Vol. 855 No. 3
1. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will provide an update on the national broadband mapping project; the actions he will take to improve broadband services in rural Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40484/14]
Will the Minister provide an update on the national broadband mapping project, the improvement of the broadband service particularly in rural Ireland and parts of urban Ireland, and the entire broadband agenda?
Through the national broadband plan, NBP, the Government aims to ensure that high speed broadband is available to all citizens and businesses in Ireland, through a combination of commercial investment and a State-led intervention. The commercial telecommunications sector is currently investing approximately €2.5 billion in network upgrades and at least 1.6 million of the 2.3 million addresses in Ireland are expected to have access to commercial high speed broadband services over the next number of years.
Under EU state aid guidelines member states cannot intervene where commercial investors have plans to roll out services. My Department is currently finalising a national map which will identify those areas that require State intervention. An initial examination has already identified a significant number of areas that will require State intervention.
As part of the mapping process, a stakeholder consultation was launched in June. Some 32 submissions have been received and non-commercially sensitive versions of these responses are due to be published by my Department this week. I expect to publish the map shortly. Those accessing it will be able to identify their own house or premises and see whether it is in the proposed intervention footprint. Where a house or premises is not in the proposed intervention area it means it either currently has or will in the near future have access to commercial high speed broadband services. The map will be subject to change as new information becomes available or commercial investments are announced in the future.
A further public consultation on a detailed intervention strategy will be launched in mid-2015. The Department is also working closely with the European Commission with a view to obtaining state aid clearance for the programme.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
A detailed procurement process will be undertaken in order to select a potential preferred bidder or bidders towards the end of 2015. This complex and ambitious project is a key priority for the Government. It aims to conclusively address current connectivity challenges in Ireland. Our goal is to ensure that quality broadband services are available to all citizens regardless of where they are located.
When the national broadband mapping project and its details were announced in April 2014 the EU state aids guidelines were not mentioned. When will we get clearance from the EU? There is a huge problem with broadband. Every day people contact me about it. Some providers have been contacted continuously since mid-July about broadband, Eircom and others and complaints made to the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. The Minister and the Government need to take a hands-on approach. The Minister said that he hopes to announce this later this week but today is Thursday, when this week does he hope to make this announcement? When will the mapping happen?
I did not say I would make any particular announcement this week. I said we would publish the results of the consultation and the various submissions we received on the website this week. In respect of the map I said it would available shortly. I expect that to be during the month of November.
The state aids aspect could not be new to the Deputy. The state aids rules are well known and have been in place for several years. There are constraints on what any member state can do to intervene in the market because these services are largely provided by the private sector. Where the private sector says it will not or cannot go because it will not make a profit it is up to the State to intervene. The Deputy is right about that. I appreciate his frustration and that of many around the country at how long these interventions are likely to take but I want to give the House an insight into the sort of work we are doing. The Deputy asked me to take a direct hands-on approach. I give him an absolute assurance that is what I am doing, directly as Minister, leading this process in the Department.
Over the coming months we need to do a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to underpin the funding we need; assess the likely final net cost to the State; assess how the funding is to be secured, whether off-balance sheet and how the funding model might impact on the Exchequer balance sheet; assess whether infrastructure financed through State funds should be owned by the State or a commercial company; decide whether we go with a winner-takes-all approach such as one contractor, or divide the competition into lots; decide the likely contract duration for the future; assess how service quality is to be measured; decide the governance arrangements for the contract given the long-term nature of the intervention we intend to make; assess the impact of the intervention on the telecommunications market in Ireland, for example the impact on the universal service provision for voice telephony; prepare a database of assets or State agencies whose assets are available for use by telecommunications operators; finalise the intervention map; and formalise the EU state aid provisions. There is a myriad of activities required.
Is it nearly time that the Government considered a public service obligation for broadband, similar to that for voice telephony which the Minister mentioned, such that broadband must be delivered to every community? The time is coming for serious action on this.
