Vol. 641 No. 5
6 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the measures he is taking in view of his stated desire for a debate on nuclear power, to bring about this debate; his policies in regard to nuclear power; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28985/07]
My position is clear and consistent on the question of a debate on nuclear power. I would welcome and encourage a debate on the issue. The appropriate forum for such a debate is the Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. The committee will provide a forum for all parties in the House to contribute to a structured and informed debate on the issue.
For my own part, I have stated firmly on the record that nuclear power is neither sustainable nor the answer to Ireland's energy needs. Our position is shared by several EU member states and the European Commission has made it repeatedly clear that it is for member states to determine their own energy mix. The energy policy framework and the programme for Government make it clear that the Government fully intends to maintain the statutory prohibition on nuclear generation in Ireland. I look forward to working closely and constructively with the committee and its members on all matters relating to climate change and energy security, which encompasses all the key areas of energy policy.
The debate on nuclear power should be set in the context of the actions which the Government is taking to deliver fully sustainable and diverse energy resources in transport, heating and power generation. In each of the three areas of energy use, I believe that we have sustainable solutions. It is a matter of accelerating delivery on our targets for renewable energies and energy efficiency. In discussions that I had with Commissioner Andris Piebalgs earlier this week, the Commissioner fully supported our priority in these areas, which is also, in his view, the way forward for Europe.
Does the Minister accept that he is having it both ways in his approach to nuclear power? Depending on his audience, he says that he wants to encourage debate on nuclear power or that he totally opposes nuclear power. Will the Minister come down off the fence? There is no point in having a debate on nuclear power if the Minister is clear that it will go nowhere. A nuclear renaissance is clearly occurring globally, but surely it is not feasible to encourage debate, not to participate in it by triggering it, while opposing nuclear power anyway. Why would anybody on any committee in this House spend time and energy on a debate when the Minister is not willing to trigger it because he does not agree with it?
It is confidence in my position that encourages me to have a debate and to recognise the need for a debate. This is a technical area that is very complex, with many variables in it. However, looking at the technical and energy reasons makes my case all the stronger. My case is that we should be moving towards energy efficiency and renewables as the key twin tracks of our energy policy in the future. I do not believe nuclear power will have a role in that. Such is the conviction of my position that I would prefer to have that debate on alternative sources to show what I believe is the right way to go. It is important to have it because in the absence of such a debate, there are people out there who might not have knowledge of the area. They might have a thought in the back of their mind that there is this magic solution, but we are not debating it because it is not politically correct to do so. They might think that if only we were not so blind, we could turn to it and all our problems would be solved.
A debate will show that nuclear power is not a solution and does not provide easy answers. It is incredibly expensive and takes a huge amount of time, and we have no skills in the area so why would we go in that direction? Having that debate, which I believe would show up nuclear power for what it is, increases the political and public support for what we need to do, which is invest in renewables and energy efficiency. That is why I would be happy to conduct such a debate. A debate will be conducted in the public and in the media at any rate because they think it is a politically sensitive subject. Desensitising the subject and talking about it does us a service in energy policy.
I remind the Minister that this is not about schoolboy debates, it is about governing, about being a Minister and having policies. I have no doubt he is genuine in his beliefs, and I pay tribute to that. The Minister says we should debate the nuclear option, knowing full well that he has no conviction in that regard at all, and it is just a bit too glib. The Minister has a clear policy view that nuclear power is not an option and we are already barred from developing it.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I suggest we get on to the real business and not embark on a debate that will lead nowhere. Such a debate lets the Minister off the hook when he might have a difficult audience to address and when he wants an opt out.
I commend the Minister on the way he is handling the debate and his leadership and decisiveness.
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Minister agree that all the political parties should show their positions on nuclear power? I am getting mixed messages from different political parties and their members. For example, Jerry Shanahan, a member of the Labour Party, is in favour of nuclear power while another, Roger Cole, is against it.
A question, please.
Are we to censor them?
Are all parties accountable to Deputy Finian McGrath?
I am member of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. Will the Minister agree new ideas are needed in energy creation with the exception of nuclear power?
I am glad the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party are answerable to Deputy Finian McGrath in outlining their policies.
They are answerable to the people.
Is it not the case that Ireland can receive the benefits of nuclear power through interconnection? As we increase our interconnection with the British grid, which is heavily reliant on nuclear power, and will be more reliant on it in future, in essence nuclear power will be competing with power generation in Ireland, from whatever source. Does the Minister have a difficulty with that?
The reality is that one cannot separate power sources in an interconnected grid. Contract arrangements can be made to ensure only a certain type of energy production is funded.
