Vol. 650 No. 1
79 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will confirm that, as he stated in a speech to Dáil Éireann on 26 February 2008, all areas that do not have broadband by 1 July 2008 will get broadband under the national broadband scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10900/08]
The role of the Government is to formulate regulatory and infrastructure policies to facilitate the provision of high quality telecommunications services by competing private sector service providers. The widespread provision of broadband services continues to be a priority for the Government. In that regard, my Department has undertaken initiatives to address the gaps in broadband coverage. These include providing grant aid under the recently concluded group broadband scheme and investment in metropolitan area networks, MANs.
There are still parts of the country where the private sector will be unable to justify the commercial provision of broadband services. Accordingly, the procurement process for a national broadband scheme is under way. The scheme will provide broadband services for areas currently unserved and ensure all reasonable requests for broadband are met. The first phase of the procurement process — pre-qualification questionnaire — is complete and four candidates pre-qualified to enter the next phase of the process. As my Department indicated on 2 September 2007, the four candidates were, in alphabetical order, BT Communications Ireland Limited consortium, Eircom Limited, Hutchinson 3G Ireland Limited and IFA-Motorola consortium. Following the withdrawal of the IFA-Motorola consortium as a candidate, the remaining three candidates commenced competitive dialogue with my Department and are developing their proposed solutions to meet my Department's requirements for the delivery of broadband to the unserved areas of the country. It is anticipated that a preferred bidder will be selected and appointed in June 2008, with roll-out to commence as soon as possible thereafter, subject to agreement with the chosen candidate.
I note we are discussing the issue of broadband again. We will continue to return to it until the Opposition is satisfied the Government is taking it seriously. Is it the case that the map I am holding which I downloaded from the Department's website represents the Minister's view on areas covered by broadband? Do the areas shaded in blue represent areas for which a proposal in respect of coverage has been made? Is it, therefore, the case that the national broadband scheme will not apply to any of the areas shaded in red? I understand the Department has indicated to the European Commission that areas shaded in red are off limits to the scheme because they offer a market for broadband. Is that the case?
How does the Minister plan to deal with areas on the map shaded in red which do not have broadband? For example, most of County Leitrim is shaded in red, whereas a recent survey conducted by Leitrim County Council showed that 50% of respondents indicated they had no access to broadband, notwithstanding the price they would be willing to pay. Virtually the whole of County Kilkenny is shaded in red, yet the thick file I am holding contains representations made to a Senator on the non-availability of broadband in the county. Will the Minister clarify the position?
The Minister repeated a statement he made a few weeks ago that all areas which do not have broadband services by 1 July will have broadband delivered through the national broadband scheme. Are areas shaded in red on the Department's map off-limits for the national broadband scheme?
The intent of the national broadband scheme is clear, namely, to ensure broadband services will be available throughout the country. As this is a changing area, it is difficult to state at a given time what precisely are the services being provided. The Department asked the industry to outline in detail which areas would be served. If areas are not served by 1 July, the date on which we intend to commence delivering the national broadband scheme, they will be included in the scheme. While the map will change before the commencement date of 1 July, this date is the test that will determine whether an area will be included in the national broadband scheme. It is sensible and rational to take into account ongoing, changing investment by companies and ensure we target investment available under the support scheme at the areas we want to work best, namely, those for which there is currently not a commercial case for investment.
How does the Minister square his view with the statement by the Commission for Communications Regulation at a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs that the national broadband scheme would not provide 100% coverage. Mr. Alex Chisholm from ComReg indicated that while the scheme would increase coverage from approximately 85% to approximately 95% of the population, 5% of the population would continue to be excluded from broadband services.
Did the Department not inform the European Commission that the national broadband scheme would apply to areas of its map of broadband coverage shaded in green or blue, that is, areas where there is market failure or potential market failure, respectively, and that it considered areas marked in red to have broadband coverage?
As I explained, my Department aims to achieve 100% coverage. I intend to deliver on that objective.
