Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2005

Vol. 607 No. 3

Priority Questions.

Energy Resources.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

82 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if, in view of the heightened concerns regarding continuity and security of supplies of oil, gas and other fuels, escalating prices and the potential negative for the consumer and the economy, he will provide increased incentives in line with those on offer in other leading European countries for the production of alternative fuels with the dual objective of meeting Kyoto principles, thereby reducing the cost of fines or carbon trading, and the production of clean energy alternatives; his proposals to improve the regime in respect of oil, gas and other mineral exploration with the intention of maximising the benefit here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28335/05]

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey)

It is becoming clear that increased concerns regarding global security of energy supply puts the challenge of finding sustainable alternatives top of the energy policy agenda. With regard to promoting the production of clean energy, in April this year we launched a scheme for mineral oil tax relief for biofuels. Under the scheme eight projects were awarded excise relief valued at €6 million over a two-year period to 2007. The number of applications in the pilot scheme clearly indicates the strong interest in a biofuels industry in Ireland. I have had contact with the Minister for Finance about the possible scope for scaling up fiscal support for biofuels.

The promotion of renewable energy technologies in electricity production is a key priority of this Government and we are working to achieve our EU target of increasing the amount of electricity from renewable energy sources to 13.2% of total consumption by 2010. This will mean that approximately 1,400 MW of capacity from renewable sources to be connected to the electricity network by 2010. This is a challenge which will require us to more than double existing capacity within five years. This is the minimum target I am demanding and I am confident it will be achieved. In this context I recently announced a new support mechanism to be known as the Renewable Energy Feed In Tariff, REFIT. This revised system will move away from competitive tendering to a fixed price proposal.

In July my Northern counterpart, Angela Smith MP and I published a preliminary consultation paper on an all-island vision for renewable energy to the year 2020 and beyond. This is aimed at developing a long-term strategy for renewable energy on the island as a whole.

The terms governing petroleum exploration and development are kept under constant review by my Department. These terms are attractive by international standards and are designed to encourage exploration in the Irish offshore. I have no immediate plans to reform the terms at this time.

Exploration and development of minerals is undertaken by private enterprise and regulated under the Minerals Development Acts 1940 to 1999. All extraction of minerals under the Acts is subject to payment of royalties to the State. While it is my intention to consolidate and update those Acts in a new Minerals Development Bill currently in preparation, I do not propose to change that policy.

Mr. Durkan

Will the Minister indicate, in light of what he correctly identifies as the need to depend less on fossil fuels and more on alternative energies, how he might keep pace with other European countries such as Austria, Scandinavian countries and Germany, that have pioneered activity in this area? Notwithstanding what he said in his reply on the Kyoto principles, if the Minister accelerated the programme in line with best practice as shown in other European countries, could he revise his projections with a view to achieving the objectives set in Kyoto?

In regard to exploration and royalties accruing from finds either on or off shore, is it not a fact there is some public concern about the extent to which the State can benefit directly from royalties from any such finds and that now might be a good time to review this issue, while giving sufficient incentives to those involved in mineral, oil or gas exploration while at the same time giving the State a fall-back position whereby it gets the best deal possible in those circumstances?

Mr. N. Dempsey

In regard to the Deputy's last question there has been no change to mineral developments and the specific regime of licences for on land and offshore. The reason the scheme is designed to be attractive is because of the particular conditions and so on for prospectivity off the Irish coast. The scheme has been revised three times since 1975, the reason on each occasion being that the numbers seeking to explore and drill wells were diminishing. Even with the attractive terms since the last revision in 1992 there has been no increase in the number of firms applying for licences. There has been no update on the drilling of wells this year. This is the first year for a considerable period when no wells will be drilled off the Irish coast. I do not consider the time is right for a change in those terms. There are some who would argue that if the terms were to be changed, they should be made even more attractive. However, that would not be feasible.

