Amendment No. 24 cannot be moved as Deputy Sargent is not present.
Sustainable Energy Bill, 2001: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I call Deputy Stanton to move amendment No. 25.
On a point of order, is it possible to proceed in the Minister of State's absence?
There is nothing to stop the Deputy from proceeding without him, but we will give him a few seconds to appear.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 6, line 32, before "and" to insert "as soon as may be after the establishment day,".
This is a technical amendment which does not add much to the Bill. I do not mind if the Minister of State does not accept it. It came up on Committee Stage and appears in other Bills. I await the Minister's response.
This amendment proposes that the members of the authority be appointed as soon as may be after establishment day. It could only refer to the appointment of the first board. I can assure colleagues that it is my intention that the board be appointed as soon as possible following the establishment of the new authority and accordingly I do not deem the amendment to be necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 26 was already discussed with amendment No. 21.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Amendment No. 27 arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendment No. 28 is an alternative. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 7, to delete lines 14 and 15 and substitute the following:
"(10) (a) A member of the Board shall not be eligible for reappointment if he or she has served two consecutive terms as a member of the Board.
(b) The Minister, when appointing members of the Board (other than the Chief Executive) shall fix such members term of membership which shall not exceed five years.”.
This amendment relates to the amount of time that people serve on the board. We had a similar set of amendments in regard to the Railway Procurement Agency. Currently the amount of time a member can serve on the board is quite long. We would prefer a situation whereby the Minister would have the wherewithal to change that after a period of time if he so wishes. The time is the same but there is a division in the middle of it where it is broken into two five-year terms. Members will not be allowed to serve more than two consecutive terms, each of five years. It gives the Minister an opportunity to make changes to the board if he so wishes.
We discussed this on Committee Stage and I thought we had reached agreement. As I stated on Committee Stage, I feel this is too constraining. The provisions of subsections (7), (8), (9), and (10) are a package designed to meet the objectives of both continuity and change. I believe those provisions meet that which the Deputy aspires to. They ensure continuity and allow for the possibility of re-appointing a member to a second term if the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance feels the board would benefit by that second term. At the same time the provisions allow for new blood to come on to the board.
Any change to this package could render these subsections inoperable. I am anxious to keep the package intact. I understood that the Deputy very kindly acceded to my demand for this package to remain unchanged. To allay any concerns that colleagues may have in regard to the ten-year period, I wish to assure them that there is no automatic right to re-appointment.
The existing provisions are similar to the pro visions of the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act, 1998.
What the Minister of State has said is reasonable. The maximum period of ten years allows people to learn a lot and have a big input over a period of time. It is good to have a certain level of continuity and the numbers of years arrived at is reasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 7, line 24, to delete "1999" and substitute "2001".
This is a technical amendment. Due to the enactment of the Company Law Enforcement Act, 2001, I am advised that 1999 should read 2001. I presume the Minister of State will accept it.
Deputy Stagg's amendment assures that we now have the correct citation for the Companies Act and I am very happy to accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 7, lines 29 and 30, to delete ", in the Minister's opinion,".
This came out of Committee proceedings and we decided to put it forward again to have another discussion on it. It is very subjective that a member of the board may be removed at any time if in the Minister's opinion the member has become incapable through ill-health and so on. The phrase "in the Minister's opinion" is unnecessary. If the person has become incapable through ill-health then that is a fact and the Minister's opinion should not really come into it. Objective evidence should be produced rather than leaving it to the subjective view of the Minister of the day whether or not a person is capable of performing.
The current wording in the Bill is important and must be retained. I accept that the removal of a board member is a very serious step. However, it could very well be necessary if a member of the board becomes incapacitated. Before a Minister would remove a board member in such circumstance he must form an opinion that a board member is ill or unable to fulfil their duties. In forming an opinion the Minister would, of course, consult the appropriate people, including medical people if health issues are involved.
Any board member removed in this way who feels aggrieved and thinks the Minster may have acted unreasonably may seek judicial review of the Minister's decision in the courts. As Deputies are aware, such provisions are standard in many Acts setting up bodies to which appointments are made, including one brought forward by my Department, the Aviation Regulation Act, 2001, as well as the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act, 1998, the Comhairle Act, 2000 and the Irish Sports Council Act, 1999.
I thank the Minister for clarifying the position with regard to that issue. It is a serious matter if someone is removed from a board and obviously it would not be taken lightly. It is good to know that it would only happen when the Minister has an informed opinion and people would have the right to judicial review should the need arise.