80 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the date on which the announcement was made that the Central Fisheries Board was to be relocated to Carrick-on-Shannon; the progress made to date; the amount paid in rent for the Central Fisheries Board in the Swords offices, including additional accommodation such as the warehouse and laboratory premises; when the relocation will take place; his plans for the Central Fisheries Board premises in Glasnevin; the reason it is being vacated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10951/08]
As the Deputy will be aware, the Government's decentralisation programme was announced on 3 December 2003. The relocation of the Central Fisheries Board to Carrick-on-Shannon is included in the programme. The decentralisation of the board involves relocating 62 posts to Carrick-on-Shannon. Progress to date on that front is that 20 staff have been recruited to posts relocating since the announcement of the programme and that some 20 staff have a relocation clause in their employment contract.
The other major element of the decentralisation programme relates to accommodation. While accommodation and property issues related to the decentralisation programme are matters for the Office of Public Works, I understand from the Central Fisheries Board's ongoing liaison with the OPW that a suitable accommodation solution for the board has not yet been identified in Carrick-on-Shannon.
On the Central Fisheries Board's former and current premises, I confirm that, as advised previously to the House, relocating the staff of the board from Glasnevin was due to inadequacies in the premises on health and safety grounds. No decision has been made as of yet as to the disposal of the Glasnevin premises when vacant. The rent paid by the board is a day-to-day operational matter for the board. I have no function in that regard.
That is a disgraceful reply. I can tell the Minister what is my understanding of the cost of what is essentially another example of Government waste. Is he not aware that €500,000 is being spent on rent? That is money that has been taken from the budget he allocates and for which he is responsible. This is yet another example of a Minister saying he is not responsible and passing the buck to somebody else. The rent is payable on the offices. I understand the laboratories and storage areas that are separate cost more, perhaps up to €1 million per annum. The Minister is presiding over an example of Government waste and ineptitude, yet he says he is not responsible.
The announcement on the decentralisation of the Central Fisheries Board to Carrick-on-Shannon was made in 2002. Nothing has happened in the meantime. The Minister has not even been able to find accommodation. The difficulty is that staff do not want to move. I know this, as does the Minister but in the meantime there is an empty building in Glasnevin. The Minister did not indicate what was happening with it. It could be sold or used for something else. I have no idea. I am not the Minister but he cannot tell me how much money is being squandered on rent. That money is being taken from the budget of the regional fisheries boards which are losing approximately €100,000 per year, about which the Minister says he does not know. He should. What will he do to deal with an example of Government waste and ineptitude for which he is responsible and from which he cannot walk away?
I did not say I did not know. I said it was up to management of the Central Fisheries Board to arrange rental arrangements. I presume the Deputy is not suggesting we should insist on people staying in premises in respect of which there are health and safety issues.
The Minister is learning fast from Fianna Fáil.
I am just answering a simple question.
That answer is garbage.
If the Deputy is suggesting it should not rent premises in the interim——
I am saying the Minister should do his job.
——I disagree.
On the decentralisation programme, the Deputy is right. There are delays and have been difficulties regarding State and other agencies, including FÁS and particularly those with a large number of technical staff. The programme has not progressed in the manner originally expected but that is not my job or something I can amend. The Office of Public Works is responsible for the purchase of properties under any decentralisation programme. It is not up to me to be in Carrick-on-Shannon to negotiate property transactions or look for suitable sites. That is best left to the expert on a joined-up government basis — the OPW.
With respect, I remind the Minister of his duties. He allocates the budgets which are being reduced specifically to pay rent while property lies idle and the fanciful decentralisation programme is still being adhered to in theory but not in practice. What he has just said is interesting. I asked him the amount being spent and he told me the matter was the responsibility of the Central Fisheries Board. When I challenged him on this, he said he knew the answer but would not tell me. I tabled a question. I did not ask who was responsible; I sought a pounds, shillings and pence answer but the Minister did not give it to me. As he said he knew the answer, let us hear it from him. How much has been paid in rent since the Central Fisheries Board moved into the premises? What is the total amount? Before the Minister replies, we should remember that this is money that could have been spent by the regional boards but was not.
The time for this question has expired.