I raised this as a Topical Issue matter some weeks ago in respect of Banteer. I am inundated with queries from communities, including Castlemagner, in north Cork and from Rockchapel where there is no broadband in the school.
We need to see the Commission for Communications Regulation and the Minister getting involved as part of a whole-of-government approach to this issue, which is critical if we are to ensure there is sustainability within local communities. I welcome the Minister's statement that he will take a hands-on approach and that the Department will play a lead role. It is time to look at what we can do from a legislative perspective to ensure broadband is accessible to every household in the State.
Unfortunately, it is not the kind of initiative that simply passing a law will make happen. While I agree with the Deputy that this is urgent and important - we can all agree with that - I am aware that the passing of legislation, of itself, will not make this happen. The Deputy knows it is more complex than that. I am not sure what precisely he is proposing when he suggests there should be a public service obligation in respect of broadband. On which entity would such an obligation rest? I do not know precisely what is being suggested. The Deputy has rightly taken a close interest in this issue, as I have. Almost every day, I make an inquiry in my Department about this critically important issue and discuss it with my officials. The Deputy is right to say that it is of enormous importance for communities, individual citizens, business, tourism and a range of activities, particularly in rural Ireland.
Schools.
Absolutely. We have made very good progress in the secondary school system.
Primary schools.
Absolutely. Broadband is a critically important requirement for communities, citizens and businesses right across the board. We will deliver it. People are probably looking for fewer announcements from me and more delivery
That would be great.
2. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will consider ending Tamboran's licensing option for hydraulic fracturing considering similar moves in the Six Counties. [40556/14]
The Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, is probably aware of the activities of Tamboran Resources in Belcoo over the last seven or eight weeks. It came like a thief in the night and announced that it was going to start exploratory drilling. Thankfully, the Northern Ireland Minister, Arlene Foster, stopped the company's work because the quarry it was going to drill in Belcoo did not have planning permission. Tamboran Resources is now taking legal action against the Northern Ireland Executive. Have we learned anything from that and from the actions of Tamboran Resources? I refer to the activities it is about to engage in against the Six Counties.
A licensing option confers upon the option holder the first right, exercisable at any time during the period of the option, to an exploration licence or licences over all or part of the area covered by the option. I can confirm that in accordance with the rules governing the two-year licensing option granted to Tamboran Resources in March 2011, the company exercised the right conferred upon it by the option and submitted an application for a follow-on exploration licence prior to the expiry of the licensing option in February 2013. In summary, the period of the licensing option ended almost 20 months ago and the right to apply for an exploration licence has been exercised.
Successive Ministers and Ministers of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources have confirmed that they will make no decision on such an application pending the outcome of the Environmental Protection Agency's research programme into the use of hydraulic fracturing. This research, which commenced recently, is expected to conclude in 2016. It has been made clear to the company that no decision will be taken on any application that proposes the use of hydraulic fracking in exploration drilling until the EPA research programme has been completed and the Government and other interested parties have had time to consider its findings. The appropriate time for making decisions on the issue of hydraulic fracturing will be after there has been an adequate opportunity to reflect on the findings of the EPA research.
I thank the Minister of State for restating the current position. We are on the hind foot in relation to hydraulic fracturing. I do not understand why expressions of interest were even requested in the first instance. I do not know what persuasion or logic was used when it was decided to look for expressions of interest, nor do I know what persuasion or logic was used in order to issue the exploratory licences. I am aware that an energy company in Canada has taken legal action against a state government that exercised its right to keep a clean environment. It is clear that Tamboran Resources, and companies like it, will take legal action against this State if it does the right thing by protecting our environment and our tourism and agriculture interests. By delaying a decision to ban fracking entirely, we are facilitating a company to take legal action against the State.