We do not need a debate for debate's sake. As we need massive change in the energy area, it makes sense to debate it to ensure certainty and clear commitment as to where we are going. That debate will not just centre on nuclear power. Unfortunately that is all they want to discuss when one goes to a television or radio station for a debate on energy production. We can get it out of the way by having a debate on it.
Other aspects of the energy debate include transport and how to provide bio-fuels and biomass for fuelling the transport system. There must be a consistent and long-term policy that will allow investors to develop alternative energy solutions.
In the past five years as a Member I have argued trenchantly on these issues and tried to highlight climate change and energy security. I have had no certainty, support nor direction from the Labour Party in these crucial energy issues. A debate may be useful to raise the level of understanding and knowledge to ensure a better policy outcome.
Does the Minister believe it is the duty of one party to support another? Is he aware the Labour Party has a well thought-out policy on climate change? I do not know if he has read it but maybe he could support us in this regard. I support his view that the real issues need to be examined but that there is no need for a debate on nuclear energy.
Such is the scale of change needed, it does not belong to any one political party. It should not be an area where political point-scoring occurs. It is an area that needs clear understanding because energy supply concerns the next four decades. Presenting a common understanding on broad energy policy parameters will assist businesses to make investment decisions. That is the befit of a proper debate and a common understanding that, as far as possible, can be reached on energy issues. I will work with the other parties not for support but for solutions for the people.
7 Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the negotiations that have taken place on cross-Border co-operation in providing the infrastructure for broadband; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28988/07]
The provision of telecommunications services in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the private sector. Service providers based in both jurisdictions offer services in each other's home market. Service providers in both jurisdictions also use each other's networks where commercially appropriate.
There is also cross-Border co-operation between both administrations. As part of the national development plan, the Government is working with the Northern Ireland authorities under the INTERREG co-operation programme to provide better broadband infrastructure on a cross-Border basis.
Several projects to provide broadband infrastructure on a cross-Border basis have been undertaken in recent years under the INTERREG North-South cross-Border co-operation programme, including the establishment of a cross-Border network of fibre and duct between Dublin and Belfast, the creation of a digital corridor between counties Armagh and Monaghan and the creation of high speed cross-Border networks between third level institutions in the north west via a new fibre link from Letterkenny to the Derry area.
There is also a cross-Border project promoting the use of broadband, the Broadband Awareness campaign. Phase 2 of this project, which has begun, will promote the safe use of broadband and Internet technologies. There are ongoing discussions with the Northern Ireland authorities on possible cooperation on broadband infrastructure under the new INTERREG North-South cross-Border programme. It is hoped to continue the cooperative working relationship with the authorities in Northern Ireland on projects for the development of broadband infrastructure on a cross-Border basis where appropriate.
We have much to learn from Northern Ireland's broadband roll-out. It has 100% connectivity unlike the 15% to 20% of this country which has no capacity for a broadband service. The EU is moving towards creating a single telecommunications market, be it for mobile telephones or fixed-line telephony infrastructure. In the same way as the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland led the way in creating an all-island market for mobile telephony roaming charges, can a similar arrangement be reached for the regulation of broadband networks on the island of Ireland?
I support the development of such an all-island network where it is possible. One of the larger telecommunications operators, BT, is an incumbent in the North and a major provider in fixed-line services in the South. Eircom, the incumbent in the South, has won a contract for a significant amount of telecommunications business in the North. In the mobile and 3G telephony areas, an all-island approach is developing. Any development that will encourage economies of scale and provide a more competitive market is to the benefit of the people, which I support.
8 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his views on the legal action threatened by Eircom over the Government development of MANs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28970/07]
Eircom has not issued any legal proceedings against the Department. It would not be appropriate to discuss the likelihood or otherwise of any potential legal action.
I do not want to cause any legal difficulties but would the threat of legal action have an influence on strategic planning by the Department? Up to €170 million was allocated to phase 2 of the MANs roll-out and a phase 3 is planned. Will the Minister give a figure for that phase? The larger the amount allocated, the more likely the danger of legal difficulties with EU law.
Has the Minister considered the request by Shannon Development for €25 million to develop a next-generation network in its area on a pilot basis?
MANs has State-aid clearance so a legal challenge would not hold up. This is open access infrastructure. There is no restriction whatsoever on any company. I encourage every company to use MANs because they are the latest high quality fibre optic networks in towns in the absence of which broadband services would not have been introduced. Deputy Coveney sat on the Oireachtas committee which considered this issue and knows that the concept of MANs came at a time when there was no developing competition or broadband development. In the absence of competition between providers they were a successful spur to starting a market here.
