I propose that we group the subheads for the purposes of discussion. We will deal with subheads A1 to A6 - administration, B1 to B8 - energy, C1 to C8 - road and rail transport, D1 to D7 - civil aviation, E1 to E4 - communications and F1 to G - miscellaneous items. Does the Minister wish to make an opening statement?
Estimates for Public Services, 2002.
Vote 32 - Department of Public Enterprise (Revised).
Chairman, I will not read my script, but it is available if members wish to obtain a copy. I thank you, Chairman, for the manner in which you propose to deal with the business of the meeting.
Are there any queries regarding subheads A1 to A6? No. We will then move on to subheads B1 to B8 dealing with energy.
I wish to raise the issue of the BNFL case. There is an increase in the allocation to this case which is understandable given the reported activity. Have plans been made for future developments in this case such as the transportation of MOX which has come to light since these figures were prepared? The transportation of MOX from Japan to Sellafield will give rise to considerable international expectations that Ireland will take action and pursue this matter in every legal and diplomatic way possible. Is this being taken account of as regards future allocations under this subhead?
The Estimates do not include any figure for share capital in EirGrid. There is a level of uncertainty among those working for EirGrid as to what lies ahead. They will not be given any hope when they see a figure of zero in the 2002 Estimates. What is the background to developments under this subhead?
Chairman, how do you wish me to deal with these issues?
That is a matter for the Minister.
Sometimes if one lets the questions run on, one does not get a chance to answer them.
It is up to the Minister, but perhaps we should allow questions from Deputies Stagg and Higgins.
I wish to raise the issue of radiological protection. On her radio programme during the past few days, Marian Finucane has been promoting the Government's campaign of sending cards to Tony Blair and the British Government. This is an anti-Sellafield measure in which An Post also seems to be involved. It is also involved in other things with the Government party, but that is a story which will be raised elsewhere. The main Government party is a very recent convert to the cause of nuclear safety and a very new opponent of nuclear energy. The Government immediately began to act when Sellafield was discovered to be a real issue for people. During the previous Administration when I tried to tackle BNFL, I was told day after day that I was going about it the wrong way, that I should deal with the issue through quiet rather than megaphone diplomacy. I was told I should be cosying up to BNFL as the present Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs was doing at the time. When he spoke on radio this morning about the issue he gave a very poor answer as to why he adopted that attitude at the time. He said he was doing research.
Is there something in the Estimates which will cover the cost of what has become a party political campaign on Sellafield and will the taxpayer have to pay for this? The Labour Party has been operating a similar campaign for some time whereby cards are sent by members of the public to Tony Blair asking him to close Sellafield. If the Government cards will be paid for by taxpayers, I want the Labour Party cards to be paid for by taxpayers also. There should be equality of treatment of the various sections within the political system which now oppose Sellafield. I welcome the conversion of Fianna Fáil to the anti-Sellafield cause and the anti-nuclear cause in particular. I will get the Minister one of the anti-nuclear badges which she might display occasionally.
Will the Estimates cover the cost of the anti-Sellafield campaign by the Government? Funding was provided previously for the "Dundalk Four" and so on. Given that the Minister is responsible for nuclear safety, is there funding for this in the Estimates? I presume nuclear safety will extend to trying to close Sellafield, which poses the biggest nuclear threat.
The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, sends his apologies. He cannot be here today for personal reasons.
I agree with what Deputy Sargent said about Sellafield. What is the prognosis on our legal options? What legal redress have we at this stage? While one cannot anticipate what might happen in a legal case, what are the prospects in terms of making any kind of meaningful impact on the dogmatic intransigence of the British? They have led us a merry dance and told lies time and time again. They have broken faith, even in the wake of the cases last December when they were supposed to provide accurate information. There has been incident after incident, breaches of regulations and breaches of good faith.
Last week the Minister called for the closure of Sellafield. At the end of the day, the British simply turn a deaf ear, go on their merry way and treat us with total contempt. People are absolutely frustrated at this stage and something must be done. The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, may come forward with iodine tablets, a nuclear plan or national emergency plan but if Sellafield goes up, that is the end of the story for all of us. This is an extremely serious issue. It is the most imminent and immediate threat on our doorstep. If nuclear reactors can blow up in other parts of the world or are the subject of terrorist attacks, it can happen half an hour from our shores.
On subhead B7, I welcome the introduction of the radon remediation grant, which is long overdue. However, the level of grant, €1,000 or 50% of the cost, is hopelessly inadequate. I have checked with three or four reputable companies involved in the radon remediation business and they quoted a cost of €3,000 to €4,000 for an average house. Therefore, the €1,000 grant or 50% of the total cost will mean the scheme will be outside the scope of many low income families. This natural health hazard is a cancer-causing agent which has just recently come to the fore. People find themselves in this situation by accident of birth or geographic location through no fault of their own. The amount of money involved is €500,000 which means one is talking about just 500 or 600 houses. I appeal to the Minister to look again at the level of the grant and to consult with reputable agencies. The RPII is supposed to be an expert in this area but there are people on the ground who have been providing this commercial service for three or four years. They will verify what I say, that to treat an average house would cost €3,000 to €4,000. This is just a short-term measure because all new houses must now have radon remediation measures in place. If the radon is found to be above the safety threshold, a safety mechanism must be put in place. This measure which will be phased out over five or ten years. That is why I appeal to the Minister to have the RPII or her Department consult with the industry to verify costs in this area.
One of the mistakes we made at the time was that the Minister insisted on enshrining into the Bill the actual amount of the grant, which means it is now frozen. However, a two line amendment would remedy that problem. I would like to see remediation of the remediation grant, which is hopelessly inadequate. The uptake will not be as great as we were hoping because of the fact that people will simply not be able to afford it.
I would say to Deputy Sargent that whatever is required to pursue the legal costs will be provided. Since taking up office the Government has made a firm commitment in this regard. I also stressed this to Deputy Stagg. The prologue to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea struck down Ireland's case. However, it said there was a case for bringing the matter to a full hearing, which is happening, and that there would be a tribunal of arbitration under the convention which would make it legally binding on the UK to stop the commission of the MOX plant. This request was heard in November and the judgment was issued. This country was pleased with the judgment because for the first time obligations of co-operation were imposed on the UK vis-à-vis exchange of information and the construction of appropriate measures. The tribunal will receive written statements in October and there will be an oral hearing early in 2003. That is what is expected in the course of the legal hearing.
