I understand that Deputy Coveney wishes to initiate a discussion on the heads of the offshore renewable energy development Bill.
Offshore Renewable Energy Development Bill: Discussion.
I had intended to ask about the climate change package. The heads of the Bill mentioned by the Chairman are improving all the time. We are more or less ready to try to get the Government to accept, in principle, the content and purpose of the Bill. I hope the Government will find it difficult to refuse to accept the Bill.
I would like to speak about access to the grid. I am concerned about offshore wind projects, in general. We need to look at what is happening at the moment from a practical point of view. Another 5,000 MW or 6,000 MW of wind projects will be sanctioned under the Gate 3 process. If one proposes a project that will not be providing some of the energy in question, one's project is unlikely to be sanctioned for some time. In the absence of greater interconnection, to provide substitute power at times when the wind does not blow, there is a limit to the amount of wind energy that can come on stream in the island of Ireland. We need to develop our ability to store energy. Many ambitious new offshore wind projects may find it difficult to secure a connection to the grid, and an agreed pricing structure, because they are not at the top of the queue. The regulator has made it clear that the main criterion for success under Gate 3 is the length of time for which applicants have been waiting.
While the draft Bill is excellent, it does not address a fundamental barrier that is affecting offshore wind projects. I refer to the pricing tariff and grid connection difficulties, which are associated with the fact that certain projects are blocking up the system. This legislation is good, but I would like our experts to outline their views on the issues of grid connection and tariff agreements in respect of offshore wind projects in the context of what is happening under Gate 3.
As we are in public session, the experts are restricted in their ability to contribute to the meeting.
I welcome the Bill. It deals with the concerns that were expressed. I compliment everybody involved in it, including the Chairman of the committee. I have a query about the section of the Bill that deals with renewable resources, including wind, wave and tidal resources. If seaweed were to become a realistic energy source, I presume it would be included. Perhaps it is not covered because it is considered to be onshore. I do not know. Is it the case that it does not need to be specified? Does the use of the word "including" mean that other things can be included as well?
I can inform Deputy Coveney that a recent press release made it clear that getting EU permission, which is a slow process, is no longer required in respect of a tariff scheme. The requirement to consult the EU meant that nothing happened for a long time after the Minister's announcement that he intended to pursue a preferential tariff scheme for offshore wind projects. Am I correct in thinking that as the requirement no longer applies, we can put our own scheme in place, thereby ensuring that things happen more quickly?
Will the planning permissions that are granted be limited to a certain timescale? It is clear that some wind energy projects have stalled due to a lack of funding. In other cases, grid connection may be an issue, or will become an issue. Such other issues will come into play even if the planning system is speeded up. If there is a time limit on each permission, those pursuing projects may be penalised on foot of matters outside their control. If there is no time limit, those who have acquired permission may decide to sit on it and hoard it. Perhaps the officials can comment on that.
I welcome the Bill and endorse the remarks that have been made about our consultants and our secretariat. We have heard a great deal about the economic potential of renewable sources of energy for Ireland Inc. One of the roles of this committee is to decide how best to harness that potential. Deputies Coveney and McManus are right to suggest that we need to take the grid system, go through it and produce conclusions on it. I welcome the recommendation that a regulatory impact assessment should be secured from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I suggest that we should ask the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to do likewise. The Bills that are produced by this House have a habit of costing businesses money, unintentionally or otherwise, by the time they are implemented.
I suggest we should ask those who, over the past year or so, have made presentations in respect of this issue at this forum, or have corresponded with the committee, to help us to sell this legislation. We should not be afraid to send the Bill to them for their remarks and feedback on it. We could then commence the normal consultative process on legislation and take ownership of the Bill. I will be pleased to bring the issue to the attention of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. The joint committee should not be afraid to launch the Bill early in the new year and, as it were, put our support behind it. We should indicate that we have completed the heads of a Bill, which is a practical measure to harness the economic potential of renewable resources.
Having secured agreement on the heads of the Bill, it will be referred to next week.
Is it not proposed to formally launch the Bill?
According to my advice, it should be sent to the Minister. It is unlikely that we would receive significant publicity next week, given the time of year. Perhaps we will have a formal launch in the context of the ongoing process of promoting wind and wave technology. I hope the legislation will be picked up by the press office.
Has the joint committee received communications from the Minister indicating how he intends to respond to the legislation?
We have not yet informed the Minister.
We should not send the heads of the Bill to the Minister until he is informed that he will receive them.