With regard to achieving our targets for Kyoto, our target of 13.2% for the generation of electricity by 2010 is near enough to the limit of what we can do in that short period. I agree with the Deputy that we need to be more ambitious into the future. For that reason I have ordered a review of energy policy which I hope will be completed by mid-2006. I hope Members on all sides will contribute to that review. In the area of alternative energy we need to plan for a 20 to 25-year period rather than the short term as at present. The point the Deputy made about being more ambitious and catching up with some of our European neighbours is covered in that response also.

Energy Prices.

Thomas P. Broughan

Question:

83 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will report on the recent series of price rises for consumer and business gas and electricity users; the directions he has given to the Commission for Energy Regulation in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28331/05]

Mr. N. Dempsey

I have no function in the matter. Electricity and gas tariff increases are the statutory responsibility of the Commission for Energy Regulation, the independent regulator for electricity and gas, as provided for under the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 and as amended by the Gas (Interim)(Regulation) Act 2002. I have given no directions to the Commission for Energy Regulation in this regard because have no power to issue any such directions.

Mr. Broughan

It is astonishing the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources can say he has no function in the massive increase in energy prices. If a senior citizen is unable to heat or light his or her house because he or she cannot afford to do so, the Minister has no function in that area. Is it not the case that we are facing fuel poverty and that under the national fuel scheme only a miserly €9 per week is available which barely covers the cost of a small bag of coal while a cylinder of gas costs approximately €21?

The recent increases in gas and electricity charges will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and plunges many low-income families into a desperate position. Does the Minister agree it is a dire situation and that since the Government took office in 2002, the price of electricity has increased by 44%? Since 1 October the price of gas has increased by an astonishing 25% while there will be a huge increase of 8% in the price of electricity for business after Christmas.

Is it not incredibly bad for the country on a personal and a business level that soon Ireland will be first or second on the EUROSTAT figures for energy prices? Does the Minister not have a responsibility in that area? When will he discuss with his Cabinet colleagues the dividend of €77 million being taken from the ESB this year? Is it not ridiculous given the problems with energy security and energy supply to Ireland that the Minister will get an extra stealth tax of €77 million from the ESB? Is that not his responsibility also?

Is it not the case that the Minister has a responsibility to issue directives to the Commission for Energy Regulation? Under the terms of the legislation he can tell the commission the broad general development of energy pricing and energy supply. That is the Minister's responsibility and it will not do to have the kind of cop out we have heard day after day from the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, saying that they have no responsibility in this regard.

The Minister has responsibility for opening up these energy markets to competition. Competition in the energy market is the mantra of the Progressive Democrats but where is it? There is no competition. We have two cartels, two dominant monoliths, which dominate the gas and electricity markets. What has the Minister done to open up the electricity market in any way? As far as I can see, he has done absolutely nothing since taking over his current portfolio. Over the past year, the Minister has told us repeatedly that the gas market will be opened up. We are now well into October yet I still do not see that market opening up. I ask the Minister to reflect on those points.

Does he agree that he has responsibility for that senior citizen who is in a cold house today because of Government inaction?

Mr. N. Dempsey

The Deputy is very dramatic but I do not have responsibility for that and no amount of bluster from him——

Mr. Broughan

It is not bluster, it is reality. I will take the Minister to the house in question.

Mr. N. Dempsey

No amount of bluster from the Deputy will make me change a legal position.

Mr. Broughan

On a point of information, I campaigned for months in the Minister's constituency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please allow the Minister to reply.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I know the Deputy is interested in making speeches and asking very few questions——

Mr. Broughan

I have asked the Minister four questions.

Mr. N. Dempsey

——but I am entitled to answer them.

Mr. Broughan

Answer them.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I will if the Deputy shuts up for a minute and gives me a chance.

Mr. Broughan

That is very unparliamentary, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. N. Dempsey

It is no more unparliamentary than somebody who will not allow people to answer questions.

As I said, the legal position is that I have no function concerning prices or price increases. Some time ago, the House in its wisdom handed that function over to the Commission for Energy Regulation. Therefore, I do not have a function in that regard.