The Deputy asked whether there would be more protection for costs in the law arena. The costs will be provided to pursue the case under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
My main point related to the MOX shipments. Are the recent developments in regard to the transportation of MOX included in the figures?
There is an ongoing legal team dealing with all aspects of that issue. Whatever money is required in the legal arena will be provided.
Does that include 100% for STAD funding?
Is the Deputy referring to the residents?
Yes.
That is included in the Estimate. This subhead relates to certain expenses arising from independent legal proceedings relating to BNFL and to the Government's package of financial assistance to County Louth residents as outlined on page 42 of my briefing note. The Government approved a second package of assistance in December 1997 relating to defined areas of work by the residents' legal team. Details of this offer were outlined in a letter to the residents' solicitors from the Department in December 1997 but the offer has not been taken up. The residents have not given a judgment on the offer or decided whether they will take it up.
I do not have that information, it is in the Minister's brief.
The Deputy may read my brief if he wishes.
This is just research though, is it not? It does not relate to legal costs.
Yes, that was background research. I answered the Deputy's question about the money required for the Government's case. He also asked if the Government would give 100% to the residents.
Which the Government committed to do before the last election.
The Government approved a second package of assistance in December 1997 relating to defined areas of work by the residents' legal team following from their research activities. I think the Deputy knows that.
I am just saying it is a sore point. The commitment was given before the last election.
The Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob, has met the residents——
Indeed he has.
——but they have not come back to him on this offer. Until they do——
It is a sore point and we will not resolve it here.
I am sure it is.
I am just saying it is an outstanding issue.
With regard to EirGrid, the Department of Finance would make payment in respect of share capital out of Exchequer funds. In this case, however, this was not possible because the company was established by means of secondary legislation. Therefore, the Department of Finance sanctioned the inclusion of €30,000, which is the minimum amount of share capital allowed for a PLC under the Company's Act. This is a once off payment which was made in January 2001.
Consideration is being given by EirGrid to the course of legal action the company intends to take and it has not yet come to a conclusion on that matter. The company is still considering its legal options and its properly felt need for finance towards litigation if it should decide on litigation. That is being considered by the legal advisers to EirGrid and by Mr. Tom Reeves, the independent regulator.
Does the Minister know that people are losing their jobs in EirGrid?
I have not been informed of that. If the Deputy has information I would be very glad to get it. No one has contacted me, my office or any section therein about that matter.
I will let the Minister have the information.
Deputy Stagg spoke about Sellafield in his usual fluent fashion. He has had a long and great interest in the issue.
The Minister almost sounds like Vincent Browne.
I would love a job like that.
It was a compliment.
Yes. Deputy Jacob has been entirely consistent in tackling this issue. When I opened our new embassy in Oslo last Friday, the Norwegian Minister with responsibility for the environment told me that when he visited Ireland he learned much from Deputy Jacob to enable him to pursue his case vigorously at the North Sea conference last week. The intransigence of the British Government, which was referred to by Deputy Jim Higgins, is massive. The British appear to think they have carte blanche to proceed as they are going. The legal route is the correct one.
I did not hear Marian Finucane's programme this morning as I was getting ready to meet this committee so I do not know about the matter referred to by Deputy Stagg. If he is asking if there is extra money in the Estimates to allow for the sending of the cards - I know about the cards and I will return to that in a moment - that is not the case.
Who is funding that?
I will explain that in a moment. Extra money is not provided for them in the Estimates.
About six months ago, Ali Hewson and Adi Roche came to see me and talked about a project they were undertaking whereby every primary and post-primary student in Ireland would send a card to Mr. Tony Blair and other figures - I believe they mentioned Mr. Pat Cox - on the anniversary of the Chernobyl incident in April. The two women are hugely committed to their task. I do not know when I last saw such obvious idealism. I told them they should contact An Post and they duly did so. I cannot comment on what was said on the radio this morning. I merely explain the background of my involvement in the project. I did not telephone, write or speak to anyone in An Post about the matter. I applaud the women's idealism and approve of the route they are taking in encouraging young people to become motivated about the issue of Sellafield. I will wear the badge if the Deputy gives it to me.
Deputy Jim Higgins also spoke about the utter intransigence of the British Government. We are all baffled - and so is the Norwegian Government - by the brick wall presented by the British Government. No matter how long it takes, I believe the legal route will yield results in the end.
Deputy Jim Higgins went on to speak about radon gas.
Before we leave this issue, is there a chance that Ireland and Norway could co-operate in a joint legal route instead of going our separate legal ways?
When I received the briefing about meeting the Norwegian Minister last week it appeared as if that request was going to be made. In the event, it was not made to me. We had quite a long time together, maybe an hour and a half, and we gave a press conference afterwards. He did not mention this and I did not bring it up. I assumed the Norwegians had taken a political decision not to follow that route. When one meets someone in another country, one does not like to encroach on that person's province. The proposition was not put to me.
I read in the newspaper accounts of the North Sea conference that Norway has decided to take legal action. The request to join with us might come now. I am not sure if legal action had been decided on when I met the Norwegian Minister. I encouraged him to take that route and he is highly motivated about the issue and committed to pursuing it. Therein lies a chance. If the Norwegian Government remains fired up on the issue, we will be assured of a partner and the UK might think again. I hope that will be the case.
With regard to certain expenses associated with the BNFL case, when the Minister met with the Norwegians to discuss it, did it emerge that anything beyond legal action might be appropriate in terms of diplomatic and economic measures or building coalitions with other countries on the route of MOX transportation? The legal case is not the only show in town, as the Minister knows, and may prove to be a frustrating experience, but there are diplomatic possibilities in countries joining together to say that the Sellafield operation should not be supported economically. The influence of Ireland and Norway on Japan, Germany and the other customer countries was through diplomatic co-operation.
The Deputy is right. The secretary just reminded me that the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, visited the countries involved in this matter and got good feedback. In relation to the Deputy's question, we discussed the fact that there is no economic basis for the UK to continue with it and that, in fact, there is a disincentive as it never realised the supposed economic potential. We did not, strictly speaking, discuss the diplomatic route but the Norwegian Minister referred to the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob's visits to ensure that those countries understood what we were doing and would do. Diplomatic activity is ongoing. When the Taoiseach requested that I open our first embassy in Oslo, he also asked me to meet the environment Minister there. Our ambassador in Norway, who is fired up about this issue, facilitated that meeting and reported to me that he has had serious discussions on this matter with his peers. The diplomatic offensive, to call it that, could be very fruitful, as the Deputy said.
