Vol. 607 No. 3
87 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the position regarding work on the energy White Paper; the proposed timeframe for its publication; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27868/05]
The changes in the energy landscape in terms of our increasing dependence on imported fossil fuels, world movements in fuel prices, the move to liberalised markets and carbon constraints from our Kyoto obligations make it necessary to consider carefully how we will meet the energy needs of the economy and wider society in a sustainable and affordable way for the future. I have therefore instructed my officials to draft a comprehensive policy statement which fully addresses the issues and challenges that lie ahead in the energy area. I aim to have a completed paper ready for publication in early 2006.
It is my intention that the policy paper will have both a medium and a long term perspective, explaining the policies that are in place now and which will have a direct effect over the next five years or so. I am also looking forward to 2020 and beyond to assess what our energy needs might be and what policies we might adopt to ensure that those needs can be met in a sustainable way and at an affordable cost.
Deputies will be aware that a comprehensive review of the electricity sector is currently under way to examine the institutional arrangements and market structures for the sector here. That study is well progressed and the consultants involved have engaged in extensive consultations with stakeholders in the sector. I expect to receive the final report before the end of the year. The outcome of this review will form an essential part of the policy paper.
It is disappointing that the publication of the White Paper on energy seems to have been postponed yet again and that it has taken the skyrocketing price of oil, at $70 and more per barrel to focus our minds on the matter. Would the Minister welcome submissions from all the stakeholders in the energy industry and from the other political parties in this House in order to shape the medium and long term strategy?
Does the Minister share the concerns recently expressed by the British Minister of State for Energy, Mr. Malcolm Wicks MP, about power cuts this winter in the UK due to gas shortages and, in particular, wider problems in the British wholesale gas market? Is it possible that security of supply of Irish gas could be affected? Will security of supply be a key component of the White Paper on energy?
I welcome the pricing initiative announced by the Minister and the replacing of the AER programme. That is something we could perhaps discuss in this House. Does the Minister intend to take any initiative in the coming months with regard to fiscal incentives?
There has been a great deal of guff in the media since the Minister and I last met. I recall Professor Moore McDowell, David McWilliams and other proponents of the dismal profession of economics urging us all to go nuclear. This campaign appears to have been started by the British nuclear industry. Will the Minister ensure that the economics and the dangers of nuclear power are adequately referred to in the energy policy document?
It is my intention that nuclear power will be mentioned in the energy policy document but only to reiterate the consistent position of the Government and of the Irish people. We made the decision a long time ago. That is not to say that we should not review decisions but I strongly believe that the potential environmental consequences of moving to nuclear energy far outweigh the environmental and, probably, economic advantages. There will not be a long chapter on nuclear power. What I have said is probably a summary of it. There are those who disagree with that position and there are environmental and economic cost reasons for using nuclear power, but we have made our decision on the matter.
I am not sure what the Deputy means by saying that the policy document has been postponed yet again. I only announced it in July and said it would be ready in 2006.
There is a postponement.
I thought it was to be ready by Christmas.
No, that is the electricity sector review, which is separate. The energy policy review was put in place when oil was approximately $35 per barrel. With regard to the security of gas supply, there is a tightness of supply which will probably get worse from 2006 to 2008. There are capacity constraints in the UK. The CER has warned about this. I have not yet received advice from the CER that it believes we will be without gas at any stage but that is a possibility. It has warned about scarcity of supply issues.
With regard to fiscal incentives in the budget, there is a tradition that no budgetary matters are discussed in the House prior to the Budget Statement. However, it is no secret that we are extremely pleased with the response on biofuels. We hope to encourage, through incentives, the use of renewables and energy efficiency. I made that clear previously and I will continue to push for it.
I wish to ask a short supplementary question.
We have gone way outside the time allowed. The Deputy should be brief.
Will the Minister comment on the decision by the regulator some months ago to the effect that it was intended not to support wind generated electricity to any great extent in the future? To what extent will that impact on his alternative energy policy?
