Vol. 322 No. 4
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £760,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1980 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Energy, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain loans, subsidies, grants and grants-in-aid.
I understand there is an agreement regarding timing. The Minister has 45 minutes to move the Estimate, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party each have 45 minutes and the Minister has 45 minutes to close. The two Supplementary Estimates may be discussed together.
I measc na n-aidhmeanna ba thábhachtaí a spreag na daoine a d'oibrigh agus a throid d'fhonn saoirse agus neamhspleáchas a bhaint amach don tír seo breis agus trí scór bliain ó shin bhí an mórdhóchas go mbeadh Éire—ach í a bheith saor—in ann lántairbhe a bhaint as na hacmhainní nádúrtha a bhí aici féin. Caithfear a rá freisin nach ina measc siúd a lean an traidisiún míleata amháin a cothaíodh an dóchas sin. Bhí sé mar spreagadh ag daoine a thug a ndilseacht do na gnéithe éagsúla den traidisiún náisiúnta—agus caithfear a aithint go raibh daoine a thug Aondachtóirí orthu féin a dhein a gcion féin chun go dtabharfaí tús áite dár n-acmhainní féin i ngnóthaí forbartha na tíre seo.
Léiríodh go minic sna blianta ina dhiaidh sin, agus go háiríthe in am na héigeandála, gur críonna, ciallmhar an dearcadh sin a bhí acu. I dtús an chéid seo bhíodh fir agus mná leis an dearcadh fadradharcach sin ag iarraidh a chur ina luí ar lucht a linne an tábhacht a bhain le saothrú na gcoillte in Éirinn, an tábhacht a bhain leis na haibhneacha agus an tábhacht a bhain le saibhreas na bportach. Tuigimid go maith sa lá atá inniu ann go raibh an ceart acu.
Anois i dtús na n-ochtóidí nuair atá an tír seo, mar aon leis na tíortha tionsclacha uile, ag iarraidh an fhadhb nua dhomhanda—fadhb an fhuinnimh—a réiteach, táimse, mar Aire Fuinnimh, ag teacht os comhair na Dála le hAireacht nua ach le seanteachtaireacht. Is é sin, go gcaithfimid an bhéim a chur arís ar ar n-acmhainní fein.
Ar ndóigh ní hiad na haibhneacha ná na coillte ná na portaigh amháin atá i gceist agam—cé go mbeimid ag brath cuid mhór orthu siúd. Is í an acmhainn is mó atá againne, dar liom, ná an cumas atá léirithe go minic ag ár muintir chun iad féin a chur in oiriúint don athrú atá tagtha ar an saol. Anois tá acmhainn thábhachtach eile againn—an cumas teicneolaíochta atá tagtha chomh mór sin chun cinn inár measc le 20 bliain nó mar sin anuas. Beidh sé mar aidhm ag mo Roinnse barr tairbhe a bhaint as na hacmhainní sin.
Since this is the first Estimate for the new Department of Energy to be the subject of a full debate in the House, I am sure that Deputies would wish me, in presenting it, to outline the role which I see for the Department and, in very broad terms, the objectives which we should set ourselves. I shall endeavour in the time available to me to cover as much of the ground as possible.
I would like first to comment briefly on minerals exploration and development and then to outline in more detail the circumstances which gave rise to the specific provision which is made in the Supplementary Estimate before going on to deal with energy issues.
The promotion of minerals exploration and development is an important sector of the area of my responsibility. I intend to continue to facilitate and support the prospecting and mining companies in their efforts to find new deposits and to maintain operations at existing mines. There has been comment from time to time on the fact that no new minerals deposit has been established as commercial since the discovery of the Navan orebody. This is certainly not due to lack of interest or endeavour by the companies engaged in exploration here—prospecting activity throughout the country continues at a high level. Certain deposits of potential interest have been identified. The possible development of these depends on the outcome of further exploration and delineation work and on the trend of world trade in the minerals concerned or on a combination of these factors. If the general pace of exploration and prospecting can be maintained at satisfactory levels I think there are reasonable prospects for the discovery and development of new commercial production in the years ahead.
Production continues at the lead and zinc mines at Navan, Silvermines and Tynagh and at the copper mine at Avoca. Within the next month or so a stage will be reached at Tynagh where the underground ore reserves will be exhausted but it is expected that work will continue there for a limited period on the treatment of tailings and of stock-piled ores at the mine.
In the present situation of economic recession throughout the world the base metals markets for zinc and copper particularly have been depressed. A number of mines around the world have been closed in recent years. Others have been kept going only through State subvention of their operations. The current low level of copper prices on world markets has been one of the factors which has given rise to fresh cash flow problems at the Avoca mine which necessitate further State support.
Deputies will recall that a Supplementary Estimate was approved on 3 April, 1979 to provide State support amounting to £4.35 million for Avoca Mines Ltd. This followed consideration by the Government of a report on the Avoca Mine operation by a firm of international mining consultants which concluded that, making certain assumptions about future copper prices and other critical factors, a mining programme over a period of about four years would hold out the prospect of recovery over that period of all, or a significant part of, the State funds amounting to £4.35 million which would have to be committed up to the end of 1979.
The mining programme was based on forecast copper prices which seemed optimistic at the time but were, in fact, exceeded during 1979, with the result that the operating loss for the year was £133,000 as compared with an anticipated loss of £250,000. The result would have been even better were it not for a sharp rise in operating costs, a deterioration in the grade of ore mined and difficulties encountered in maintaining ore output at the desired level of 65,000 tonnes per month.
Operations at Avoca have been kept under constant review and an independent study of the copper market has been obtained from a London firm of consultants. It is clear from trends in copper prices and the adverse elements I have mentioned, which have persisted in 1980 to date, that it is unlikely that the relatively favourable outcome hoped for at the beginning of 1979 can now be achieved. The current break-even price per tonne of copper for the company would be about IR£1,300 compared with the current market price of about IR£920, which means that significant losses are being incurred. A further major problem is that the ore reserves available may now not extend beyond about September 1981.
The Government have carefully considered the position in the light of the economic and social consequences which should arise from closure of the mine and the dis-employment of the 246 men involved directly in mining and the other ancillary employment involved. Prospects for new jobs in the area from IDA projects are reasonable but it would take some time for these projects to come onstream. In the circumstances, the Government have decided to provide additional finance, as indicated in the Estimate, to maintain mining operations for the time being. My Department will continue to monitor very closely the situation at the mine.
It will be clear from my remarks so far that the development of our mining resources is an area of my responsibility which must continue to receive close attention. One of the most heartening developments of recent years is the practical proof we have seen that the older schoolbook picture of Ireland as a country seriously lacking in minerals resources was far from true. Today, the great cause for concern is our heavy dependence on imported, expensive energy sources. I believe—and indeed it will be the major, broad objective of my Department to realise that prospect—that before the end of the present century we will have achieved breakthroughs in the development of indigenous energy sources no less emphatic that what has been achieved in relation to minerals.
During 1979, particularly about this time last year, we all witnessed—and indeed contributed to—the reaction of the oil-consuming countries to what was, in fact, a relatively moderate shortfall in overall supplies. In the past year oil and energy prices generally have escalated dramatically. In common with other consuming nations we have taken a severe knock to our balance of payments and more generally to our economic prospects. This year we have been fortunate that supplies have so far been adequate to meet demand but this is occuring against a background of continuing political tension and uncertainty in the middle East and a sharply increasing price trend. There is no certainty, therefore, that the supply problems of last year or even worse cannot occur at short notice.
It is only within the past few years that the concept of an integrated national energy policy has become a preoccupation of governments. In the days of cheap and plentiful energy it was a relatively easy burden to support an economy which was wasteful, indeed profligate, in its use of fuel and power. In the narrow context of those times it seemed economic silliness to allocate any substantial funds to saving or substituting other fuels for oil which was in abundant supply at $2 a barrel, at least $30 a barrel less than the present average price of crude oil. After the supply and price crisis of 1973-74 there was a flurry of activity, nationally and internationally, on proposals to reduce the vulnerability of consuming nations which the crisis had so painfully highlighted. Within a year or two, with oil once again readily available and with prices dropping in real terms, a lot of the edge had gone off this earlier resolve.
But the recent crisis carried a more forceful message that the days of cheap and plentiful energy were dead and gone. There will again be periods such as now when adequate supplies—some people even talk of a surplus—may seem to emerge. Nevertheless there is now general consensus among market observers that, even leaving aside the impact of political upheavals in producing areas which seem all too likely to occur, the long-term prospects point to recurring acute pressures on supplies and prices.
In those circumstances the development of certain long-term policies in the energy field is not just prudent but is essential for our economic and social well-being. The principal dilemma which we face can be very simply defined. Irrespective of the success or good fortune we may have in developing or discovering substantial domestic sources of energy, the plain fact is that for a number of years to come the great bulk of our energy requirements must of necessity continue to be imported at increasing cost in terms of internal prices and the strain on our balance of payments. This is an inescapable consequence of the length of time necessary to bring new resources, or additional production of existing resources, onto the market. This fact of life must be reflected in our energy planning.
A major objective of policy will be to ensure that our import dependency will be spread over as many fuel types as possible, that these imports will be used in an optimal way and that our ability to cope with interruptions of supply will be improved. We must have effective contingency plans to meet import shortages of various dimensions. The stocks of fuel immediately available in this country to meet any serious disruption of supply are not adequate and steps are being taken to put them on a more acceptable footing. We must continue the process of securing firm, government-to-government arrangements for a certain proportion of our oil supplies and we must see to what extent comparable arrangements could be made for other fuels.
The Irish National Petroleum Corporation have, in the short period since they were set up, made very good progress towards achieving their initial objectives. Like my own Department the corporation have had the problem of getting down to business while at the same time providing themselves with the staff and other resources necessary for their work. By the autumn the corporation will be handling a substantial volume of crude oil arising from government-to-government contracts already concluded. The possibilities of obtaining supplies on a similar basis from other quarters continue to be pursued actively. There remains the question of the long-term, corporate strategy for the corporation and this is something that I will be discussing with them in the coming months.