I support what the Minister of State and Deputy Stanton say in regard to this matter. I am quite certain that the Minister, his officials and those attached to the board would make certain that they would obtain the necessary confirmation in writing. It would be wise to keep accurate records of a person's ill-health for the sake of everybody involved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 31 in the name of Deputy Stagg arises out of Committee Stage proceedings.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 7, lines 44 and 45, to delete "have regard to the objective" and substitute "comply with the requirement".
The issue here is one of gender balance on the board. The section as drafted states that the Minister shall have regard to the objective of there being not less than four members who are women and not less than four who are men. That is a watery and a pathetically weak way to implement a clearly stated Government policy. The Government has a clear policy on the matter and I ask the Minister of State to implement it, rather than pay distant lip service to it by saying it will "have regard to the objective".
I know what "having regard to" means. I know of a case taken by a county medical officer against a county manager where the county manager had to "have regard" to the county medical officer's opinion in the allocation of housing. The matter went to the Supreme Court, which said all that was required of the county manager was to be aware of and to have read the report of the county medical officer. Having had regard to it, the county manager could then ignore it, though he had to be conscious of what was in it before making a decision. The same thing is being said here. The phrase "having regard to the objective" is weak given the strength of the Government's policy on the matter. I ask that the words be taken out and the phrase "comply with the requirement" inserted. Even if the phrase "comply with Government policy" were substituted, I would be satisfied.
Colleagues may be aware that I pro posed the wording in section 10(17) by way of ministerial amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad. The provision, as it now stands, reflects Government policy on the principle of equality regarding appointments to the boards of State bodies. The wording, as it now stands, places a moral obligation on Ministers appointing board members to appoint at least four females and at least four males. Ministers take Government policy in this area very seriously and strive to fulfil the quota of female board members. As 11 members will be appointed by the Minister – the chief executive will be an ex-officio member – four members will correspond to roughly 40% of the appointees. I am satisfied the wording is sufficiently strong to ensure Government policy is fulfilled. This formulation has met with Oireachtas approval in the Comhairle Act, 2000, and I hope it meets the Deputy's requirements.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response. This Government has a dismal record of implementing its policy in the matter of gender balance. That is true of all Ministers and even Deputy Jacob's senior at the Department of Public Enterprise has a very bad record in the matter of appointing women, despite being a woman herself. I would not have expected the need to apply moral pressure in her case. Moral pressure is not working; what is needed is legal sanction on the Minister requiring him or her to implement Government policy. I will be disappointed if this amendment is not accepted. I am sure the moral pressure this section puts on someone as highly moralistic as the Minister of State is sufficient, but others may not be as perfect as him. Therefore, to ensure his successors comply with this policy, I strongly suggest that at a minimum we state that Government policy is to be implemented. This is to be permanent legislation.
I support Deputy Stagg's amendment. It would strengthen the legislation. I like his use of the term "watery" to describe the use of the phrase "having regard to the objective". Having the Minister comply with the requirement shows we are all taking seriously the matter of gender balance on State boards.
Plenty of women will be qualified and it will not be difficult to find them to sit on the board.
I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 32, in the name of the Minister, arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. Amendment No. 33 is related to amendment No. 32 and amendment No. 34 is an alternative and they may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 10, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(9) (a) Where the office of Chief Executive is vacant the Board may designate a member of the staff of the Authority to perform the functions of the Chief Executive which designation shall continue in force for no longer than the period of the vacancy in that office.
(b) The Board may revoke or alter a designation made under paragraph (a) at any time.
(10) (a) Where the Chief Executive is absent from duty and no member of the staff of the Authority has been assigned by the Chief Executive to perform the duties of the Chief Executive in his or her absence the Board may designate a member of the staff of the Authority to perform the functions of the Chief Executive which designation shall continue in force for no longer than the period of the absence of the Chief Executive.
(b) The Board may revoke or alter a designation made under paragraph (a) at any time.
(11) Nothing in subsections (9) or (10) shall entitle a person designated to perform functions of the Chief Executive to be a member of the Board.”.
The question of appointing someone to carry out the functions of the chief executive in his or her absence, or when the post is vacant, is one I promised to come back to on Report Stage. This is the subject of amendments Nos. 32 and 34. It is a matter to which I have given much thought as it is not as simple as it initially appears. I had a few problems with the wording of amendment No. 34 when it was proposed on Committee Stage and I have, therefore, brought forward an amendment of my own.