I warmly welcome the Minister's comments ruling out nuclear power as a future option in this country. I endorse those comments but I differ with him on one point. One of the main arguments against it, as well as the environmental one, is that economically it makes no sense. It is probably the most expensive form of power. Given that our renewable energy supplies are significantly cheaper at present than what the CER recognises as the price of a best new entrant gas supplier, the cheapest of the fossil fuels, what would limit the amount of renewables we should develop? This country has a remarkable abundance of wave, wind, biomass and tidal power. There are 21 different supplies of renewables. Why would we think of limiting it? Why not go for 100% energy from renewables within our lifetime?
In response to Deputy Durkan's question, the regulator did not make a decision along those lines but he made a strong statement——
He did. That was the message.
He made a strong statement and I hope the Deputy accepts that I made a strong statement afterwards.
I did not hear the Minister's statement, just the regulator's.
That might be called selective hearing. I made a strong statement afterwards. I also made an active statement on the issue when introducing the latest feed-in tariffs, which are a help mainly to wind energy although not only to wind energy.
With regard to Deputy Ryan's question about what would limit this, currently there are physical limitations on the grid. ESB Networks is working on this. It has a huge investment programme. The physical constraints of the system is one of the limitations. In addition, wind energy is not the solution to everything. There must be a back-up for every megawatt of wind energy that is produced to cater for the days when wind is not available. That is the reason we need to move into other areas, which the Deputy supports, whether that is biomass, tidal or current energy.
I welcome what Deputy Broughan has said publicly and what Deputy Eamon Ryan has said to me privately on this area. We should, if possible, work together to arrive at an agreed policy on renewables. It would be useful because the one thing this sector requires is stability and the ability to know what will happen over a 20 to 25-year period. That is required for the type of decision that must be made about investment in this area.
I call Question No. 88.
I have one final brief question.
We have spent 11 minutes on a six-minute question. I allowed the Deputy a supplementary already.
Can I ask a question about what the Minister said?
Very briefly.
The grid is a problem. Why are we spending so many billions designing it in a way that does not suit renewables? Will the Minister give a direction to the ESB or the CER to change the investment so that spending on the grid supports renewables rather than, as is the case at present, spending money which blocks renewables?
If that is the case, I will take it up with the ESB.
88 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he has reviewed the recently submitted recommendations from the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources regarding the issue of drift and draft net fishing and the dangerously low levels of salmon stock; if he will abide by said recommendations; the consultations he took on the issue; the steps he will take from here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27759/05]
While I am aware that the Joint Committee for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources submitted recommendations yesterday, 11 October 2005, regarding the future management of the wild salmon resource in Ireland, I have not had the opportunity to consider those fully in the intervening 24 hours nor have I had the opportunity to undertake any consultations on the committee's report since its publication. However, I welcome the publication of this report and take this opportunity to thank the joint committee for its decision to conduct a review and give all stakeholders an opportunity to be heard by the committee. This has illuminated the various and wide-ranging issues surrounding the management of this important natural resource.
The Deputy will be aware that as part of this review, the joint committee held public hearings in April of this year. When addressing those hearings, I made the point that the management of this natural resource is rarely a simple and straightforward matter. I also reiterated 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. I am pleased, therefore, to note from the report that the joint committee acknowledges the complexity of this issue and makes "the unequivocal observation that its report must not be seen in terms of winners or losers and that the debate and focus of effort must be on the survival of the salmon species".
I will examine carefully the recommendations made by the joint committee in this regard. As an immediate first step, I have already asked the new national salmon commission, which held its first meeting yesterday, to ensure that the joint committee's report receives priority in its consideration of how best the wild salmon resource may be managed, conserved and exploited on a shared and sustainable basis into the future, having regard to Government policy.
Does the Minister of State intend that the Department's officials, in addition to the salmon commission, will study the report and offer their recommendations? In light of the EU's unhappiness with the way Ireland is dealing with this, has the Minister of State reacted to the correspondence from the Commissioner for Fisheries? Ireland is the only country in the north-west fishing region that permits drift and draft netting. The British Government is also unhappy with this situation and has published an angling charter. It was dismayed that Ireland is the only country where drift net fishing is allowed. Does the Minister of State agree with the point made by Deputy Eamon Ryan that recommendations as to the number of licences to be issued were ignored by the Department? Does he intend in the coming year to abide by the scientific recommendations?