Once the Bill has been sent to the Minister, there is nothing to prevent us from having a launch.
The best approach would be to send the Bill to the Minister and have a launch. We should invite the key players, those with an interest in this issue, to the launch or at least alert them that the legislation is in the public arena and try to get feedback from them.
On the issue of asking the Government parties to progress the legislation, it would be a good idea if the Chairman and representatives of each of the parties were to arrange a meeting with the Taoiseach or the Minister. We should inform the meeting that the Bill has been produced with all-party agreement and ask that the Government take action to advance it. This would be in addition to the informal, behind-the-scenes activity. Making a formal request would give weight to the legislation, which could otherwise be lost quite quickly.
We could ask the Taoiseach, as chairperson of the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change, to meet representatives of the joint committee to discuss the legislation.
Perhaps the respective roles of the Cabinet sub-committee and the joint committee could be discussed with a view to putting pressure on the former. The two committees have not met formally since this committee was established last year.
Contacting the Taoiseach directly is not the correct approach, as the line Minister has not been informed about the issue.
We would request a meeting after the heads of the Bill have been sent to the Minister.
The issue should be first discussed with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, even on an informal basis, as he is likely to be supportive of the Bill. The Minister will be most anxious to bring the matter to the attention of the Cabinet sub-committee when he becomes aware of it and would enlist the support of the Taoiseach. We should only contact the Taoiseach if we do not make progress with the Minister. If I were a Minister, I would not be pleased if a committee went over my head and straight to the boss.
I concur with Deputy Hogan. I am uncomfortable with the idea of the heads of the Bill arriving in a civil servant's office before the Minister has been alerted that it is to be sent. This legislation is ground-breaking in the sense that no other committee has ever produced a Bill. I assure members that the natural reaction of the Civil Service will be to try to find an obstacle to place in the way of the legislation. If, however, the Minister is expecting it and believes it to be a good idea, he will be open to it. I agree we should deal with the line Minister before the Taoiseach.
I have prepared a letter to the line Minister to be sent with the Bill with the agreement of the joint committee. I have intended throughout to inform the line Minister first that the legislation has been prepared. One of the reasons for not having a press conference to launch the Bill this afternoon is that it has not been sent to the Minister. We can discuss what action we will take once the Minister has received it. I am open to suggestions in this regard.
The joint committee will not allow this issue to die. As I recall, the original purpose of establishing committees was in order that Governments would submit to them the heads of Bills for discussion before finalising the legislation. This would facilitate an input from committees and political parties. Committees have, however, become vehicles for dealing with Committee Stage of Bills. This was not the original intention. Legislation should be prepared in committees and passed in the House. This is a matter for discussion on another day.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service which dealt with the Finance Bill this morning. Given that tax breaks are available for innovation, the joint committee should pursue the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to ensure it attracts investment for manufacturing turbines for wave power and so on. As an island nation with a significant resource, Ireland should become the recognised centre for this activity. We should advance this issue to ensure the maximum added value is secured from the production of energy and manufacture of turbines, etc. This area could generate considerable excitement.
The development of a supergrid is being discussed throughout Europe. Ireland could link into a European supergrid. This is only the first stage in a very exciting, ongoing programme. Ireland should be able to manufacture the products needed to produce this energy and attract inward investment.
On the content of the legislation, it is critical that Ireland is able to exploit the potential of the €16 billion in funding. If this legislation clears an impediment to accessing this funding, it will be ground-breaking and, as such, requires urgent attention.
A plethora of agencies and Departments deal with renewable energies and technologies, some of which are referred to in the heads of the Bill. Is it possible to have one agency dealing with all issues associated with exploiting the potential for renewable energies and technologies rather than having the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, as well as the Marine Institute, Sustainable Energy Ireland and others doing so? It must be a frustrating experience for a potential developer or investor to go through all these Departments and agencies. If it is easier to access superior and more efficient systems of securing planning permission or getting investment up and running in other jurisdictions, investors will be put off. Perhaps the Marine Institute would be the appropriate agency for dealing with wave energy and ocean technologies. We have an opportunity to rationalise current structures and make investing more palatable.
The purpose of the Bill is to have a streamlined process for making planning applications and securing planning permission. The purpose of our exercise is to ensure the necessary changes are agreed, new legislation is introduced and we endeavour to add value to attract inward investment for manufacture and development.