It should include countries like Chile and Panama which are on the routes of the shipments, not just those that might be in the slipstream of the emissions.
I understand the Deputy's point.
That is where the international dialogue should stretch. The Government sees Scandinavia as an obvious ally——
It is in the North Sea.
——but I am referring to the transportation.
I understand that and will raise the matter with the Minister, Deputy Cowen, as I am not directly involved with diplomatic matters.
South Korea is another country that should be considered, especially with the World Cup coming up. I worked with South Korean environmentalists on Sellafield and they are as exercised as we are because of the transportation of nuclear material through South Korean waters.
I will discuss this with the Minister for Foreign Affairs next Tuesday.
I thank the Minister.
However, I can only speak about my own experiences with our ambassador, Donal Hamill, in Norway who is committed to this issue. When we left the Norwegian Environment Minister, he explained to the Irish departmental secretary that he would continue to work on it. I will raise with the Minister, Deputy Cowen, the Deputy's suggestion regarding other countries which are on the transportation route and not just those affected by emissions.
Deputy Jim Higgins raised the grant of €1,000 that will be available to deal with radon gas emissions. Was that Bill finally passed yesterday?
It went through the Dáil about four weeks ago.
A grant covering 50% of the costs up to a maximum of €1,000 per dwelling will be paid on a first come, first served basis. It will commence this year and run for ten years. It is expected to benefit 126,000 dwellings and will be administered by the RPII. As Members know, the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Molloy, is overseeing the technical guidelines regarding radon in buildings, including schools. The concern, as with any grant scheme, is that as soon as it is introduced, the cost of doing the work rises also, usually to the builder's benefit.
It was an amendment to the sustainable energy legislation. Normally when a grant scheme is introduced, such as the old home improvements grant, the amount is not enshrined in the legislation but could be changed by ministerial order.
I was not aware of that.
This grant is specified in the legislation and it must be tested to see how it works out as I do not anticipate the uptake to be as high as stated.
The Deputy made the same point in the Dáil. Could we move on to subheads C1 to C8, dealing with rail transport?
I commend the Minister on upgrading the rail infrastructure and in particular for the badly needed rail safety programme which is almost complete.
There is another year of that.
Yes, but most lines have been tackled, such as our own Athlone-Westport line.
The main ones are completed and only some secondary ones remain.
There are only 14 miles left to be completed.
Will the Minister tell us which subhead provides for her recent announcement that an order was placed for new locomotives and new rolling stock?
Is she aware of the public disquiet over what is known as the Spencer Dock project? We are providing much money to CIE after it drew down a bad deal in relation to the rent and revenue it is getting from Spencer Dock. The Minister discussed with the now deceased former chairman of CIE some years ago the disposal of its property and the best advantage that could be made of it. Spencer Dock appears to be the worst possible deal in terms of the company's income.
The Spencer Dock project was undertaken by the previous chairman and I was not happy with the arrangements or the projections which I was told it would yield and which have not yet appeared. It was done under a different administration in CIE and a different chairman and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I asked the current chairman to make some sense of these arrangements. I repeat that neither he nor the current chief executive officer entered into them.
We all know of the inquiry into the mini-CTC, which was truncated by the courts. I disagree with that decision, but I understand an interim report will be published.
We will have to put it to the people at some stage.
Yes, on the constitutional aspect. The Deputy asked about public transport and where it was included. It is in subhead C5 under the transport investment programme. The allocation for 2002 under that subhead represents an 86% increase on the allocation for 2001 and reflects continued progress. Deliveries of the new rail cars will continue throughout 2002 and 2003.
I welcome those but are any carriages on order for the mainline services including Dublin-Wexford, Dublin-Waterford, Dublin-Cork, Dublin-Tralee, Dublin-Limerick, Dublin-Galway, Dublin-Westport, Dublin-Ballina and Dublin-Sligo?
Yes. This came up recently in a parliamentary question. Tenders were being reviewed at the time and a decision has been made on the supply of 67 new mainline rail carriages. The main lines will also share some of the carriages coming in now. I will provide the Deputy with a precise answer to this query.
I thank the Minister.
I was almost late for this meeting today because once again the train was not quite on time. I acknowledge that the road and rail transport heading has shown an increase and that is welcome, but it is part of the national development programme which gives about one third of its transportation allocation to public transport and two thirds to the motorway programme. The Minister has often referred to and acknowledged the long years of neglect of public transport and this highlights the need for a reversal of the proportions to two thirds for public transport and one third for the motorways. I was glad to hear the Taoiseach acknowledge in his Ard-Fheis speech that we need a national transport authority and not just a National Roads Authority.
No. What he said, and what I also said earlier, and it is a policy we have adopted for the election, is that there should be a Department with responsibility for infrastructure.
I would go further and say that the National Roads Authority needs to evolve into a national transport authority that takes on board other modes of transport.
That is what a Department with responsibility for infrastructure would do. It would deals with roads, rail and buses.
The National Roads Authority is very good at grabbing not just the money, but also the contractors and various people who will do the work. We are then left trying to pick up the pieces in the public transport sector. For example, is there any provision for track lines to augment the old track lines? The one-up one-down train paths around the country have been there, in some cases, since 1844. Other European countries have additional tracks alongside where, for example, the Belfast train would travel without interrupting the suburban timetable. It would be likewise with the western line. Deputy Higgins mentioned the lines connected to Dublin but the interconnection of the western regions needs redoing. There is a greater need for infrastructure than is being provided for here. The infrastructure is not keeping up with the demands being placed on it by large areas of population such as Dublin north which we have spoken about before. I welcome any money provided but more is needed.
Is there any improvement in relation to customer charters? I have tried to get customer charters from Iarnród Éireann and the various other bus companies but it is difficult. A charter of expectation should be on the entrance to every bus station and on every bus shelter. I welcome the fact that apologies are now frequently issued. An apology is almost a hallmark now on every train on which I travel and almost every journey begins with apologies for the delay due to a signal failure or due to the late arrival of an incoming train. Other people I have met have told me they hear an apology on every train. I was late for a meeting last night for the same reason. That is the norm now and I wonder if apologies are as far as we have got with a customer charter.
