year period of 1996-97. The Deputy is right that there are great brains in the Department - I am not talking about myself or Deputy Jacob but the Civil Service.
We would not write the Minister off.
We do a great deal of brainstorming in a micro sense. There are huge issues. For example, with the best will in the world we do not have the precise knowledge needed about the ESB. It is quite dear - about £750,000 - to prepare for that liberalisation, according to the NREA report. Our Department has a greater need for consultants than other Departments.
Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, might like to reply to the questions put to him.
Our time constraints are very tight. We have from 9.50 a.m. to 10 a.m. for subheads A.1 to A.8. It is now 9.50 a.m. We then have five minutes for the next group of subheads. I do not want to cut across the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, in any way, but I will have to leave.
We will allow the Minister of State to speak for a few moments before opening the floor. We will ask the Minister to conclude at 10.40 a.m. because we must vacate the room by 10.50 a.m.
Deputy Yates mentioned two items which concern me, private buses and gas matters. Deputy Stagg said he would mention radon renewables, aviation and the RPII and wanted to put questions on those matters.
On private buses, there is a summary document of main developments on issues of current public interest and the modernisation of bus service legislation, which states that responsibility for bringing forward proposals to amend the Road Transport Act, 1932, which is the legislative basis for the licensing of scheduled bus services, has been assigned to me. Perhaps that puts into perspective the approach to the private bus issue. I have had a long look at this issue during my time in office and have found that successive Governments have failed to address it - they looked at it quickly and moved on. The Deputy is right to raise it because it is important. The system is based on antiquated legislation, introduced for protective reasons which obtained at that time, which is not appropriate to the current era of competition and advancement.
I recently met the main organisation representing private bus operators and it was disturbing to see the lack of rapport and a working relationship between it and the Department. The organisation was scathing about that position. I tried to look forward rather than backward and in two recent meetings we arranged, to the satisfaction of that organisation, to put in place a liaison working group, headed by an assistant secretary of the Department, to work together in a progressive manner. It is a non-policy working arrangement and I think it will improve matters. I would be glad to receive through that framework the input of the private bus sector into the legislation we are endeavouring to draw up. As this has not been addressed in the past I would like to make progress but it is a difficult area.
Deputy Yates expressed his concern about the gas issue. Demand is increasing and we have to import more - last year, 30 per cent of supplies were imported and that will increase to almost 50 per cent this year. Our indigenous supplies in the Kinsale Head and Ballycotton gas fields are fading rapidly and by the year 2003 will have been completely exhausted. Unless we are lucky and find more supplies onshore or offshore we will be totally dependent on imported gas. One interconnector has been in use for a number of years but a second one is required and that is being examined. A study has been held into the possibility of setting up an interconnector between Belfast and Dublin, which would be good for North-South relations in the context of the current good developments but, more pragmatically, the study has established that it is operationally viable, so that may be possible.
One important matter mentioned by the Minister but not the Minister of State was that £200,000 was set aside under the Department's Vote to facilitate the early payment of funds to County Louth residents to assist their independent proceedings against British Nuclear Fuels Limited. It was stated that certain conditions must be met but there was no elaboration of what those were - would the Minister of State care to comment?
We set out a system and time limits for dealing with the various subheads, and that question arises under the second group of subheads.
I would be delighted to take that question either now or later.
What I would like to do now is to take questions under the various subheads, starting with subheads A1 to A8 relating to administration.
I did not want the Minister to disappear in a cloud of smoke.
I will give everyone equal opportunity.
I await the Minister of State's response.
We are not taking that subhead yet.
That is my main interest and I want to concentrate my time on that issue.
Does the committee agree to allow Deputy Currie to raise that now?
We could cherrypick from where we like but we agreed a time structure for dealing with the subheads and I suggest we stick to it, otherwise we will get nowhere.
I am not going to arbitrate between members.
My queries relate primarily to energy and transport.
Have we questions under subheads A1 and A8? When the subheads for those queries arise the Deputy may put them.
I want to ensure we will have a chance to raise them and will not be sitting here like wallflowers. I have already made a comment about how committees operate, although not this one.
I want to ensure everyone gets fair play.
As Deputy Currie said, we might as well be like the Green Party and not bother to turn up if this is how we are going to proceed. I do not want to delay matters so the chairman should go ahead and call us as soon as he can.
We are dealing with subheads A1 to A8 and those with questions should put them.