Three contingencies must be provided for. The chief executive may be away on business or on holiday and in such circumstances he or she would normally designate another member of staff to carry out his or her duties. This circumstance is covered by section 16(5) of the Bill. The second contingency involves a vacancy arising in the post, due to the retirement, resignation, dismissal or death of a chief executive. Pending the appointment of a successor the board may wish to designate someone to carry out the functions of chief executive. The third contingency is the most difficult to provide for. What happens if a chief executive is hospitalised for some unforeseen reason such as a heart attack or an accident? He or she will have been unable to designate someone to carry out his or her duties. If the absence is likely to be prolonged, the board may wish to appoint someone to carry out the functions of chief executive until that officer returns. The amendment I propose is designed to meet the contingency of a vacancy arising due to the unforeseen absence of a chief executive. It avoids the danger of cutting across the contract of employment between the chief executive and the authority and meets the concerns of the Deputies proposing amendment No. 34. For that reason, they will perhaps accept it.
Amendment No. 33 was discussed on Committee Stage and Deputies accepted the strength of the argument I made for rejecting it. The amendment's proposals are covered by section 16(5). It is clearly a matter for the chief executive to ensure the functions of the authority, as well as his or her own, are carried out properly and adequately. The chief executive must make all necessary arrangements for that and ensuring he or she does will form an important part of the contract of employment with the board. I fear providing that the consent of the board be required in this instance could constrain the effective operation of the authority.
This shows that the system works. When we propose amendments on Committee Stage, a Minister and his officials go away and examine them before coming back with even better versions. I am happy to accept the amendment the Minister of State proposes and to withdraw ours. I must admit that, on this occasion, he has improved on what we put forward.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 12, to delete lines 30 to 43 and substitute the following:
"(a) he or she or any connected relative or any nominee of his or her or any connected relative, is a member of a company or any other body which has a beneficial interest in, or material to, a matter referred to in that subsection,
(b) he or she or any connected relative is in partnership with or is in the employment of a person who has a beneficial interest in, or materialto, such a matter,
(c) he or she or any connected relative is a party to any arrangement or agreement (whether or not enforceable) concerning land to which such a matter relates, or
(d) any connected relative has a beneficial interest in, or material to, such a matter.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 13, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(7) In this section ‘connected relative' means, in relation to a person to whom this section applies, the person's spouse or partner, parent, child, brother, sister, or child of the person's spouse or partner.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 37 in the names of Deputies Stanton, Jim Higgins and Naughten arises out of Committee proceedings.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 13, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(7) The Chief Executive, a member of the Board, a member of the staff of the Authority, or a consultant, advisor or the person engaged by the Authority shall notify the Board of a potential conflict of interest or circumstance in which the person has a doubt about a conflict of interest and shall desist from pursuing an interest that they know to be in conflict with the working of the Authority.".
We felt this was a rather important area because we are dealing with energy and at some stage there will be potential conflicts of interests, possibly where there are very large sums of money involved. We know energy can be a pretty lucrative area. We wanted to ensure that if somebody had a potential conflict of interest, he or she would make it known at least and would not pursue an interest which he or she knew to be in conflict with the workings of the authority. The amendment would strengthen the provisions already in the Bill. The Minister of State has had an opportunity to examine this proposal and I look forward to hearing what he has to say on it.
Deputy Stanton withdrew this amendment on Committee Stage. I am satisfied that the concern behind the amendment is already covered to a large extent by the existing text. In addition the Department of Finance's new code of practice for the governance of State bodies provides that all State bodies should have written codes of business conduct for directors and employees. Appendix B of the Department of Finance's code contains the framework for a code of business conduct. One of the items in this embraces the issue of conflicts of interest.
The proposed amendment is strange. It deals with potential conflicts of interest or circum stances where a person has a doubt about whether he or she has conflicted. I remain of the view that either there is a conflict of interest or there is not. The inclusion of "a potential conflict of interest" would involve a substantial broadening of the provision. Where a person has any doubt in regard to a conflict of interest, then of course he or she is required to go and establish the fact or otherwise of a conflict.
What the Deputy is proposing in relation to a potential conflict and doubt about a conflict gives rise to concern. The Deputy suggests that the person be required to desist from pursuing an interest which gives rise to the conflict. This again seems to go far beyond anything this House has contemplated before. Where a conflict exists, the action a person must take is set down in section 18(1) of the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment.
