Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Jun 2011

Vol. 736 No. 1

Other Questions

Telecommunications Services

Liam Twomey

Question:

32 Deputy Liam Twomey asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources regarding rural areas which do not have access to DSL or fibre cable, the proportion of the population that have no access to fixed wireless, mobile wireless or satellite broadband; if he will provide figures for the proportion of persons accessing these three services; if he will give details of the average service quality in terms of megabytes and latency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15714/11]

I am happy to report that thanks to a combination of significant private and public investment in broadband provision, the vast majority of premises here, including many hard-to-reach rural premises, can now avail of at least a basic broadband service. The provision of telecommunications services, including broadband services, is a matter in the first instance for private sector service providers operating in a liberalised market regulated by the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. The State will also intervene in the market where there is evidence of clear market failure.

The national broadband scheme and the recently-launched rural broadband scheme are examples of such intervention. These interventions must be on a technology-neutral basis to comply with EU competition law. Completion of the national broadband scheme roll-out last October means that all premises in the national broadband scheme target areas now have access to broadband services. The recently-launched rural broadband scheme is specifically aimed at targeting those few remaining premises in rural non-national broadband scheme areas that for whatever reason are still unable to avail of a service from a commercial provider.

My Department is currently accepting applications under this scheme and will continue to do so until 29 July next. I encourage all Deputies to make constituents aware of the existence of this scheme and my Department will undertake some further promotional work in this respect between now and the end of July. I am satisfied, therefore, that Ireland will comfortably meet its EU target of having basic broadband available to everyone by 2013.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

My Department does not collect or possess the type of statistical data referred to in the Deputy's question. However, ComReg, in its role as regulator and promoter of competition in the Irish market publishes quarterly data on a national level which provides a wide range of information in regard to broadband penetration by technology platform. This statistical information on the Irish electronic communications market and benchmark data from other countries is collected and analysed by ComReg's trend unit and is available on its website, www.comstat.ie

It is not just those on the last mile who are having major problems at the moment. The fixed wireless-mobile wireless is excellent in some areas, but is non-existent or of uneven quality in many other areas. Even copper wire or DSL Internet access can be of uneven quality in many rural areas. When another €18 million is being spent on getting broadband to customers on that last mile, the Minister should ensure we have minimum standards and that the Department drills down to where the problems are so that we get broadband to every house in the next two years.

I am aware of the Deputy's interest in the subject because he has been in contact with me on more than one occasion about it. I am fairly convinced that we will have 99% penetration if not by the end of this year, certainly by next year. The problem, as he pointed out, often relates to the last mile and often relates to the bandwidth and speeds rather than the availability of basic broadband. I am considering a number of measures in this regard. I have recently convened a task force, chaired by me and comprising the chief executive officers of the telecommunications companies and Internet providers. Its purpose is to set down a roadmap for the future with the purpose of having a national broadband plan with effect from as early in 2012 as we can, that will deal with the undoubted issues of quality, to which the Deputy refers. Where there are still outstanding premises throughout rural areas, but not exclusively in rural areas, that for reasons of topography or not being able to reach the Cabinet or whatever, do not have broadband, I would like colleagues to advise them of the existence of the rural broadband scheme, which closes on 29 July. If there are such areas in rural Ireland, I would appreciate Deputies promulgating the fact that the scheme exists and counselling people to make application.

I welcome the Minister's recognition that the national broadband scheme was just a basic scheme. It has ensured that a wide swathe of the country without service has received service. However, I am perplexed that the Minister has become a great proponent of the liberal private sector in his conversion to liberal economics. I would have thought the Minister would have set a national minimum standard to which everyone would have had access.

A question, please.

In terms of megabytes, what would the Minister consider an acceptable minimum standard for every house to have in three years' time? Everybody would agree that while the national broadband scheme has provided a basic level, there are still issues because the demand for it has been so great.

My conversion to the merits of private sector involvement in this area is as nothing compared with the conversion that has befallen the Deputy since he went into opposition. He seems to expect that in 14 weeks I can remedy the mistakes his governments made in 14 years, which is stretching it a bit.

It is a simple question that requires a simple answer: what number of megabytes?

The Minister without interruption.

The Minister is a great man for avoiding the question.

