Vol. 778 No. 2
6. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will outline the key targets under his newly launched broadband strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43701/12]
14. Deputy Martin Heydon asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his plans for implementing the new National Broadband Plan to areas now covered by the national broadband scheme provided by 3 Ireland; if he will consider the prioritisation of areas in the country where broadband levels are still very basic and many still rely on dial up services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43738/12]
16. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the extent to which he has been able to address the major deficiencies in respect of broadband; his plans in place or proposed to address these issues with a view to making available in all areas throughout the country, urban and rural, the most up to date, high speed broadband; if he expects to bring the standard and quality of the technology here to the best available throughout Europe or worldwide; when he expects such service to be in place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43723/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 14 and 16 together.
The Government’s recently published national broadband plan aims to radically change the broadband landscape in Ireland by ensuring that high-speed services of at least 30 Mbps are available to all of our citizens and businesses well in advance of the EU’s target date of 2020, and that significantly higher speeds are available to as many homes and businesses as possible. The plan commits to high-speed broadband availability across the country and specifies that 70 to 100 Mbps will be available from commercial market operators to more than half of the population by 2015. At least 40 Mbps, and in many cases faster speeds, will be available to at least a further 20% of the population - and potentially as much as 35% - during the lifetime of the Government. Finally, a minimum of 30 Mbps will be available to every remaining home and business in the country, also during the lifetime of the Government. During the preparation of the national broadband plan, the commercial market operators indicated that they expected to provide 70 to 100 Mbps services to 50% of the population by 2015. The precise areas to be provided with those services will be determined by the commercial market operators.
One of the first steps in delivering on the 30 Mbps and 40 Mbps commitments will be the completion of a formal national mapping exercise to determine the exact position with regard to commercial service providers’ existing and planned broadband services throughout the country. Preparatory work has commenced within my Department to expedite this task. The mapping exercise will identify the areas of the country in which there is a market failure in the provision of high-speed broadband services. It will also identify where the market is expected to succeed in the delivery of high-speed broadband over the coming years. This process is expected to take several months to complete and until then, the precise areas of the country which will require State intervention will not be known. It is likely, however, that rural areas, including those covered by the national broadband scheme, NBS, will require intervention. Roll-out will be targeted to commence in 2014, when the mapping, state aids and procurement processes are complete and when the current contract for the national broadband scheme expires.
I reiterate that the Government remains committed to the delivery of the speeds to which I referred, in order to ensure that all parts of Ireland, including rural or remote parts of the country, have access to modern high-speed broadband services.
My party supports the target of 70 to 100 Mbps for at least 50% of the population, as contained in the plan. However, the Minister's reply is high on rhetoric and low on substance and I have numerous questions because of that. How is it proposed to ensure universal coverage at high speeds? Broadband penetration in many rural areas is less than 20%. There is no specific detail as to how the Government might address this in the plan. There is no date for the delivery of the national minimum speed but rather a vague promise that it will be achieved during the lifetime of the Government. I expect and assume that is because, as mentioned within the plan, the indicative cost to the State for its roll-out is €175 million over the period of the plan. The Minister has stated that his Department has commenced dialogue with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and NewERA with a view to identifying funding sources. Has the Minister any update on this dialogue? How is it progressing, when is it likely to conclude and at what point will the Minister be in a position to inform the House of the availability of this funding? Perhaps then he will be able to be more specific regarding the means and methods by which the plan's targets might be met and ultimately give a clearer indication of the exact timeframe for the eventual roll-out.
Deputy Cowen is being very severe. Extraordinary developments are under way at present and I have no doubt that the private telecommunications companies will furnish more than 50% of the population with industrial-strength broadband by 2015, which is ahead of the target set by the Commissioner in Europe. I do not see any point in my replicating that or seeking to spend State money where the telecommunications companies are capable of providing the service.