The foregoing measures are designed to secure an improvement in the security of our imported supplies but the use of these energy sources, and indeed of all energy forms, in various sectors must be critically examined so that we will have a realistic plan—not necessarily an inflexible nor an immutable one—for the optimum use of energy forms and fuels. This involves conservation, substitution and, perhaps, some specific measures to influence demand for certain fuels.
When the Department was being established, I provided for a new section in the organisation specifically to deal with energy conservation. This section is working on an overall energy conservation programme which will be an integral part of my strategy, co-ordinating the many initiatives taken in recent years, giving a new focus to conservation and the opportunities which it presents and drawing up new proposals in which specific targets for conservation on a sectoral basis will be set.
The key element in conservation is to make more effective use of the fuels available to us. I have already announced a major initiative which, if certain important conditions can be met, could over a period of years bring about a major change in our present pattern of energy use. I refer to the possibility of constructing a pipeline to connect Dublin and possibly other towns near the selected route to the natural gas supply in the Kinsale Head field. If this project goes ahead on planned lines the result would be to transfer a very substantial proportion of the heating and cooking load in a number of major population centres from oil or oil-based fuels to a native gas supply and to use that supply in a more energy-efficient way. I have asked the Dublin Gas Co. to produce a development plan aimed at eliminating identified inefficiencies in management and work procedures which is intended to plot the transition to a modern, efficient gas company. Bord Gáis Éireann would have a big role to play in the planning and development of such a major national undertaking as an extended natural gas system. The first phase of the board's operations in the Cork area was completed well on time and with commendable regard to the financial aspects of the project. This work will have enabled the board to get expertise and practical experience of a kind which should prove invaluable in the planning, construction and management of an extended grid.
The next main objective must be to reduce our excessive import dependency by development of alternative, home-produced energy sources. This involves expansion of existing production of indigenous energy resources and the search for new native resources. At present about 80 per cent of our energy requirements are imported and this ratio has been increasing as a result of the growth in the economy and related demand for energy. This is far, far too high.
I have already taken steps to have our known limited supplies of native coal examined. Planning is proceeding for the design and construction of a new electricity generating station which will apply the very latest technology to the burning of low grade coal deposits in the Arigna area. Research work on the extensive use of this technology for utilising other low grade fuel sources is under way. The potential of our admittedly limited reserves of untapped hydro resources is being urgently reviewed.
I have recently had the opportunity, during the course of the debate on the Turf Development Bill 1980, of outlining in very considerable detail to the House the immediate and longer-term plans for Bord na Móna. It will suffice now to remind the House that these plans call for a very substantial increase in the board's output, particularly of milled peat, to be used for new electricity generating stations and for new briquette factories, the first of which should be in production next year.
There is also substantial annual production of peat by a small number of private producers and co-operatives, by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and by individual farmers. I am most anxious to encourage private development on bogs which are not suitable for méchancial large scale commercial exploitation by Bord na Móna. With this in mind my Department are currently considering the formation of schemes to co-ordinate and promote bog development by private interests.
World wide there is now a substantial concentration of research and development on new energy systems and I am ensuring, through my Department and their agencies, that we are fully conversant with the programmes in this area which seem of most interest to us. Our geographical position and our climate suggest that wind and wave energy are likely to be possibilities of considerable interest. The commercial production of power from wave energy is inevitably many years in the future. The present state of research is at the classical initial stage where the design and testing of quite a variety of systems is in progress. We are keeping in close touch with the most promising areas of research and when the range of options and potential performance of systems become better established I intend to examine the possibility of having pilot work done here.
The wind has been harnessed to provide power for centuries but the specifications in today's world for the manner and scale in which this power must be delivered have necessitated a completely new look at this very old technology. It is quite clear that there is considerable potential for developing wind power systems in Ireland. There have been two extremes of opinion on this and I can assure the House that I regard both with some caution. There can be no assumption—and certainly not until suitable pilot schemes have been developed and tested over a period of time—that the development of wind power can largely solve our current dependence on imported fuels. Claims of that kind will only result in disappointment if results are obtained which seem limited in that context but may well be very acceptable in realistic terms. Neither do I accept that the potential of this source is insignificant in national terms. The answer to that one is that to date we simply have not tried.
I announced the preliminary steps of a new wind power programme at the end of March last when I indicated that I had commissioned the National Board for Science and Technology to examine the steps necessary to set up four pilot wind energy projects. I mentioned on that occasion four project types on which the views of the NBST were sought. These were a coastal/mountain project, a midland located project, an island project and a wind energy machine linked to an agricultural co-operative or small rural industry.
In the meantime I announced on 19 May that I had agreed to the appointment of a firm of consulting engineers who had been given the specific task of picking a site on Inis Oirr for the island demonstration project machine. The consultants were also asked to indicate the most appropriate type of machine to erect. The aim is that the installation will supply about one-third of the island's current needs. I chose Inis Oirr because I have been very impressed with the detailed work on the advantages of windpower to an island community which has been carried out by the enterprising local co-op on the island.
I expect to have shortly the report of the NBST on the other projects. It is my intention to ensure that all wind machines that were installed as part of this programme are comprehensively and uniformly instrumented so that the data can be centrally and economically analysed and that the results of the experimental programme can become available at the earliest possible date. To ensure that this will be achieved I intend also to circulate the NBST proposals to a number of State agencies and in particular to the ESB, which is one of the most highly regarded electricity utilities in the world.
One further point which I would like to repeat from my announcement on 19 May is that these projects are only part of a broader programme which I am preparing aimed at assessing in a complete fashion the potential contribution of wind energy.
I have asked the ESB to take a more active and positive line on research into alternative forms of energy. I appreciate the work which the board have carried out into, for instance, low grade "crow" coal from Arigna, biomass conversion and timber combustion and their contribution to research into wind, wave and tidal power. I am confident that they will step up their efforts successfully in this field. I have asked them to co-ordinate their efforts with those of other interested bodies in view of the importance of the role which the board can play in the development of viable indigenous resources.
It is hardly necessary for me to dwell on the importance which must be attached to our offshore exploration programmes. The discovery of a commercial oil field would bring about such a change in our future energy position that it overshadows all the other possibilities which I have mentioned. Offshore exploration over the next couple of years will be crucial and it is an area in which I intend to apply all the effort and resources necessary to ensure that exploration is pushed ahead as vigorously as possible.
Fifty-six exploratory wells have been drilled in our offshore territory since operations commenced and every effort is being made within my Department to encourage the exploration companies to maintain the exploration momentum so that the existence of a commercial deposit of hydrocarbons will be established.
The results to date and, in particular, those from 1978 and 1979 have been very promising and they have established that hydrocarbons do exist in our offshore territory. The flow rate of 730 barrels per day from a 1978 well in the Porcupine, together with a flow rate of over 5,500 barrels per day tested last year, also in the Porcupine, have encouraged us to hope that within not too many years we will be producing Irish oil. These recent results have stimulated an interest in our offshore to such an extent that a number of companies have entered into arrangements for the allocation of further acreage.
There will be further exploration and appraisal of the prospects in the Porcupine this year. The two companies who discovered the sub-commercial deposits will shortly commence drilling further wells in the area.
Whether oil finds in the hostile environment of the Porcupine will be developed will ultimately depend on the size of the discovery, the amount that can be recovered, and the availability of the technology at a cost which will make the undertaking a commercial proposition. Based on recent advances in recovery methods from conditions similar to the Porcupine, we are confident that the technology will be available when required. However, even if significant deposits are discovered, and if the technology is available to exploit them, it would be some time before the oil would begin to flow on shore. The great water depths at which oil is likely to be found would inevitably slow down operations. Thus, even if a potentially commercial oil find were identified quite soon, we would be talking about the mid eighties before this oil would begin to be landed.
The frontiers of our exploration have recently been pushed forward with the allocation of additional acreage on an option basis to two major companies in the Goban spur area. They have undertaken to carry out extensive seismic surveys over the area during the period of the option. This area is about 170 miles to the south-west of Ireland in water depths ranging from 2,000-5,000 feet. Obviously, these companies would not invest heavily in terms of money and effort if they did not feel the area had potential and also that the necessary technology would be available to exploit any finds made.
I have outlined four of the major planks of national energy policy. These are, efforts to improve the security of imported supply arrangements and stocks, conservation and more effective use of all energy forms available to us, in particular those fuels which must be imported, the maximum development of our existing sources of energy and a strong emphasis on the search for new indigenous sources.
The next major objective of policy I would like to mention is that we must develop flexibility in the use of various energy sources so as to achieve a better spread of the import dependency which we cannot avoid in the medium term. This would, in time, permit a better response to changes in supplies and prices. In this area the ESB have a major role to play. About one-third of our energy consumption is in the form of electricity. Electricity is now our one absolutely essential form of energy which can be derived from a variety of primary energy sources but this vital resource is at present heavily dependent on imported oil.
For the immediate future, the board can do little to change this heavy dependence because of the lead time required for the construction of new generating stations. However, the board are constantly endeavouring to maximise use of existing plant utilising indigenous resources—mainly peat, hydro and natural gas, with a small contribution from native coal. For future plant, they have taken steps to diversify a large part of electricity generation from, for instance, imported coal instead of oil. Discussions I had recently with the board members showed that they were fully aware of the vital importance of diversification, both of fuels and of sources, in the interests of security of supplies.
The Board have also assured me of their willingness to play an increased part in the national campaign to eliminate the wasteful use of energy. The board offered their co-operation in any measures which may be necessary to avoid a significant demand transference to electricity, and in measures which will serve to ensure that different forms of energy are used to the best economic advantage having regard to national circumstances.