I have a question under subhead A4. It is not satisfactory that we must deal with this Estimate in one hour 50 minutes, room or no room.
The Deputy is right.
We need three hours to deal with this comprehensively. In fairness to the Minister, she has elaborated on many points but I am sure she could elucidate further.
Subhead A is the only area under which telecommunications issues can be raised and I have three matters to raise. First, is the Minister aware, as a shareholder in Telecom Éireann, that it published a customer charter two years ago and that a number of its provisions have not been implemented? Will she act as a guarantor for this charter, which deals with rebates, service obligations, etc. Second, under the company's information age town competition, promises were made to 47 towns. Ennis won first place but Telecom promised to spend £12 million on the other towns to bring them up to broad band capacity and that has not happened. Third, on the regulation of Telecom, interconnection is the key issue for anyone else to be able to compete because no one will replicate the company's network around the country. Telecom Éireann can say it cost it any amount of money to provide the service, but it is only a copper wire. What will be the basis of costing for interconnection?
It is up to Telecom Éireann to introduce a customer charter. I cannot implement it. I will inform it that Deputy Yates has expressed concerns about the matter.
I asked the Minister to be the guarantor to the charter.
Ennis is the information age town and it has received all the funds.
They were promised £12 million.
That is only one town, but a host of others were also promised funding. I have received correspondence stating that is not happening.
I suppose Athlone was one of them.
Yes, I intend to take up this matter with the chairman.
The interconnection charges relate to two matters. Legislation will be brought forward in the autumn for sharing all the infrastructure and the regulator is ready and has begun to move in that direction. There will be legislation and regulation. Everyone is concerned about how much interconnection will cost. That matter is being dealt with under legislation and regulation.
Specifically on telecommunications and its expansion, we will shortly get an additional mobile operator. This committee had a very long and fruitful discussion with the regulator on the issue of masts and their related health issues. Wicklow County Council recently adopted very stringent planning requirements on the siting of masts. I hope the Minister and the Department will support us in this move. I wish it would become a national hallmark because it resulted from contributions here.
The companies are operating in a manner which shows scant regard for political leaders that have suggested they should be sensitive about the location of masts and co-location. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are making any effort to do that. If the companies continue to operate as they are, using mast sitings as a way to lever each other out, I ask the Minister to have strong words with them.
Cablelink operates in the same way as any other monopolists and has all the associated negative attributes. I am unhappy with its level of customer service. I am also unhappy with the way channel 10 or the link channel is being used in Dublin. It is an abuse of a monopoly in that it has strayed into becoming a new broadcast medium. This matter needs to be considered.
I congratulate the Minister on the model Telecom Éireann share deal. The improvement in the performance of State enterprises is due in no small measure to the employees of those enterprises. The chairman will recall that I stated this fact when I was chairman of the Oireachtas Committee on State-sponsored Bodies. One of the matters that concerned me about past privatisations was that the people at the top became millionaires.
They became fat cats and the employees did not.
The people down the line got nothing. The model the Minister and the Department has put in place is something we should consider in all future privatisations.
Reference was made to growing travel commitments under subhead A2. From my limited experience as a Minister, when I travelled executive class I had to pay three times the price for the privilege of a seat that it was exactly the same as seats on the other side of a curtain. My officials and all those who were obliged to travel with me also flew executive class.
That is equity.
I am not suggesting it should be otherwise. However, we paid three times the amount we needed to pay to get a very bad bottle of champagne or wine.
I never got champagne.
That seemed to be the only difference between executive and economy class. This is the type of story on which the media and others focus. It is a waste of money to opt for executive class while flying. Perhaps the Minister might examine that matter.
That happened to me with Aer Lingus.
It was not always an Aer Lingus flight. I understand we are now required to use different airlines.
I also want to refer to subhead A3 on staff training and development. I strongly support the Department's programme for staff training. It does an excellent job and any additional resources that can be given to that area would be very good investment. That ties in with what I want to say on A7, consultancy moneys. Investment in staff training and education will eliminate and reduce the amount of money we need to spend on consultants. It is now the norm for young civil servants to take early retirement to set up various consultancy firms. For example, people retire from the ESB, set up consultancy firms and then the ESB hire them again for their expertise. We have to do the same for the rest. Every time a matter arises that is not routine, consultants have to be hired, whether they cost £200,000 or £1 million. The Minister progressed a notion, with which I disagree that opinions must be independent. I regard the opinion of the civil servants as fair and independent of any influence or interest. As far as I am concerned, their opinions are sound. Independence is not as essential as expertise. Perhaps the Minister will consider increasing and improving the level of staff training and development. Her Department is already operating a very good programme. She could also try to reduce the number of consultants we employ.