As the Minister correctly pointed out, there are two parts to this proposal. The first part has to do with a potential conflict of interest where the board member would be obliged to notify the board of the potential conflict. If the person was concerned, he or she would go to the board and say that there may be a conflict of interest here, ask advice and let them know about it at least. The second part is very clear, that if somebody has a conflict of interest, he or she would desist from pursuing that. I think that is accepted by everybody.
Similar amendments have appeared in other legislation from the Minister of State's Department. While the Minister stated that the amendment is strange, I can point out the Acts in which there are similar provisions. That said, I am satisfied that the Minister of State has given us an assurance that it is already covered in the Bill and he has examined it closely with his officials, and I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 13, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(5) The First Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 is amended by the insertion in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 1 at the end thereof of the following:
‘Sustainable Energy Ireland – The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.'.".
When I was welcoming the Minister's decision to include this body under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, seemingly I was misheard by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government who was listening to his monitor. He thought I was saying that this was the first amendment of mine accepted in five years. That was not the case. I have tabled similar amendments to practically every Bill. This is the first time for such amendment to be accepted and I thank the Minister of State for accepting it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 15, lines 7 to 10, to delete all words from and including "Dáil" in line 7 down to and including "General" in line 10 and substitute "either or both Houses of the Oireachtas".
The Bill seems to confine the democratic accountability of the body to the Committee of Public Accounts because no other committee fits the description in this section. It would mean that the Oireachtas Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport, which is the primary committee dealing with this body, could not call the chief executive before it.
I expected the Oireachtas Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport would be the primary committee in this matter, would deal with the policy issues and would be the committee before which the chief executive would appear. The Bill states, however, the chief executive shall give evidence to "a Committee of Dáil Éireann established under the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann to examine and report to Dáil Éireann on the appropriation accounts and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General", that is, the Committee of Public Accounts and not any other committee.
I presume this is a mistake and that the Minister does not mean to confine the democratic accountability of this body to the Committee of Public Accounts. I am sure the spokespersons from all parties would be amazed to find that the Oireachtas Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport would not also have the right to summon the chief executive and have him before them on a regular basis to advise and inform them about what was happening. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I have some difficulty with these amendments, mainly because I believe I have already catered for what the Deputy is seeking. I ask the Deputy to read sections 24 and 25 together. In both sections there is a requirement on the chief executive to appear before Oireachtas committees.
In section 24, which deals with the report and accounts of the authority, the chief executive, by virtue of subsection (4), is required to appear before a Dáil committee examining the appropriation accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Examination of and reporting to the Dáil on the appropriation accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General is a specific function of the Dáil and, therefore, of a Dáil committee. In effect, we are referring here to the Committee of Public Accounts and the chief executive is required to give evidence to that committee on all matters pertaining to the expenditure of the authority.
On the other hand, if the Deputy looks at section 25(5), it can be seen that the chief executive is required to appear before a committee of one or both Houses of the Oireachtas to account for the performance of the functions of the authority. In those circumstances I am satisfied that the intent of the Deputy's amendment is provided for when we look at the requirements contained in sections 24 and 25 together.
Can I take it then, from what the Minister of State stated, that subsections 24(4) and 25(5) have equal status, that the Committee of Public Accounts has a clear right and that the other committee will also be able to do what I suggested? My legal advice is that section 24(4) supersedes that because of the specified nature of the committee, but my legal advice could be wrong.
That is my advice.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 15, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(6) The Minister shall make information on the finances and operation of the agency available to Dáil Members in response to Parliamentary Questions and the Authority shall co-operate in the matter when requested to do so by the Minister.".
This is one of the last amendments with which we will be dealing. It relates to a matter that is raised here again and again, namely, the accountability of authorities such as this to this House, especially at Question Time. We have endeavoured to make it possible for the incumbent Minister to give information on the workings and finances of such authorities to Deputies by way of parliamentary questions. This is what we think democracy is about and it should be possible. We agree the Minister should not interfere in the day to day running of such agencies, authorities or bodies. While we acknowledge that such bodies and their chief executives can be brought before committees of this House, we note it can happen only rarely and maybe only once per year. Because of the extra work in which the Select Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport was involved this year, it was unable to carry out many of its functions. Many of the agencies and bodies under the remit of that committee, such as An Post, Aer Lingus, the ESB and others, were not invited to give an account of their stewardship. Deputies have been unable to get infor mation in the House or hold anyone to account. If the work of the committees is stymied there is no way the citizens, through their Deputies, can hold these public money spending agencies to account.