Industry too can play a vital role in this area. There is a renewed interest by industry in the use of coal rather than oil both on grounds of cost and diversity of sources of supply and this must be encouraged. Liquid petroleum gas—LPG—is a widely used fuel for heating and cooking, particularly in rural areas and it is used by industry and transportation. Within the past year or so there have been quite conflicting views about the medium to long-term supply prospects for this fuel. Recent reports suggest that these prospects are now considered fairly good and I believe we should continue to regard LPG as a major element—with solid fuel—in planning diversification of our energy imports.
This brings me to the last major option in diversifying sources of energy supplies. I refer to the question of nuclear power which has been—and remains—a complex, controversial and emotive issue. Since I took office I have on a number of occasions indicated my general attitude on this. It is obvious that nobody, and I can say least of all myself, is anxious to pursue the nuclear issue simply as a matter of principle. The great majority of people would regard it as a very acceptable outcome if it were to be established that our national energy requirements, both in supply and economic terms, did not require an early decision to construct a nuclear power station.
It is not my intention, at this time, to prejudge either way the ultimate decision on the desirability or need of a nuclear power plant. Certain factors—the principal one being the slowdown in the world economy which has affected our rate of economic growth—have arisen which give us some additional time to assess the position. I intend to use that time for two purposes. Firstly, as I have already outlined in detail, we must thoroughly investigate the extent to which our future energy needs can be met by expansion of our current resources, a more effective use of all energy forms and, most importantly, the development of new indigenous resources. Secondly, we must assemble as much information as possible and benefit to the maximum extent from experience elsewhere about the safety aspects of nuclear power.
The analysis of our future energy needs and of the latest developments affecting safety will emerge, in the first instance, from a detailed and factual review of all the parameters involved. When this data base is available and taken account of in the work being done by the inter-departmental committee, their report will be published and we will then reach a stage at which an informed public debate and inquiry could proceed. It will obviously be essential that, before it reports, the committee will have had an opportunity of studying all the crucial information in relation to the Harrisburg incident and I understand that some of this information is unlikely to be available for a considerable time. It would be premature to bring the committee's report to a conclusion before this information is available and do so would be contrary to my conviction that the future public debate and inquiry into this issue must be conducted with all the relevant information available.
The initial timetable envisaged that the committee would report in time to enable the necessary legislation to be prepared and the public inquiry to be commenced during the present year. It is clear that this timetable will not be adhered to. There have been suggestions that a date should be set for the inquiry or at least that the necessary legislation should be introduced. I fail to see the logic of those suggestions in present circumstances. While the timetable envisaged in the original proposals will not now be observed, the sequence of events set out in these proposals should stand. There is a validity and logic in the relationship between progress on the committee's report, the introduction of the legislation and the holding of the inquiry which have not been affected by the changed timetable.
I will conclude on the nuclear issue by saying this. What is really crucial in this matter is that, at the end of the day, when all the factors such as energy demand projections, alternative sources, the economics and security of supply parameters, the environmental and safety aspects have been first examined and reported on objectively and then reviewed in a public forum—after that long and painstaking process—the decision which emerges, whatever it may be, should be seen by the great majority of reasonable people as justified and prudent.
What I have outlined represents a many-sided and, in certain respects, an ambitious role and programme of work for the Department of Energy. The achievement of satisfactory progress towards these objectives will require assistance and co-operation from many quarters. I intend to make full use of the experience and expertise available within existing State agencies, particularly, but not exclsively, those associated with my Department. The relationships between the new Department of Energy and these agencies are therefore extremely important. The effective development of such relationships is central to the task I have set myelf. I have already initiated, through discussion with the boards of semi-State bodies under my aegis, a dialogue which I hope will develop and contribute to policy formation and implementation. There are also important sources of knowledge and competence in the private sector and in the universities and other higher educational centres. It will be an important function of my Department to tap these resources so that the best use can be made of all our talents natinally.
In order that effective policies can be devised and implemented I have concentrated on developing a structure for the new Department appropriate to its important task. Central to this structure will be a properly staffed Planning and Finance Division which will concentrate on the policy priorities. The new Department will also develop its own technical competence. This is essential if the Department of Energy is to be in a position properly to evaluate and co-ordinate the programmes of State energy agencies.
There are obvious constraints. Time is needed. People must be recruited, motivated and, if necessary, trained to handle and co-ordinate the work. A great deal of the data and information on energy supply and use which we need to review and develop policy options is either incomplete or not available. This has to be assembled and put in usable form. Funds have to be provided. On top of this there are urgent day-to-day problems which cannot be left aside while the medium- and long-term programmes are being developed.
But it would be wrong to emphasise the constraints without also pointing to the very positive factors from which I take considerable encouragement. The work to be done is of the highest national importance. There is widespread recognition of this with the public generally and among the people in industry, agriculture, transport, commerce and other sectors on whose help and co-operation we must rely. I believe that there is a very substantial consensus on the main objectives which we should adopt.
The great uncertain factor is, unfortunately, outside our control. It is one I have already mentioned—the time factor. Despite the current easing of the supply situation, the international outlook is fraught with uncertainties. If we could be reasonably assured that the next two or three years will be relatively free from major supply crises, then we could feel a lot more confident of getting under way the kind of major adaptations in our energy posture which are essential to meet the inevitable difficulties which will arise in the later eighties and beyond.
Deputy Kelly has 45 minutes if he take all the time allocated to his party.
Ba bhreá liom a chloisint ón Aire an méid a dubhairt sé faoi na daoine a d'oibrigh ar son na tíre seo agus nár thaobhaigh leis an gcuid sin den tír amháin a thogadh ón bhealach míleata le saoirse agus leas na tire a bhaint amach. Tá áthas orm go raibh seisean toilteannach don céad uair go bhfios domsa aithint a thabhairt don dream úd is chloistear rud ar bith fúthu ón dtaobh sin. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil sin ráite ag an Aire faoi dheireadh agus gur thug sé an aithint ba chóir do na daoine nár thaobhaigh leis an lámh láidir agus nár thaobhaigh leis an bhfeachtas mileata ach a d'oibrigh in ainneoin sin chun leas na tíre seo ar gach uile bhealach idir náisiúnteoirí agus aondachtóirí. Go nuige seo ní dóigh liom gur chuala mé tada ón taobh eile seachas caolaigeantacht mar gheall ar an dream úd agus is mithid go dtabharfaí rud beag aithint dóibh más deireannach féin é san lá inniu ann. I hope the Minister will not think I am saying this in any condescending sense but I thought his speech an extremely good and useful one and the best Ministerial speech I have heard from the Government side on this subject since 1977. I hope the Minister will not mind if I draw attention to the fact that he is describing, as I said yesterday during Question Time, a delicate but very pronounced U-turn in energy policy. He has had the task of taking over from a Minister of somewhat different temperament, whose heart I know in a general way is in the right place but whose temperament, unfortunately, very often obstructs that heart in such a way that what comes out is in an unpalatable form and very often wrong also.
The Minister who preceded the Tánaiste in the energy responsibility did not have the Tánaiste's open mind on nuclear development. He frequently said here and outside also that we had no option but to go for nuclear development and the White Paper called "Energy Ireland"—let me put in a word of protest here against these ghastly titles for papers and discussion documents, official and otherwise, those who think it is modern and acceptable to produce two nouns or noun-phrases in apposition as though they mean anything. What does "Energy Ireland" mean? I think I know what it means because we have had so many examples of it but that document, "Energy Ireland", if we must call it by its official name, is also saying that there was no option but to go for nuclear development. So, it was not simply Deputy O'Malley, it was also his advisers who took that line about it.
In addition, I think it is not unfair to Deputy O'Malley's Ministerial memory —to put it that way—to say that he was fairly lukewarm on the subject of conservation. He would throw it a crust every now and then but that was all. It emerged here under questioning in 1978 that whereas the publicity budget for energy conservation in the last year for which Deputy Barry was responsible has been £70,000, the amount allocated in the first year of Deputy O'Malley's governership of that part of Kildare Street was £80. I am sorry—I think that was the amount spent up to the time I asked the question. I concluded that the £80 represented not an independent estimate but just a bill that had been mis-laid and left over from the previous year and which was being paid a bit late.
I am not too sure if mere exhortation on television or in the media in regard to energy conservation is that effective. I hope it is. I am willing to make an act of faith in it, I am willing to urge that it be continued and I am willing to praise the Minister for intensifying the campaign which Deputy Peter Barry first inaugurated. I am not too sure if it is all that effective compared with the money and effort which goes into it. But at least we have to start somewhere and try by an operation, which is like letting drips of water fall on stone, to make an impact on people's minds in this regard.
The previous Minister in charge of energy had not a lot of time, at least to judge by some of his actions as distinct from his words, for energy conservation and did not think there was a lot to be gained by pursuing it. He was also very dismissive about alternative sources of energy—wind, tides, biomass, solar cells and so forth. I agree that he may have been provoked into such a stance by the exaggerated claims made for those alternative sources by well meaning groups who took no heed of economics. At the same time I am glad to see that the Minister has now acknowledged the long-term and even the short-term possibilities inherent in some of these newer sources.
It also has to be said that the previous Minister would not hear anything said in favour of the construction of a gas line to Dublin to take the product of the Kinsale field. This Minister seems to have put that policy into reverse. I welcome the changed direction. I bid farewell to the former Minister. I hope we will part friends, but I thought his tenure of this section was not helpful. So far as the management of petrol supplies went in spring of last year, I thought it was a disaster. I have to say, quite frankly, that the former Minister, Deputy O'Malley, would be the first to despise any form of compliment and no man was ever worse at concealing his contempt than that Minister.
I welcome the changed direction of the new Minister for Energy and I do not want to harp unduly on this matter because it must be difficult for him to do this to a valued colleague. Naturally it is welcome and so far as this party are concerned he will get nothing but constructive support from us, at least for as long as I am in charge of this spokesmanship and I believe at any other time as well.