This is a rapidly-changing area. Some of the main fixed line networks have seen an 800% increase in data traffic in the past two years.
Maybe the Minister will answer my question now.
There is significant pick up in traffic on the MANs.
What kind of pick up?
It was in the region of 65% in the past year, according to the latest figures. That is not as high as I would like it to be. Technology is changing rapidly. The MANs were a long-term investment in high quality open access infrastructure. My Department is preparing the final draft of a next generation networks paper for internal and then public discussion. Instead of fibre optic lines going through an exchange, these networks will involve lines going to a cabinet on a street to serve faster broadband speeds. It is far from certain which technologies will work and how they will interact with wireless and other technologies. We must continue to review the role of the MANs but they will have an important long-term role in providing a high quality open access fibre network.
Phase 3 of the MANs will involve a review of prioritisation of certain projects such as Shannon, an important industrial area, about which there is concern across the House, and we will respond to that need.
When?
That will be a Cabinet decision but I hope it will be taken soon.
I can see now why the Minister did not have a figure for the cost of the roll-out of MANs phase 2 or 3 because he has just told us that the MANs need to be reviewed. I agree with him but that is inconsistent with what we were told earlier, that MANs phase 2 will go ahead as planned. If Eircom splits into two companies, as it suggests, one of which would be a wholesale service provider and network operator with an open access infrastructure competing with State funded infrastructure, the Minister may find himself in some legal difficulty. I do not want the State to have to fork out a fortune to contest a difficult case.
There is a lead time for the construction of MANs. Most of the MANs for construction have been contracted a year in advance. The funding is not simply switched on and off. A review would therefore not have an immediate effect. Eircom has approached us about its proposal to split off its network business and we are discussing this in a general way. There is no reason an open access network would pose a competitive threat because all operators could use it. I welcome any innovative approach by any company to avail of that infrastructure.
The MANs would be duplicating the Eircom infrastructure.
What is the Minister's policy on a separation in Eircom? Does he favour a structural or functional separation?
The policy is to take the approach from the company and go into the details to find out the merits of each form of separation. I do not wish to rule out any outcome but would take into account several factors. The functional separation in the UK seems to work effectively with BT operating a wholesale business. The advantage there is that a retail arm remains which has a check on the quality of or need for good services in the wholesale arm. This is a complex question. The company has not reached a conclusion on whether it will be functionally or structurally separated.
Does the Minister have a say in this decision?
The State has a say in respect of the broad policy objectives it might want to achieve. We represent the public interest which is defined by two measures. We must ensure that the supply of broadband services is ahead of demand so that there is no restriction on the development of new technology of which we might wish to avail.
That will be a first.
That has to be island-wide, taking into account the differing circumstances in rural and urban communities. We must also bring the prices down. Any regulatory decisions of the State are based on those two considerations.
9 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the grants given to Irish companies involved in tidal turbines or wave energy; the applications for grants he has received relating to this energy resource to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28973/07]
20 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will make a statement on the state of research into wave and tidal energy generation; and the proportion of energy requirements he envisages will be met by these sources by 2010. [29009/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 20 together. Ireland has one of the most promising ocean energy resources in the world, and the Government aims to position Ireland to take full advantage of this resource.
We have set a target of supplying 15% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2010 and 33% by 2020. The most significant contribution to this target is likely to be wind energy but we also aim to deploy other renewable energy technologies. The programme for Government sets a target of 75 MW of ocean energy connected by 2012. We have also set an initial ambition of 500 MW of ocean energy by 2020. These are challenging targets and require a cohesive strategic approach to research, development and demonstration and commercialisation.
The ocean energy strategy published last year aims to put Ireland at the forefront of ocean energy development and position us to capitalise on the resource. The strategy was developed by Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI, and the Marine Institute. The strategy sets out the road map to advance research and development capabilities through supports to deliver infrastructural testing facilities. SEI, in co-operation with the Marine Institute, already operates a grant support system for ocean energy research projects. To date, SEI has provided €1.4 million in grant support to eight groups involved in ocean energy technology development and research. Funding support has notably been provided to upgrade the hydraulics and maritime research centre in University College Cork as well as the establishment of an ocean energy test site a mile and a half off the coast of Spiddal, County Galway.