Deputy Cowen will say, entirely fairly, that the service will generally be provided in the more populous areas - that is, in largely urban areas - and he is right about that. It is for that reason that we opted for the three-tier architecture in the plan. It is hard to say, until the mapping exercise is done, what is the size of the bottom tier but the commitment is that those in that tier will have broadband services of not less than 30 Mbps. At the moment, most of those people would not even have 2 Mbps. The design and procurement process will stipulate that the successful bidders to do the job for the State will have to comply with that prospectus.
We will be ahead of the general European digital agenda targets. The expectation for the lifetime of the Government is 2016 and it is within that timeframe that the commitment to provide the second tier with speeds of 40 Mbps or better and the bottom tier with speeds of 30 Mbps or better lies. That will encroach on the NBS areas, although it is not possible to say where exactly until the mapping exercise is done. The previous Government's contract on the NBS runs until August 2014. In any event, the state aids procurement process is painfully slow. It is not something that is designed to penalise Ireland in particular but is the same across all member states. It is a painfully slow process but one we must go through because the net point about the plan is that it acknowledges that State intervention is necessary where the private sector cannot provide.
I welcome the national broadband plan and the ambitious targets therein but my concern is for areas that lie in the bottom tier. In my own constituency there are areas which are covered by the NBS but most residents there struggle to access the 3 network. In many cases, they are on dial-up for Internet access. However, because they are deemed to be covered under the NBS, they are not able to access the rural broadband scheme, RBS. Villages such as Calverstown and Narraghmore in my constituency are just two that spring to mind. Many residents of those villages work in Dublin and further afield but would have the option of working from home if they had high-speed broadband access. Small businesses in these areas also need a high-quality broadband service. The benefits to the economy would include a reduction in the numbers commuting to Dublin every day and the quality of life for those people would be greatly enhanced.
Will the mapping process take account of the varying levels of cover in those areas that are currently part of the NBS? Will it be possible to prioritise those areas that have little or no cover at present, such as those I have just mentioned?
The rural broadband scheme was intended to pick up premises which did not have a service because of topographical or other issues.
The investment of State money meant that the rural broadband scheme could not apply where a service provider already existed. If there are defects or difficult pockets where the national broadband scheme is not doing its job, I ask that specific complaints be brought to my Department. In tribute to the provider, 3, since the deal was agreed it has co-operated with my Department to address issues in areas where the service is not what might be expected.
As regards Deputy Heydon's question about specific villages in County Kildare, it is difficult to identify the locations where the State should intervene before the mapping exercise is complete. I anticipate that it will have to intervene in parts of the country that are currently the remit of the national broadband scheme. In the case of second level schools, we started to install high speed broadband in parts of the country where the service was weakest so that every second level school in 13 counties in the west of Ireland will be connected by the middle of this month. Similarly, I hope we will have regard for the areas that are weakest and the pockets where issues arise in respect of the quality of broadband rather its availability.
7. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Communications; Energy and Natural Resources the way he will ensure that Ireland adheres to the legal obligations under the EU Energy Efficiency Directive, adopted by the European Parliament on 11 September 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43716/12]
17. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications; Energy and Natural Resources if he will confirm whether Ireland is not complying with the EU Energy Efficiency Directive and may face fines if more dwellings are not made more energy efficient; if he has reviewed the EU funded research conducted by the Tipperary based Sustainable Energy for the Rural Village Environment project which states that Ireland will miss its EU energy efficiency target by 2020; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43582/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 17 together.
The existing energy services directive, Directive 2006/32/EC, was fully transposed by SI 542 of 2009, the European Communities (Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services) Regulations 2009. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Ireland is not in compliance with its existing EU obligations.
The current national energy efficiency action plan was published in May 2009 and outlined the framework for delivering Ireland’s energy efficiency targets by 2020. This action plan was a requirement under the energy services directive and further updates will be required in 2014 and 2017. The second action plan, which I will be bringing to Government shortly, provides a progress report on delivery of the national energy savings targets implemented under current EU requirements as well as energy efficiency policy priorities between now and 2020. The action plan will show that Ireland is on track to deliver the 20% energy saving target.
My Department has participated in a number of conferences organised by the sustainable energy for the rural village environment project, including most recently last Friday, 5 October, and is fully aware of the research undertaken to date.