We did not recover from the disaster of the privatisation of Telecom Éireann and the fact that it was ripped off successively purely for the purpose of asset stripping and taking money from it, meaning that the investment was not made when we had competitive advantage. While that is history now, it is something that must be corrected. The EU targets are that every household would have 30 megabits by 2020 and I am satisfied that we will easily achieve that. I am satisfied that by 2013 every house will have broadband. The private sector is making an investment of €400 million to €500 million going into the enhancement of quality at the moment. I am satisfied that we will comfortably beat the targets. I accept Deputy Twomey's basic contention that there are parts of the country where the quality is not yet good enough. I had the opportunity to launch the metropolitan area network in Claremorris on Friday night. Deputy Ó Cuív's Government spent €177 million in putting in the fibre optic networks in 94 towns, but all these years later only approximately 30 of them are lit. Was it the most prudent investment? I accept it was well intentioned, but based on the experience, it is a matter of some concern. I am working with e|net to improve it.

The Minister is a great man for not answering questions.

Departmental Bodies

Martin Ferris

Question:

33 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he has considered the recommendations of the McCarthy report on State assets and liabilities regarding companies under his responsibility; and his response to those recommendations. [15913/11]

I am currently considering the recommendations of the McCarthy report on State assets and liabilities regarding companies under my responsibility and will forward my views to the Department of public expenditure and reform in the very near future. I expect that the Minister for public expenditure and reform will consider the responses of all affected Departments and bring proposals on the report to Government in due course.

It is accepted that the acute current and foreseeable fiscal situation facing the State demands that all measures that can assist in this regard be examined. There is no doubt that the McCarthy report is a comprehensive overview of the issue and its recommendations merit serious consideration. The study and recommendations of the review group encompass very significant areas of responsibility for my Department. Of the 16 commercial State bodies referred to on page 2 of the review group report, eight are under the aegis of my Department. In addition, the report also dealt extensively with regulation, and three regulators — ComReg, the Commission for Energy Regulation and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland — are also my responsibility.

While I do not propose at this juncture to comment on specific recommendations, I strongly support the view that consideration of the sale of State assets should be set in the context of the wider public interest, including sectoral and economic policy and not simply as a revenue raising exercise. The report strongly recommends against a fire-sale of assets and underlines important complementary policy initiatives, which it concludes must be progressed in advance of sale of certain assets.

More generally, any disposal of State assets, especially those in the ownership of commercial State companies, must be undertaken on a fully informed basis and consistent with wider sectoral policy in the area. This must include best practice valuation of the asset, which it is proposed to sell, assessment of the impact of such a sale on Government policy objectives in the areas in question, appropriate consultation with stakeholders, and, in the event that disposal is deemed appropriate, timing of disposal to maximise value for the owner.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

Turning specifically to the energy State companies, the importance of the electricity and gas infrastructure and supply chain to national economic and social development cannot be emphasised strongly enough. Electricity and gas are the lifeblood of economic production in the high-tech ICT sector, the employment-intensive services sector and indigenous sectors such as farming. They are also fundamental to key social services such as health and education.

Because Ireland has such a reliable and relatively modern electricity and gas infrastructure we almost take it for granted. We must always remember that the creation of a modern and reliable energy networks system did not happen by accident. It arose from extensive and well executed investment by State owned companies, notably the ESB and Bord Gáis. These investments were funded without recourse to the taxpayer but on the back of well run and profitable State companies, which have garnered the trust of the capital markets to enable them to raise the necessary funding.

Good regulation, and professional management and operation of the transmission network by EirGrid have further contributed to our excellent networks infrastructure and the introduction of strong competition in the generation and supply business. The overall outcome is a modern electricity and gas sector and an evolution to average EU prices from a position where Ireland used to be well in excess of the EU average.

The importance of the electricity and gas sectors to economic and social development place the sectors in a unique position in the context of public policy and the national interest. Important issues in these sectors will fall to be addressed by the Government in the medium term. These arise in part from the report on the sale of State assets, about which the Deputy has posed his question, but more significantly, from EU legislative requirements and developments. We must prepare for the development over time of a pan-European energy market served by interconnection. Ireland will be a small part of a very large European regional electricity and gas market. This inevitable development must strongly inform energy policy, including that relating to ownership and structure of State energy companies.

Given the importance of the sector to the very economic and social functioning of the State, the State must continue to have a strong and direct presence in generation, networks and supply. This must be done in a way that protects overall economic competitiveness and does not deter private sector investment in generation and supply. This approach does not preclude extracting value from the strong and profitable State companies that we have built. The process of extracting such value and implementation of any other structural change within the State energy sector must meet the test that they are in the public interest in its widest sense.

The review group also proposed the sale of RTE Networks. This company is a key player in the major task of switching over to digital terrestrial television and switching off the analogue system. This is a hugely important project to be completed by 2012. I would not wish to see this timeline endangered by fundamental structural change.