This amendment provides one way in which this could be done. We have acknowledged that both the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, and the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, have done their best to make available such information when asked to do so by way of parliamentary questions. However, that is not always the case. Many Ministers have said they are not accountable to the Dáil on certain matters and do not give any information. The amendment makes it possible for Deputies to get information on the workings and finances of this body through parliamentary questions without holding the Minister to account for its day to day operation. It is something we should incorporate in all legislation and I know they do so in other jurisdictions. I hope the Minister has considered this since Committee Stage and will accept it.
I support this amendment. It is very much along the lines of an argument I have made for a considerable time about the diminution of democracy by moving authority from this Chamber to outside bodies and quangos. While most Members agree that is the case, there is no agreement on how we should tackle it, what the alternative is or how we should ensure responsibility remains in the House. I am a member of the Dáil Reform Committee. It had a very strong proposal that Ministers should do what this amendment proposes. The permanent government in the Civil Service kicked up hell, it could not be described as anything else. They got the Ministers to put pressure on the committee to dilute that recommendation. There is a diluted form in the Dáil reform package which will come before us – hopefully – at some time in the near future.
If the Minister is adjudged not to be responsible to the House on a matter, the Ceann Comhairle is obliged to disallow questions. That happens on a regular basis. From my limited time in a Department I am aware of what happens when a question arrives there. The Department first seeks to establish if it is a repeat question. It can be thrown out on that basis. It next checks to see if it is the responsibility of another Minister but the main one used is the issue of accountability – the Minister has no responsibility to the House. The Ceann Comhairle will then write to tell the Member the question is disallowed. If it is found to be a question that the Minister has to answer, one could write a book on the procedure used. I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment but it is something the House needs to address. Power is being moved from it all the time.
This amendment hits a raw nerve in many of us. It is a common practice to be told the matter being raised is a matter for an agency and not the Minister. I hope this amendment can be accepted in some form so that counter measures can be put in place to ensure we do not get letters like that when we seek information about the work, operation or finances of the sustainable energy authority. As things stand, many questions will be put to the Minister which will refer to the authority. Given that the Minister will retain responsibility, I want the Minister of State to assure me that those questions will be answered. To what extent does the Minister of State believe questions will be answered?
In matters such as this the answer normally is that the Minister is not responsible for the day to day running of semi-State bodies or boards and is responsible only for policy. Let us consider what is currently happening with An Post. There is widespread concern over the threatened closure of 800 to 1,000 post offices. It is a matter we should be able to discuss in this House. This is a practical example of what we are speaking about and is something which affects many people across the country.
The Bill will have considerable impact on the midlands. In the event of it affecting Shannonbridge or Lanesboro, either by policy made by the sustainable energy authority or the Government, we should be able to discuss it here. Rhode power station is closing down while Ferbane has already been closed. I am prevented from asking a Minister a specific question about why Rhode was closed when it should have been kept open. The Minister will tell me that is a matter for the day-to-day workings of the board and she has no power in that regard. There is a duty imposed on Members by the people they represent to ascertain what is happening. We are prevented from doing so. In 1972, when the health boards were being established, I recall a row that ran for two weeks because questions or discussions regarding health boards were not going to be allowed. We are very restricted on what questions we can ask about health issues.
We have a duty and a right to air our views. This Bill has given us some opportunity to discuss what is happening in the midlands. Many people have been hurt by the closure of Ferbane and Rhode power stations. I am delighted Lanesboro power station has been approved by An Bord Pleanála and I am also pleased the Environmental Protection Agency has given it an integrated pollution control licence. I also await a decision on planning permission for Shannonbridge which I expect in the next few days.
While I welcome the Bill and hope all Stages are dealt with this evening, the amendment is a good one and I recommend it.
While I empathise with the sentiments expressed by all four colleagues and contained in Deputy Stanton's amendment, I do not see how the matter can be rectified in one Bill or through one authority or State agency. We have already had a good discussion on this amendment on Committee Stage. Under Dáil Standing Orders, parliamentary questions may be asked of the Minister relating to Government policy concerning any State body under his or her aegis. However, we have all seen that happen to which Members referred.