Can we deal with this under subhead A?
Yes.
We want to deal with B1 on energy.
Do I have to reply?
The Minister can reply at the end of the debate.
The Minister cannot reply to all the queries on the various subheads together.
It is all about time.
I wish to reiterate something that Deputy Roche mentioned about the co-location of masts whereby the varies companies had an agreed policy. That is not being implemented at present. Mr. Malone from Esat, who made contributions to our committee, indicated that he was not entirely happy with Forbáirt being an independent assessor of the level of radiation being emitted from masts. He felt it did not show total independence. If some players are unhappy with the situation, we need to reconsider the matter. If a State agency, merely because it is a State agency, is seen to collude with the Department, the impression is created in communities that there is something wrong and that a State agency is the only body which can monitor the level of radiation being emitted from these masts. I ask the Department to take a stronger line and insist on co-location where it exists and request a more independent body to monitor radiation.
Deputies Roche and Hogan referred to masts. It is my belief - I have said this to the other operators - that they are not talking to people and including the community. They are talking to themselves, but they are not including local people. Co-location is ideal if it is allowed to work, but it is not. Has the committee published its study on this issue?
It is being prepared. All these issues were dealt with by the committee.
I am sure the study will be good, but no matter what study comes out or what is done with regard to WHO, people are determined. People are very worried about the effects of masts. Women are especially worried about their fecundity and that of their children. I have met many such people, and no amount of studies will placate them. We all use mobile phones, which are badly needed by industry, and I note the stringent planning regulations of Wicklow County Council. I hope those are upheld, because at the beginning there was no need for planning permission for telephone masts. I do not know how one reasons with people's genuine health fears. A study will be published in the United Kingdom that shows it is not the masts but over usage of mobile telephones that is a health risk. This is a big problem, but co-location is a solution if it works. At the beginning masts were put up in unsuitable places, but then no place is suitable. If one puts a mast near a school it is unsuitable because of the children, while a valley is unsuitable because of its natural beauty. I have met the Independent groups and told them they must reason with communities.
They refuse to go to public meetings.
They then come to me with matters on the Adjournment. We do not give the planning permissions; that is the job of the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
Has the Minister spoken to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government about this?
Yes. If funds come from Europe we have a say in it. Deputy Stagg raised the matter of curtains and travel. I did not realise there was such a difference between the head of the curtain and behind the curtain. Does the Deputy feel we should travel behind the curtain?
We should look at this with a view to getting a bargain from an airline.
This is like the difference between good champagne and bad champagne.
I never had champagne on a plane in my life, though I will get it if it is available. There is a good staff training scheme within the Department which should be nurtured.
It struck me that Forbairt could not be regarded as independent monitors of anything——
I raised this matter in the past with——
Miss Doyle?
Yes. She was not convinced it was totally independent but it was the best in the circumstances.
Studies will not quieten people's fears. Consultancies were mentioned, and the Comptroller and Auditor General criticised all Departments over two years. For example, the peat station we wanted had to go to an independent group to ensure nobody saw the envelope before it was opened, as it were. A huge amount of money was spent on that but nobody in the Department could have done it. It cost £4 million to bring in Morgan Stanley on the KPN-Telia strategic partner deal.
I am not saying this practice developed in this Administration.
I know that.
What did we do before these consultancies?
People would be accused of doing the wrong thing or of being in collusion with others.
I am sorry if I jumped the gun earlier. The Minister said that £200,000 has been set aside under the Department's Vote to facilitate early payment of funds to the County Louth residents to assist in their independent proceedings against British Nuclear Fuels. Certain conditions must, of course, be met. Will the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, please elaborate on that?
How is the National Energy Centre going? Moneys have been allocated to it. Is the Minister satisfied that those moneys are being spent in the right way? What Structural Funds are being allocated to the Goddamendy power station under the alternative energy programme? That money was not required because the project was so successful. I am disappointed the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, was unsuccessful in retaining it in the alternative energy area, because that accounted for the bulk of the European funding available for alternative energy. Because it was not required for the Goddamendy project it was shifted to other areas within the Department. It was a pity that funding was not retained for other alternative energy projects.