Bus companies need, and are getting, more buses but they do not have the accommodation for them. We need to look at the broader picture. Press statements announcing additional buses will catch headlines but places to put buses and the infrastructure to make progress are necessary. Does the Minister have any opinion on the provision of bus shelters as part of 21st century progress? Where people are expected to wait on buses they should have shelters. It is possible to be ingenious and imaginative about it and in areas where local authorities would not get advertising revenue from the location, perhaps the parks department could see shelter maintenance as a feature of its remit. There should be a way to deal with the issue rather than leaving people to be rained on if the location does not pay through advertising. Will the Minister look at a customer charter as part of the headings so that we will not just talk about the amount of money being spent but also about customer service and customers' expectations?
I thank the Deputy for his appreciation of the money being spent. When I came into the Department there was no money and public transport was in a wasteland. CIE's capital expenditure for 1997 was £400,000. Previous Governments saw no point in putting money into public transport. We all know how the story of Knockcroghery woke me up and I was lucky the Government saw the importance of rail transport. Since then huge amounts of money have been spent on public transport. That will continue and will be part of our manifesto commitment. There will be no let up on investment in public transport if we return to Government.
I was invited to a meeting with a group of university students about a week ago and was asked about various experiences. I mentioned that when I leave public life, one thing I will be happy about is having contributed to the growth of public transport through obtaining finance for it. I genuinely believe somebody less experienced would not have got the investment. I say that not by way of self-aggrandisement but as a fact, because the investment had to be fought for - that kind of investment does not come easily. Nobody opens the purse strings that handily.
However, at the end of the day it was done. It takes time - I am not parodying the advertisement which asks "are we there yet?", clever as it is. My name has not been put to it nor is my thought behind, but it is taking time. Look at the situation in the UK where there is huge private investment, although perhaps not enough. Rail transport is not an exact science. It is very difficult. It will take another term of Government and maybe a further one to get it into a shape that is acceptable to all passengers who travel. There are always bad experiences. Many of the letters I receive every day are from people who have had very bad experiences, and I read them all. I never hear from people who have had a good experience but they must exist because the people one meets sometimes say so. They do not put pen to paper to tell of a good experience, but they write to tell of the bad ones and it certainly wakes one up to what is happening.
With regard to customer services, the CIE group of companies is currently updating its web sites to improve layout and it is proposed to launch the new web sites in mid-September. I received a letter yesterday from John Lynch, the chairman, informing me that there will soon be a customer survey and that he will send me the results of it. I will send the committee a copy of the letter.
The question of bus shelters was raised. Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus are progressively increasing the number of seats at bus shelters. The point made was that everybody who waits for a bus should have access to a shelter. Such provision will be part of the ongoing programme. There is no doubt that it is necessary.
I remember the fright we got in relation to Harristown. Construction of the new Harristown garage will commence in 2002 for completion in 2004. It was quite a contentious point at one of the budget meetings, but the money has been provided and is about to begin or may already have begun. It will have the capacity to store 200 buses at one time.
In regard to railway lines in the context of rural Ireland, there have been improvements at Heuston Station and on the Maynooth line. I wish we could have a doubling of track everywhere. However, the existing track must be made safe and £500 million is being spent on that.
Are we not there yet?
No, we are not there yet. Did the Deputy hear the parody of that on Bull Island?
For Deputy Bruton's information, at the start of the meeting we grouped together the different subheads. We are on C8 which covers road and rail transport.
As the Minister probably knows, I produced a report for the committee last week on local transport.
I just got it today. I have not read it yet.
I do not expect the Minister to——
I will do it.
First I want to say something positive. I am very pleased that the Department is taking over responsibility for roads from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. I hope the Minister will go beyond that and, not abandon, but defer the idea of a Dublin Transport Authority incorporating land use.
The Deputy hopes I will abandon it?
Not abandon it, but shelve it. The Dublin Transport Authority will be delayed by three or four years if the Minister takes from elected local officials like myself on Dublin City Council the power to make decisions about land use, zoning and issues such as this, and we will not willingly or easily give it up to an unelected quango appointed to run Dublin transport. We need an unelected quango to run Dublin transport, to give leadership in the area. However, the direction it is going now under Government strategy, where land use will be included, is the wrong direction. It will hold us up. I do not intend to be critical of the Minister, but Dublin Transport Authority was one of the things this Government should have delivered two and a half years ago. It is still a year or more away, if it is ever agreed to in its present format. We need an interim Dublin Transport Authority appointed within six months. It should be advertising for bus competition immediately, for 20% of the network. Let us go with the gross cost contracts that Dublin Bus supports, maybe not enthusiastically, but will accept.
One of the key issues raised in my report is that while the subvention to Dublin Bus, at €56 million today, is up ten or elevenfold since 1995 and it can be rightly said that it is good that we are putting money into public transport, the other side of the coin is that the performance in relation to passengers is dismal. For an elevenfold increase in subvention, the increase in passenger use is 5%, a tiny increase. The quality bus corridors have delivered a 40-50% increase in patronage, but the patronage of the rest of the network has collapsed. There are no more people using buses today at peak hour than there were three years ago. With this strategy there is no strong leadership in Dublin traffic policy. Quality bus corridors are being introduced without anything to back them up such as park and ride facilities. There should be free off-peak travel, real-time information, and bus competition, and these things should be driven ambitiously and enthusiastically by an agency with resources. That is not happening now. We need dramatic change in this area.
In structures?
In structures, but primarily in an agency that has the power to do things. Take the example of integrated ticketing. Dublin Bus had a study on integrated ticketing. At the end of that study the Department decided to have a study, following which the Department suggested that Luas should do a study. We now are into our third study on integrated ticketing and we still have no agency with the £25 million we know it needs to put the system in place or the subvention of £15 million per year that will be necessary to sustain it in the longer term. We are talking ourselves around in a circle. This is not the product of this Government or of any one Government, but we have four Ministers and seven local authorities each with a finger in the pie, and CIE incredibly deciding what subsidy Dublin Bus gets. It is wrong that it is not a Minister or someone with political responsibility who decides on the subvention Dublin Bus gets.