The new energy efficiency directive, which will supersede the existing energy services directive, has been adopted by the Council of Ministers and European Parliament. It will translate elements of the European efficiency plan into binding measures on member states, including an annual rate of renovation for central government buildings of 3%; an inventory of central government buildings with a total useful floor area over certain thresholds; an obligation on public bodies to procure products, services and buildings with high energy efficient performance; obligations on industry relating to energy audits and energy management systems; and a common framework for national energy savings obligation schemes equivalent to annual energy savings of 1.5% of energy sales. The new directive will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in November and will enter into force in 2014. Transposition of the directive will be progressed over the coming months.
The 3% renovation target for central government buildings represents a challenge for Departments and the Office of Public Works but the energy savings will greatly outweigh the costs of renovation. We will work closely with the OPW over the coming months to prepare a plan for the realisation of this target. In respect of the proposed 1.5% obligation scheme in article 7, which is at the heart of the new directive, it is clear this will be a difficult target to deliver. Our intention is to work constructively over the next 12 months with energy suppliers already engaged in delivering energy saving targets to construct a suitable obligation scheme.
Adequate private and public funding is critical to delivering on the objectives, particularly in article 5. In this context measures to address Government debt and accounting barriers are required if we are to realise the potential for energy performance contracting in the public sector. It is my intention to bring forward a memorandum for the Government in due course, following a consultation process on the new directive, to set out in detail the key provisions and challenges inherent in implementation, including the costs and benefits.
I note that the Minister will bring a memorandum to the Cabinet regarding the methods through which he hopes to meet the demands of the new directive. It is claimed that every year until 2020, some 90,000 Irish homes will need significant energy upgrades if the country is to adhere to its legal obligations under the directive. In light of research indicating that fewer than 50,000 homes will undergo energy upgrades in 2012, Ireland may be unlikely to meet this target. Does the Minister believe we can comply with the terms of the directive in the absence of full implementation of the national energy retrofit programme? We all acknowledge the fiscal constraints but can he provide an indication of what can be done to put alternative financing in place?
Budget 2012 cut grants by an average of 35%. The total allocation in 2011 was €99 million but the figure decreased to €64.6 million in 2012. The Minister introduced a new method of categorising grants which discriminates against mid-terrace homes and apartments, which by their nature tend to be occupied by those on lower incomes.
It is clear that a shift in opinion towards energy efficiency is needed. How does the Minister believe the shift can be best achieved, when does he intend to bring the memorandum before the Cabinet and when does he expect a decision to be made by the Government? It is only at that point will be able to decide how to meet the demands of the directive.
The energy efficiency directive will only be published next month and this will be followed by a prolonged consultation period because of the severity of the measures included. However, I welcome the measures and I supported the Danish Presidency at the Council of Ministers when it introduced them because they are hugely important. I welcome anything that gives an impetus to the renovation of public buildings. Without such an impetus we will continue to waste energy as before and some of these buildings will remain unsuitable. The 3% target for renovating central government buildings is important for these reasons.
The 1.5% imposition will be more problematic, however. The energy supply companies are already working on the issue but it is a stout target, particularly if the economy starts to grow once again.
On the reduction in grants under the retrofit programme, Deputy Cowen is not factoring in the additional €30 million I received from the Minister for Finance in the middle of last year.
It is against that figure he is taking the reduction.
It is true there has been something of a fall-off in applications. This may be because we have reached saturation, in terms of the 240,000 homes already done, which were willing and knowledgeable participants, or because we have been through a very mild winter after two previous exceptionally severe winters and there is a downward spike in terms of the visible applications, or perhaps because of the recession. It is important to put this point on the record with regard to the recession. Even where people avail of the grant, they must put their own finance up front also. In circumstances where people, even those who can afford to do so, are not putting their hands in their pockets, this is a factor. This worries me with regard to the future.
