Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

There are a few issues I wish to raise on this correspondence. I thank the Secretary General for his reply; it is most comprehensive. There is some very useful information in it.

To pick up on the issue of the national broadband plan, we know that an attempt is being made to reduce costs by using metropolitan area networks, MANs, and existing poles from Eircom. Analysys Mason is one of the entities that provided technical guidance. I recall that it produced a report, and when representatives appeared before the committee, that report was a year old. When it was published, the upshot of the report was that we were told that the use of these facilities would halve the cost of broadband.

We know that the national broadband plan is about the number of houses that are passed. However, the number of premises that are connected will be determined, in some cases, by the cost of broadband. In keeping an eye on this project, we must ask the Department for an update on analysis that has been done. At the point that this Analysys Mason report was provided, Ireland had the most expensive broadband in Europe. It is absolutely right that existing facilities are leveraged to reduce the cost, but we need to know if the Department is keeping an eye on the end user cost because that will determine the entities that run it. We are told that any benefit will come back to the State. It is important, therefore, that we keep an eye on that.

On the Eversheds Sutherland report on RTÉ, we wrote to RTÉ seeking a response. I have not seen a clarification in respect of the 78 people who had accepted permanent contracts of employment, as opposed to permanent contracts for services. There is no doubt that an organisation such as RTÉ will need to have people on contracts for services, given the nature of the business. However, there was a cohort of people that should have been on staff or on contracts of employment.

This issue really matters because it is an example of a practice that will be taking place elsewhere. RTÉ has formally offered those people contracts but we must ensure we receive a proper response on whether the contracts will apply retrospectively. It can make a sizeable difference to people, for example, in respect of pension entitlements later on, taxation forgone by Revenue, and also in respect of the number of years of employment completed, should a person be made redundant. Therefore, it is most important that we stick with it, watch out for a response and do not let the matter slip.

On the Eircode system, we have heard about public awareness. We have been told that public awareness is being monitored and it is clear that there are public awareness targets. However, do we know if there is any evidence of usage of this pretty expensive system? I would have thought that outcomes would have been sought in relation to that. The system is a valuable one, for example, for the National Ambulance Service, but are people generally using it outside of that? The design of the system was previously heavily criticised in respect of how it might be used.

On the issue of CCTV and illegal dumping, the Data Protection Commission is engaging with the City and County Management Association. Very often, people have expectations that CCTV will sort everything out. Local authorities have a scheme in place to tackle the problem. I do not know whether it is active in each local authority area at this point. However, the Data Protection Commission has a problem with the scheme, which means that it cannot be used. There seems to be something odd about us providing grants for a scheme on the one side and on the other side an entity of the State having concerns, or more than that, about it being used. What are the circumstances that allow CCTV to be used legally? Are we spending money on grants that are not going to provide a return on that investment and the investment of community time because it is down to individuals? There is matching funding for a dumping initiative, if I remember rightly. While the initiative might be valuable, if it cannot be used, we must question the value of it. We must also ask what needs to be put in place for the Data Protection Commission in respect of who can access the information to make the scheme an active one. Those are the main issues I wish to raise.