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is under this heading also, and that body is tardy in publishing its reports. I was Minister of State in this Department and was unaware it was not publishing its reports because those reports were available to me. It is highly desirable that its reports be published and that the attitudes of its chief executive in making statements that are so benign in their criticism of British Nuclear Fuels that BNFL uses his statements as propaganda against the Irish Government. It is outrageous that that can happen. How will the Minister of State deal with that?
My main concern is radon gas, a naturally occurring radioactive substance that causes lung cancer. Approximately 300 people die from lung cancer each year as a result of radon gas, which is entirely preventable. Responsibility for radon gas was divided between two Departments, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy. Because the RPII was responsible for radioactive matters, the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, as it was then, had all the responsibility after a long battle. Eventually we got £200,000 and a Government decision was made to set up a grant scheme for the remediation of houses to eliminate radon gas from existing houses.
When the Estimates were published this heading was gone, which is amazing, given the hepatitis C experience. The Government's culpability is demonstrable in these deaths given that it knows the cause and the solution but withdrew that solution. I have a copy of the Government decision granting that money and setting out a programme of grants to eliminate radon. I am extremely disappointed the Minister of State did not get the senior Minister to fight their corner effectively at Cabinet to hold this pittance which saves large numbers of people from dying of lung cancer each year. Has any money been paid to STAD?
Bord Gáis Éireann and its contractors have behaved in a bizarre fashion in the way they dealt with the extension of the pipe networks. The Minister of State, who has also dealt with this issue at a local level in Wicklow, has personal experience of their contractors behaving in an arrogant manner. They are destructive and the most unprofessional group I have ever come across. My personal protests to Bord Gáis on behalf of constituents have not been listened to. I hope the Minister or the Minister of State have a serious word with the company.
I look forward to the Green Paper on sustainable energy promised for the autumn. I hope it will include the possibilities of tidal energy which is significant for certain parts of the country. I am concerned by the issue of windmills. Wind energy is clean, replaceable and in every way beneficial except that it is visually very intrusive. I know some people think windmills are attractive, but it depends on where they are located.
In Holland.
Not so long ago there was a proposal for Arklow which would have been disastrous in terms of impact on the landscape. I hope the Green Paper deals with the issue of landscape intrusion by windmills.
My primary concerns relate to nuclear safety and radon gas. I am very disappointed by the manner in which we responded to the issue of radon gas. It kills 300 Irish people per year. The geomorphological formations in Wicklow, where there is a very high granite base, offer certain threats in the context of radon gas. It is necessary to ensure planning authorities carry out proper screening and evaluation of sites, particularly in the context of State developments. This is not being done at present because local authorities are not sufficiently conscious of the problem and lack the necessary technical expertise and the will to address the problem. In the current urge to build houses there is a possibility that local authorities will be less taken with details. The necessary protective devices must be built into every house. To ensure a house is relatively free of radon gas does not require a huge amount of money. It requires the use of heavy quality viscrene which is very cheap.
If bluster, bombast and hype could close Sellafield there would be cattle grazing on the plains of Windscale given the number of press releases issued over the past 25 years. The British do not give a toss about our view. The selection of the west coast of Britain for the site was a purely racist decision. It was moved as far as possible from Britain's centres of population and as close as possible to our centres of population. The Minister of State has been active on this issue. I look forward to the OSPAR meeting - perhaps the Minister of State will tell us what he intends to achieve at it. The Government should be more proactive in encouraging corporate reaction to the British nuclear threat. The way the British dealt with THORP shows they do not care about us.
A long time ago our local authority suggested that every coastal local authority should come together to form a single corporate group to attack and harry the British in terms of their planning process. We should invite all local authorities concerned with the issue in Scotland, Wales and England to join this group. Perhaps with ministerial encouragement——
The Deputy should address questions to the Minister.
Will the Minister consider encouraging local authorities to form such a corporate body and making technical back-up available to local authorities which they do not have? Will the Minister and the Minister of State try to assist and facilitate the building of a pan-European network of local authorities and communities which are genuinely concerned about the threat? The possibility of doing so exists. I wish the Minister and the Minister of State well in dealing with this issue. There is no political division in relation to it and I hope they reflect our concerns to the British who have turned a deaf ear to them.
What is the status of Goddamendy power station? Will it go ahead?