SEI also co-ordinates Ireland's participation in the International Energy Agency's ocean energy systems implementation agreement. The IEA agreement is an international co-operative research forum for addressing common challenges facing ocean energy, including the development of standards and best practice and information exchange and validation of research. The pace of technological development will determine the timelines for realisation of our ocean energy targets. I am placing particular priority on accelerating research and development and start-up production. Building national research capability in ocean energy is key. The Charles Parsons scheme has provided additional funding to University College Cork for research into ocean energy resources and ocean energy device modelling. This work will critically inform our understanding of Ireland's wave energy and tidal stream resources and the methodologies needed to realise the potential. My objective is to realise Ireland's ocean energy potential in the shortest realistically achievable timeframe. Our ambition is not only to optimise the contribution of ocean energy to electricity but to create an export-oriented ocean energy sector in Ireland at the cutting edge of technology.
Everyone accepts that pioneering work in its early stages is being carried out in this field and that the west of Ireland is a very good location for this kind of development. Is the Minister convinced that we are providing enough in terms of support for individual companies developing prototypes, particularly in the area of wave energy and in the area of tidal energy? I get the impression that Portugal has an attractive feed-in tariff arrangement that is attracting people to avail of the facility to develop prototypes there. Has the Minister looked at how other countries support this kind of pioneering innovation? It is at such an early stage that it seems we should be doing this as we are ideally located.
This is an area in which we should excel and our resources give us an opportunity to take a lead that other countries, which may have taken a lead in other areas of renewable energy, such as Germany, will not be able to take because the resource is not close to them.
My knowledge of Portugal in this regard is that it sees the development of its resources as a site for companies from other areas to use their plug-in facilities. We will seek to have Irish companies involved and a number of companies, at various stages of development, may help us develop an indigenous industry, perhaps in co-operation with international experts in engineering and other areas. This is our aim and it will require a number of different supports from the State, including good test facilities with grid connections, a feed-in fixed tariff system and capital grants in appropriate areas. These grants will, in all likelihood, be matched by significant private sector funding because the global fund in venture capital for renewables has increased from approximately €24 billion in 2004 to approximately €100 billion this year. The State will not be the main financier for such projects but it can act as a lever for support and that is my intent.
I am having difficulty extracting specific information from the Minister and while what he is saying is interesting it is not providing clarity as to what the policy of his Department is in this regard, though I am new to this portfolio. Are we concentrating our efforts on the development of indigenous industry in the wave and tidal energy sector? If a target of 75 MW is to be set, surely we should not concentrate solely on developing indigenous operators in the area, though it is worthwhile. There is value in providing supports to attract outsiders to see what they will come up with and ensure we reach our targets. Is that not the purpose of all this?
I will be happy to see outside operators in the area but I wanted to make it clear that I do not want to rely exclusively on such operators. We should aim to develop expertise here.
What are we doing to achieve this?
I hope, in the coming months, to offer a support package that will give a major boost to the industry.
I am glad to hear that and the information is welcome, though I hope the money does not come from capital set aside for broadband.
The Minister said that we have set a target of 15% for 2010. Is it time to revise this target upwards? That figure was set in the Green Paper and confirmed in the White Paper on Energy for Ireland, which was put in place by the previous Government. We now have a Minister from the Green Party who clearly seeks to change Ireland's attitudes on energy use and generation.
The Minister said in his contribution that by the end of this year we could derive up to 1,000 MW from wind. We only produce 6,000 MW, or a little more, so we are more or less at the suggested figure already, when the wind blows. The Minister will receive a lot of support from my party if he displays more ambition than the White Paper on short to medium-term targets for the percentage of power generated from renewable sources.
I welcome the Deputy's comments because I feel we should not see those targets as the limit of our ambition but as the base level for our ambitions.
I fear some of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues may see those targets as the limit of our ambition and that is the problem.
I am confident that there is a clear realisation across the Government of the opportunities presented by this for employment generation, wealth generation and emissions reductions in our country. We tend to concentrate on the area of power generation to the detriment of other areas and I hope we may also exceed the targets relating to heat. Regarding transport we must be careful not to focus solely on our supply target and must consider demand reduction. In general, the target for energy efficiency in our National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency will be crucial and I hope great attention is paid to it. As we roll out that plan we must attempt, in the short to medium term, to exceed the targets on energy saving, in addition to targets on energy use and generation. I welcome the Deputies' comments and agree that we need to exceed targets.
10 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the way he will allocate the €5 million hardship fund which has been earmarked as a hardship and diversification fund for those affected by the salmon drift net fishing ban; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28998/07]
The report of the Independent Salmon Group recommended that a community support scheme be established to support the development of additional economic opportunities in communities affected by the closure of the drift net fishery. It recommended that the focus of this measure should primarily be those communities where drift net fishing had been a well established activity and where its withdrawal demonstrably impacts on their economic and social fabric, for example, Gaeltacht areas and island communities formerly involved in drift net fishing.