I will come back to the Deputy with further details.
I would have thought it would have taken two seconds to give the answer to that question.
81 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if the International Advisory Forum on next generation networks has reported; if so, if he will publish the findings; if he will publish a detailed timetable of the action he proposes to take on promotion of the roll-out of high speed infrastructure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10901/08]
My Department has prepared a draft policy paper on next generation broadband. The paper reviews current communications infrastructure policy and analyses policy options in the light of industry developments regarding the optimum role for the Government in the planning and roll-out of next generation broadband. Two weeks ago I convened a meeting of the expert International Advisory Forum to examine the paper. The forum critiqued draft options and recommendations on how to meet the challenges that lay ahead. The key challenge is getting higher speed broadband at lower cost to more subscribers. The forum members have provided valuable feedback. They supported the broad trust of the document. They also offered some additional recommendations and advice on the future trends of the telecommunications and ICT industries and proposed that certain suggestions be explored further. The draft paper is being updated to reflect the forum's contribution. It will then be published for public consultation.
We are back to the issue of broadband again. Why did the Minister believe it was appropriate to appoint an independent advisory forum to advise him on his own policy paper when we could have debated it here in the House? The Opposition tabled a motion on broadband for that very purpose. The Minister said at the time that he supported a serious non-party political debate on the issue. That very week he gave his policy paper to an independent forum he had set up, yet he did not consider it sufficiently important to allow the House to debate the issue. Why did he make that decision?
My understanding is that following the forum consultation process, there will be another period of consultation with stakeholders. Will the Minister set out the timeframe for that consultation? When will we see publication of the up-to-date report and for how long does the Minister plan to provide, in terms of weeks or months, for the consultation period with stakeholders?
I opted for an independent advisory forum because such a forum worked in the past. An international advisory forum was used in 1999 and it came up with excellent advice which led to the investment in the Global Crossing infrastructure which proved to be of enormous benefit to the country. It is a process that has proved its worth.
The Deputy will be aware that there are significant commercial interests at play. We are dealing with a complex, fast changing market. It is difficult to find people in this country who do not have a vested interest one way or the other in the commercial outcome of the policy decisions we make. In the circumstances it is right to use experts to act as a sounding board on the policy direction we are taking because they do not have a commercial interest in the outcome or the development. It was a group of experts from mobile, fixed line, regulatory, government service, European, English, American and Asian backgrounds.
What about Ireland?
And Ireland. We must place ourselves in the international context, be ambitious and look to jump ahead. In that context, it is right for us to look at the international picture to find out what is going on and draw on that expertise which is freely given for the benefit of the country in policy formulation. I intend to adapt the draft paper for publication in mid-April. There will then be a period of further consultation here as well as with the wider public. I would welcome such a debate. While I welcome a debate at Question Time, more time should be provided in the Dáil. Subject to agreement with the Whips, I am happy to agree to wider consultation. We must be careful to recognise that this is a fast-changing market. We must look for an evolving policy in responding to the technological and market developments that are occurring. We must be careful not to attach ourselves to one policy position that does not take into account developments in the computer and telecommunications industries and the broadcasting media, all of which are converging in the new digital age.
The Minister has put his finger on the problem. This is a fast-changing market but the Government is not providing leadership. That is the issue. There are decisions the Minister could take, on which he does not need to engage in consultation. For example, to establish what is available he could conduct an audit of telecommunications infrastructure, something we have been demanding for some time. Will the Minister begin an audit instead as there is no need for a forum? Was there any representation on the forum for those businesses which require high speed broadband to be competitive? Will the Minister indicate when we can expect a Government action plan for the roll-out of next generation broadband and will it do so with the private sector?
I had a meeting last week with senior industry——
I asked about the forum. Who on the forum represents business?
It was designed as an international expert forum to get international experience on broadband roll-out and how it might apply in Ireland.
We must move on to the next question.
Last week, I met a series of companies involved in the area. I also met Mr. John McElligott of eBay and a range of others involved in business.
We must move on to Question No. 82 in the name of Deputy McManus.
