Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is good that the witnesses could join us today. One positive development that has come out of the Covid period is the acceptance within the Oireachtas that things can be done remotely when necessary. A large number of issues have been raised and we could say a lot about them. I am appalled at the lack of progress in regard to the islands in the past 12 years. I got the figures from the Department on the contracts that have been entered into, showing that the infrastructure on Inis Meáin was built but there was some money still to be paid and Inis Mór was under construction. In the 11 years from 2000 to 2010, €128 million was spent on infrastructure for islands. In the 11 years since, €12 million was spent. Despite all the planning, we are not getting delivery.

I looked at other issues during my time as Minister. For example, in 1997, there were ferry services only to Gaeltacht islands and there was a hotchpotch of different systems. All of that was unified into one system and every island with any significant population got a ferry service, irrespective of which language is spoken there. The social welfare allowance was introduced in that period, giving an extra provision per week for people on an invalidity pension and other pensions. The special island tax on cars was introduced and a doctor was allocated to Inis Oírr. All of that happened by 2010 and other things were done as well. Since then, the most significant positive change I have seen for the islands is the decision that all schools must have two teachers, which I utterly welcome. However, it seems to me we are not really going forward at the moment. One of my main concerns is that we will lose years to all this planning. The plan I had at the time was written on three pages and we just went and did the things. I am not boasting because it was done; I am saying this because, to me, the train stopped with a jolt and it has not started again.

I will concentrate on a few points and ask the witnesses whether they consider them to be major issues. First, should everybody who lives permanently on an island and does not have a home automatically be considered, which they are not in many counties, to have a housing need for the purposes of planning permission? Very few of the islands have towns. That is the number one issue if we are talking about housing. Second, should local authorities be obliged to house island applicants who want to stay on islands rather than putting them on lists on the mainland against their wishes? Third, do we require the provision of affordable housing on the islands?

Broadband provision is being rolled out but it is happening very slowly at the moment. The NBP has undertaken to provide broadband speeds of 30 Mbps or more. I credit the Chairman with much of the work that was done in this regard.

The problem is it does not specify fibre-optic cable to each island, so they can provide radio broadband over 30 Mbps and they would be out the gap. That is not acceptable.

I will tie this to my next brief point. In my experience there is only one way to deal with capital deficits on islands, and that is for the island fund of the Department dealing with the islands to be significant and the Minister to have freedom with that fund. This is not part of the national broadband plan so National Broadband Ireland has no obligation to put in fibre to every island. The fund should be for matters such as installing fibre cable, sewerage and water infrastructure, as well as power and new electric connections to the mainland, telecommunications, health and leisure facilities, piers, roads and anything else requiring a capital input over and above what would be required on the mainland. It would also overcome the cost-benefit problems. For example, Irish Water would argue it is a commercial entity and it must have priorities so if there is a location with over 1,000 houses versus an island, with the cost of work on the island being greater, the cost-benefit analysis would send it to the bottom of the list.

We overcame this before because the island fund would provide the money. A company would be contracted to run the service and put in an amount of money equivalent to a service on the mainland, with the Department making up the difference. Do the witnesses agree we must go back to that process of getting the job done with the expenditure? It is not only about the money but the freedom to spend that money on any deficit that the islands Department sees and where people are arguing the cost-benefit analysis does not justify the work?

I can get into specifics on the energy question. I understand the witnesses have already sought a meeting with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and I have raised the matter with him. I am not getting much satisfaction but I understand the requests are very simple. As before, the upper limits on expenditure should be higher than on the mainland, and the Minister gave some hope in that respect. The €50,000 figure would be €60,000, €65,000 or whatever on an island because it costs more to do the same thing when we consider cost of materials, labour etc. A second request is that grant percentage rates would be higher, so 50% would become 60% and so on. A third request is that there would not be a requirement for island-based contractors to have a turnover of €1 million per year. It is hard enough for that to happen on the mainland but it is impossible on islands and it will exclude island contractors.

I have probably said enough for this round, although I could say much more on the topics being discussed. When we are looking at drafting our document, we must continue improving ferry and air services, education, health, fishing, childcare, ambulance and fire services. Nothing should be excluded from what we write and the fact that we might not necessarily discuss everything here today should not be seen as an indication that this committee will not look at all facets of life and come up with cogent proposals on them. I have utmost faith in the committee and it has the freedom to put whatever it thinks fit in the report. A matter does not have to be mentioned here today to go into the report. It is a committee report and not just about us transmitting what witnesses might manage to say in a very short time.