The buy-in of householders is the key point. How much must householders undergoing a retrofit pay from their own pockets? There is an issue too with regard to pay-back. How long is it before this is recouped? Given the fact that electricity and gas prices have escalated significantly, by 25% or 30%, since Deputy Rabbitte became Minister - an incredible state of affairs - what more can be done to encourage householders to take part in this scheme and to get a greater buy-in to it? Should there be more of an onus on the energy providers? Should there be more of an onus on companies like Electric Ireland and Airtricity? Should they be responsible for undertaking to assist households have more energy efficient houses? They have got away with murder in this regard. The target of 1.5% is derisory.
On the issue of new homes, I commend the Tipperary based SERVE study on this matter. There is often a feeling that even in the past ten years since we have taken climate change seriously, building regulations have not been followed and we have not built energy efficient houses. What does the Minister intend to do in that regard? Yesterday, we raised the issue of the collapse in the social housing programme with the Taoiseach. Will the Minister make it an ambition of his ministry, along with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, to ensure that all new homes will be energy efficient and therefore provide cheaper energy for householders? The encouragement of householders is clearly the first element of the programme.
The amount of money that must be put up front under the existing retrofit scheme depends on what exactly is being done.
What is the average cost?
The average would be a ratio of approximately 2:1. For example, if people are getting a grant of €4,000, they are expected to put up approximately €8,000. In the current climate, this is something to cause homeowners to reflect on whether to retrofit and this is one of the reasons I am in the process of compiling a new pay-as-you-save scheme, which will have the merit of not requiring the homeowner to put money up front. The idea would be that over a period of two or three years, the renovation would be funded from the savings that would accrue.
This is a far more complex undertaking than it may sound. I have had considerable discussions with the two pillar banks and with the two chief executives of the banks who would be required, as well as the supply companies, to come to the tape on this. The end product must be attractive to the homeowner because the message on energy efficiency is still not adequately made. I hope that whatever product we settle on eventually will be accessible, intelligible, simple and attractive to homeowners. As the Deputy has said, the quality of much of our built environment leaves a lot to be desired. Building regulations either did not exist or were flouted in the past and we are left with the legacy of that.
I have had discussions with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, and my officials have met his officials to discuss what contribution they can make in the context of the affordable energy strategy we published some months ago.
Will the Minister consider revising upwards the target number of houses to be retrofitted? If we thought in terms of hundreds of thousands, not only would we make huge inroads on energy efficiency - 40% of energy use here is by domestic dwellings - but we would do something significant for job creation. Imagine what that would do with regard to removing people from jobseeker's allowance. It can be done if the political will is there to do it.
I agree there is a significant jobs dimension to all of this. Last year, the figures indicated that 5,500 were involved in the retrofit programme. Undoubtedly, there are jobs in this area. However, the current scheme is a demand-led scheme and there is limited investment in terms of what can be put into such a grants-based scheme. This is why we are working on the transition from that incentive scheme to a pay-as-you-save scheme. Hopefully, we can design a product that will both enhance participation and at the same time create jobs in the retrofit process.
8. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Communications; Energy and Natural Resources if he will introduce amending legislation to the Broadcasting Act insofar as it relates to balance on broadcasting during referendum campaigns; his views on whether he believes that balance in broadcasting should be more reflective of the balance of opinion generally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43686/12]
The Broadcasting Act 2009 provides for the establishment of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, as the independent regulator responsible for the oversight of compliance in relation to broadcast content in the State. One of the objectives of the authority, set out in section 25(b), is to ensure “that the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression, are upheld,”.
Section 39 of the 2009 Act provides for the duties of broadcasters and includes, for example, duties relating to objectivity and impartiality in news and current affairs. In the discharge of its functions, the BAI is required, under section 42, to draw up broadcasting codes on the standards and practice to be observed by broadcasters and for compliance matters.
In the context of these statutory provisions, the BAI has developed a broadcasting code on referenda and election coverage, which was published in September last year. This code sets out the rules that Irish broadcasters must comply with when covering any election, or referendum held in the State. The aim of the code is to ensure that broadcasters’ coverage of all elections and referenda is fair, objective and impartial. Coverage should be undertaken without any expression of a broadcaster’s own views on an election or referendum or on election parties or candidates. The code also contains specific provisions that relate to party political broadcasts and moratoria on coverage of referenda and-or elections. It also restates the prohibition on broadcasters airing political advertising.