Is John McElligott happy with the Government's response?
82 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the steps he is taking in view of the increase in oil prices and the failure of the Government to provide sufficient public transport on time as an alternative to the use of the private car; the steps he is taking to ensure fair pricing of petrol prices across the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10953/08]
The Irish oil industry is fully privatised, liberalised and deregulated with free entry into the market. Prices at the pump reflect global market price, transportation costs, euro-dollar fluctuations and other operating costs. Neither my Department nor the Government has any role in the control of oil prices.
The Government has no plans to introduce measures on transport fuel prices, given the fully liberalised nature of the market and the roles and responsibilities of the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency. The Competition Authority is a statutory independent body with a specific role in the enforcement of competition law. The National Consumer Agency has specific responsibilities for protecting the rights of consumers. Its function is to ensure competition works optimally for the benefit of consumers.
Ireland's high dependence on imported oil makes us price-takers, sensitive to the volatility of the markets and reflecting the combination of world prices and the relative strength of the euro against the dollar. It is bad for competitiveness and exposes us to security of supply risks. It is also unsustainable in environmental terms and climate change.
Addressing our dependence on fossil fuel imports must be a key priority. The Government has committed to a range of actions in the energy policy framework and the programme for Government to break that dependency. In addition to accelerating the deployment of renewable energy in electricity, transport and heating, the implementation of wide-ranging energy efficiency and demand management programmes are the major immediate priority. The roll-out of the national energy efficiency action plan in the coming months will set out the Government's measures and programmes in detail.
The Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, will finalise the sustainable travel and transport action plan later this year, informed by the recently launched public consultation process. I am working with him and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to deliver a sustainable energy future across all sectors, including the transport sector. Improved public transport sustainable infrastructure, radical energy efficiency and demand management strategies are key to achieving a sustainable transport future for citizens and the economy.
Has the Minister any sympathy for the poor unfortunate motorist who is suffering a double whammy? The Government is responsible for a range of delays in public transport projects and has not provided the necessary public transport infrastructure. Many motorists do not have the choice to take public transport. On the other hand, the cost of petrol is rising at a staggering rate, and more importantly the cost of diesel has outstripped it.
Surely the Minister is concerned about this change, particularly with his emphasis on more energy efficiency. There is also the importance of using energy resources that create less carbon emissions. Through the tax system motorists are encouraged to opt for diesel vehicles. However, filling up on diesel costs more than petrol, the more environmentally damaging fuel.
The Minister cannot simply throw up his hands claiming he has no role in this matter. Why does he not call in the oil companies to discover what happened to the price of diesel? How about getting the Commission on Energy Regulation on board? Issues have arisen that are the Minister's responsibility which must be addressed. Organisations such as the AA, have raised the regional disparity in fuel costs and the difference between petrol and diesel costs which are, or should be, the Minister's concern. Whatever big plans or strategies the Minister has, they are in the future. What is happening must be of concern to the Minister.
I have sympathy for anyone affected by rising costs. However, if we are to protect the public interest, we must divert from using oil products. We consume 165,000 barrels of oil every day; on average, ten pints of oil for every man, woman and child. In the long term if we are to protect our people from a peak in global oil production and a reduction in the availability of oil supplies, there is an urgent requirement to reduce our oil dependence across many sectors, such as heating, power generation and transport.
We are responding to this in proper policy terms. I have appointed a firm of leading international oil experts, Purvin & Gertz Inc., to undertake a detailed review of security, supply and access to commercial oil supplies, including examining all internal markets and how oil is delivered. That is the proper policy approach to learn what appropriate interventions and measures need to be taken, be it in storage, supply chain, and so on.
Why does the Minister simply talk to the oil companies? I support the Minister's long-term plans but I find it hard to accept that in the mean time diesel has outstripped petrol in costs. An average family car fill-up of petrol will costs €66, while diesel will cost €67.
The time for this question has expired.
That is of concern because it means people will be attracted, by price, to a more environmentally harmful fuel. The Minister must take action on this.
I am obliged to call the next question.