Both my departmental officials and I will study this report. We will also be in correspondence with the EU on the subject of fisheries and the general environment. It is very difficult to explain this situation. Even Deputy Perry accepts there is no other commercial fishing of salmon in the north west. I am confident Deputy Perry is not trying to deceive the House but he knows well and I will remind him that following a voluntary buy-out in the north east of England costing £3.25 million there are still 25,000 salmon being commercially landed in the north east of England. A similar buy-out in Ireland would be very substantial. If authorities in some other countries are telling us it is not happening anywhere else then they are mistaken. I ask the Deputy not to take my word for it but to ask the UK authorities which will provide the same information. We need to start from the same base if we wish to arrive at a conclusion.
On the question of the scientific advice, I did not hear Deputy Perry or many of his colleagues shouting last June when we established a quota of 139,900. I repeat this was the advice from the salmon commission and it was accepted by me and by all my predecessors in office. The scientific advice changed at the last minute. This was a partnership arrangement. The members of the salmon commission come from varying backgrounds. They presented me with this advice and I accepted it. It was not a case of me being advised by them to accept a quota which I then increased. The only sin I have committed is that I have taken the advice I received from the salmon commission, as did my predecessors. We arestriving to achieve what was advised by the year 2007.
I note the Minister of State did not disclose what was contained in the report of the sub-committee he stated he received 24 hours ago. Is he in favour of buying out the drift net salmon fishermen? Will he do so or will he stand behind the report? The Minister of State and the Government are responsible for the decision. Will he offer a buy-out scheme to the drift net fishermen in order to preserve the salmon stocks for angling and other tourism purposes?
I am not averse to doing so. I want to do what is right for the country, for angling, for tourism and for the commercial sector. It is possible to have a balance between commercial fishing and angling and tourist fishing. However I am opposed to the transfer of a resource from one sector to another at the expense of the Irish taxpayer. I am still awaiting offers from those who have both informed me and stated publically on numerous occasions they were prepared to make a contribution. I ask the Deputy to consider that if it were to be banned or if there were to be a complete buy-out, other important factors cannot be ignored. I refer to the issues of pollution, poaching and global warming. I have also asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to examine the issue of seals.
The Minister of State should not forget the cormorants.
I am not averse to buy-out, if it is the right thing to do.
I will take that as a "No".
I cannot think for the Deputy.
Fishermen have stated that the cormorants are another factor.
They are swooping down.
I support the comments of the previous speaker. What is the Minister of State's attitude to the report? Colleagues on this side of the House worked on the sub-committee. Given that all sectors must work together to arrive at a reasonable solution, does he not agree the report issued yesterday suggested a reasonable solution?
My great predecessor as Labour Party spokesperson, Michael Bell, four years ago proposed a buy-out under certain conditions. The report suggested a reasonable solution moving towards single stock management. Will the Minister of State endorse this finding and move forward on that basis in 2006?
I have a question to ask of both Ministers. Were they disappointed at the stance taken by the Progressive Democrats in this regard? I described that party as possibly an equally endangered but less useful species than our beautiful salmon. Will this issue bring down the Government? Will the eight Progressive Democrats, that small species of right-wing economists and business people, pull the Government down over this matter because of its lack of action?
There would be some fish to fry then.
I acknowledge the work of the sub-committee, three members of which are here in the Chamber and Deputy Durkan was a member at one stage. I have no hang-up about this matter. I am not in the luxurious position of being in Opposition; I must do what is right.
That could be arranged.
The Minister of State might be the man to save the salmon.
My duty is to do what is best for Ireland——
He does not wish to be vain.
The situation is very complex and the answer is not a simple "Yes" or "No". I invite any party that wishes to present me with a report but it is ironic that many of the reports are similar, with a great deal of cutting and pasting.
That is a Progressive Democrats report.
I did not say that.
Is that a PD report, a cut and paste job?
I advise any individual or group wishing to formulate a policy to talk to all parties.
Was the report presented to the Minister of State?
I received it by post.