Even though I do not know how it is related to this particular question, the Deputy also asked me about the dividend that the ESB pays to the Government. That dividend goes into the general Exchequer. It is used by the Government——

Mr. Broughan

Wasted.

Mr. N. Dempsey

——to fund——

Mr. Broughan

It is used to fund expensive computer systems that do not work.

Mr. N. Dempsey

——health and social welfare increases, as well as pensions.

Mr. Broughan

May I ask the Minister a brief supplementary question?

Mr. N. Dempsey

I will not answer the Deputy's questions unless he allows me to do so.

Mr. Broughan

The Minister is here to answer questions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I am here to answer questions and the Deputy is here to listen to the answers.

Mr. Broughan

The Minister should tell me what he is going to do. This is an awful huff altogether.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I cannot tell the Commission for Energy Regulation what to do and I have no power to issue directions to it. The ESB market has been liberalised since February of this year.

Mr. Broughan

May I ask a brief supplementary?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Very briefly.

Mr. Broughan

Over the next six weeks, will the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, be making any recommendations on fuel poverty to the Minister for Finance? Does the Minister intend to re-examine the legal position concerning the energy regulator and does he think it should be changed?

Mr. N. Dempsey

I have already indicated clearly that we are examining legislation on the CER. My colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, together with our other ministerial colleagues around the Cabinet table, will examine all aspects of social welfare matters at that time. If the Deputy has a question on fuel poverty he should direct it to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

Fisheries Protection.

Eamon Ryan

Question:

84 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will move to a single stock management system for the commercial netting of wild salmon; the timetable for such a change. [28333/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher)

Management of the wild salmon fishery is rarely a simple and straightforward matter. It is the Government's long-held view that our wild salmon stock is a national asset which must be conserved and protected, as well as being exploited as a resource by all on a shared and sustainable basis.

While there remains an abundance of salmon returning to Irish rivers, the Government has accepted the scientific advice that reductions in the overall fishing effort are required to sustain and rebuild salmon stocks nationwide. For this reason, current Government policy has been designed to bring spawning escapement up to the level of the scientifically advised conservation limits as soon as possible. In keeping with this policy, when setting the commercial salmon quotas for the 2005 season, I gave a firm commitment to fully align the exploitation of salmon, both at national and district levels, on the scientific advice by 2007.

I have asked the new national salmon commission to advise how best the alignment of exploitation of salmon with the scientific advice can be implemented by 2007, bearing in mind the requirement to ensure the future biological viability of the salmon resource in all catchments and also the needs of all stakeholders, including those who derive their income from the wild salmon resource.

A move to single-stock management of the wild salmon fishery would take time and significant additional resources. This could not be achieved without further and considerable scientific input, infrastructural investment and planning. The impact of such a move would have to be fully examined and understood before its introduction. I expect the national salmon commission along with the relevant State agencies to examine the prospects for single-stock management within the Irish fishery and to advise me in this regard.

I can assure Deputy Eamon Ryan that I will examine carefully all recommendations, including those relevant to single-stock management, made by the national salmon commission.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

The national salmon commission could not agree what time of day it is, let alone this issue, and the Minister of State knows that.

The Oireachtas committee has examined this complex issue in detail and drew a simple, urgent and adamant conclusion, which is the move towards single-stock management. Recognising that it will take some years to do that, the committee recommended an interim procedure for a voluntary buy-out. It would ultimately mean the complete cessation of drift netting at sea. The Minister of State needs to provide a yes or no answer on that matter. It is his responsibility to decide and he can no longer hide. If we delay making a decision for another year we will have a recurrence of this summer's events when the Minister of State ignored scientific advice and issued a quota for 150,000 fish, yet the catch was down to 100,000. That signifies what the scientists have been saying for years — that salmon stocks are at crisis levels and are close to extinction of the species in many rivers. Unless the Minister of State acts now the situation will be irreversible.