I would like to give this party credit in some measure for the changed direction the Minister has shown. I believe it has been in part the reiterated urgings from this side of the House that have led to a change of heart in the Department and perhaps in the Minister's mind. I do not complain about this because that is what politics is about. I will even go so far as to say that our written contribution on this subject, our policy document published last May, has been responsible—though perhaps in its pre-published form—for a good deal of the Minister's very welcome recent pronouncements. I do not expect him to either confirm or deny that, for I suspect that a fair number of our recommendations had filtered through to his Department. More power to him if he was able to get hold of them and more power to him if he made speeches emphasising points which we are glad to see emphasised, whoever makes them.
I do not want to strike a critical note but I would like to point out to the House, in spite of the Minister's evidently very welcome and very praiseworthy general attitude towards this problem, that so far we have had from him in the very short time he has been in this office very little more than talk and exhortations. Perhaps I should say that I very much admire the spirit with which he has accepted the burden of this new Department and is determined to make a success of it. I would like to say to him that more will be needed than the exhortation and the good advice which he dispenses daily in the newspapers. I would like to remind him that there are measures literally within his reach, either within his existing statutory range, within the statutory range of his colleagues or within the legislative power of this House and the other House to confer on him. These are measures which his colleagues in Government could activate.
There are a great number of examples but there are a few examples which will give an idea of what I mean when I say there are things he could do this minute without any more exhortation to anybody else. I will give a very simple example. About two years ago, in 1978, the EEC issued a directive in regard to the labelling of electrical appliances. We should all know by now that a casually plugged in electric fire is a grossly wasteful form of electricity consumption and ultimately of oil consumnption, because four-fifths of our electricity is generated from that source. This is very wasteful. I believe the EEC are right in saying that the consumer should be made aware of the relative consumption implication of an appliance by it being clearly labelled before he buys it. The EEC even went to the length of describing the colour in which those labels were to be affixed so that there would be a standard orange label on every electric appliance to which the customer would eventually grow accustomed and at which he would look before buying.
It is true that the average layman may not be able to make much sense of watts and kilowatts let alone megatons or any of those other symbols to which we have become accustomed. I suggest, in the rather simpler context of the Irish population, that orange label might be made contain a further dimension—a rough computation, without being in any sense binding, of how much it costs to run the thing for an hour at current prices. I know prices go up very frequently, but let us say as of 1 January of a particular year, I cannot see that it would be much of a problem for the Minister to exert the power which the EEC requires him to take onto himself, and perhaps automatically requires him to exercise, of requiring the compulsory labelling of new electric appliances to show how much it will cost the customer in money—he will understand that far better than the megaton—to run this appliance for five minutes, an hour or any length of time. An electric immersion heater should carry and ordinary label saying: "To heat this up to bath heat costs 60p" or whatever it is and an electric fire should carry an orange label saying: "To run this appliance with one bar for half an hour will cost 40p, with two bars cost 70p" or whatever it may be. That will make more sense to the customer and I believe will be more of an incentive not to buy the appliance at all or to be very guarded in its use than anything else which could be devised in the way of advertising.
This could even stretch down to electric light bulbs, which I know do not use very much power. When I pass Government buildings, very often at a time when their daily occupants have long since gone home and are looking at television, putting their feet up or helping their children with their exercises, I find that those buildings are blazing with light. I presume this is in order to facilitate the cleaners who are operating at that time. I cannot believe the cleaning operation requires hundreds and sometimes thousands of light bulbs to be in operation. Even the humble 40 watt or 60 watt electric light bulb should carry a little orange ticket when it is being sold telling the consumer how much it will cost him if he goes out of a room and leaves it on needlessly for half an hour.
I know the Minister's mind appears to be working in regard to this topic in the very same way as mine. I am not trying to persuade him as I believe his mind is open to this sort of stuff, but the cumulative effect of a relatively simple measure like that would be enormous. It is not even as though it were something we had to think up for ourselves. The EEC thought it up for us two years ago and told us to do it. All I am suggesting is that the EEC's idea should be extended by the addition of the price which it will cost the consumer, rather than the wattage, which means very little to him.
A second thing over which the Government have immediate control —and I mentioned this during Question Time yesterday—is to introduce effective monitoring, to use another Upper Merrion Street word, and control of energy expenditure in the State's own sphere—in other words, the use of heat in Government buildings, the use of light in Government buildings, the use of fuel in Government vehicles. These things may not seem a lot, but the actual proportion of office space in this city rented by the Government, and for which they are responsible in regard to running costs, is gigantic. If you throw in the various offices which they have throughout the country, if you throw in on top of that the local authorities, who presumably are susceptible one way or another to Government pressure, and if you add the semi-State bodies, in other words, if you lump the public sector together—although I recognise that the degree of control which the Minister exercises over them diminishes as one moves over to Bord na gCon and Bord na gCapall and An Coimisiún Dumpála, and is not perhaps as immediate as his power to order switches to be turned off in Kildare Street—this mass of State-owned buildings is an absolute empire. If you put these buildings all together you would probably end up with a conurbation roughly the size of Cork. I am not far off the mark in putting it at that size. Proper control of energy consumption in an empire of that size would make a perceptible difference in the conservation effort. If you throw into the reckoning as well all the vehicles used by semi-State bodies, in the first instance by CIE, the dent which that would make in our oil imports would be quite palpable after a year or so of effective operation.
The real point I want to get at is this. I saw that the Minister was advising the private sector and private firms the other day to carry out an energy audit. With great respect to the man I have just been praising, that really is a case of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. I am never quite too sure why grandmothers are regarded as experts in the art of egg sucking and not requiring any instruction. My granny certainly never sucked eggs, or I never caught her at it. She may have had a secret addiction to them.
It is not a Dublin habit. You have to go down the country for that.
Perhaps my granny was too long gone from the country. I had to laugh to see the Minister advising firms, who are up to their eyes with problems of cost control and trying to meet interest payments, on how to cut down on energy consumption. They have to pay for it. The office manager in a private firm, or the industrial manager who sees power being wasted, knows that he will have to pay for it, whereas the civil servant or the public servant can go out of a room leaving 47 strip lights on, go off for his lunch or his coffee and come back again and they are still burning away and not one halfpenny comes out of his pocket. There may be no one there to see he does not do it. I am sorry to put it in such a pointed way. I am probably an offender in this respect. I am a public servant of a sort myself. I do not mean to be singling out public servants particularly. We all tend to be wasteful.
With respect to the Minister, it is ludicrous for him to be making these essentially excellent suggestions to the very sector who are most cost conscious when his own sector, the biggest in the country, are notoriously very little cost conscious, as their reckless recruitment of extra people to push pieces of paper round to one another amply demonstrates.
So far as the private sector is susceptible to persuasion in this regard—and I am talking about the private business sector which the Minister addressed—I do not think they will react, if there is any scope for economy there. I do not think they will feel in their bones that this is something they should do until they see the State doing it, any more than they will speak Irish until they find everybody in the Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party, and the entire public sector, doing so at home as well as when they are under the light of public notice.
Thirdly, I agree very much with something the Minister said towards the end of his speech. He referred to the consensus which exists in regard to the necessity for energy conservation. He related it quite properly to the frightful hole in our trade balance which oil imports make. The Minister might have brought that thought a couple of steps further. He might have said to himself: "If there is really a consensus here, might this not be an area in which something like an all-party committee of this House or a joint committee of both Houses would be appropriate in order to de-politicise what might be unpopular energy conservation measures?"
I will explain what I mean by that. As our party's energy spokesman, in April of last year I urged that petrol should be rationed. I believed it should have been rationed then, and there would not have been the chaos at the filling stations and the half-wrecked tourist season. Personally I am still inclined to think that, even at times of relative plenty, there might be a case to be made for rationing petrol. Before anyone runs off with the idea that this is my party's policy, I want to make it clear that it is not. I am in a minority on this. I do not believe I could get my party to agree with me on it. I know experts who are not politicians who do not agree with me on it. I may be wrong about it, but I have a kind of hankering after the idea that, from the point of view of our trade balance alone, it might make sense to restrict oil consumption whether in the form of vehicle fuel or home heating fuel.
There is no doubt that any such measure, apart from the administrative costs which it would entail, would be unpopular. The people who would be the quickest to point out the unpopular features of it would be one's political opponents. We are not all archangels of moral courage. Probably nobody qualifies for that description. We would all like to get away with something we think is right, without having to endure politically motivated criticism.
It may be that this is an area in which the national interest would be served by trying to create some kind of forum or scene in which an all-party consensus could be made effective. Naturally the Minister tries to do the best for himself politically, and I have no doubt that he tries to do the best for the country in the way he runs his Department. I would put aside my own ambition in order to help him if there was any sensible way in which I could do that. I am sure the same goes for the Labour Party and even people who are not represented in the House.
There might be a case for considering a committee, perhaps not a formal committee. There might be a case for trying to construct some kind of setting or scene in which a political consensus about the necessity for certain kinds of measures might be arrived at, so as to take the fear out of the Government that a measure they considered necessary would be undermined, or perhaps even made impossible, by the mobilisation of public opinion against it for the wrong reasons.
I have given three instances. I want to give a fourth one, and then I will move on to something else. I have given three instances of matters which are within the Minister's procurement, either immediately or through the Government, in connection with matters which he regards as important: the labelling of electric appliances; conservation in the Government's own sphere and in the public sector sphere; and the construction of a scene for an all-party consensus on energy conservation.
The last suggestion I should like to make is a somewhat more sweeping one but, again, it is within the Government's sphere. It is that the Minister should seek a statutory position over and above the one he has at present. There is a very good case to be made, as the Fine Gael policy document said last month, for an Energy Minister having the right to be consulted by any public Department or semi-State body in regard to any project which has an energy dimension, not because he wants to be a busy body but because we are agreed that this economy, and therefore the Irish people and everything for which they labour, could sink or swim on the energy issue. All could fall in ruins on the energy issue if we do not watch ourselves. It is far too important a matter to be searching over one's shoulder for tiny precedents to justify particular measures in connection with it.