As the Deputy knows, and as the previous Minister of State confirmed, the situation at the moment is that no decision on an application of this nature will be made in advance of the outcome of the EPA research. It is important to point out that there were many meetings during the summer. When I was in the Deputy's part of the world, which is quite close to the Border, I met some of those who have concerns. This is also an issue in Northern Ireland. It is important to mention that there is a Northern Ireland element to the EPA study, which will take at least two years. The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment and Queen's University are involved in it. My own opinion is that it is possible that the study will take longer than two years. It is important for us to be kept up to speed at each step of the research programme. I have asked my officials in the Department to ensure we do not close the door and let the EPA carry on with its study for a period of two years or more. We have to build an information-sharing exercise and a review option into this process. It is important to point out that this is a North-South study, in real terms. It affects places on the other side of the Border that are quite close to Deputy Colreavy's home area. There are concerns on both sides of the Border. It is important to reiterate that no decision will be made for at least two years until the study of this sector is completed.
I understand the Minister of State's response, which is in line with what he has said previously. I repeat that we are on the hind foot. I am not blaming the Minister of State or this Government for that. They were handed a poisoned pup. Expressions of interest should never have been requested. Research should have been done before expressions of interest were sought or exploratory licences were granted. The current indecision is facilitating a company to prepare for legal action against this State. When that happens, somebody will stand here - it might be me - to say "I told you this company would do this". We need to acknowledge that those expressions of interest should not have been sought and those exploratory licences should not have been issued. We should ban fracking from the island of Ireland now. We should not let the company put forward the case that we built up its expectations through indecision. That is what we are doing.
The option was built into the first licence. An application was made for a follow-on licence. That was 24 months ago. Nothing has happened. The timeframe of the EPA study will decide whether a licence or follow-on licence application will be considered. I will state categorically again that such an application will not be considered. Previous Ministers and Ministers of State have emphasised this. I am reiterating it again today. The EPA study began in August of this year. It will last a minimum of two years. It will probably take longer. I have said on the public record that I have my own concerns about the whole area of hydraulic fracturing. We have to use the political mechanisms that are in place, such as the North-South Ministerial Council. The partnership model that is in place is headed up by the EPA and involves its counterparts in Northern Ireland as well as Queen's University and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment. We should use this opportunity to exhaust all avenues of research and opinion on the impact of this activity on the two pillars of environment and health. That needs to be done comprehensively.
Let us also build in a review option during the study instead of handing it over for a period of two or more years. In that way, the House or the joint committee would have an opportunity to make an input or give feedback.
I would welcome that.
Before I call Deputy Boyd Barrett, I ask Members to watch the clock, please.
3. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his views on the conversion of Moneypoint power station to biomass as a move towards meeting our European targets for renewable energy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40482/14]
My question concerns the raging debate about the need to consider options such as biomass as opposed to plans for industrial wind farm, which have been the subject of much of the focus. Some €3.8 billion is planned to be spent on boosting our transmission system to facilitate controversial large wind turbines. There are major arguments against this and I do not have the time to go through all of them, but many people believe that this is not the best route to take. For example, the simple measure of converting Moneypoint to biomass would go a long way towards meeting our greenhouse emission targets at a fraction of the cost of industrial wind farms. Is the Government considering this option and what is its response?
This is a timely question, what with the European Council meeting today and tomorrow about targets, so I thank the Deputy for raising the issue.
The 2009 EU renewable energy directive set Ireland a legally binding target of meeting 16% of our energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020, to be achieved through 40% renewables in electricity, 12% in heat and 10% in transport. Policy interventions are designed to incentivise the market to deliver the necessary renewable generation capacity. The REFIT schemes are the primary means through which electricity from a range of renewable sources is supported in Ireland. These schemes are paid for by electricity customers through the public service obligation.
Although wind energy is expected to contribute most towards the achievement of the 2020 target, diversification of the renewable generation portfolio in the longer term will be important for creating a sustainable and carbon-free electricity system. Biomass will have a role to play and, depending on electricity demand, the full implementation of current policies could mean that up to 5% of electricity might be generated from biomass in 2020.