If there is to be any change in this regard, it would be more appropriately made to the Standing Orders of this House. It would be inappropriate to have inconsistency in the requirements for answering parliamentary questions, which would be the outcome of the acceptance of the amendment. Clearly there cannot be different sets of rules for different State bodies in this area. I do not oppose the spirit of what the Deputy seeks to do with the support of his colleagues. However, this is not the appropriate vehicle for it. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
Like Deputy Stagg, I did not expect the Minister of State to accept the amendment, but it gave us an opportunity to voice our opinion on this strange development where authority is transferred from Ministers to an increasing number of bodies. For example, the Bill states that its purpose is to move authority from the Minister to the Sustainable Energy Authority.
I am sure there will not be a problem with the management of the authority in the sense that, if any of us seek information from it, we will probably receive it. However, in two, three or ten years' time, with changes in personnel, it may not continue to supply information to Members who seek it. I am sure the Minister of State knows there are State agencies, which have been mentioned before in this regard, which neither respond to Members who voice the legitimate concerns of their constituents nor supply information. One may receive a curt response to the effect that the matter is being examined or has been referred somewhere else. That is not good enough.
We bemoan the fact that increasing numbers of people do not vote or are apathetic about politics. I put it to the Minister of State that this development is one of the reasons. Members feel increasingly helpless and powerless. The only people who have power are Ministers. That is not right and is dangerous. If we cannot obtain information, then the only people with power are Ministers.
Even committees of the House are not given the resources to investigate and ask questions. I already cited the example of the Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport which was starved of resources as officials attached to it worked night and day on the sub-committee inquiry. This meant the committee proper was not able to perform its functions. Why have committees in that case? Why not abolish them and establish a commissar to run the show?
Ministers probably want all the power for themselves. Some of them complain about all the hard work they must do. If they shared it a little, they might have less work.
The Departments do the work.
Ministers are the heads of Departments and must take ultimate responsibility.
They are temporary nuisances in Departments.
I am disappointed the Minister of State has decided not to show the way and lead by example by accepting the amendment. It would not have been earth-shattering and he agreed with the intent of the amendment in any event. While he said he did not oppose it, he does not want to accept it, probably because he does not have the courage to take it on board. He could accept the amendment and no one could stop him from doing so. We would certainly agree with and support him in doing so. This is one of the few remaining amendments to a Bill on which we have worked very hard. The Minister of State should take his courage in his hands and make a name for himself by accepting the amendment. I am sure the sky will not fall in nor will there be an earthquake if he does so.
He would be in to see the Taoiseach in the morning if he did so.
So what? He would make a name for himself and might be made a senior Minister the next time. I rest my case.
I thank the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, for the liberal regime in their Department where answering questions is concerned. It is only when a tricky political question is asked that the rules apply. A few such questions were asked today.
I have never seen or read about a group of people who had power and gave it up without a struggle. Members vote power away every day and we will soon be worse than a county council. We will not even have a county manager. This is all in the name of what is called "independence". This appears to mean not having anything to do with people who are elected. If a person is elected, he or she is a type of leper or criminal who cannot be trusted. Everything about him or her is bad. However, a person is fine if he or she is not elected. In fact, some failed electoral candidates become independent controllers and, apparently, are paragons of virtue. They are untouchable and pure. However, if a person has the misfortune to manage to get 8,000 people to vote for him or her, then he or she cannot be allowed to be in control of anything. It would be political, as if some form of leprosy were attached—
The Deputy is beginning to sound like Vincent Browne.
Perhaps I should listen to him or appear on his programme the odd time.
Deputy Stagg's time is nearly up. He will conclude, if he is allowed.
I understand the reason the Minister cannot make an exception for this authority. It is not the most important one in terms of transferring power from the House. Nonetheless, we should highlight this issue about the transfer of power at every opportunity.