There is a strong case to be made for the Minister for Energy being given a statutory power to be consulted about, and if necessary to veto on efficiency grounds, projects which in other aspects fall under the authority of his colleagues or other Departments or semi-State bodies. It is so important and vital to us—and the public concept of that so far has penetrated so little even among politicians—that there would be a case for giving him a position of control in this area of life analogous to the position of control which the Minister for Finance exercises in the financial dimensions of his colleagues' undertakings or the undertakings of semi-State bodies. It would have to be exercised with reason and restraint, otherwise it would foul up the whole administrative side of the State. Nevertheless, the Minister's Department should consider putting a legislative proposal which would extend his authority in that direction.
Many matters were dealt with in the Minister's speech and I have only about 20 minutes left and therefore I have no hope of covering all the points. However, I want to mention a few things in particular. The Minister spoke about our own oil resources. I often hear it said, when people at branch meetings of my own party talk about the terrible state in which the Government have left the country, that the Government have the devil's own luck and what is going to rescue that crowd is that they will find oil within a week of the general election. There is that general feeling in the country that if oil could be found it would be a kind of bonus for whatever party is there. I want to create that bonus here and now. There is oil there. I am making the announcement here and now and whether it gets a headline is not important. I make that announcement clearly so that anybody who makes it subsequently in those terms will not be saying anything new. The operations of the exploration companies and the stock market represent a very strong blip, to use a radar term. We are getting a very strong blip in regard to oil. It is there and it is only a question of discovering it in the right place, applying the right technology and waiting for a time when the operations of the world oil market will make that technology economic. The Minister mentioned the mid-eighties. I would not trouble to put a date on it, but it is only a matter of time before this economic windfall drops on us out of the heavens. What the State's arrangements will be in regard to royalties and so on we cannot foresee, but that there will be a very substantial bonus for the State is undoubted. There has to be. I do not know whether it will be possible to achieve a consensus even here but I would hope so.
The Fine Gael Party, through their leader in his Ard Fheis speech in the spring, said something on this subject which should become a national consensus, namely, that that oil windfall whenever it arrives—in 1983, 1984 or 1985, it does not matter—must not be used to finance current expenditure. It should be earmerked for some purpose over and above that and a Minister for Energy should be concerned particularly in that earmarking. There should be a censensus just as firm as the axiom that one balances one's budget, that one did not spend more in the year than one took in. There should be a consensus that that is not to be used for current expenditure. It should be used only for work of intrastructural development and capital investment.
That has a further very important implication, and I hold this up as something about which there might be a national ambition. If we have this windfall to finance infrastructure and capital investment of various kinds, that implies a reduced necessity to borrow. It should imply necessarily an easing on the public sector borrowing requirement, and that reflection in terms directs attention to that borrowing requirement and to the size of the overall Government debt as it stands now. I hope, Sir, that you will allow me to say a couple of words about that. That debt as it stands now has reached such a staggering size that, unless I have worked the thing out wrongly, 27p in every £ of the total tax revenue taken in by the State this year is going to be spent on servicing that national debt. Twenty-seven pence in the £ is going out of the window as soon as it comes in the door on paying interest on what the State up to now has borrowed. When we left office the figure was only 20p. In 1976 it was 20.4p and 1977, despite the temptations which another Government might have experienced to blow the lid off and spend money in an election year, it was still only 20.6p. It is now 27p in the £. About 5s. 4d. in the £ in terms of the old £ is cut out of the £ before the Government can do anything else.
It is not a dream that we can get rid of the national debt altogether. It is not only an aisling. The Belgians do not borrow any money at all and do not have a national debt worth speaking about. They finance their current capital investment from their current income. It can be done. It cannot be done here overnight, but I believe that the right thing to do with these oil revenues is to try to achieve a consensus, political and national, that they must be earmarked to finance what otherwise a continuance of borrowing would have to finance. That implies necessarily that the national debt will phase out. As the capital is paid off it will become smaller every year and eventually tail away in perhaps 20 years' time. That would be a marvellous objective, a proud objective which would be explained easily to the people once they grasped the fact that that colossal slice of the £ note that they were contributing to the Exchequer would now be free for the services for which they were clamouring. That would be a terrific and exciting ambition for the people and for every political party and the certainty that that windfall is going to be with us in a matter of years ought to lead to the formation of this consensus now.
In connection with our oil resoures the Minister mentioned the Continental Shelf but I remind him—and I mentioned this at Question Time yesterday—that it has a very strong relevance to the mining scene also. I hope that the Minister will take this to heart, as I said in a throw-away supplementary question yesterday, in regard to the vital importance to us of keeping our eye on the ball in regard to the arbitration of the division of the Continental Shelf with Britain. The matter has dragged on for a very long time. Certain unfortunate events of June 1977 removed me from the position where I was able to keep the thing moving, but I do not doubt that there is as much goodwill in that direction in the Attorney General's office now as there was in my time. I urged that the Minister would regard it as being highly relevant to the job of his own Department and the interests of that Department to ensure that we make no mistake about that arbitration, that diplomatically and technically and legally we are getting the very best possible advice and, above all, that we are getting it from people who are not distracted by ten other jobs at the same time. I am not going to go into departmental details about this from my recollection which may be out of date but I want to remind the House that our whole offshore scene—and it is not as absurd as it might seem to include fishing in that because that takes place offshore—obviously has legal dimensions also. I believe the whole partly diplomatic, partly legal dimensions should be under a unified control, a unified structure. I think it should be under the control of the Attorney General but it is not important whose control it is under. At the moment it is fractured between the Attorney General, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism in some cases, the Board of Works, and the Department of Fisheries.
That is a very unfortunate and bad arrangement and the Minister would be doing a good day's work for his own Department and for the country generally if he used his influence to have that situation reviewed but, in particular, if he bore in mind its immense importance for the coming generations and perhaps even for this generation of this arbitration, and that the area in dispute between ourselves and the British—we cannot measure it exactly because the lip of the Continental Shelf is not defined and we do not know how far out into the ocean it extends—may not be as big as but is at least comparable with the entire land area of this Republic and it may have resources which are as yet unfathomed in both senses of the word and unimagined in all senses of the word. Let us make no mistake about it; this is an area where we should not stint resources of an advisory kind and of a technical kind. I ask the Minister, both from the oil point of view and from the mining point of view, to jack this matter up to the top of his list of priorities and make sure that this matter is receiving the best that money can buy in terms of permanent staffing and permanent assistance.
The last point of my own that I want to make is that we ought to see in this energy crisis that has descended upon us not so much a threat—of course it is a threat—as an opportunity of a unique kind to create a completely new social and economic structure here. I do not mean a political revolution but we ought to see in it something which would give us a chance to reverse some of the patterns of existence which we inherited from the British like everything else, good and bad, that the country contains. We ought to see in it a chance in particular to condition the individual and the local community into accepting more responsibility for themselves and for their future and for their children's future and into "deresponsiblising" the State for everything that happens to an individual or his community. I hope the Minister does not think the idea too wild. I believe in it strongly. He might give consideration to devising a pattern of co-operative society which perhaps could be tried out. It may not work but what is wrong with trying something and then, if it does not work, trying something else. The Minister should try to devise a form of co-operative pattern or co-operative society in which the whole population of the neighbourhood could have a notional individual share and the primary object of which would be to conduct an audit of the energy consumption, the energy waste, at the production of energy in their own area and the indirect production of energy by the recycling of waste products which itself, of course, implies an energy saving ultimately. I can imagine a co-operative society like that becoming involved in small scale miniature hydro plants and wind power plants naturally in suitable locations the product of which could be sold to the ESB. I could imagine them acquiring, on a communal basis, as a communal property, areas of marginal land which could be turned into forests, both commercial forest in the traditional sense and biomass forest for the purpose of electricity production through combustion.
There are many possibilities here but the most important thing socially which I would see emerging from this structure is that there is no boundary to the possibilities. One form of activity will suggest another form of economic activity, not perhaps immediately energy related but it would not matter if it got some distance away from the immediate energy relation. But one form of activity will suggest another and will tend to foster in the community and in the individual a sense that he can contribute something and that small numbers of people can contribute something and can watch each other's progress and jog one another into producing more prosperity for their district and better job prospects for their children.
I could have spoken a great deal longer on this topic but there are one or two things mentioned by the Minister that I want to discuss so I will have to break off what I wanted to say about energy co-operatives and go on to these detailed matters. I should apologise both to the Minister and to Deputy Pattison because I am afraid that after I speak I have to go down the country in a hurry. But I would like the Minister to try to explain a bit better what exactly is the State's strategy in regard to the Avoca mines. The Minister said that a further major problem is that the ore reserves available may now not extend beyond about September 1981. If what he means by that is that the mine is going to be worked out in about 15 months' time, is it the case that the State is providing over £80 million this year in order to keep afloat an enterprise employing 236 men who may be without jobs anyway in September 1981?
I may have misunderstood what the State's strategy is in this regard but that seems to me to be an amazing operation. Everybody in the House has sympathy with men whose employment is threatened. Perhaps threatened is not the right word but their jobs are obviously in question once the mine has ceased to be in production. It seems an amazing operation to put so much money into a mine when one can see the end of its useful life approaching. I do not despise 236 jobs. Of course it is a big number by the terms of Arklow. But that seems to be a large amount of money for this really rather limited purpose. I do not want to say too much about it because of the human dimensions but it seems to be, on the face of it, a fairly extravagant operation. I did wave through here last year the last Estimate for the Avoca mines but I do not think it was explained at that time to the House that the mine might have only another 15 months of life.
The Minister also mentioned the question of to what extent comparable arrangements could be made for the importation of fuels other than oil. What I would like to ask the Minister to think about here is that India has got enormous resources of coal and that the Indian Government are anxious to sell coal to this country like, no doubt, every other oil exporter. But India, I think, has a special call on us and should have a special interest for us because it is one of the countries with which we have a special relationship in connection with our overseas development aid projects in which we have tried, in whatever tiny way this country can do anything for a country with such immense problems, to make small contributions. For a reason of that kind, over and above the supply reason, some interest in the possibility of coal from India might be shown by the Minister's Department. It may be that this has been done already.