I wish to raise the alternative energy projects, particularly in the context of wave power which is being investigated by a research project on the lower Shannon in conjunction with some universities. Have any satisfactory results been shown to date? The amount of energy generated by alternative sources will be marginal and we must look at the ways we have traditionally generated substantial supplies of electricity.
Will the fourth phase at Moneypoint, our most efficient station, be proceeded with in view of the necessity to fit equipment on the chimneys to reduce pollution levels?
Deputies Currie and Stagg raised the issue of STAD. The Government has approved funding of £400,000, £350,000 of which will be drawn down by the residents and £50,000 for IT facilities to support research work. We have already dealt with the Estimate of £200,000 which was the subject of the question. My letter of 27 October 1997 made the position clear to the residents. One issue is causing an impasse in the context of the conditions pertaining to the drawing down of funding, namely, an undertaking which the State requires the residents to sign. We have a standing mutual agreement with the residents on a basis of confidentiality regarding discussions on the matter. I very much respect the confidential arrangement with the residents, but Deputies are entitled to be informed on the issue.
No moneys have been drawn down from the £200,000 which is a matter of great regret. We have endeavoured to overcome the impasse regarding the styling of the undertaking. A series of meetings, including the coming together of respective senior counsels and a meeting between the State Solicitor and the solicitor representing residents, resulted in an impasse. A number of meetings were held involving Department officials, myself, the solicitor and the residents. In recent weeks a special meeting was held on that issue with the residents, their legal people and the Attorney General's office, but again there was an impasse. There will be a meeting with the residents in the coming week. I am pessimistic about the outcome of that meeting and of overcoming the impasse, given the extensive well-intentioned efforts made in the past six months. I am anxious the moneys the Government has made available are drawn down. These moneys have not been drawn down because of the failure to provide, or the aversion the residents have to, this undertaking which is deemed necessary by the Attorney General in the interests of the State. That is the legal advice by which I must abide. We are meeting in a week's time.
A promise was made.
We made a promise which we have kept to the word and the act.
There was no mention of an impasse at that time.
We must act with propriety, which is what we are endeavouring to do.
Deputy Dermot Ahern has landed the Minister in it.
The issue of radon was raised by Deputy Stagg and others. I share Deputy Stagg's disappointment that we do not have a radon grant in situ. My senior colleague fought the good fight for it within Cabinet.
And lost.
I suggest temporarily; I have little doubt we will have it in due course. I am concerned about radon gas. The RPII shares that concern and advocates that the grant should be put in place. I am at one with the institute on that and the Minister and I will endeavour to persuade Government to put it in place.
Deputy Stagg spoke about the Irish Energy Centre. This is an important aspect of energy conservation. Substantial progress is being made on renewables. It is proposed to put the Irish Energy Centre on a statutory basis and I hope the heads of a Bill will be introduced within the year. Deputies Lawlor, Stagg and others referred to the Goddamendy Power Station. I share their disappointment on that waste-to-energy project, which is not progressing. It was another string to our bow in the renewable energy area to which I aspired.
Deputy Stagg mentioned the RPII and spoke about tardiness in publishing reports. He said rather uncharitable things about the attitude of the RPII. Since its establishment, the RPII has published material in its annual report and produced data on a biannual basis. Recently, there have been soundings from Greenpeace, in particular. I had an excellent and cordial meeting with Greenpeace and have corresponded with it since. I asked the RPII to bring forward its material, which it did without a murmur, and I thank it for so doing. Greenpeace made the point, which Deputy Stagg made, about BNFL being able to use as propaganda figures used and statements made by the RPII. That may well be so, but the function of the RPII is to advise Government and the public as regards nuclear emissions or hazards in the Irish Sea and the effect on the public's health. That must be factual.
The RPII is trying to relate concentration and dosage which are two different concepts. The RPII establishes the dosage impact by taking samples and working out, via standard scientific methodology, the dosage. That is what it publishes. In publishing that, it spells out the hazards. Its bottom line is that people need not be fearful of eating fish from, or swimming in, the Irish Sea. That statement is made on the basis of its scientific findings. Having said that, it has said in communications with me that it is unacceptable to have emissions of this nature into our waters. I will speak with the RPII on an ongoing basis about this issue. I know from where Deputy Stagg and Greenpeace are coming.