The choice of technology is, however, a commercial decision for individual project developers and the fuel used in the plant at Moneypoint is a matter for the operator. I have no role or function in that regard. Notwithstanding this, I am advised that a number of important issues would demand further consideration before biomass could be used at Moneypoint. These include the following: the conversion of Moneypoint to biomass would require significant levels of capital investment by the operator; support tariffs substantially higher than those available for wind, which has been the most cost-effective renewable technology in the Irish electricity market, would also be required, which would lead to increased electricity prices; substantially more biomass than is available domestically would be required, with large amounts of the resource having to be imported, leading to questions about sustainability and security of supply; and the commitment of substantial amounts of biomass to Moneypoint would divert scarce biomass away from the renewable heat sector where biomass can be used more efficiently and where fewer alternative technologies exist.
As I have stated, any decision on the choice of technology in Moneypoint is a matter for its operator, having regard to national and EU energy policy.
We must consider matters such as this holistically. We plan to spend €3.8 billion to boost the transmission system so as to facilitate plans for industrial wind farms. This affects people in the midlands, but there is also major concern about and opposition to the proposal to build one of the world's largest wind farms on the Kish bank in Dublin Bay. Conversely, it is estimated that it would cost approximately €380 million to convert Moneypoint, just 10% of our planned spend. It is true that there is not enough biomass in the country to fuel it, but it is also true that the largest coal-burning plant in Britain was recently converted to biomass and has found a source of biomass to supply it at a fixed, reasonable cost.
There are strong arguments to the effect that biomass is much better at helping countries to meet targets. We would need to expand our biomass capacity indigenously, but it is important to note that Coillte has a significant amount of land that could be developed to expand biomass. According to the McCarthy report, 500,000 acres of its land are not being used to grow trees.
I am interested in all of the issues that the Deputy raised and I genuinely thank him for doing so. The Green Paper on energy was published this year by my predecessor, Deputy Rabbitte, and we are moving towards having a White Paper in the middle of next year. I want the involvement of all Members across the House in this issue.
Deputy Boyd Barrett is right about the concerns, particularly in rural areas, regarding wind turbines. I understand, appreciate and respect those concerns. However, we must make decisions for the country's future. If we pull back from wind energy, we must replace it with something else. I am glad that the Deputy acknowledges this. It is easy to say that we should pull back from wind energy without offering an alternative but, in fairness to the Deputy, he proposed biomass. We have considered it. The argument is that the conversion of Moneypoint would cost in the region of €380 million, but that figure has not been independently verified. Regardless, it is a matter for the operator. The Moneypoint facility cannot burn biomass currently, so an investment would be required. One would also need to consider the question of state aid approval in respect of any new support for biomass. Were the targets for biomass similar to our targets for wind energy, there would be a significant additional cost. As such, there would be a knock-on cost for the consumer and the State. These are the issues with which we must wrestle.
I welcome the Minister's statement that we must get together to discuss this matter. Many people with enthusiasm for, knowledge of and interest in this issue must be included urgently. If we do not believe that industrial, large-scale wind farms are the answer, we must develop alternatives. We need that debate quickly. I am convinced that the industrial wind farm model does not give the best value for money and is not the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Although it needs to be investigated, biomass appears to be a better option in the long term and more appropriate for this country, in that we are capable of growing trees at a fast rate and have a great deal of land on which to do so. For example, Coillte has 500,000 acres of land with which it is doing nothing. We could utilise that land to develop alternative forms of renewable energy.
The Deputy's argument is a compelling one, but the other aspect of this debate that we must understand is that biomass, unlike wind, is a scarce resource. We published a bioenergy plan some time ago. Perhaps the Deputy might read it. The view is that biomass is more likely to have a significant role in the heat and transport sectors as opposed to the areas the Deputy is advocating. I am willing to have this debate, but it should be based on facts and evidence. I respect and understand people's concerns about wind energy, particularly turbines, but we must also recognise that we have targets to achieve by 2020. If we pull back from one route, we must take another. Wind has proven to be the most accessible and cheapest form of renewable energy in the State so far, but if we can come up with an alternative, let us debate it together and see how we manage.
4. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his plans to secure the future of the post office network here; the impact that the Government's e-payment plan will have on post offices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40485/14]
My question concerns all issues relating to the post office network, which is at a crossroads according to the information I have received from postmasters and postmistresses around the country. Will the Minister outline his plans to secure the network's future?
It is Government policy that An Post should remain a strong and viable company, in a position to provide a high-quality postal service and maintain a nationwide customer-focused network of post offices in the community. The network stands well positioned to become the front-office provider of choice for Government and the financial services sector for both electronic transactions as well as the more traditional over-the-counter transactions. However, it would be wrong to ignore the significant challenges posed to the future of the post office network in the current economic climate while also taking account of changes in technology and general retail behaviour. The future of the post office will only be secured by its continuing to provide services that large numbers of people and business users want to use and that are sustainable in the long term.
Action 6 of the policy document, Supporting Public Service Reform: eGovernment 2012-2015, states: "Public Bodies will continue to push out e-payment facilities appropriate to their customers’ requirements". In line with this, the Department of Social Protection has developed its payment strategy, which lays out a roadmap for a progressive movement towards increased use of electronic channels in the disbursement of welfare payments. The progressive change to the use of electronic transfer for social welfare payments is one factor being considered in the whole-of-Government review of the scope for providing additional public services through local post offices. This process is currently under way under the auspices of the Cabinet committee on social policy. An Post is aware that this review is ongoing and engagement with the company is being undertaken when and as appropriate. I have also discussed this matter recently with the Irish Postmasters' Union, which was highly receptive to exploring avenues for securing new lines of business for the network.
The current position in respect of the post office network is that information is emerging that An Post intends to cut the remuneration packages for postmasters. Moreover, An Post appears to be playing a game in communities throughout the country. While I do not know what game it is playing, in the case of postmasters and postmistresses who are considering their future but who wish to ensure the post office will remain within their community, even though these post offices are viable, An Post will not give a guarantee that they will be tendered for or maintained. An Post is stating it is necessary to go through the consultation process and I fear this process may simply be a smokescreen or a box-ticking exercise. As I have stated in this Chamber many times previously, it is time for Members to accept the need for a public service obligation in order that the An Post network be maintained and the company should then pursue the business. Moreover, in those communities in which postmasters and postmistresses are considering their own futures, it is time for An Post to be upfront at the outset. It must agree to tender and to seek expressions of interest and that because the post office in question is viable, it will be maintained. It should stop playing this mind-game with communities nationwide.
I will come back to the Deputy.
That is the second new public service obligation the Deputy has advocated since 9:30 a.m. Public service obligations of course must be sustained and must be paid for by somebody and whether it be the customer or the State, someone must carry the cost. That said, I understand the Deputy's point. I had a good meeting with representatives of the Irish Postmasters' Union some weeks ago and they clearly were concerned about a number of issues such as, for example, the general move to e-payments because in their view, which they put directly to me, any reduction in the value of the social welfare contract would affect both their income levels and the number of viable post offices. The offices most at risk are the smaller rural offices. However, I emphasise again there is no Government plan to close post offices. I recall again that the number of post offices closed since the present Administration came to office is 17, whereas the number closed between 2004 and 2011 was 345.
The Government is taking this issue very seriously and it will be addressed by the Cabinet committee on social policy. It had an initial consideration of the network at its meeting on 28 April last. I am unsure when the next meeting is scheduled - I should have checked before coming into the Chamber - but I believe it will be within the next couple of weeks, during early November, when all these issues will be addressed.