I appeal to the Minister if she is re-elected and back in the post, to look very seriously at change. Her Department's record on licensing and competition is deplorable. People are given licences but they cannot pick up passengers over lengths of road in respect of which Dublin Bus already has a licence. They can have a licence in Ashbourne but once they reach the Dublin boundary, where CIE operates a bus service, they cannot pick up a passenger. They are being spancelled with unfair restrictions. I agree to the €56 million which represents an elevenfold increase in the subvention to Dublin Bus for this year, but much more must be done to make this really worthwhile for the taxpayer. Many decisions will need to be made. I look forward to the day the Taoiseach of whatever party stands up in the Dáil and he or she——
It will be a "he".
——will endorse the fact that the Department of the Environment and Local Government will no longer have responsibility for roads and that we will deliver change in the way we run traffic policy in Dublin. If, as its parting shot to the 28th Dáil, this committee can get all-party consensus on that, we will have done a good day's work.
I accept much of what the Deputy is saying. The overall subvention has increased dramatically and the quality bus corridors are working.
No, they are not working well enough.
I provide the buses; I do not have responsibility for allocating the bus corridors. That shows the absurdity of having two separate Departments dealing with transport. As in many other areas, I work very well with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey; otherwise we would not have been able to come to the speedy agreement that we want it all combined. If there had not been a Department with public transport as part of its brief, as distinct from a department of transport, for the past five years, public transport would have been run over by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. I do not mean that in a political or derogatory sense. It means the prominence given to the provision of roads, would have been to the detriment to the need to advance the cause of public transport. Having provided huge finance and advanced the cause of public transport to the point where it can now assert itself very strongly and cannot be pushed into a siding again - excuse the pun - it is now right to deal with it in the way that is proposed.
A significant amount of the subvention increase is due to the provision of decent salaries for the people who drive the buses in both Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath. Up to two years ago there was unrest and there were bus and train strikes. When we explored it fully with the Labour Relations Commission, we established inequities whereby train drivers had to work many overtime hours to get a decent salary. We addressed that with the agreement to work five out of seven days, which is what they sought. It led to huge increases and this was appropriate.
Likewise on the buses, I felt there was a need for a decent increase and it was given. That now forms part of the subvention. In answer to the question why there is only a 5% increase over the period, there is an increase of €56 million which is seven fold. That is because of congestion. I went to the Civic Offices and was shown a view of all the roads in Dublin at peak time on the computer.
Why does congestion explain a modal shift away from the public transport to the private car? Congestion affects everyone, but what we are seeing——
The Deputy is talking about Dublin, is he not?
Yes, Dublin. In the last decade public transport use has gone from 36% down to less than 25% now.
There is a huge increase in population.
Public transport is losing share to private cars. Congestion does not just hit buses; it is worse for cars, but cars carry more commuters into the city. I do not accept the contention of Dublin Bus that congestion is the source of its passenger decline.
The Deputy said there was a reduction.
I know what Dublin Bus says but I do not accept it.
Since 1997, the number of Bus Átha Cliath passengers went from——
The Minister already gave me that.
I will return to the structure ideas put forward by the Deputy and the issue of competition in both Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus. Although every Government has talked about it, we have started the preparation of legislation to change the 1932 Act. Whatever Minister comes into the Department of Public Enterprise, as it is now, will not only be administering a department of transport but will also have the legislation prepared to bring in the necessary changes to the 1932 Act. Any licences being issued now are issued under the old 1932 Act. The Deputy mentioned that a company might get a licence to go from one place to another but may not pick up passengers en route. This is due to the constraints of the 1932 Act. Successive Governments have shied away from doing anything about it and it is now necessary to change this. The legislation is not in gestation it is being written.
I do not want to hold up other members who may not be as passionate about this. The Minister said the subvention went on wages.
No, I did not say it all went on wages.
It may not all have gone on wages. As an economist as well as a Deputy, the idea that CIE decides the subvention and what drives the subvention is its wage bill is wholly wrong. Subventions should be based on identified public benefits that will be derived from the subsidy we give to rail or bus. The authority that gives the subvention should do so on by tender, so that those who offer a service do so on a competitive basis and we can see we are getting public value for whatever it is. It is not acceptable that public subventions go through the roof, passenger numbers fall and wages rise. That is not what we pay for. The implication may be that it is necessary to give more freedom to bus companies to set their own fares in accordance with their cost structures. Subventions should be primarily for perceived and identifiable social needs.
What preparations are in place to receive responsibility for roads from the Department of the Environment and Local Government into the Department of Public Enterprise? The Taoiseach made his announcement at the Ard-Fheis. It is the right thing to do and I do not want to see it scuppered by a rearguard reaction from the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
A recent newspaper report stated there was legal advice in the Department of Public Enterprise that the competition restrictions on buses, attributed to the 1932 Act, will disappear just as the taxi restrictions did. They are unlawful and unsustainable as they now stand. This may blow the 1932 Act out of the water without even having to come back to the Dáil.
I have one other question on page 22. The DART interest charges, which are shown separately, do not show the whole picture as to what the public subvention to suburban rail is per passenger and we need clarity on this. CIE should not be allowed to conceal this in its books as it does now. I asked this of the Department and was told the Minister is not receiving this information. It should be received and should be publicly available. In addition, suburban rail should be hived off and put under the Dublin Transport Authority, not under CIE. It will then become an agency answerable to the Dublin Transport Authority rather than to CIE.
I have put a great deal of work into this and believe there is an agenda for serious reform for whatever Minister is in office. I hope the Department takes it seriously and does not accept at face value the very tight answers offered by CIE and Dublin Bus as to why passenger numbers continue to fall despite huge investment in extra buses. That needs to be challenged and there needs to be increasingly aggressive tendering for all business.
That is very interesting. Whoever comes in as Minister, and I hope it is someone from the present Administration, the profile that we have given to public transport through hefty investment provides a basis for reform of the structures. Any Minister worth his or her salt, with the boost that has been given to public transport, will now be able to move forward on structural reform. It is not possible to do everything together.
There were two questions on the legal advice and the changes to be rolled into the Department of Public Enterprise.
I was about to discuss the changes. We have not yet begun the administrative changes, if that is what the Deputy is asking. However, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and my Department know that it will be in my party's manifesto. How can that be begun when it is still possible that another party, which I hope will not make it——
It is not a Government decision.
No, because that would be the wrong thing to do.
What about opening days?
It could not be done on opening days because there would be no chance at all if one had not made the decision publicly in one's manifesto, as my party will do. Both administrations know that, as do both Ministers. It is no secret that I put forward the idea to the Taoiseach two years ago. He was very interested and it will move on from there. However, for a Government to decide to do it, willy-nilly, five weeks before an election would be a slap in the face to the electorate because it is they who will decide on the various manifestos, and decide what party they will support.