My good friend, Deputy Daly, and Deputy Roche asked about wave energy. A capital grant of £1 million was provided for a qualifying wave-to-energy-plant and applications were submitted. However, improvements in technology are required. There was a disaster in Scotland and we must wait for technology to catch up. I agree with both Deputies on this issue. We are an island nation and have waves and tides aplenty which could be another string to our bow in the area of renewable energy. I hope we will be in a position to address this issue again but at present it not technologically possible to proceed.
Deputy Roche mentioned the Green Paper on which I place much emphasis. We are involving and communicating widely on this issue with individuals and organisations in the energy sector. It is in accordance with our programme for Government and will be a useful document which will be published in the current year. Deputy Roche also asked about windmills, to which there is anaversion. There was also the experience ofArklow.
Is it agreed to take subheads C to F inclusive?
I want to drive the policy on renewables because of its importance. It has huge implications for the environment and security of supply. There are positive aspects to wind energy. The people who proposed the programme in Arklow handled it in a hamfisted manner. They behaved like a bull in a china shop and did not engage in consultation with the local people. Noise and visual impacts are a concern. Technological developments have virtually eliminated the noise impact. The visual impact is in the eye of the beholder.
We should do something to encourage a proactive approach to Sellafield by all local authorities in the coastal region. If the Minister were approached by a group of local authorities, would she consider giving them technical support to help them put together and effective lobby?
We have been dealing with everybody concerned on this, including the UK authorities and our colleagues in Europe. We will be delighted to continue our vigorous battles on Sellafield.
We will now deal with the remaining subheads.
CIE held a press conference on its consultancy study on rail investment. Would it be possible to make the study available?
Yes.
The Minister referred to the mobile assets, the CFF meeting and what I assume is the monitoring committee. When will those issues be determined?
On 25 and 26 June.
The Cabinet will decide on the matter.
Yes.
The Minister said the MMDS issue was one for the regulator.
And for me, when she refers to me.
The Minister is responsible for policy.
That is correct.
The Minster should tell MMDS to consult the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands to establish principles. Universal access is a reasonable principle. There should also be competition; there is none at present, given the terms of exclusivity. Digital services should be provided because they provide better quality. At present, viewers must watch the channel they record on VCR. Having established these principles, would it not be possible to meet MMDS, advise it of the probable plans to licence digital and attempt to settle all aspects of the outstanding court case? If MMDS insists on gearing up for digital MMDS, it will require further exclusivity and the same problems will arise. A MMDS mast is only good for a five mile radius. For example, my wife opened a betting shop six weeks ago in Wexford, which has a population of 22,000. She wanted Channel 4 and the racing services, but multi-channel providers refused because of MMDS exclusivity. Fortunately, because of our proximity to Wales, we managed to secure an off-air service.
Non-profit making, illegal, unlicensed deflector groups throughout the country received solicitor letters from Matheson, Ormsby and Prentice telling them to take down their masts. They then asked MMDS to provide a service but were told it had no signal in their areas. This is outrageous. Elderly people who like to watch "Eastenders" and other programmes are being denied a service. MMDS wants others cut off but will not provide a service.
The Minister should indicate that interim licences will be provided before the arrival of digital, due in 2003. She should then settle the case with MMDS by removing its exclusivity in respect of digital. Analogue will last only another three or four years. It is the regulator's job to ensure equity in licences. However, these are policy and Exchequer questions. The regulator cannot decide on the levels of compensation. This nettle must be grasped if people are to have a service. Somebody must take ownership of the issue. Matters ran into the sand when Deputy Dukes was Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. The Department of Finance has a role in this. A ministerial task force should insist that a leadership role be taken.
I understand CIE is in the process of preparing a five year business plan. That was not referred to. When is it likely to be completed? Has CIE appointed a consultant to examine the strategic future of the company? Serious consideration should be given to the Dublin transport situation, including Dublin Bus and the DART. Why does CIE need an overhead for a corporate head office bearing down on top of transport network for one million people? It is a stand alone matter, demanding business. We need to co-ordinate bus corridors, quality bus corridors and commuter rail. In some instances rail and bus timetables do not coincide. There must be a much more efficient way to run the Dublin transport network.
There was much controversy about the board of CIE. What is the present position? What about the memo that supposedly went from former Senator Tras Honan to the Government, which is now denied? It is unbelievable that the State left itself in a position where it had to settle a dispute with a former board member. Why was it not settled at the outset?