At the outset, the reason I used the phrase "public service obligation" is because I feel so strongly that both broadband and An Post's services should be available to every community and citizen in the State. I believe the State has an obligation to make sure these services are available, whether one lives a mile from O'Connell Street or in a remote rural area. The Minister has met representatives of the Irish Postmasters Union, which has rightly been advising postmasters and postmistresses on what is the perceived policy of An Post. Has the Minister met An Post? Has he put it to the company fairly and squarely that it appears to be playing a game with communities throughout the country in respect of their post offices? I refer to viable post offices that have transactions going through them and have a community to maintain them. It is time that An Post gave a commitment that it will seek expressions regarding tenders and will retain such a post office within a community. The Minister must talk to An Post and explain to it that if it is Government policy to maintain the post office network, An Post as an agency of the State must continue that policy and deliver it. In addition, when will the whole-of-Government report that was commissioned by the Minister's predecessor come to a conclusion and when will Members have a discussion on it in this Chamber?
I have met representatives of An Post and I do not accept or certainly have no information available to me to suggest that a game of any kind is being played, as suggested by the Deputy. All Members wish to achieve the same outcome and want a service to be available as universally as possible nationwide. However, one must recognise the changes that have taken place in the pattern of living, of doing business and of economic activity at a local level in particular. Therefore one must try to match the compelling imperative of maintaining a post office network nationwide with the economics of the current position and this is what the Government is trying to do. The Departments and agencies of the Government must be involved in terms of the business being there for the post office network but I do not believe the post office can rely solely on that. There is an obligation all round for all stakeholders to ensure the maintenance of a viable post office network. This is what the Government intends to do and the Cabinet committee will report as soon as possible.
5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will provide a detailed explanation of what is being done with the revenues generated by the public service obligation charge on gas and electricity bills; the amount of money being generated by this charge; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40483/14]
The Minister can see there is a theme to all my questions today on the area of renewable energy.
Yes, I had noticed that.
This particular aspect relates to the public service obligation. As the Minister is aware, there is much anger about sneaky, regressive charges imposed on people in respect of property, parking, water or whatever. I seek detailed information about what is actually happening to the public service obligation levy of €64 per annum that is imposed on people's electricity bills. The levy increased by 50% this year, which is another burden on many hard-pressed families. Where is the money going because it is increasing the cost of living for people? I acknowledge the need to meet our sustainable energy targets but I have concerns or suspicions about where this money is going and whether it is being used in the best way to develop renewable energy and a secure energy supply for this country.
While a healthy scepticism is always important, in this case I believe being suspicious is going a little too far. However, I thank the Deputy for the question and will explain this to him as best I can. The public service obligation, PSO, levy has been in place since 2001 and is the overall support mechanism for electricity generation constructed for security of supply purposes, including peat generation, and for the development of renewable electricity. It is levied on electricity customers only and there is no PSO levy associated with gas bills.
I apologise; that was a mistake.
That is okay, it is just for the record. The levy is designed to compensate electricity suppliers for the additional costs they incur by purchasing electricity generated by PSO-funded producers. The PSO levy is vital to enable Ireland meet its 40% target for electricity generated from renewable sources by 2020, which in turn is important for the achievement of Ireland's 16% EU 2020 target for renewable energy.
The Commission for Energy Regulation determines the PSO levy, which is a charge on all electricity customers without exception. The legal basis for the PSO levy and its method of calculation are set out in regulations made under the Electricity Regulation Act 1999. The annual levy amount for 2014-15 is €335.4 million. This equates to €64.37 per annum for residential customers, €221.66 per annum for small to medium-sized business customers and €34.20 per kilovolt-ampere, kVA, for medium and large customers.
The biggest driver for the levy rise for this year is the lower predicted wholesale market electricity price, which is currently estimated to be approximately 10% lower than last year. This results in lower predicted market income for the plants. In other words, if the wholesale price falls, the plants involved get less for what they are selling. Consequently, there is a lower predicted market income for those PSO plants and therefore, a higher levy is required to cover their allowed costs.