There was legal advice given to the Department and that is being examined. Clarification is also being sought on some points in it and other legal advice is also being sought.
Is the Minister willing to volunteer a view as to whether it sustains the case?
I would not because the legal advice is being examined. I would not like to go any further than that.
We move on to subheads D1 to D7.
On a point of information, are these Estimates scheduled to finish at a particular time?
We were hoping to finish at 11.45 a.m. We are running a little behind time and may speed up. We can get flying now on the subject of civil aviation.
There are a couple of aspects of this which are of interest, in particular subhead D2 concerning regional airports. Could the Minister outline her policy in relation to the balance of development which the subhead on regional airports indicates? That was, understandably, to support decentralisation and the development of regions that are not currently going at the same pace as the Dublin and eastern region. Will the Minister take into account the intrinsic conflict between the burgeoning growth at Dublin Airport and the proposal to build a further runway at Dublin Airport?
Is the Deputy talking about Ryanair's formal plans?
No, I am not talking about Ryanair but about Aer Rianta - the company under the Minister's watch. I am talking about the Aer Rianta proposal to build another runway. I am not talking about terminals though we can come to that subject shortly, if the Minister wants to. I am focusing on a very expensive infrastructure capital cost.
The Deputy is talking about the plans that Aer Rianta has for expansion at Dublin Airport.
Exactly. Does the Minister see any way of looking at a broader picture than Aer Rianta, which for reasons best known to itself - there is a suspicion that privatisation may be in the company's mind - wants to put in a second runway when this country and the common good requires a radical shift away from concentrating traffic in the Dublin area? The regional airports are clearly in need of assistance, development and other ways of attracting traffic in their direction. The Minister should look at the bigger picture rather than saying that regional airports have a problem that must be dealt with while, separately, Dublin Airport has a problem to be dealt with. If we could see the connections between the various problems we might find that the solution to one problem may help to solve other problems.
This must be achieved before we go too far down this runway because an enormous head of steam is building up in opposition to the additional runway at Dublin Airport. There is an international campaign, taking in the concerns, court cases and European cases dealing with Heathrow and other airports, and which forms a pattern into which Dublin Airport is beginning to fit. The airport is too big for the region in which it is located and I want to try to put that point in the context of policy towards regional airports. We might try to help regional airports by putting a foot down on Aer Rianta's plans for another runway in Dublin.
Numbers continue to rise at Dublin Airport - both incoming and outgoing - whether I or the Deputy like that. That is so even after 11 September when there was a short slump. They are rising again. The Deputy will be glad to see that numbers have reached 16 million. I share some of the concern with regard to the plans which Aer Rianta has and I have spoken twice on this in the Seanad. The facilities in existence would cater for the proposed rises over the next six to ten years. However, as the responsible authority, Aer Rianta should plan ahead for increased growth.
It is right that Aer Rianta makes plans but there has been no formal go-ahead given by any Minister for those plans, and Aer Rianta must receive formal permission. No such formal permission has been sought or given. However, it is right that it should plan ahead in any case and then let the responsible Department or Minister deal with matters as they arise.
I want to link this to our discussion of the regional airports. If passengers who flew from Galway, Farranfore or Kerry to Dublin were on the roads problems would be increased. Huge numbers are using regional airports. However, they are all going to Dublin Airport. There are very few other flights, perhaps only one from Waterford to Stansted. I do not want to be flooded with papers as I am trying to answer all questions. The improvements we have facilitated in regional airports have not been done in a vacuum, although there are still many flights into Dublin Airport. The Government's transport policy is to encourage people to use aeroplanes rather than cars and many people are doing so. Passenger numbers in regional airports during 2000 are amazing: 21,000 in Donegal, 111,000 in Galway, 156,000 in Kerry, 202,000 in Knock, 23,000 in Sligo and 29,000 in Waterford. The numbers refer to flights to and from Dublin, apart from one other service from Kerry and one from Knock. Contrary to what many people believe, the regional airports have helped to take traffic from the roads. Air travel to the regions helps people to travel long distances quicker and eliminates some of the environmental impact of long distance travel in cars. More than 95% of flights from the regions arrive in Dublin, so more passengers are arriving into Dublin Airport.
On a point of information, there is a much larger environmental impact from air travel than from cars.
Yes.
Perhaps the Minister is talking about congestion, but she would be talking more sense from both points of view if she was advocating rail travel. We should not think that people in aeroplanes are in hang gliders.
No.
A great deal of energy is used to bring people up into the air and back down again, even if one might think——
It is far less stressful for passengers.
Mental health is one thing——
It is also far less time consuming. I would much prefer to travel from Farranfore to Dublin by air——
Than drive.
It would take six hours to drive.
A train would be preferable.
There is a railway station in Farranfore. I have got off a train there, so the idea that County Kerry is cut off from rail access is entirely incorrect.
There is at least a three hour difference in the times.
I am aware of that.
That is another factor.
It may even be four hours. The former Minister, Deputy Dukes, started the idea of subsidising regional airports and the Government has continued the initiative, which has now reached huge proportions. I often think taxpayers do not realise the amount of their money that is spent on subsidising each passenger's travel. About €27 million is spent on subsidies to regional airports, which equates to about €200 per passenger per journey: €57 in Kerry, €40 in Galway, €92 in Sligo, €124 in Knock and €92 in Donegal.
Without wishing to waste the committee's time, I intend to tell a small anecdote. An acquaintance of mine sat behind a Deputy from another party on an aeroplane which left Farranfore recently. Another passenger said to the Deputy that the Government deserved praise for subsidising their travel. The Deputy, who is familiar with the exact situation, said that the money was coming from Europe. This is untrue, of course, as the subsidy is coming from the taxpayer. I can relate this funny anecdote as my son happened to be sitting behind the Deputy and the other passenger. It is not fair to suggest that the subsidies do not benefit Dublin, as they pay for people to get to Dublin and they also help to relieve traffic pressures in Dublin.
Can I clarify that we are talking about economic development, which is intended to allow the regional airports to have an economic life of their own, rather than being a subsection of Dublin Airport?
The passengers come into Dublin.
I know they do at the moment, because the economic life of the country is still centred in Dublin, from the point of view of many people.