I apologise for my late arrival. I welcome the legislation. As the Chairman noted, drafting legislation is the purpose of the committee and it is great that this joint committee has produced and is driving the heads of a Bill. We need to take a partnership approach, which will require securing the support of the Minister and his colleagues to get this legislation off the ground and achieve its full potential. How do we know €16 billion is available for investment? Have we sourced it? Given the trying financial times we are in, it is great to think €16 billion is available, as we badly need investment in the country. Do we have any proof that the money is available? If the money is available we need to fast-track it as quickly as possible, both from the point of view of job creation and the renewable resources that we need. The target we must achieve for renewables is 16%. The funding would be more than welcome. We should do everything possible to encourage investment, and go into partnership with others involved in this area so as to drive the investment to the greatest extent and as quickly as possible. I commend the Chairman and the officials on what has been achieved.
First, I have a question on a technicality on section 7, is Ireland's continental shelf all our territorial water or is the continental shelf just on the west coast? Reference is made to an amendment to section 3 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act regarding developments relating to the deployment of technologies to produce electricity from offshore renewable energy resources located within Ireland's continental shelf. We need to check whether that includes the east coast.
The continental shelf includes everything beyond the 12-mile limit.
My understanding of the continental shelf is that it was going west. I must be wrong about that.
As to how we should approach the matter, we should send the Bill to the Minister seeking a response. Perhaps the Minister and his officials could come before the committee to give us their views so that we could have a discussion rather than a political debate. We could hear their views and if they have a problem with the proposals we can try to tease them out so that, if necessary, we can amend the Bill and improve it.
This is not necessarily the perfect finished article but we want to know about the areas with which there might be difficulty and how the Bill can be improved. In other words, we drive the legislation until we get the finished article. There is no reason not to include the Minister and his officials in that process. As other speakers indicated, I believe the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, will be supportive of the thinking behind the Bill. If there is a technical problem that needs to be ironed out then let us iron it out in the committee so that we keep the momentum behind the committee pushing the legislation.
Regarding the 12-mile limit, what is the legislative position once one goes beyond that limit?
It is territorial waters. It is the same as the fishing limits.
If someone wanted to set up outside the 12-mile limit, who would have control of that?
The same principle applies to offshore gas and oil.
That is within the 12-mile limit, but what about outside it?
Once it comes within our authority the appropriate Department would deal with it.
All of the wave energy projects would be within the 12-mile limit.
That is not necessarily the case in the long run in terms of deep sea offshore projects.
The initial ones certainly will be. Why would one go further than 12 miles offshore when the waves are just as big within 12 miles of the shore?
People to whom I have spoken have referred to 20 km. offshore. I accept that is less than 12 miles.
In fact, 20 km. is 12.5 miles.
Section 7(d) refers to the area we are discussing.
What we are doing here——
We should be talking about all of Ireland's water. Is that the Irish continental shelf or is it outside the 12-mile limit?
What we are doing is amending the legislation to allow for future possible developments. Currently, I understand most of the projects are within the 12-mile limit. Therefore, they come under the Foreshore Acts. In terms of future development, we propose to amend the Continental Shelf Act to provide for that. What we are doing is preparing legislation.
We must take into account sea lanes, traffic and other factors.
That is covered by other legislation.
Let us not get mixed up.
I have caused unnecessary confusion. Section 4(9) deals with everything inside the 12-mile limit and that is covered by the Foreshore Acts, which are being amended. I was scanning through the Bill but I had not read it properly. I am sorry about that.
I wish to be associated with some of the comments. I support the presentation of the Bill to the Minister. I thank the Chairman, consultants and members who have been involved. I do not include myself but I compliment those who have taken a keen interest in the development. The legislation is urgently required. We should set out a timescale of how we will achieve that, including when we will send a letter to the Minister, when we will meet him, when we will launch the Bill and when, if necessary, we will meet the Taoiseach.
We should not continue to refine the Bill but we should get it to the appropriate people now and move the process forward. We should try to get the Bill into the Dáil quickly because of the significant benefit that would accrue to the country from what we seek to do. When people from all parties and none see the heads of the Bill, they will be supportive. We should drive on the process and keep up the momentum we have started.
I thank members. As Senator O'Toole indicated, we are breaking new ground. I do not think any committee has prepared legislation previously, certainly not in my time nor before that because there were no committees then.
If the legislation gets the backing of Government it will proceed on Government time. We are preparing a draft Bill that can be sent to the Attorney General's office so that it can be tidied up from a legalistic point of view. It can then be sponsored by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources who will circulate it to other Departments for observations, according to the usual procedure. Following that it would be put on the Cabinet agenda for formal approval and would then be sent for printing. Ultimately, it will be a Government Bill, although we will have done all the homework for the Government. All the Government will have to do is go through the procedures with the Bill, perhaps tidy it up and take on board observations from other Departments. A number of the points that were raised here would be dealt with through that process of consultation with other Departments.