This is an important political issue. If it comes to a vote, it is clear that parties in the House have committed themselves to an end to drift netting. The Minister of State must make a decision. If we are to do it for next summer, he will have to make a decision now and use the interim months to establish the system recommended by the Oireachtas committee. I want to hear if the Minister of State's answer is yes or no. If he cannot give an answer, why not? We have spent long enough talking about this matter and examining it. The ball is in the Minister of State's court and he must decide what arrangements will be put in place. He should not pass the buck to a commission that cannot possibly decide on the issue.

Mr. Gallagher

I would have thought that Deputy Eamon Ryan, of all Members of the House, would understand clearly that the issue is not as simple as that, although that may be the perception. More people in this House, as well as people in the media, should take the time to understand all this.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

We have done so and we came to that simple conclusion.

Mr. Gallagher

There is a need to establish the level of information required to manage the fishery on a single-stock basis. It is not a question of saying yes or no. It is not as simple as that.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

It is.

Mr. Gallagher

Of course it is not.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

It is.

Mr. Gallagher

This would be required on an individual river basis. Anyone who knows anything about fish stock management would realise that it is not as simple as the Deputy suggests. While many of the requirements have been or are being put in place, the level of information is not yet sufficient to permit the management of fishery on a single-stock basis. Those who served us well for a number of years on the national salmon commission, which I have re-appointed, will do so again while representing the stakeholders. They are people who are particularly interested in ensuring that we will have a sustainable fishery. We are the custodians and we want to assure these matters into the future.

The Deputy tries to give the impression that nothing has been done but in 2002 we had a quota of 219,000——

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Ignoring the scientific advice.

Mr. Gallagher

——that decreased last year to 139,000. The Deputy is not interested in those statistics but he knows this country has been built on the principle of partnership.

Mr. Durkan

True.

Mr. Gallagher

There is a partnership arrangement within the national salmon commission whereby its members advise me.

The Deputy forgets that it is not all about science. There are human and social factors involved also. If I went to Europe in December to fight on behalf of the Irish people on the basis of science alone, the Deputy and others would be the first to criticise me for not taking the human and social factors into consideration. The Deputy should get into his car or on his bicycle and visit the west coast and the islands to see the importance of this matter to the people there. I am being responsible in this matter despite the fact the Deputy and others are trying to portray me as otherwise and suggest that I am only interested in local politics. Of more than 800 licences, approximately 120 of them are in Donegal. The Deputy should remember the extent of the coastline from Malin Head to Bundoran. The Deputy needs to be realistic and sensible. I will work with all sides to try to ensure we have a sustainable salmon industry into the future.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Prior to my election to this House, I spent my entire working life on the Donegal coast and I know exactly what the Minister of State is talking about and I appreciate the need for social development. However, it is in the interests of those people as much as those of everybody else that we follow scientific advice and protect the species for the long-term future of those people. While the Minister of State spoke of partnership, ultimately we live in a democratic Republic and certain decisions, as with this one on whether to continue drift-netting, must be made at a political level by the Minister of State. If he fails to make that decision nobody else will make it for him. We cannot put it off for another year which would result in exactly what the Minister of State has said. Three years ago we caught 200,000 fish and this year it will be 100,000. If the Minister of State continues as he has done, next year this could reduce to 50,000 which would finish off the stock forever.

Mr. Gallagher

The Deputy chose to ignore the late run. He should go to Waterford and speak to its representatives where it was necessary to extend the season by one week because it had to be interrupted owing to the presence of the tall ships. The Deputy can talk to many others who are much more familiar with it.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

We can only catch 100,000 fish.

Mr. Gallagher

I recently presided over a meeting in this city at which we established the regional advisory council for the north and west coast waters. All the fishermen with an interest will have an input into the matter. While we are talking about other species, the matter must be considered from a number of perspectives.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

The Minister of State should make a decision one way or the other.

Inland Fisheries.

John Perry

Question:

85 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources when the FGS report on the management of Ireland’s inland fisheries will be published; his views on its recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28189/05]

Mr. Gallagher

In December 2003, my predecessor appointed expert and specialist consultants to undertake a high-level review of the inland fisheries sector in Ireland. An independent steering group was also established to oversee the work of the consultants.