All parties were party to the report. It does not recommend a complete end to commercial netting but hopes that better management will bring an end to it in the future. I can speak for my party — I do not know what the Fianna Fáil members can say. The Green Party requests that the Minister of State act on the report's recommendations.
The Minister of State is willing to talk about buy-out arrangements and he has referred to the cases in England. Is he willing to arrange a meeting, as a matter of urgency, with Mr. Vickerson, who was involved in the negotiations in that case and in four other similar agreements? He is a member of a conservation organisation that might help fund such a buy-out. If this issue is to be resolved before the next season will the Minister of State agree to meet Mr. Vickerson?
I have corresponded with Mr. Vickerson and have indicated my willingness to meet him. My office will be in communication with him in the near future——
Did he offer funding?
It is a case of "wait and see". He has not offered funding. I am anxious to meet anyone who may be prepared to make a contribution.
I assure Deputy Eamon Ryan I referred to the important role played by all members of the sub-committee.
89 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the future plans in respect of the provision and location of electricity or gas interconnectors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28032/05]
At a meeting in November 2004, Mr. Barry Gardiner MP, the then Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and I endorsed plans put forward by the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, and the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation for the construction of a second north-south electricity interconnector.
Planning for the construction of the interconnector is continuing. The transmission system operators are currently working on phase one of the project, including technical issues and route selection. This phase is likely to be completed by early 2007. Phase two, the construction phase, will then commence and it is estimated that the interconnector will be operational by 2012.
The proposed interconnector will provide increased system security and reliability. It will be a positive step toward further developing competition and will facilitate the development of a fully functioning single electricity market.
The CER has appointed consultants to advise on the financial, technical, commercial and procurement aspects of the development of the east-west electricity interconnector. Phase one of the project, which is nearing completion, is examining procurement options, routing, capacity, ownership and operational parameters.
A consultation process involving all parties that have expressed an interest was undertaken. A decision on how best to take the project forward, whether on a regulated or a hybrid regulated, merchant basis, is the next step and determination will be informed by the advice of the CER.
The two natural gas interconnectors with the UK, IC1 and IC2, have been operational since 1995 and 2003 respectively. As part of the development of the gas network on an all-island basis, the South-North pipeline, due for completion in 2006, will carry gas to Belfast from the IC2 landfall at Gormanstown.
Will the Minister indicate the extent to which he can speed up the development of the proposed east-west interconnector? Such an interconnector will enable us to sell surplus electricity generated here on the European market as well as to obtain surplus electricity that may be generated in Britain. This is important with reference to the continuity of energy supply and the balance within the grid between electricity generated by air and by other means. The east-west interconnector will ensure that we maintain supply and can avail of best practice in both directions to support our economy.
I will do everything I possibly can to speed up the process but it is not entirely within our control. I am awaiting the report from CER which is investigating the matters I outlined earlier. Once that report is published, a decision has to be made on the ownership of the interconnector. More importantly, however, we must get agreement on both sides of the Irish Sea on the putting in place of the necessary infrastructure to enable the electricity to be transmitted. It would be desirable, as Deputy Durkan has argued, to have this project completed sooner rather than later and certainly I will do anything I can to speed up the process.
The planning process comes into play on this project, on both sides of the Irish Sea and there is a uncertainty regarding the length of time the planning aspects will take. As soon as I have the report and have made a decision on it, I will make it public and we will try to expedite the interconnector as quickly as possible after that.
Does the Department have a plan B if, in the event of an emergency, supplies from Scotland were unavailable? Is there a plan to keep the radiators heated and the lights on?
What is the long-term plan for the interconnectors? Does the Minister foresee the development of the market between these islands as a fundamental step forward with regard to energy supply and pricing on the island of Ireland?
For those who have been deeply involved with the Corrib gas field issue for the last three or four months, the critical necessity, in terms of security of supply, is to bring forward that gas in an agreed and consultative way. It should be done in a manner on which the local community in north Mayo, the companies and the Government are agreed. The issue was discussed in terms of what could go wrong but there is an onus on us to ensure security of supply through Connacht and into Ireland as soon as possible.
CER is the body with responsibility for security of supply and capacity issues. It works very closely with the transmission operators and the generators of electricity. There are back-up plans in place. There are extra generators available that are not currently in use and a system is in place that allows for a shut-down in particular areas. There is a contingency plan in the event of some systems failure.