In view of the forthcoming referendum, the BAI has recently taken the opportunity to remind broadcasters of their obligations. Broadcasters must ensure, for example, that coverage of the referendum is fair and equitable to all interests. The BAI has also highlighted the need for broadcasters to put in place transparent mechanisms for ensuring that coverage in the run-up to the referendum and on the day that citizens cast their vote is fair, objective and impartial. It is incumbent upon the BAI and all broadcasters in the State, to ensure that they adhere to the code on referenda and election coverage, as well as to the spirit and letter of the relevant judicial rulings in this area. I have no plans to amend the existing legislation in the area as suggested by the Deputy.
I do not believe the original question sought the Minister's opinion on whether he would amend the legislation to cater for the forthcoming referendum. It was tabled because it would be interesting to get the views of the Minister who is responsible for this area on the legislation as it stands. We are facing into a campaign on a referendum to enshrine children's rights in the Constitution. My party is in favour of it, as are the Minister's party, Fine Gael, and Sinn Féin. It seems there is an overwhelming consensus in favour of the proposed amendment. It is almost as if professional contrarians are the only people who intend to vote "No". Is the Minister concerned that the need for balance might lead to minimal media coverage of the referendum campaign? Does he consider it possible that broadcasters might decide to limit their coverage of it, rather than providing a platform for certain people? Does he agree that the broadcasting balance rules mean that some people see the campaign for a "No" vote as a media opportunity? When elected representatives participate in referendum debates, everyone knows their agenda and their credentials. If unelected people suddenly emerge as part of the "No" campaign, they might not be obliged to declare their interests. I am looking for the Minister's perspective on the legislation as it stands, especially considering the situation we find ourselves in now. Given that the vast majority of Deputies support the proposed amendment to the Constitution, does the Minister consider that the media will limit its coverage of the campaign in order to comply with the Act as it stands?
I have heard the fear expressed that the children's referendum will not get the ventilation, scrutiny, debate and promotion it deserves because the apparent support of everybody in this House for the proposed amendment will make it difficult for broadcasters to implement the 50-50 rule as they have traditionally done. I hope that will not be the case. If I told Deputy Cowen, who is trying to probe my views, that I was minded to dictate to the national broadcaster how it should cover referendums or national elections, he would tease me out at some considerable length to get it on the record.
Surely the Minister can express an opinion on how he might interpret it, or how it should be interpreted.
The Coughlan judgment has been interpreted by the broadcasters as meaning 50-50 coverage of certain matters, such as referendums. If the overwhelming majority of the people, as demonstrated by their representation among the membership of this House, are in favour of a particular amendment, I agree that it seems difficult to know how the 50% on the other side can be comprised. I have seen legal commentary to the effect that this is a self-imposed limitation on the part of the broadcasters, given that the judgment does not say there should be 50-50 coverage. I suppose that in interpreting it that way, the broadcasters erred on the side of impartiality and wished to be seen to be fair. In one of the legal commentaries I read, I noted Dr. Gavin Barrett's thoughts on Deputy Cowen's point about the circumstances that can be created:
In practice, the '50-50' rule creates a perverse political incentive to oppose Constitutional amendments on European treaties. A politician who supports such an amendment will normally find him- or herself occupying a crowded field of experienced politicians jostling for the maximum of 50% of the airtime guaranteed to the 'yes' side. A politician who opposes the amendment occupies a much less crowded space populated by much less experienced political actors. For the 'no' side, the 50% operates more as a minimum guarantee.
He went on to say that political parties or politicians could engage in grand-standing by opposing a proposed constitutional amendment, regardless of whether they were convinced of the merits of their opposition, in order to avail of the 50% of coverage available to that side.
We have used up the time allotted for Question Time.
Does that mean we will not reach my Question No. 9?
The time limit for the day's debate has expired.