The aim of the review is to deliver a root and branch examination of the State's role and objectives in the inland fisheries sector. The consultants were required: to evaluate the adequacy of the current model for the governance of the inland fisheries sector; to define the current relationship between the Government, the Departments and the inland fisheries sector, and suggest new and more effective models; and to recommend a structure that will contribute to the optimum development of the inland fisheries resource in Ireland.

As I previously advised the House, the report of the first stage of the high-level review of the inland fisheries sector in Ireland was received from the consultants earlier this year. While I appreciate that previous indications were that I expected to publish the report before now, I am sure the Deputy will understand that given the complexity of the issues involved, it was important that the Department had sufficient time to adequately consider the report and its findings and to develop a suitable strategy for the implementation of its recommendations, if accepted by Government.

As part of its consideration, the Department has recently engaged in usual consultation with other Departments to ensure that agreed proposals can be presented to Government. It is my intention to bring this report to Government in the very near future and to have it published as soon as possible thereafter. As the Deputy will appreciate, until such time as the report is presented to Government, I am not in a position to comment on its recommendations or implementation.

Mr. Perry

That was an outrageous reply given the Minister of State has had the report since May. There is huge uncertainty among the seven fisheries boards. Certain elements of the report have been leaked. Some people in jobs are uncertain as to what they can do or what will be the level of investment. The Minister of State said he is waiting for consultations. What is so extraordinary about the report that it cannot be published?

Mr. Gallagher

I have had the report for some months. I took the opportunity to discuss it in detail with the officials and with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey. I then circulated the report to other relevant Departments. I have arranged meetings, which have taken place, involving a number of Departments, including the Departments of Finance, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and Arts, Sport and Tourism. The memorandum to Government will be finalised on the basis of these discussions and the formal responses received from them. This is a major review of our inland fisheries and we want to ensure it is absolutely right. Within a matter of weeks the report will be before Government and if accepted I will publish it immediately.

Mr. Perry

How much were the consultants paid for the report? Did the consultants' brief not include the incorporation of the views of all the vested interests to which the Minister of State has now indicated the report has been circulated for opinion? I assume the consultants would have talked to the key players, North and South, with vested interests, such as those in tourism, to discuss the impact of the report and the further ongoing development needed given the huge under-funding of inland waterways.

Mr. Gallagher

The current consultation is not with the industry but with Departments, which does not cost anything. I should have pre-empted the question about the cost and I will advise the Deputy of the cost of the review. However, we recognise the importance of conducting a wide consultation process. The consultants organised a programme of face-to-face consultation meetings and interviews with all of the stakeholders with an interest at national and local level. They also undertook a wide-sweeping range of focus groups and workshop sessions last year. In-depth research has been carried out and I hope this will culminate in changes. While leaks may have taken place and rumours exist, people should refrain from considering these and await the publication of the report at which point I will be anxious to obtain their views.

Mr. Perry

Is it not extraordinary that a report commissioned in 2003, which the Minister of State has had for almost six months, has still not been published? Who were the consultants and how much they were paid? It is an excuse for not doing anything.

Mr. Broughan

The country is being run by consultants.

Mr. Perry

The Minister of State has overall responsibility for marine matters. Does he not feel the report, commissioned by the Department with his imprimatur, should be available for discussion in the industry? It is extraordinary that we have been waiting two years for the report.

Mr. Gallagher

The consultants are Farrell Grant Sparks, as I am sure the Deputy is aware. The brief they were given was to carry out a root and branch examination of the central and regional boards, and the Government's involvement in the governance of the sector as well as the involvement of other State bodies, including the Marine Institute, BIM, ESB, Dúchas, as it then was, the EPA and Fáilte Ireland. It is a very detailed report.

Mr. Perry

How much did it cost?

Mr. Gallagher

I do not have the cost. However, I will make the information available to the Deputy as soon as possible.

Mr. Perry

Are these the same consultants that carried out due diligence on behalf of the Government in respect of Irish Ferries?