That is the benign scenario. What can happen very easily is that an item of legislation disappears and never re-emerges. We have many examples of that occurring, even with Government-sponsored Bills, where Bills never see the light of day. Deputy Calleary made the point that we should keep ownership of the Bill, to an extent. That is a valid point. I have no problem sending the Bill to the line Minister but I suggest that we launch it after Christmas and that we would have as many of the players as possible attend that event so that we can consult them and, in a sense, try to keep a certain momentum and drive it on. Otherwise, it would be easy for us to be thanked for doing a wonderful job and then for the Bill to be consigned to a drawer. It would be helpful if we can take charge of the consultation with the various bodies, or at least the organisations and developers who want to get involved, so that we can ensure the process is public. The Department can deal with the internal consultation on which it is obliged to embark.
I have no difficulty with launching the Bill in any way members wish. In order for this to go on the Statute Book, a Private Members' Bill would have to be introduced, which means we would have to go through the hassle of introducing it during Private Members' business. Alternatively, we can request that the Government take on the Bill, it is processed through normal Government parliamentary time and the committee is seen as its promoter.
I agree with the concerns expressed that legislation can be buried. As long as the committee is around, however, nothing will get buried. This will be referred to once a fortnight if necessary. People will be asked to explain why the Bill is not progressing.
We cannot get Government parliamentary time and do not have the resources to ensure it can be put through the Attorney General's office. We must go through procedures. There is no doubt, however, that we will push it forward.
If the Minister were to decide this is a good Bill, then when we publish it, acknowledging his support would be beneficial for the committee.
On that the point, Chairman, you have a letter drafted for the Minister.
It is a formal letter.
Are you asking for a response to that letter?
Yes. I will read out the letter:
On behalf of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, I am pleased to enclose for your consideration a copy of the draft Bill prepared by the committee in response to the many representations made to it on the need for a modernised planning framework to develop Ireland's offshore renewable energy potential.
The Bill sets out a number of measures which will help create an improved system for managing the development of offshore wind and wave energy potential. In drafting its proposals, the committee has tried to deal with the issues in a way that respects the need of the environment, the renewable energy sector and the coastal communities, as well as the critical need to both provide for Ireland's energy security and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
It is recognised, however, that a wider consultation process will be needed to help ensure that the measures proposed have the support of the renewable energy sector and other stakeholders, including the general public.
I look forward to hearing your response.
The final report of the European Parliament's temporary committee on climate change on a future integrated policy on climate change is a timely endorsement of the Bill.
If that is agreeable, I will send the Bill to the Minister and take it forward from there.
We do not want the usual Eamon Ryan stuff of "Really good work, thanks very much, I will set up a forum involving the industry and all the players to perfect the legislation", only for it to disappear for 18 months.
Too much time and energy has been spent on this for that to happen.
He is a Green Party Minister.
He is an innovator and I believe the Bill will appeal to him.
Deputy Coveney has no faith in the system.
Members have no faith in the Chairman.
We have put much time and energy into this. We will see it through.
The Chairman's letter states there is a need to consult with the industry and various interested parties. There is no reason that activity must be given to the Minister. Considering the way Departments work, it is inevitable this would take a long time. There is no reason the committee could not take on that consultation process.
Once we have the approval of members to proceed and issue this Bill, we will then put it on the Oireachtas website and invite the various groups to make submissions to the committee with their observations.
We should specify that in the letter. It might be a good idea to include in the letter that the committee will embark, or hopes to embark, on a consultation process soon.
What this committee does is this committee's business. Once the Bill is published, the committee can invite people to make submissions. I do not want anyone thinking we need ministerial permission. This is a Bill the committee has prepared and we are quite entitled to discuss it with anyone we so wish.
We should go with the wind in our sail.
I am not saying we need to seek permission for a consultation process. We can keep the pressure on by saying we are now proceeding to consultation so that the Minister is aware that the Bill has momentum.
I believe it would be better to send the Bill to the Minister. If we do not get a response within several weeks, we will remind him that we are now going into a consultation process.
That is fair enough.
We could ask him to attend the committee if there are any problems. We have the wind in our sails and we should move on.
The tide can go out too.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.15 p.m. and adjourned at 3.25 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 January 2009.