No, it is because the EU allows a member state to subsidise the cost of an internal flight to its capital city. It is seen as a means of retaining contact between the devolved regions and the capital. The EU will permit subsidies if they are used to bring flights to the capital city from the far away regions. The policy is based on the idea of allowing states to spend their money on subsidies per passenger from the regional airports.
It is causing many problems in the Dublin region and it will continue to do so.
I do not like to travel to Heathrow Airport, as it is far too large and unwieldy.
One never gets one's bags back.
It is a nightmare, as it has grown too much. I understand the feelings of those who brought a legal action in London. The Government examined the idea of using Baldonnell as a commercial airport, to take traffic from the south and the midlands. It was found not to be feasible, although the idea it may be revisited by an incoming Government.
Deputies raised the issue of Aer Rianta's development plans. There is enough capacity in Dublin Airport to handle 25 million passengers each year, but only 16 million are passing through at present. Curbing growth in a capital city is a difficult matter, as people want to come to such cities.
Heathrow Airport has a cap on passenger numbers, although it is larger than Dublin Airport.
It is far larger.
The principle of a cap has been established.
It has been accepted. A fifth terminal is to be built at Heathrow.
The fifth terminal will be as large as all the others put together, regardless of the cap.
Yes.
The principle of a cap needs to be examined.
My queries may be regarded as a little parochial, but I would like to put them to the Minister nonetheless. Retired aviation workers in the constituencies of Deputy Sargent and I are facing serious problems, as they feel their pension provisions are extremely discriminatory compared to other public service employees. They seek increases in the pension fund, which is probably a more feasible option in the context of an IPO. The Minister supported the workers' case at an early stage, but she was unable to overcome the Minister for Finance's protective approach to public finances. This is a serious aggravation for workers whose genuine sense of injustice will be manifest as we approach the election. As the Government begins to consider issues for after the election, can the Minister find a way to deal with this long-running sense of grievance? I understand that Lufthansa allocated money to a pensions fund without being found to conflict with EU state aid rules, so any restriction that may exist must have been put in place by the State.
The Government contributed about €6.8 million to the turnaround in Aer Lingus near the end of last year and I understand that further assessment of the issue is ongoing. It plans to contribute €1,000 next year, which I presume is a token amount. Can the Minister indicate whether additional support will be made available? While passenger numbers may be recovering, it does not appear that Aer Lingus' financial performance is experiencing a similar turnaround. Are serious financial problems anticipated in 2002, despite the restructuring programme? The Government needs to anticipate the direction in which Aer Lingus is moving and how it will contend with further problems.
On the last occasion the Government, probably with justification, said that despite the Opposition's contention, the direction of State aid was too uncertain and too slow to go down a route that would not give a response in the time available. The issue of maintaining a national flag carrier, albeit at a lower rate of operations, will face a Government some time during 2002. Given that we are the only country without a land connection to the EU, what exploration of State aid is going on behind closed doors in the Minister's Department? If we find mid-year that there is a further financial crisis in Aer Lingus, will we look to the company to shed more staff and cut more services, or to go to the market to find a buyer to take on the task? Will there be an attempt to get away from State aid by ending State ownership? There is a real concern and I would like to know what anticipatory thinking and planning is going on.
I do not know much about the pier development. Deputy Sargent is much better briefed on the matter, but, to an outsider, it is extraordinary to see this battle between the regulator and Aer Rianta, involving the courts. Can the Minister refer to that? Is the legislation adequate or was the regulator not in a position to use its powers effectively? Do we have a reasonable basis for deciding these issues going forward?
This is not that parochial.
You could include my parish.
The chairman's parish could be included as, certainly, could the southern capital. In that context, I ask the Minister if there have been further developments in regard to the case being made? Whatever about the electoral outcome or the political pressure applied during the campaign, I predict that the number of people involved and the number of people who sympathise with the RASA case will grow. Given the slimming operations in airlines generally, following the 11 September tragedies, there are many more people out there who are former airline workers. Whether they have an arrangement other than RASA, or are suffering in the same way as its members due to short-sightedness when the pension funding was being arranged, they now sympathise with RASA because those people are now fellow former airline and Aer Rianta staff.
There is a huge feeling out there that an injustice has been done to people who, at the time, felt they would never get old and that they would never retire because working for Aer Lingus was one of the most glamorous occupations one could have. Everybody seemed to be young at the time. I can understand that we now realise that life goes on and we will not be young forever, but that is one of those lessons from history coming out in the huge feeling of injustice experienced, not just by those in RASA, but by those who sympathise with them. That is a growing number of people, particularly as the airline industry goes through troubled times.
I met RASA on three separate occasions and the Secretary General, with colleagues, met representatives also. I do not have responsibility for pensions, which is a matter for the Department of Finance. I undertook in the Dáil to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Finance, in reply to an oral question. I did that and his Department has said the proposal is not feasible because of the wider implications for pensions. I was informed of that by letter on two occasions and I gave those letters to the relevant administrators of RASA, the Secretary General and the chairman. That remains the case. If any political party wishes to put it into its manifesto, it is for it to decide, but my position and that of the Department of Finance is as I have outlined it.
Even after the last series of questions on the matter in the Dáil six weeks ago, I spoke informally about the issues, but there has been no movement on it and there is no point in my pretending that there has been. I reiterate, we do not deal with public service pensions, which is a matter for a section of the public service now merged with the Department of Finance.
With regard to Aer Lingus, Deputy Richard Bruton asked if the €6.8 million was the end of the story, but it is not. We are engaged in ongoing written and telephone contact with the Commissioner and the Commission regarding this matter. I pay tribute to Aer Lingus staff and to the agreement as it is not given the credit it deserves. I do not want the credit, though the Secretary General and I were intensely involved, as were the Departments of Finance and the Taoiseach, along with the various unions. Many other airlines which went to the wall after 11 September could not do what was done by the staff and management of Aer Lingus. They simply collapsed. Swissair, deemed to be one of the best performers internationally, just folded as did Sabena, though it had a more chequered past. It was still a very strong national airline, but it too went to the wall, as did many lesser companies. In this small country, it was through a combination of consensus under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and the strong will of the employees who wanted the airline to stay in business that Aer Lingus was saved. Its management was hugely important in that. I thank the chairman, who gave such leadership in this case. No economic or union commentator, or Deputy, has given credit and I take this opportunity to say "Well done" to Aer Lingus. It saw the big picture and enabled us to maintain the status of having a national airline.