In addition to the €25 million salmon hardship scheme, the Government subsequently provided for a fund amounting to €5 million that will be available for such a community support scheme. This scheme will be directed at the development of additional economic opportunities for former crew in the salmon fishery and employees in the processing and ancillary sectors in the communities.
The scheme is to be administered by my Department in conjunction with the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. I am advised that details of the scheme are being finalised with a view to allocating the available funds to those affected fishery districts, proportionate to the impact of the cessation of the mixed stock fishery. Consultations with the Leader companies, conducted through the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, will inform the most effective distribution of funds.
In this regard, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs invited Leader companies to prepare submissions, the last of which was received on Friday, 9 November to ensure that resources are directed to the most affected areas. My officials met their counterparts from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs on Tuesday, 13 November to review the submissions. As soon as this exercise is completed, details of the scheme will be finalised and published through the Leader companies.
I thank the Minister for his answer and would appreciate a hard copy because there is great confusion over this issue in the community concerned.
The Minister will be very aware of the deep dissatisfaction among a relatively small number of salmon drift net fishermen at the compensation package put together for many of the people concerned. Some people were handsomely compensated but many others were not, having relied on an income derived from catching salmon using drift nets. That process is over, which I accept, but it has taken many months to approach the conclusion of this matter and it has still not been reached in terms of distributing the remaining €5 million of the community fund. I am concerned, in particular, about fishermen who come from areas that do not have large fishing communities.
Many individuals, including people I know in Crosshaven, will not qualify for a significant portion of the €5 million because they do not come from a community where there are large numbers of drift net fishermen. Many of these individuals face genuine hardship and are anxious to find other sources of income and to retrain for other industries but need support to do so. Is that not the purpose of this fund?
Will the Minister consider the possibility of allocating some of the available moneys to individuals who may not come from large fishing communities but are facing the hardship and isolation of not being able to fish for salmon as they may have done season after season in the past. I do not question the validity of the decision to end drift net fishing. Rather, I question the fairness of the distribution of the €5 million set aside to encourage fishermen into other industries. People have contacted me and others to ask whether there is a fund to help them set up a business elsewhere or to move into another industry. Unfortunately, the way in which the funding is allocated means that is not possible.
I recognise this is a sensitive issue. There are cultural and economic factors to consider in areas where there may not be many economic opportunities. This sensitivity is one of the reasons it is taking time to devise the system of allocation. The Leader companies, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and my Department are engaged in a complex and difficult process to devise a system that meets some of the objectives set out by Deputy Coveney. I agree that smaller communities that may not be the obvious targets should not be forgotten. At the same time, we must have a coherent and effective programme.
The decision to end drift net fishing was correct. It will be beneficial for rural areas along the seaboard in the long term.
I do not dispute that.
I accept that but I wish to make this point. For the future we must protect our natural resources, including the stocks of wild salmon. I hope this brave decision will be seen to bring returns when we can begin to reopen rivers for both anglers and commercial fishermen operating on a draft net basis, thus providing employment opportunities in hotels, commercial fisheries, smokeries and so on for what would be a unique product in a world where salmon is increasingly less available.
Another aspect of the complexity of this issue is that those who were affected most by the end of drift net fishing, by reference to the intensity of their fishing activities, are the ones who were compensated disproportionately well. Anyone who was fishing extensively in the previous five years and had the tag records to show that received a much higher payment than those who may have held a licence but did not undertake an extensive amount of fishing.
This causes difficulty in terms of structuring the support scheme. It is a question of whether we should target those who were intensively engaged in the industry or those who were less involved but, because of this, received less compensation. This is one of the complexities that the departmental officials will have to address in conjunction with the Leader companies.
The problem in this instance is that one is dealing with a community infrastructure, through the Leader organisations, for example. The nature of drift net fishing, however, is that it involved individuals who are located right along the coast. It is not similar to other fishing sectors where there are large centres, such as Killybegs, Castletownbere and Dingle. Drift net fishermen were based around the coastline in an isolated way, in small ports and using small boats. My concern is that individuals who are willing to leave the fishing industry and move into other industries should also be able to access this fund to obtain the support they require. That does not seem to be possible under the current proposals.
I will convey the Deputy's concerns to my departmental officials so they may be stitched into whatever agreement we have. I am sure the Deputy realises that the amount of money is not huge given the number of communities involved. I will make every effort to ensure the smaller communities to which the Deputy referred are not excluded.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