There was a problem with the system at the end of August, which was sorted out relatively quickly. It caused some difficulty and the problem was with the interconnector and of a technical nature. The problem was overcome without major loss of supply for any length of time. That problem was technical but in general terms, there is a plan for back-up in the event of short-term breakdowns.
With regard to the Deputy's question about future markets and interconnectors, we hope to have a single electricity market in place on this island by mid-2007. This will be a stepping stone to a larger market on the islands of Britain and Ireland. The EU is very supportive of the development of electricity regions and we form one particular region. The more interconnections we have, the better, particularly in terms of security of supply and extra competition.
Despite what some people have argued, the Corrib gas field is extremely important to this country from a security of supply point of view. Deputy Broughan referred earlier to the UK market, the gas constraints there and statements that have been made in that regard. The problem of future constraints is simply a fact. I do not know if the gas from Corrib will be flowing ashore in time to meet some of the capacity constraints that the UK market will experience but the Corrib field is absolutely essential to this country.
It is not the case, as some people assert, that the Corrib gas will be of no benefit to this country at all. The gas is extremely important. It is an indigenous source of gas for ourselves and will ensure security of supply. It has been estimated that Corrib will reduce our gas imports by 50% or 60% in the first four or five years of transmission. Corrib is extremely important and I share Deputy Broughan's desire that the project goes ahead. I acknowledge the role he and other Members of the House have played in trying to advance it and hopefully the progress made in the last number of weeks will continue.
Given that in the future we will be dependent on gas for electricity generation and that gas will shortly come from Siberia which is at risk of interruption for a number of reasons, is the Minister considering long-term storage systems such as the pumping back of gas into the Seven Heads of Kinsale field as a storage location or the installation or development of an LNG facility to provide some sort of long distance security in view of the eventuality to which Deputy Broughan referred?
In regard to long-term grid structures in which we might invest, rather than the nuclear option, which is ruled out, should we consider a European grid of off-shore wind farms, connected up together, so that we would get over the variability factor in terms of the extent of such a grid from the North Sea to the Portuguese coast which would mean wind would always be blowing at a certain time? This project would be of great significance to Ireland given that we have a huge amount of wind resources which could tap in to such a futuristic grid.
I would be very supportive of the concept put forward by the Deputy for an alternative European energy grid. Very often when we have discussions in this country about energy and make comparisons with countries in Europe, we forget that most of the grid system in Europe is connected. Denmark has a fantastic record in regard to wind energy. It is connected into a European grid system whereby it can buy and sell. It probably imports as much electricity as it exports at various times. I would support such a connection. Any kind of connection from here into the European grid system should and would be of enormous benefit to the country. Anything that lessens our dependence on our own suppliers at present would be of huge benefit to us.
On the first part of the question, we are examining and trying to encourage alternatives so that we will not be dependent on gas from Siberia and other very unstable parts of the world. The indications are that a number of private sector companies may be interested in providing an LNG terminal in Ireland. It would cost approximately €500 million to put in place. Whether the State should go down that route or encourage the private sector to do so is something we could debate, but it is being considered. The other suggestion the Deputy made in regard to pumping back the gas into Kinsale or other areas around the coast is also being considered. Research in this regard is being carried out by the GSI and some private companies.
Would it be cheaper to hold on to what we have in the Corrib field until we need it, and then take it out and use it as a secure supply?
The problem is that if we need it in the short term, no one will be available to pump out the gas on a whim. It is not how decisions are made. I do not agree that we should not exploit that gas source. There may be a time in the future, long after all of us here are gone, when we will have sufficient supplies to be able to decide to let them remain under the earth, but we are not yet at that stage.
That concludes questions for today.
I thought we were having questions on broadband.
It is not the Chair's fault. The Chair did its utmost to get Members to stick to the time limit.
The Minister was also looking forward to questions on broadband.
I was hoping it would take about ten minutes.
If Members do not stick to the time limit, they lose out. A number of questions could not be reached today because Members insisted on breaching the time limit.
I know. I always try to remain within the time limit.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