Mr. Gallagher

It was not done on behalf of the Government. As I recall they were asked to carry it out on behalf of the company. My Department had no involvement.

Offshore Exploration.

Martin Ferris

Question:

86 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if an inquiry into the proposed Corrib gas pipeline development will examine every aspect of the project and if all departmental minutes regarding the project will be made available. [28332/05]

Mr. N. Dempsey

I may have been guilty of unparliamentary language towards Deputy Broughan earlier when I suggested he might shut up and let me answer the question. If so, I apologise to the Deputy.

I presume the review to which the Deputy refers is the health and safety review of the Corrib onshore upstream gas pipeline. On 25 August I appointed Advantica consultants to conduct that review, which will critically examine all relevant documentation relating to the design, construction and operation of the onshore upstream section of the Corrib gas pipeline and associated facilities. It will also identify any deficiencies of whatever kind relating to these matters and make recommendations regarding them. This review is currently under way. It includes a public consultation process and a two-day public hearing in the locality, which commenced this morning. It is my intention to continue the current practice of making all appropriate material relating to the Corrib project available on my Department's website.

Mr. Ferris

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does the Minister agree it is vital that the entire project be placed under review and that all relevant minutes of meetings which took place between the Department officials and Shell should be released into the public domain? This should include details of a meeting which took place between the Taoiseach and Tom Botts of Shell on 19 September 2003.

Will there be full disclosure of the procedures under which Bellanaboy Wood was transferred to Shell for use for the proposed refinery? Is the Minister aware of a reply to a question asked by Bairbre de Brúin at the European Commission? The European Commission has stated:

Projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment and that would require an environment impact assessment under EU directives should not be split into sub-projects so that each of them taken individually is determined not to have significant environmental effects and thus escape the obligation set out in the directive.

Does the Minister agree that the Corrib project is an amalgamation of sub-projects, thus avoiding an environmental impact assessment? Would the Minister agree to a full and transparent inquiry being held on all aspects, including health and safety matters as well as the licensing terms, so that they too should be subject to the review?

Mr. N. Dempsey

No, I would not. This project went through a series of consents, licences and so on — planning foreshore Acts, continental shelf Acts and a variety of others. It was judged under all those headings and got the necessary consents and licences in accordance with law. Accordingly I do not agree that the entire project should be reviewed and revised and that we should go back to square one.

I have strong views reflected in the Planning and Development Act 2000 that there should be maximum participation and consultation in matters such as these as they go through the planning process. I do not agree with the view which some people appear to hold, that having held such consultations one should then try to put the matter through other types of inquires, then bring it to court, then to the European Commission, and in general try to stop development. What we need, and have in place, are strong, robust mechanisms for judging projects like this by independent bodies. Once such procedures are concluded, projects should be allowed to move ahead. Otherwise we will get nothing done.

Regarding environmental impact statements and assessments, Deputy Ferris may be under a misapprehension. I do not disagree with what the European Commission has said, but the project through its various stages of development underwent EISs or EIAs as appropriate. In terms of delivery the project is broken into seven phases but the EISs and EIAs were in place before the phased development began. That development was undertaken to manage the project and it gives the Department some control over it in that each phase must have separate consent in order to move forward.

Any minutes of meetings relevant to this matter are, to my knowledge, on the Department website. If there are relevant minutes kept in another Department, I suggest the Deputy direct his question to that Department. The instruction in my Department is that everything over which we have control is made available on the website.

Regarding the terminal site, I understand from the time I was involved in the relevant committee — though I am not sure I am fully correct — that parliamentary questions were tabled a week or two weeks ago for the Minister for Agriculture and Food with regard to the responsibility held by Coillte in terms of land sales. That is my information but I am not entirely sure this is the case.

I responded earlier to a question regarding the terms and conditions of the leases. There is currently no proposal to change them. If we discover four or five energy fields similar to Corrib off the west coast of Ireland, and people begin to get interested in exploration and in drilling wells there, that would be the time to review the conditions.