The report also makes a number of other recommendations which impact on areas of my Department. I will give all recommendations serious consideration and make my specific views known to Government in the first instance.

Does the Minister agree that the sale of public assets which have been built up over generations of investment by taxpayers into leading successful entities, both economically and socially, would represent not only a very short-sighted approach but have disastrous consequences for workers and for the provision of services? Is the Minister prepared to resist the more radical proposals in the McCarthy report that favour extensive sales of assets and the preparation of key companies for eventual privatisation, in whole or in part?

I broadly agree with the Deputy that the selling off of State assets can be short-sighted and we do not have a great record in that regard. Deputy Ó Cuív and I had an exchange of views on the fall-out from the manner in which Telecom Éireann was privatised and the way it set back the economic potential of the country by depriving it of the investment that would have been necessary for the rolling out of broadband which, like electricity in the middle of the last century, is critical in this century for economic development and social progress.

I am not sure the sale of the Irish Sugar Company was very advisable either. I was in the House when the first stake was sold, in 1990 or 1991, if memory serves. The Minister in charge of the privatising argued vehemently that it was not privatisation because the Government was keeping a golden share which it would always be able to exercise. In the event, we lost the sugar industry, unnecessarily in my view. I recall a presentation made to me in Mallow after the Carlow closure which was purely a property play. Mallow was making arrangements to transfer the Carlow machinery to its plant and the capacity existed to transfer the beet from the Carlow-Kilkenny region. However, the industry was sold — in the interest of the developing world, as we were told, but more in the interest of ranchers in Brazil and elsewhere.

For that reason, I agree broadly with Deputy Ferris. The problem is that the country is broke as a result of the decisions taken by Deputy Ó Cuív and his colleagues in Government. The deal they made with the IMF, the EU and the ECB provides for some disposal of State assets. The programme for Government provides for up to €2 billion in total of a sale of State assets to invest in employment stimulation elsewhere in the economy. The short answer to Deputy Ferris's question is that if I had a choice and we were not in the mess we are in I would not be in favour of disposal of further State assets. My broad view is I am satisfied to assess them one by one, and this may well throw up a situation where it would not damage the economic future of the country to dispose of some of them.

I shall take a few brief interventions from Deputies Mary Lou McDonald, Jerry Buttimer and Catherine Murphy.

There are always choices for the Minister because politics is all about choices. I ask about another report relating to the ESB, namely, the Cahill report which was carried out by Frontier Consultants. It relates to the Minister's plan to hand over the transmission assets of the ESB to EirGrid. The McCarthy report, of course, goes much further than that in respect of the energy assets of the State. Why has the Minister not published the Cahill report?

I welcome the Minister's comments stating we will not have a fire sale of assets. It is important we learn from the Eircom debacle and that the legacy of the past 14 years is not just about——

Will the Deputy ask a question?

Is the McCarthy report seen now as the only panacea for all our ills? In his reply the Minister stated he hoped to finalise the review group. When does he hope to come back with that? Has the Government looked at means, reports or lines of inquiry other than McCarthy?

This is a key area of concern. We are reading between the lines as to what the Government intends.

A question, please.

Every week at the Whips' meeting I look for the McCarthy report to be on the agenda for debate. It is high time we had a comprehensive debate on it but this has not been acceded to yet. Unless we get a comprehensive statement from the Government and have a debate, there will be guesswork and reading between the lines, with people feeling concerned unnecessarily about some of the State assets. Will the Minister ensure this debate is facilitated by the Government?

I ask the Minister to be brief, too, as we are in overtime on this question.

To answer Deputy Murphy first, I am happy to facilitate such a debate on the McCarthy report and have no difficulty with it. I will signal as much to the Government Whip, if that is helpful. I am happy to debate the issue.

Deputy McDonald is right — we still have some choices although not as many as those about which the Deputy waxes eloquent from time to time. In the tough global world in which we live we want to keep it that way and do not wish to end up like Greece which has very few choices, being faced as it is at present with a demand to sell off billions in euro of its state assets.

As to my plan to hand over the transmission assets, I do not know where Deputy McDonald gets this information. I am not aware of any such plan on my part. I will gladly publish the Cahill report as soon as the Government has disposed of the issue. There is no difficulty there.