I agree with my colleagues about the frustrations they experience. However, this debate will be revisited because of the amazement widespread among commentators, political scientists included, at the willingness of Ministers to transfer the very power they fought tooth and nail to obtain. This is another example of where the Sustainable Energy Authority is to be given control and is apparently not to be accountable to the House in some aspects.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 16, after line 29, to insert the following:
"31.–Section 23 of the Gas Act, 1976 is amended by the substitution in subsection (2) of ‘€1,700,000,000' for ‘£550,000,000' (inserted by the Gas (Amendment) Act, 2000).".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 44 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 16, after line 29, to insert the following:
32. – Section 39 of the Electricity Regulation Act, 1999 is amended–
a) in subsection (2)–
by the substitution of ‘as are necessary to ensure that, in any specified period,' for ‘as are necessary to ensure that, in any calendar year,',
by the deletion of ‘a specific quantity of' before ‘electricity from', and
by the substitution of ‘generate that electricity' for ‘generate that quantity of electricity' in paragraph (a),
b) in subsection (5)–
by the deletion in paragraph (a) of ‘in respect of electricity provided to such customers' and
by the substitution for paragraph (b) of the following paragraph:
‘(b) the collection and recovery of payments in respect of the levy–
from final customers by the Board or the holder of a licence or an authorisation or the holder of a permit under section 37 of the Principal Act,
from the Board or such holders of a licence, authorisation or permit by the distribution system operator or the transmission system operator, and
from the distribution system operator by the transmission system operator,',
c) in subsection (5)–
by the insertion in paragraph (a) of ‘or holders of a permit under section 37 of the Principal Act', after ‘the Board and holders of a licence or an authorisation', and
by the insertion in paragraph (c) of ‘or holders of permits under section 37 of the Principal Act' after 'the Board and holders of licences or authorisations',
d) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5):
‘(5A) (a) The levy referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) shall be imposed on final customers in respect of a levy period in such a manner that–
the levy is apportioned between each category of electricity accounts specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 on the basis of the maximum demand attributable to that category of accounts as a proportion of the aggregate of the maximum demand attributable to each of the three categories of accounts, and
each holder of an electricity account who is a final customer is charged and liable to pay the levy in respect of each electricity account on the basis set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.
b) The attribution of the maximum demand in respect of each category of electricity account shall be carried out by the distribution system operator with the approval of the Commission in respect of each levy period.
c) In this subsection "levy period" means a calendar year or such shorter period as may be specified in the order.',
e) in subsection (6)–
by the insertion of ‘or the holder of a permit under section 37 of the Principal Act' after ‘or an authorisation' wherever those words occur in that subsection,
by the substitution of ‘specified period' for ‘specified period of years', and
by the insertion of ‘or part of a year' after ‘each year', and
f) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (8)–
‘(8) The Minister shall exercise the powers conferred by this section so as to ensure that the sums realised by the levy or otherwise are sufficient (after the payment of the administrative expenses, as certified by the Commission, of the Board and holders of licences or authorisations or holders of permits under section 37 of the Principal Act incurred in the collection of the levy) to pay to the Board and holders of licences or authorisations or holders of permits under section 37 of the Principal Act the payment required to be made by the order.'.".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 45 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 16, after line 29, to insert the following:
33.–"The Electricity Regulation Act, 1999 is amended by the insertion of the matter in the Schedule to this Act after the Schedule to that Act as Schedule 2 to that Act.".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 46 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 16, after line 29, to insert the following:
"SCHEDULE
‘SCHEDULE 2
Categorisation of Accounts1. For the purposes of section 39 the categories of electricity account are–
a) Domestic Accounts, meaning electricity accounts held by final customers and which are identified by the distribution system operator as liable for distribution use of system charges at the rate for urban domestic customers or the rate for rural domestic customers;
b) Small Accounts, meaning electricity accounts held by final customers which are not Domestic Accounts or Medium-Large Accounts;
c) Medium-Large Accounts, meaning electricity accounts held by final customers which, in respect of each such account, the distribution system operator certifies as having a maximum import capacity of not less than 30kVA.
Computation of amount of levy payable by
holders of individual electricity accounts
2. The amount of levy to be imposed on each electricity account in respect of a levy period shall be computed–
a) in the case of a Domestic Account by dividing the amount of the levy attributed to that category of accounts in accordance with section 39(5A) by the number of electricity accounts certified by the distribution system operator as falling within that category;
b) in the case of a Small Account by dividing the amount of the levy attributed to that category of accounts in accordance with section 39(5A) by the number of electricity accounts certified by the distribution system operator as falling within that category;
c) in the case of a Medium-Large Account by applying the formula in paragraph 3 of this Schedule.