I can and do talk to the oil companies. I like to do it on the basis of proper policy analysis.
I call on Question No. 83 in the name of Deputy Coveney.
83 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the criteria for prioritising successful applications in view of the large number of wind energy projects hoping to get connection to the grid under the gate 3 connection process; if he will confirm the combined amount of megawatts that will be granted connection under this process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10902/08]
Responsibility for connection offers under the gate 3 process is a matter for the Commission for Energy Regulation. My responsibilities relates to the allocation of support under the renewable energy feed in tariff programme, REFIT. The selection and allocation criteria for compliant projects under REFIT are set out in the competition notes.
All compliant applications received on the same day are ranked ahead of applications received on succeeding days. If the capacity of all compliant applications received on the same day exceeds the remaining capacity, I can decide to prioritise by the earliest forecast delivery date for a connection by technology, category or by lot. Alternatively, I have the discretion to increase the support capacity available.
The competition notes, as published, proposed support for 400 MW. It is the case that all compliant applications submitted to date have been accepted and the cumulative support allocated is in excess of 1,000 MW. The REFIT conditions also provide for a reserve list of applicants ranked using the same allocation criteria as applied in the initial selection process.
The REFIT programme is subject to EU State-aid clearance. We have already obtained State-aid clearance to allocate support up to 1,450 MW in the onshore categories announced in the initial launch. Any allocation above 1,450 MW and allocations in the categories of biomass anaerobic digestion, offshore wind and wave and tidal will require EU State-aid clearance before support can be confirmed in a binding manner. I have asked my Department to progress the State-aid submission with the European Commission as a matter of urgency.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but it is a different answer to the one I expected. The Commission for Energy Regulation informed the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources that, under gate 3 in the next two months, new connections to the national grid will be made for wind energy projects. My understanding is that 8,258 MW of wind application proposals are currently being developed. What policy direction has the Minister given the CER in terms of how it should choose successful applications for connection? Consortiums, business people and farmers across the country have spent fortunes in planning permission applications and connection cost consultations in order to develop wind energy projects. Clearly, we will not be able to connect over 8,000 MW onto a grid that only uses 5,000 MW at full capacity. Will acceptance of the projects be on the basis of the date on which they were applied for, date order and system optimisation, which is the second potential criterion, or grid development strategy? Both EirGrid and ESB feel strongly that they should be assessed on the basis of grid capacity. What is happening here? Are we misleading potential developers hoping to get a grid connection who in reality may never be able to get a connection?
The broad outline of our intent is set out in the all-island grid study, which shows that our electricity supply system could include 42% renewable energy by 2020. We will then progress from there. The long-term objective is to move towards a zero-carbon energy system. If we consider the figures on where we expect this power to come from, we can see it will include some 4,000 MW of onshore wind. There are existing hydroelectric projects, but the remainder will consist of offshore wind. We will also start to see new technologies such as anaerobic digestion and wave and tidal energy.
As time is tight, could I ask the Minister to answer the specific question I asked?
All three issues have to be taken into account. We must obviously consider grid development, ability to connect, and time in terms of——
Unfortunately, that is not what the CER is saying, and it will be making the decision. It is saying that acceptance will be based on the time the application was made.
Yes, but——
The Minister is saying something entirely different.
The selection process, by nature, involves a grouping of projects, and this must take into account grid development and connection ability. It cannot be decided simply on the basis of date of application. The selection process is to allow for the CER to take the current large number of applications and create a system that is easier to manage and makes sense within our grid development system.
The Minister correctly said that it is the plan of the Government to obtain approximately 4,000 MW from onshore wind farms. We currently have the capacity for more than 1,000 MW on the grid, but there are more than 8,000 MW worth of applications. We need to be honest with people and tell them that at least half of the consortia that plan to produce power from wind will not actually get a connection. That is the issue. It is a potential financial crisis for the people who have invested.
The time for priority questions today has expired.
People can see that, but they should realise that we are not stopping at 2020. Why should we not continue if we can develop our demand management system to support further wind——
It is no consolation for those people that they might get a connection after 2020.