The lower wholesale electricity price is currently being driven by lower international gas prices which we have seen since spring of this year. If these lower gas and wholesale prices are sustained, it will reduce the wholesale cost of electricity that suppliers pay. It is a bit complicated. I might come back to it later.
I need to study the Minister's answer carefully, and I can see it contains quite a lot of detail. What I want to know is the extent to which this money is being used to subsidise private companies. There are many aspects to the anger around Irish Water but one aspect is that money out of people's pockets could be going into the pockets of highly paid executives and consultants and into what is legally a private entity which might be privatised further down the road. Essentially, we are subsidising making other people very rich. I want to know if that is happening with the public service obligation levy. Is the money going into the pockets of private companies? How much of it is going into the pockets of private companies? What are they doing with the money? Is it being used to pay people exorbitant salaries, big bonuses and God knows what else and to make other profits for the shareholders in private companies? I want to know that detail. Can the Minister give us information on the companies that are getting it?
I will come back to the Deputy.
It is in the nature of a subsidy because if the prices these plants can obtain in the wholesale market for their product go down, they have been given a guarantee that the price will be kept at a certain level. We do that for a public interest reason, not just to put money in the pockets of independent commercial people but to ensure we keep up our production of renewables in the country. There is a public interest in doing that. They are private companies. The Deputy can describe it as a subsidy to private industry. I cannot disagree that that is what it is, but it is done for a public interest, which is to ensure the particular plants we want to see operating and the renewables we want to see produced actually happen so that we can keep to our targets, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our dependence on renewables. That is one of the reasons. It is true that these are private companies but the State does not run industry in this country. Obviously, we have the ESB, which is a hugely successful commercial semi-State company, but for us to vindicate the public interest, for example in regard to renewables, we must have this subsidy system in place, and we have had it in place since 2001.
Exactly. We have the ESB, Coillte and Bord na Móna, all of which are hugely successful, and we at least have some capacity to have oversight of those, although I believe we need more, but what oversight is there of private companies? There is fury and anger over the bonus culture in Irish Water, the salaries of its chief executives, the potential that we are subsidising a private company and so on. The Minister is aware of the anger about that. What is going on with €300 million of public money coming out of people's pockets? To whom is it going? Is there any oversight of the way it is being spent? Is this the best way to do it rather than through our own semi-State companies that we own, where all the benefit and value comes back to us and over which we have some real oversight? There have been allegations of political cronyism, particularly in the area of the wind turbine business, that people are in senior positions in that business who have political connections to the Government parties. We need transparency on this and I want to know who the companies are, the mechanisms that are in place to make sure this money is not just being put into consultants' pockets or going towards the payment of big salaries, bonuses and so on. Can we get detailed information?
I have no political connections with any of the companies-----
I am not saying the Minister does.
-----and I am not aware that my party or any of the parties in government have such connections. I can give the Deputy a table - there is no point in reading it out here - of different entities and bodies that benefit from the public service obligation, PSO, contract and the various relevant figures for 2014 and 2015, and for 2010, 2011 and 2012. I have that in front of me and can furnish the Deputy with it.
On the question of oversight.
These are essentially price guarantees. I come back to my earlier point. There is a public interest in ensuring we produce renewables and that this occurs in our system. Effectively, it is a price guarantee. The oversight the Deputy is calling for is to ensure the money that comes out of the fruits, so to speak, of the PSO achieve what it needs to achieve, and I am satisfied that it does. I am satisfied that this does no more than what it says on the tin, which is effectively to be a price guarantee for these companies. It is another issue. We could have a general debate about private sector bad, public sector good, and I am always interested in participating in it. We will not nationalise all of these companies, much as the Deputy might like us to do. That is not realistic, but we can have the debate. I welcome the Deputy raising this issue.
We have to make some progress so I am moving on to Other Questions.