The Minister mentioned, on a couple of points, the ESB. We would all like to pay tribute to the ESB without which the State's industrial development simply would not have been possible. He mentioned also that the ESB were anxious to combat waste but he did not say anything about this subject which I would like to have heard something about: what do the ESB propose to do about exploiting the immense quantities of waste heat that they themselves unavoidably generate? The generation of electricity from oil sends large quantities of heat up chimneys and, effectively, all it does is heat up the chimney and sends plumes of hot smoke into the air. There are, as the Minister knows, very advanced and very frequently and widely used technologies whereby that waste heat can be used not only for industrial and horticultural processes but also for domestic heating by piping it a certain distance. Of course it loses heat in the transmissions but it means that water heated in this way requires that much less power to bring up to a useful temperature at its point of use.
The last thing I wanted to say is that I would have wished the Minister to say a word or two about the possibilities of industrial alcohol, which is produced here as a fuel, and the possibilities which his Department might see for combining it with other fuels in order to reduce our dependence on imports.
Deputy Pattison has 45 minutes, that is, if he wishes to utilise the full time allocated to the Labour Party.
I, too, would like to welcome the change in attitude on the part of the Government in regard to the energy question. It is clear, not only from what the Minister has said this morning but from the various statements he has made since assuming his new role, that he has adopted a new and fresh approach to the energy problem. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if he had made some of these statements, say, 12 months ago, he would have incurred the wrath of the Minister who was then responsible for energy, Deputy O'Malley. As a follow up to this new approach, I trust that the Minister will issue either a new White Paper or a Green Paper to replace that document entitled Energy Ireland. It is more important now than ever before that such a document be issued because it is obvious that the Energy Ireland document is totally out of date, though, since it has not been replaced by a new document, it must be seen to remain the official position. Not only is that document out of date but it is in direct conflict with many of the statements made by the Minister in recent months.
I welcome particularly the Minister's approach to the nuclear question. This is an approach which indicates also a change in direction but whether this change goes far enough is something that we will have to decide as time goes on. When replying to the debate I should like the Minister to spell out what he means by his remarks on nuclear energy. While the decision in this regard is being pushed into the background it is not clear from what the Minister has said who will be responsible ultimately for making that decision, that is, if that necessity will every arise. In this regard the Minister says that the decision which emerges, whatever it may be, should be seen by the great majority of reasonable people as being justified and prudent. By that I hope the Minister means that there would be a referendum on the issue before any decision was reached. While that interpretation may be put on the statement I would not like to assume that that is what the Minister means and that is why I should like him to spell out what is meant by that sentence.
But there is an implication in that statement that those people who have become known as belonging to the anti-nuclear lobby are not reasonable while those who are not in that lobby are reasonable. This would be a wrong footing on which to start a debate on this important issue. There are many reasonable and highly esteemed people among those who belong to the anti-nuclear lobby. It is important that the Minister tells us clearly whether there would be a referendum for the purpose of ascertaining whether the people accept the results of all the investigations and studies that he has told us will be undertaken before any decision is made.
The Minister referred this morning to practically every aspect that is appropriate to his Department but there was one aspect that I had expected to hear from him on but to which omitted to refer. I am referring to a matter about which people in some parts of the country, including my own constituency, are extremely anxious, a matter that has got to the front in the nuclear energy debate. I refer to uranium exploration.
I spoke about that subject at Question Time yesterday.
It was not possible for me to be here then because I had to attend a health board meeting and, consequently, I am at a disadvantage in regard to the Minister's remarks. Perhaps he would be good enough to state the position on this issue. I accept the Minister's word that the nuclear energy question is in the background and that a decision in that regard may not have to be made for many years. We hope that we will never have to have nuclear energy but what is the point in having uranium exploration at this stage since, to a great extent, the two are connected and dependent on each other?
It has been shown that there are sufficient good reasons for the concern and anxiety arising from this exploration work. There is much secrecy, a great lack of information and much difficulty in trying to get information about uranium exploration. Some months ago the question was raised at a meeting of the local authority in Kilkenny and even the local authority officials had no information about the situation, although exploration work was being carried out within their area. It would appear that planning permission is not required and that the local authority need not be consulted. As well as that, the health board governing the area also seemed to have no information about this work, so that we had two bodies responsible for local administration apparently not being officially informed and not advised as to what was going on. We can, rightly, most highly criticise the situation of the health authority in the area not being given any information.
There are reports available to us which would certainly indicate that there are grounds for the anxiety that has been expressed about this matter. I hope that the Minister will withdraw the licences already issued for this work and allow no further licences to be issued, at least until such time as the position in relation to the possible dangers to health and to the environment is cleared up. In countries far more advanced on this subject than we are, possible dangers to people and to the environment have already been discovered arising just from exploratory work. There is no point in allowing exploratory work if one is not going to allow, ultimately, mining and milling for uranium. I have a quotation here, from the United States Nuclear Regulations Committee, which states:
Uranium mining and milling are the most significant sources of radiation to the public from the entire nuclear fuel cycle, far surpassing nuclear reactors and high level radioactive waste disposal.
That is a rather serious statement. I have another report, from the Royal Commission of Inquiry, entitled Health and Environment Protection—Uranium Mining, which concerns the province of British Columbia. In the commissioner's First Interim Report on Uranium Exploration published on August 15 1979—so there is hardly a more up-to-date report available—under the heading “Special Hazards from Uranium Exploration Activity” paragraph 9 on page 2, states:
Uranium exploration raises particular problems from three points of view. Firstly, the possibility of contamination of water by material released as a result of exploration activity; secondly, the possibility of radon gas and its daughters being emitted from exposed radioactive sources; and thirdly, the importance of some special protection methods needed for employees.
Again, I do not know what regulations have been laid down by the Department for this work or what guidelines they have established. The next paragraph, paragraph 10, of this document is rather long but I feel I should quote it in full. I might be accused of taking something out of context if I were to quote selectively.
An examination of the main sites of exploration for uranium in British Columbia reveals that the possible hazards occasioned by this activity vary greatly in different locations, partly because the natural levels of radioactivity are different, but more particularly because the local condition are far from uniform. We wish to stress that some of the public fears expressed to us in testimony in relation to the possible hazards resulting from drilling for uranium do not, in our opinion, constitute a significant risk. Some members of the public have been led to believe that a single drill hole some miles from the nearest habitation could present a hazard by virtue of the leakage into the general atmosphere of gas containing radon and its daughters.
Such a possibility is unsupported by data, and the physics of gas dispersion and dilution make it exceedingly unlikely that any enhanced risk could result from such limited exploration activity. However, a more extensive program including large numbers of drill holes in a known radioactive deposit, could pose a hazard to nearby habitation unless these holes were promptly closed.
It goes on, in paragraph 11, to state:
A potential hazard, in our opinion, is that drill holes will disrupt the pattern of ground water flow causing a compositional change in the water and leading to contamination of a water supply previously unaffected.
As I say, there are many findings available which would certainly indicate that there are dangers inherent in this exploration work. If, of course, uranium is not found, there is no problem but what if radioactive material is discovered and, of course, the people who have obtained licences must have some indication and knowledge of what they are about so that we must assume that there is more than a 50-50 chance of radioactive deposits being found and disturbed? If they are found, what is the point and what is the next step? Are we then going to be faced with pressure to go in for uranium mining and all that goes with it? I ask the Minister to withdraw all these licences and to stop issuing further licences until the picture of the effects of exploratory work becomes clearer.
The Minister may say that a small minority are making a lot of noise about uranium exploration, but most people are downright ignorant as to what uranium exploration is all about, and even what the substance uranium is, and because of lack of knowledge the campaign to highlight the danger is left to a few people—it is not a case of a silent majority and a vocal minority. If people were made aware fully of the ramifications of the nuclear issue and uranium, they would have a different view of it and we would have a majority making their views known.
On this subject of uranium, if it is found it is important to ask whether it would find its way into use in a possible nuclear war. What is Government policy in relation to the control of the destination of any uranium found here? The EEC appear to be providing most of the money for this exploratory work. As a result of our obligations to Europe, is it not quite possible that if uranium is mined here it will be used in warheads of one kind or another? I do not think the Irish people would willingly associate themselves in any way with a future nuclear holocaust.
I repeat that the Minister in his new post has not got more powers in the Department. That Department are and apparently will be limited in their work. I fail to see why the Department of Transport were not joined with the Department of Energy, because transport is one of the major issues in any energy policy. I would like to have heard the Minister explain his views on the whole range of transport problems here. If the Government are serious about the energy question they must give more and more powers to this new Department. The Minister so far has exercised the functions he has got very well. Of course in the six months since the Department were established it has not been easy for the Minister to change the direction of an energy policy and at the same time deal with all the problems involved, but we hope that as time goes on we will hear more and more from him about the issues I have been dealing with. There are other matters involved in an energy policy, particularly transport. There was a lot to be said for the old joint Department of Transport and Power and if this new Department had been of Energy and Transport a better job could be done.
The Minister for Energy should have power to fix prices for the various forms of energy. In any energy conservation programme freedom to fix prices is important and, as well, the Minister should have a function in diverting use of certain forms of fuel to other forms. Obviously the Minister has not got that function: he must rely on another Department to do that. Energy conservation in buildings and dwellings seems to be a matter for yet another Minister because in the last few years that has been a function of the Department of the Environment who have been encouraging people to convert from oil home heating to other forms, such as solid fuel. A kind of conjuring trick has been done in this regard—now we see it, now we do not. If that is the kind of conservation policy that is to be continued I can only sympathise with the Minister for Energy.
If it is to be effective, an energy conservation policy must be consistent. The Minister for Energy requires substantial powers not alone to advise and to consult but to direct sections in other Departments directly involved in energy conservation. For instance, I should like to see the Department of Education adding another subject to school curricula, energy, because a lot of energy wastage arises from lack of understanding of how fuel is used and how energy is created. That subject cannot be covered adequately by talks, lectures, seminars. Energy as a need is now next to the air we breathe, running neck and neck with food for our existence, and because of that a strong case can be made to have it as a school subject. It can be argued that there are so many subjects on school curricula nowadays that it would be difficult to fit in an additional one, but at least one subject could be dropped——
I will not ask the Deputy to say which one.