I assure Deputy Buttimer there will not be any fire sale of State assets. The author of the McCarthy report makes plain in his report he does not advocate that any of these assets ought to be put on eBay next week. Nobody is recommending that course of action and I certainly do not. Deputy Buttimer is right that such a sale is not the only panacea in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I explained that departments outside my area, such as Coillte, for example, are currently feeding back responses to the McCarthy report. However, if the wish of the Opposition is to debate the report in the interim, I am happy to facilitate that.

We move to Question No. 34.

I have an answer——

The Deputy can raise the issue another time. We are on Question No. 34.

My information comes from the programme for Government.

The question is in my name but is nominated by Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.

There is a conflict of interests there, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Energy Resources

Question:

34 Deputy Michael P. Kitt asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the action he intends to take to ensure a sustainable indigenous bio-fuel sector in view of the forced closure of all but one indigenous bio-fuel facility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15947/11]

Question:

38 Deputy Michael P. Kitt asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he intends introducing a minimum value of 41 cent for indigenous bio-fuels certificates to ensure a viable industry here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15948/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 34 and 38 together.

The bio-fuel obligation was enacted and introduced in 2010 to deliver on the mandatory EU target of 10% renewable energy in transport by 2020. The initial penetration rate set was 4%, which represents almost a doubling of size of the previous bio-fuel market in Ireland. I am confident that the obligation will promote the sustainable growth of the Irish bio-fuels market, thus supporting the growth of sustainable indigenous production of bio-fuels. In these first six operational months of the obligation, the 4% market penetration target was achieved, and exceeded. Preliminary figures to date in 2011 suggest this remains the case. The bio-fuel obligation ensures Irish consumers have access to appropriately priced, sustainable and reliable sources of bio-fuel by creating a guaranteed market that will require in excess of 220 million litres of bio-fuel in 2011. The policy of moving to an obligation system was signalled to the market three years before its coming into effect. This obligation will increase over time and by 2020 will require suppliers of road transport fuels to make certain that even higher percentages of the volumes sold are bio-fuel. This will ultimately create a market size of almost 500 million litres of bio-fuel.

Small-scale indigenous bio-fuel manufacturers are facing ongoing commercial challenges. Increases in commodity prices have made their position even more difficult. The price of the feedstocks on which many such producers depend, particularly oilseed rape, has increased substantially. However, the price they receive for their end product has increased by a much smaller amount. This effect has been replicated across the European bio-fuel industry. Temporary plant closures have been announced in the UK market due to the low margins on the product, mainly due to high wheat prices.

The bio-fuel obligation scheme which requires large suppliers of road transport fuels to include a certain percentage of bio-fuel in their general fuel mix works on the basis of tradeable certificates. Suppliers can meet their obligations by placing the bio-fuel on the market or purchasing certificates from companies which sell high blend bio-fuels to the market. Indigenous producers can access this market by a number of means, including by selling bio-fuel directly to obligated parties, selling into local markets or selling certificates earned to obligated parties. The price of certificates is set by the market, which ensures the consumer is only exposed to the actual additional cost of the bio-fuel component at a given moment in time.

Conversely, placing any minimum value on certificates would lock in the cost impact of the obligation for consumers at a set level. A level of 41 cent would have an immediate effect on the price of fuel paid by motorists and hauliers by adding over 1.6 cents to the price of every litre sold. I do not propose to move away from the market approach to certificate pricing. The obligation scheme provides market players with long-term certainty to develop projects which are economically viable and of scale. The scheme is designed to facilitate the development of the industry in Ireland, while minimising the cost impact of bio-fuel use on consumers.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. Does he accept that without continued support, the indigenous bio-fuel sector will not grow and that people will not be willing to invest in the industry? What further steps does he intend to take to support the industry through this difficult phase? As he outlined, the commodity price has increased but the fuel price has not increased consequently. Although that is obviously good in itself, it creates a huge difficulty for the industry.

As the Deputy is well aware, the difficulty that confronts any Government in this regard is that the subsidy required to accommodate the import behind the question would be prohibitive in the present climate. I do not accept that the industry will not grow. It is subject to fluctuations in the prices available in the market to farmers, in particular. A number of small enterprises of this nature have closed in Britain because of the price available for wheat, for example. If farmers can get better prices for their products on the market, they tend to go that way rather than servicing small indigenous bio-fuel production companies. We have had to achieve a good deal of our 4% complement target — as I said, it has been exceeded — by purchasing from outside the jurisdiction. Farming prices tend to fluctuate. Prices are good at present, but that has not always been the case and will not always be in the future. I am talking to different interests to see what we can do in these circumstances. The subsidy in this instance, like that in the re-fit for wind scheme, is a big issue at a time when the State is otherwise strapped for investment.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share