Formula to be applied in computation of amount of levy payable by holders of Medium-Large electricity accounts
3. The amount of levy payable by the holder of an electricity account in respect of each electricity account which is certified by the distribution system operator as being a Medium-Large Account shall be calculated according to the following formula–
A x BC
Where
A is the proportion of the levy attributable to the category of Medium-Large Accounts in accordance with section 39(5A) expressed as a monetary amount;
B is the maximum import capacity of the electricity account of the final customer expressed in kVA;
C is the aggregate of the maximum import capacities of electricity accounts which are certified by the distribution system operator as Medium-Large Accounts expressed in kVA.
Construction and Interpretation
4. (a) In this Schedule a reference to the distribution system operator shall in the case of a final customer who has a direct connection to the transmission system be construed as including a reference to the transmission system operator.
(b) In this Schedule–
"formula determined by the Commission" means a formula determined by the Commission following consultation with the electricity industry, and having been approved by the Minister, which formula is, after such approval, published by the Commission;
"maximum import capacity" means in relation to an individual electricity account–
the agreed maximum import capacity being the maximum import capacity expressed in kVA agreed by the holder of the electricity account with the distribution system operator, or
in a case where the maximum import capacity has not been agreed with such an operator, the deemed maximum import capacity being the level of maximum import capacity calculated by the distribution system operator (in accordance with a formula determined by the Commission) as being the maximum import capacity in relation to that account.'.".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I warmly welcome this Bill. The Minister of State met many of the requirements of the Opposition, which is welcome. Great efforts are being made by the ESB and Bord na Móna with regard to energy production in respect of which the new stations being built are 35% more efficient. They are also cleaner while their dust emissions have been drastically reduced. I am pleased that a full licence and planning permission have been granted to the station at Lanesboro. I hope we will hear within the next week that An Bord Pleanála has granted planning permission to the station at Shannonbridge. The Environmental Protection Agency has been very helpful with regard to Lanesboro and I hope it will be equally helpful with regard to Shannonbridge.
The public service obligation is extremely important for the ESB and Bord na Móna in the midlands. I cannot over emphasise the importance of this Bill in ensuring employment is provided in the midland counties of Laois, Offaly, Kildare, Longford, Roscommon and Westmeath. People in the midlands are fully supportive of the Bill because of the major importance of Bord na Móna and the ESB.
I ask the Minister of State to do everything possible to have the Bill debated in Seanad Éireann tomorrow. I stress the urgency of having it enacted soon.
I share the Deputy's desire to have the Bill dealt with expeditiously.
The Green Party welcomes the establishment of the Sustainable Energy Authority and the passing of this Bill, in so far as it relates to enabling the authority to do its work, based on the scientific information it will need, the important message it must get across and the recommendations it must make. It is a matter of some sadness that the Bill is somewhat spoiled by having matters included in it which should be debated in their own right. To put them into a sustainable energy Bill does not help to state the exact purpose of the Sustainable Energy Authority, but rather muddies the waters.
The PSO addresses the needs of communities and the economic basis on which they depend, but it is a challenge for us to resolve the contradiction of trying to benefit communities while encouraging the continuing use of a finite and increasingly rare resource. Not only are we paying for this PSO, but we will also be paying for the problems associated with our Kyoto Protocol obligations which we are failing to meet. Insurance companies will make us pay all the more for the flooding and storm damage which climate change is bringing about.
We must accept the need for triple taxation. We must conserve energy and build a lean economy. I tried to have this issue debated and included in this Bill, but my proposals were not accepted. I ask the Minister of State to keep this problem at the forefront of his mind. If we do not do this, we will be forced to face the problem one way or the other.
I am delighted that this long awaited Bill has finally been passed in the Dáil. I congratulate the Minister of State and his officials on the work they have put into drafting it.
The Bill is not perfect. I had hoped some Opposition amendments would have been accepted. However, I know the Minister of State has done his best to accept many of our amendments and appreciate his efforts in doing so.
I am disappointed that a large number of amendments were not tabled until Report Stage. I would have preferred them to be debated on Committee Stage. I am assured this was absolutely necessary on this occasion, but the practice is not desirable and should be avoided.
I wish the new authority and those working in it well. Until now it has been constrained by budgetary provisions, but it will now have the resources and authority to develop sustainable energy to its maximum. We have the capacity to be a world leader in the field of sustainable energy. Much work has been done in the development of wind energy and much could be done in the development of wave and solar energy and in insulation and energy conservation.
The Minister of State allowed a full debate on every stage of the Bill for which I am grateful. The Bill is merely the first step in developing the area of sustainable energy.
Question put and agreed to.