The chairman comes to see me on a very regular basis and just this week, on Wednesday, we met and he updated me. The story of the €6.8 million is not over because it is ongoing with the Commission.
Is this just about 11 September?
We have looked for the end of December.
Given other potential financial crises for Aer Lingus, is there a safety valve in place?
The Deputy asked me for the projections, but I am going on to that.
The sum of €6.8 million was already given and many other airlines got proportionate amounts. With the Commissioner, we are looking for a much greater allowance for reimbursement because the USA got away with doing the same. With regard to future financial projections, the chairman told me two days ago that the figures for 2001 will not make for happy reading, but the financial projections for 2002 look much better. That is borne out by the figures for the three month period ending in March. I hesitate to be any more explicit as the chairman was not able to be any more explicit with me. His aspiration and the aspiration of the employees is that normality will return in 2002. They have been very imaginative and initiated flights to Nice, Barcelona, Malaga, the Faroe Islands and all sorts of places to which Aer Lingus did not fly before. They are getting significant bookings on these routes. I understand capacity to Malaga and Barcelona will have to be increased and that flights on the new route to the Faroe Islands will start in early June.
The company has made huge and imaginative strides. Shannon Airport, in the Chairm an's bailiwick, has suffered a huge slump since being cut off from the transatlantic route. However, I am delighted that new routes are opening up with both Skynet and Ryanair flying to Paris and Aer Arann increasing flights to Dublin. I understand Skynet is also flying to Warsaw and other destinations. Clearly, therefore, new carriers are entering the market and taking up the slack.
On Wednesday the Cabinet renewed indemnity insurance for another month and will extend it for a further month if necessary. All the airlines except one have reimbursed the Department for the indemnity. If the exception continues to refuse to pay, its licence will be removed tomorrow night. I have no doubt it will pay the $2 million owed at the last minute. I note members of the committee are smiling. The comment attributed to a person in one of the newspapers today in which he stated he had raped - he used the word deliberately - Boeing is horrendous. I feel sorry for that person, whose name I will not mention.
With regard to the reason Aer Rianta is bringing the regulator to court about pier D, everyone, citizen or corporation, has the right to take a case before a court of law. Long may that right remain. There is no paucity or chasm in the legislation. Aer Rianta is fond of litigation. Nevertheless, it may be right to assert its cause and take court action. Why would I remove this right?
I am not asking the Minister to remove it. I raised the question and she has answered it.
The regulator does not believe there are gaps in the legislation. The company has every right to go to court if it wants to prove a point, which is what it is doing. I cannot sufficiently emphasise or praise the role played by everyone in Aer Lingus in saving the national airline.
We move on to subhead E, communications.
Considerable concern has been expressed about our ranking in terms of the roll-out of broadband. A recent survey placed us fourth last of 30 OECD countries, behind Poland and Mexico. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the briefing for Deputies on the matter this week. I understand, however, that the message was the same, namely, we run the risk of losing our traditional good standing in the area of telecoms infrastructure. Sadly, the privatisation of Eircom has left us in a position in which the traditional State vehicle for ensuring infrastructure is rolled out is no longer available. What is the Minister's response to the contention that we are falling into arrears in this respect and need to set ourselves achievable targets in order that we will have returned to the top of the league in 12 or 24 months time?
Unfortunately, only four Deputies attended the briefing. Those who arranged it for Wednesday morning were not aware that the Dáil would not sit until the afternoon. It was a very good briefing and I am delighted that all those who attended clearly recognised that the initiative we have just taken on broadband, a copy of which every Deputy has received, will, in the view of those who gave the briefing, improve our position which I agree was a dismal showing. Nobody ever quotes that we rank second among OECD countries in international productivity terms, a fact recognised in every survey and repeated at the briefing. While I accept that our performance in terms of broadband in a domestic sense is dismal, we issued two calls for tenders, the take-up of which was only partially satisfactory.
We have now embarked on a major initiative, for which funding of €44 million has been allocated in the Estimate. The project will be carried out in conjunction with local authorities, which provide 10% of the funding with the remainder grant-aided. The local authorities were asked to produce bids and ideas which were then evaluated by outside assessors. The programme is now ready and work will begin when the contracts are signed. According to Kevin Dillon of Microsoft, Chris Horn of Iona, Martin Murphy of Hewlett Packard and Dr. Alastair Glass of Science Foundation Ireland who have agreed to our request to monitor its operation, we have taken the correct approach to the initiative which will proceed in two phases.
In phase one 67 towns will be connected with 127 towns eventually being connected during a three year period. The money to connect the first tranche of towns has been provided and the money gained this year will leverage the second phase, which will be a public-private partnership. I am very glad we were able to launch the initiative before I leave the Department because it will raise connectivity and Internet access throughout the country.
We move on to subhead F, miscellaneous.
Are you referring to the subhead covering such items as other services and energy? Foreign organisations similar to Energy Action here believe that Ireland is doing much less than other countries in the area of energy conservation. Is the Minister carrying out any comparative studies in this area? I am aware that this is the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob's area——
No, it is the responsibility of the Irish Energy Centre.
The senior Minister has overall responsibility for energy policy. While I may not need to remind the Minister, I am reminding myself of this fact lest there be any confusion. Energy conservation is as important, if not more important, than broadband in terms of our international obligations, not only under the Kyoto Protocol and our various other rigorous commitments on energy consumption, but also in terms of the even more rigorous commitments which await us.
Given our poor reputation for fuel poverty and the hypothermia which affects elderly people as well as other problems associated with energy inefficiency, does the Minister have any comparative international figures on energy efficiency? She has just informed us we are second from the top of the table in broadband——
In international productivity.
——but would not be proud of our ranking in the international spectrum of energy efficiency. Has she set any international comparative markers to which we might be able to try to live up?
The Deputy is far more knowledgeable on this matter than me. As he will be aware, the Irish Energy Centre administers, on behalf of the Department, the moneys we receive under this heading. We will ask if it is engaging in comparative studies to ascertain our position in this field in order to benchmark it. Neither I nor the Secretary General has this information. In spite of what President Bush says, there is a growing awareness of a crisis looming. If energy saving or the use of alternative energy can help to combat it, then they should be promoted.
That concludes consideration of the Estimates for 2002. I thank the Minister and her officials and committee members.
I thank the Chairman and the secretariat. It got tetchy at times, but that is part of it. I prefer to answer.