Revolutionary change is occurring in television. The digital system will alter the system we have been used to. Who in the Department is dealing with this area? Enormous problems have arisen in the UK with different technologies and the arrangements between the private sector and the Government. What arrangements will be put in place to exploit this development?
I have no in-depth knowledge of the mechanics of the licensing for MMDS. There is an MMDS system in west Clare. I live in the most remote part of Ireland - the west Clare peninsula - and I can receive BBC, UTV, Channel 4 and so on through the MMDS system. It is a vital system which has given an excellent service. We paid a great deal of money for deflector systems which have drawn down a storm. This system replaced deflectors and has been very reliable. The number of complaints about it has been very small, it is an efficient and effective service.
Who in the Department has responsibility for digital technology? What type of technology will be used? What impact will there be on employment in that sector and is someone working on this to ensure the magnificent opportunities the new system presents can be exploited?
Deputy Lawlor asked if there is a strategic planner in CIE. The Government decided last July to ask John Behan to work on a viability plan with CIE. He is doing that with each of the three companies separately. Jim Mulvihill, the labour relations committee and the three companies are working together but they are being dealt with one at a time. Dublin Bus is currently being dealt with. Examination of that company will soon finish and a start will be made on the next company. A great deal of preparatory work has already been done with Bus Éireann and CIE. John Behan calls himself a "change management specialist". The Government appointed him and is awaiting his report.
The Deputy asked about Dublin transport and I agree it is coming together neatly as a package. I have been thinking about the issue for some time. He also referred to the former Senator, Tras Honan. The court case was to go ahead in May, but Mr. O'Leary's side was not fully prepared and asked for the case to be postponed. It will not be heard until the autumn as a result.
I hope there will not be an embarrassing climb down as there was with the previous board member, Miss Mulrooney, with a grovelling apology to the High Court which defied logic.
That had its origins in an unhappy past which I do not want to go into.
It still has to be dealt with.
I am dealing with it. I could be as bitchy as the Deputy wishes. The matter is going to court and I will not get involved. The points about Dublin transport are correct and I will address them again.
I listened to Deputy Yates on the Gerry Barry Show on the radio and he was committed and passionate about this issue, as was Deputy Daly today, although from another angle. The Deputy's point is that we should all get together and deal with MMDS. Those responsible met us last autumn and said they would proceed; they have since served us with notice. The independent regulator is ready to move in a progressive way on this issue in September. That may provide the necessary fulcrum. The Department has responsibility for policy on spectrum but the ideas about what can be done will come from the study and the submissions which have been made to it. Minister de Valera is responsible for television and its content and she is doing a good job. It is a difficult matter to manage, but the decision to separate the two areas, spectrum and content, was taken by a previous Administration. We would have preferred the responsibility for content and spectrum to have remained unified. Digital television is a great leap forward and there would be merit in us working together on it. The deflector issue, however, should be cleared by the autumn.
Does the Minister have an open mind on this?
It was interesting to hear Deputy Daly praising the service.
I am not saying we should withdraw MMDS licenses. They work satisfactorily in some areas. In others, however, they are not working satisfactorily. There should be a dual licensing system.
We will have to come to a decision. The process has been gone through - the regulator issued a document, studied the responses, held a conference and examined the final responses. The findings will emerge from that.
It is then put to the Minister.
There will be a courtesy call.
Deputy Lawlor raised the issue of the board. That was extraordinary and should never have happened. We would like to see the papers on that as a lesson for the future.
We have a problem with congestion in Dublin which is getting worse. Luas is the daftest proposal ever made, although that debate is for another day.
I know the Deputy is against all Luas proposals.
Precisely. The money should be spent preventing commuters coming into the city in their cars. That could be done by extending the DART. The DART extension to Malahide and Greystones should have been included in phase one but it was not because of CIE. I suggest that the Department examine the impact on the commuter problem in Dublin if the DART were extended throughout the commuter belt. I have an interest in Arklow and Wicklow. CIE made a mess of the original proposals and gave the wrong advice to the Department.
Will the Minister's officials communicate with me about the fourth phase of Moneypoint?
That concludes the consideration of the Estimates. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and my colleagues who did the best they could to get everything in order in a short time.
That is the truth. I thank them all very much.
I thank the Minister, but prior consideration should be given to the time and venue as this was not entirely satisfactory on this occasion.
The Whips will examine what we can do in that regard.