It is not the one the Minister is thinking of.
I am not thinking of a subject. The problem is, which one is to be knocked?
The Minister might have a serious talk with his colleague, the Minister for Education, to see if that can be done because it is lack of knowledge and information that gives rise to the waste of a lot of energy.
I would appeal to the Minister also to ensure that in this search for alternative sources of energy he takes all precautions against any new element of exploitation or the possibility of a monopoly situation because that is what happened with regard to oil over the years, it became a source of exploitation and monopoly. Unless we are very careful with new sources of energy there is the danger that they will go in the same direction. It is the Minister's duty and obligation to ensure that that does not happen. I hope that the guidelines laid down and agreements made by one of the Minister's predecessors, Senator Justin Keating, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce responsible for energy, particularly his agreement with the oil companies at that stage, will continue to be the guidelines for this Government and that nothing would be done to alter that situation.
I want now to refer to the Minister's visit to my city, Kilkenny, the other day. How he managed to go to Kilkenny without mentioning coal I will never know. I had expected that he would, when visiting one of the great coalmining areas of the country. I think a great many other people also hoped that the Minister would have given some indication of the Government's policy in regard to coal, the opening of the coal mines in the Castlecomer area and indeed in the other areas around the Leinster coalfields. Alas, he did not. I would urge the Minister to look carefully at this situation and ensure that the mines are opened as soon as possible. We have now every indication that there are still commercially viable coalfields in the area. It was unfortunate that ten or 12 years ago the mines were closed. At that time it could be argued that they were not commercially viable. It was argued then, also, that the day would come when we would regret that decision. It gives me no pleasure to say that the day has come when we regret that the coalmining industry in that area was closed down. If we can draw any consolation from the present energy crisis it is that we may again see 500 or 600 people employed in that area in the production of coal.
In this regard I welcome the decision of the ESB in relation to the Arigna coal. I hope that a similar decision will be taken in relation to the area around Castlecomer. I welcome the Minister's commitment to continue employment at Avoca. Indeed, it would be more costly to the Government not to support the Avoca mines than to do so.
I welcome also the indication from the Minister that there is a gas grid, as it were, in the pipeline. I hope that will reach fruition fairly soon. There are serious difficulties being experienced in town gas supplies in many areas. Therefore, I hope that this work can be got underway quickly and so provide that gas grid. The Minister said in the course of his opening remarks that he was awaiting some reports on the Dublin situation. It is now a matter of extreme urgency that arrangements be made to pipe the gas from Kinsale to other populated areas around the country. I hope the Minister will have this work expedited as soon as possible.
On the question of oil, I go along with Deputy Kelly. I had intended making the remark he made in this regard—that, when oil does begin to flow it should not be used to prop up the mismanagement of the economy or to constitute part of another election manifesto. In a sense the last election manifesto advocated wastage of energy, if anything.
I was pleased also to note the Minister's encouragement of exploration work into wind and wave power. Many other countries already have a lot of information on this subject. Indeed, we are at an advantage in having available the results of many years study, particularly in regard to wind power, carried out in other countries. I hope the Minister will have recourse to such information and expertise as is available to some of our EEC partners. I know that in West Germany there is a £25 million research programme under way. In Sweden there is a large wind turbine supplying power to a national grid just north of Stockholm. The National Board for Energy Source Development in Sweden are committed to a programme culminating in ten wind turbines in the year 1988. Of course, the use of wind energy dates back to approximately 2,000 B.C. when the Chinese and the Persians used it to grind corn and pump water.
The 1973-74 oil crisis focused attention on future energy requirements and how they could be met. The planning and provision of an adequate and secure supply of energy at a reasonable cost must be the priority of any government. It is important not to fall into the trap of confusing the supply of energy with material prosperity, for energy is only a means to social ends, for example, warmth, heat, mobility and the production of goods. It is not an end in itself. It is not energy people want but the benefit energy consumption brings.
We should try to achieve the goals for which we require energy not with the maximum of energy consumption or by acting on the naive belief that the more energy we use the better off we are, of that per capita energy consumption is of itself an index of national prestige, but with a maximum of energy efficiency or energy productivity, in other words, maximising the benefits obtained from each unit of scarce and expensive energy used.
Low energy productivity is a recipe for poor economic performance. High energy costs in industry leave that much less for wages and capital reinvestment. I appeal to the Minister to do something about the element of taxation on, say, industrial fuel, which is a serious imposition not only on the number of jobs available but on our standard of living.
High energy costs make our output less competitive than that of other countries which pay more attention to energy efficiency. In short, using and supplying more energy to accomplish our social goals and sustain our chosen way of life is less a measure of the success of our energy policy than of our failures. Similarily, the amount of traffic we must endure to get to where we want to go is not an indication of our well-being but of our inability to plan a rational transport system.
It is encouraging to note that the conservation policies of other countries have resulted in substantial beneficial results, but this problem has to be tackled in a positive way. The Minister's present brief is not adequate to tackle this question properly. As soon as this becomes evident to the Taoiseach and the Government, I hope the Minister for Energy will be given more statutory powers and authority to effectively fulfil the very important and crucial job which lies before him. I wish the Minister well and as long as he continues the job he started, he will get every support and encouragement from me.
I would like to thank the spokesmen for the Opposition parties for their constructive approach to this debate. Perhaps it is not something any Minister is entitled to expect but whenever he receives it he is heartened and encouraged if he finds this kind of constructive approach to the general position he has adopted.
As will be noted, I spelled out the general lines of energy policy I am developing and the priorities I believe should be followed. I was pleased to note from the other side of the House the various comments on the different aspects of this subject and that there was no dissent from the general lines of policy or the priorities I suggested. I read into this that there is as I suspected, and as I indicated earlier, widespread consensus on our basic needs in developing an energy policy. Both Deputy Kelly and Deputy Pattison at the beginning of their respective contributions referred to what Deputy Kelly described as a Uturn policy.
A hairpin bend which the Minister successfully negotiated.
It is obvious from a political point of view that neither Deputy could resist the temptation to say this and I cannot blame them. If I were in their position I would not be able to resist the temptation either. Nevertheless, for the record I have to point out the facts. In so far as a decision on the construction of a nuclear reactor for the production of electricity in this country is concerned no decision has been made, nor will any decision be made until after the public tribunal has met, reported and the Government have considered that report. Prior to that there are a number of other steps which have to occur, including the publication of the report of the inter-departmental committee covering various aspects of the proposal——
Who will make the decision? Will it be by referendum?
I am coming to that. The inter-departmental committee are meeting at present and their terms of reference cover various aspects of the proposal, including safety. Therefore, they have to be concerned with the outcome of the inquiries into the incident at Harrisburg. Consequently their report will be delayed. When the report is published, it will make available on a factual basis to everybody who is interested the up-to-date information on various aspects, including safety, and also the best estimates then available of likely energy consumption in future, the possible sources of energy, the financial aspects and so on. When that report becomes available it will be followed by the public inquiry at which all interested parties will be able to put their points of view and, hopefully, will be able to put a better informed point of view than they could at present. When that inquiry has been held and the report made, the report will go to the Government. Only then will a decision be made by the Government of the day. I will deal with the question of the referendum later. That is the series of steps envisaged. I wish to stress that the Government have not and cannot have a definitive position on the question of the construction of a nuclear reactor here until that decision is made.
On the basis facts of the situation there is no difference between what I have been saying and what was said by my predecessor. There is, of course, a difference in emphasis and the principal reason is that there is a difference in the facts of the situation which now obtain and those which obtained when the document "Energy Ireland" was prepared; it was published in 1978 and prepared earlier. The facts of the situation at that time were quite different from those which now obtain, particularly in regard to the projection of the amount of energy which our economy will require during the coming decade.
The major reason for the change in that projection is the down-turn in the world economy and the consequent down-turn in our economy and the much lower prospects for economic growth during coming years than were projected in 1977 and 1978. If there is much lower economic growth there will be much lower demand for energy. That is the major change but there is another change which is consequential on that. As the price of oil and other forms of energy rises, alternative sources which were not at all economic some years ago now become economic or prospectively economic. The scene is changing quite substantially and fundamentally and therefore the emphasis which I am putting on certain aspects of energy policy differs from that of my predecessor, reflecting the difference in the facts of the situation which now exists.
I think Deputy Kelly was wrong in his assertion that the present Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism was against the construction of a pipeline for the bringing of gas from Kinsale to Dublin. I am open to correction on this but speaking from recollection I think Deputy O'Malley was very strongly urging the construction of such a pipeline while he was in Opposition. Perhaps Deputy Kelly is confusing two things. Because my colleague spelled out very clearly the facts of the situation as far as the Dublin Gas Company are concerned and the impossibility of contemplating supplying natural gas to that company as then constituted, Deputy Kelly may imagine that he was opposed to the construction of the pipeline. However, that is not and was not his position.
Deputy Kelly is also mistaken in his suspicion that some advance version of the Fine Gael policy document on energy had been leaked to my Department. The fact that the document contained a number of good points which I had been spelling out for quite some time before its appearance is, I am sure, purely coincidental. I can assure the House that the explanation does not lie in any leak to me or my Department. I was totally unaware of the contents of the document until its publication.
Deputy Kelly also urged on me the setting up of some kind of all-party committee for consideration of energy conservation measures. He mentioned rationing as the kind of unpopular measure a Government would be unwilling to take and would be more likely to take if they had all-party support. That is all very well in theory and if one accepted the proposition it would be true of other areas quite different from energy. Difficult decisions are the responsibility of Government; that is why they are elected. They are not the responsibility of Opposition parties and very few Opposition parties are willing to attach to themselves the odium of these unpopular decisions when they are not obliged to do so. I could not quarrel with their approach in that regard and Deputy Kelly's suggestion, while very well intentioned, is misconceived and would not work in practice.
I was interested to hear Deputy Kelly talking about the manner in which we should spend the revenue from our oil, if and when we get it off the west coast. He referred to the speech made by his party leader at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis. My recollection is that the party leader gave a little lecture on the danger that this Government might start spending those revenues for the purpose of re-election or some such terrible purpose.
It has been spent in the past two years.
Having damned us for the possibility that we might do such a thing and describing it as most reprehensible, he then proceeded to spell out how he thought the revenue should be spent.
Not in buying votes.
He was endeavouring to buy votes with revenue which does not exist.
Others have done that.
We should not count our chickens before they are hatched.
They are coming home to roost now.
The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
There is no point in trying to spend it now. Deputy Kelly made certain suggestions as to what should be done and I do not want to follow him down that road except to say that as a general principle we should not lose sight of the fact that even if oil in substantial quantities is discovered off our coasts any such discovery is finite. At some time it will run out. We need a renewable source of energy and the first priority in the spending of possible oil revenue should be directed towards producing as far as possible renewable energy sources sufficient to meet all our requirements in future.
It might be asked what kind of sources we can think of in that regard. There are various sources. I do not want to dwell too much on this but one source that is at an early stage of development and which I referred to earlier is the question of wave power. It has been estimated that the energy contained in the waves around our coast is sufficient to meet three times the whole energy consumption of this island at present. Of course, it has not been harnessed and a great deal of work is going into this matter. I am simply putting forward that example as a general principle if one is to talk about the spending of oil revenues that we have not got.
Deputy Kelly spoke about Avoca Mines and his approach seemed to be almost directly contrary to that of Deputy Pattison. Deputy Kelly seemed to think we should not spend more money on keeping the mines open and keeping the people concerned in jobs if the operation comes to an end in September of next year, whereas Deputy Pattison urged that we keep the mines open as long as possible. Apart from the reasons advanced by Deputy Pattison, we will continue to monitor closely the situation at Avoca Mines. Of course, if the losses become very high the Government would have to consider again the question of continuing the subvention. So far as the Government are concerned, in any decision on this matter a relevant consideration is the amount the State would pay out by way of social welfare and unemployment benefits.
Considerable interest has been shown in prospecting in the general Avoca area. It might be over-sanguine to expect that the discovery of new commercial deposits will take place there but that cannot be ruled out. The prospects for early development of any such deposit if it were discovered would be enhanced by the existence in that locality of the crushing and milling facilities that exist in Avoca Mines as well as the presence of a large labour pool with the necessary expertise and experience in mining.
Deputy Kelly also raised the question of the position of the ESB on the use of waste heat. The ESB have one demonstration project that is in part operation; this is at the Lanesboro generating station where at least ten acres of glasshouses are intended to be heated with waste heat from the generating station. There are two acres in production at present. It is a co-operative project with Allied Irish Banks, the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture all contributing.
Secondly, the potential for the use of waste heat by the ESB at the Ringsend and Poolbeg stations is under close examination. They have plans to use some of the waste heat there in the generation of further electricity. A new generating station is to be erected there that will be run by this waste heat. It is clear there is considerable scope for supplying the remaining heat from other generating stations which is going to waste at present to factories, offices and houses and this activity is being pursued actively by the ESB. We are specifically asking other large industries to explore the potential for the use of waste heat that they are producing. The IIRS, through the Energy Managers' Association, are making a major drive to initiate projects of this kind not only in the ESB but in the major industries.
Deputy Pattison referred to my recent visit to Kilkenny. Among the places I visited there were Smithwicks Brewery and the Avonmore Creameries. In Smithwicks Brewery in particular enormous strides have been made in the effective use of what was waste heat. One of the reasons for my visit was to see what they were doing in this area. Similar progress has been made at Avonmore and more is on the way. I should like to congratulate both firms on what they are doing. They are setting a headline for what we want to see done in industry generally.
Deputy Pattison commented on the fact that I did not talk about coal when I was in Kilkenny. I presume he is referring to my formal speech at the Rotary Club. He may not know that at Avonmore when the press were present I had a quite considerable discussion on the question of coal and on an interesting project that Avonmore have in mind which is at a very early stage. In the course of my visit I said something that I might refer to in this House. We are having conducted at the moment an extensive survey of the coal resources available throughout the country, and in particular in the Leinster coalfields. These cover Kilkenny and Laois and I think extend to Wicklow. The area is quite extensive. I have noticed there is a considerable interest by people from abroad in the possibility of exploiting these resources. We are bringing up-to-date all the information we can gather on the matter.
Although I do not want to exaggerate this because it is at an early stage, there are some prospects—I put it no stronger than that—that we may have far more extensive deposits of very low-grade coal than we thought. One of the reasons we have not been aware of what is involved is that the coal is so low grade nobody paid any attention to it. Up to this we have been interested only in higher grade coal, such as that produced by the Deputy's constituents at Castlecomer. The ESB are in the process of planning a generating station at Arigna for the use of low-grade coal there. With some assistance from consultants and with a great deal of work on the part of their own experts, the ESB have further developed and altered a technique that was developed abroad and they have established that the crow coal in the Arigna area can be used effectively for the generation of electricity. If I mention that that coal is 55 per cent stone, the House will have some idea of the kind of problems involved. But the technique has now been developed. If the indications that exist at the moment are borne out, that we have substantial deposits of very low grade coal, the development of this technique which will be applied at Arigna could mean that the possibilities of producing energy from indigenous resources are greater than we thought up to now. I will not put it stronger than that.
I assure Deputy Kelly in regard to what he said about our delimitation dispute with the UK that we are fully aware of the potential importance of this. A great deal of effort is being put into preparation for it and we are endeavouring to reach agreement on terms of reference and so on. From what Deputy Kelly said at Question Time yesterday I am conscious of his concern and I agree with him about the importance in the national interest of ensuring that we are fully and well represented on all aspects of that arbitration which is coming up.
Deputy Pattison expressed a preference for a referendum on the nuclear question. In the various steps I have outlined we envisage the decision being ultimately taken by the Government of the day when the result of the tribunal of inquiry becomes available and we do not visualise a referendum. Although there is provision in the Constitution for a referendum on subjects other than changes in the Constitution it has never been used and it would require very special circumstances. These circumstances do not apply in the question of nuclear power. The considerations that arise in assessing the pros and cons of the nuclear question are very complex and we are endeavouring to ensure that anybody who is interested will have the opportunity to be as fully informed as possible on the issue. However, it would be unrealistic to imagine that the great majority of voters will be fully informed on this matter. The issue is much too complex to expect people to be able to make a decision on it in a referendum. How would we frame the question in a way that was not excessively simplistic and would give some remote indication of the kind of considerations that people should bear in mind in making a decision on this? This is the kind of issue on which the Government have to make a decision and be responsible, having been as fully informed as possible and having given the general public the greatest possible opportunity of being fully informed and of indicating their reaction through the democratic process to the Government and the political parties generally. The decision must ultimately be made by the Government of the day.
With regard to uranium prospecting, I am advised by the Nuclear Energy Board, which is an independent body of experts set up specifically for the purpose of advising the Government on radioactivity hazards and safety hazards, that there is no evidence available to support the suggestion that there is a health hazard from uranium prospecting. That opinion is arrived at not only through their expert knowledge but after consultations with experts in various parts of the world. I know that some people are concerned about this matter and in an effort to allay their concern I have taken a number of steps including arranging that the Nuclear Energy Board take samples of soil and water where uranium prospecting is being carried out before and after. The Nuclear Energy Board are monitoring the degree of radioactivity involved and are making available the information coming in from their monitoring. So far all the information that has come in from their testing has borne out what the Nuclear Energy Board originally advised us, that there is no hazard involved. However, the monitoring is continuing. That is the most effective way of dealing with this problem and it should be most reassuring to people who are concerned. If it happens, contrary to the advice, that the tests show that there is a hazard, then the people on the ground will be informed straight away and the matter can be dealt with there and then rather than dealing with various theories as to what might or might not be the risk, the theories of people who in many cases have no expert knowledge in this area and who make pronouncements which have no real basis and which are up-setting people.
I quoted from——
I know about that, as do the Nuclear Energy Board. Deputy Pattison also referred to the amount of money being spent in other countries which he listed on research into the potential of wind as a source of energy. The figures the Deputy quoted simply prove that this is a matter of considerable potential that is being seriously pursued in other countries. Many people here feel that if we do research into something such as wind it could be very silly, but if other countries are doing it it is all right. For such people what Deputy Pattison said should reassure them and convince them that there are possibilities in it. We are keeping in touch with developments in different parts of the world but it is essential that experimental work be carried out in Irish conditions. I know of some private uses of wind chargers constructed abroad off the west coast which could not stand up to Irish conditions but just collapsed in winter.
There is always too much wind here.
If we could harness it, would it not be a great thing and a great advantage? We need to carry out this work in Irish conditions. The data available suggests that our geographical location is one of the best in the world from this point, but it also means that possibly the wear and tear on the machines would be greater than in many other cases. The machines have to be designed to stand up to our conditions. We have in mind a number of different locations for this purpose, one of them, on Inis Oirr in the Aran Islands, has been announced and others will be announced shortly. The important thing is that we are keeping in touch with the work going on and that we are trying it under Irish conditions to ensure that it can operate, if it is to operate, effectively under Irish conditions.
I am grateful to Deputies for their constructive contribution to this debate. There is a good deal that I was unable to deal with, and I know the Deputies who spoke were unable to deal with, because of time constraints. Sufficient has been said to make it clear that the whole energy problem is a major one with enormous potential for the economic growth or shrinkage of the country. It is necessary for us to bring together into a coherent whole the various elements of energy policy and define our priorities. I have outlined our approach in that regard and there has been no dissent from that outline or those priorities, for which I am grateful. I look forward to further co-operation from Deputies opposite in the implementation of this policy of major importance for the future of all of us and of our children.
