Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 10 Feb 2004

Department Strategy Statement: Presentation.

Under its orders of reference, the joint committee is required to consider the strategy statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources pursuant to section 5(2) of the Public Service Management Act. I welcome Mr. Brendan Tuohy, Secretary General of the Department along with members of the Department's senior management team, Ms Sara White, Mr. Maurice Mullen and Mr. Michael Guilfoyle. Other officials may arrive later.

Mr. Tuohy will make a presentation followed by questions and answers. Mr. Tuohy has another pressing meeting, which he needs to attend and I would be grateful if questions were brief. I wish to draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. While it is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Brendan Tuohy

I thank the committee for inviting us to make this presentation. The director general for the information society is over at the moment. Eamon Molloy will not join us, but I am joining him later for a meeting on EU Presidency matters. I am grateful to the committee for appreciating that.

Rather than using an overhead projector, I will go through the points quickly. My colleagues and I will then respond to the committee's questions. Our broad mission statement is about promoting sustainable development and the management and regulation of the various sectors for which we have responsibility. All of this is in the context of supporting national economic and social policy objectives. The Department has four broad roles. We have a sectoral development or sectoral policy role, that is, we want to develop the telecom sector and marine sector in a national context.

We have a regulatory policy role in the sense that with the Oireachtas we set the regulatory environment in which the different players operate. In some cases we have a shareholder role, for example, the ESB and An Post. As a subset of the regulatory role in some cases the Department is still the regulator. We have a regulatory function on fishing inspection. We have established an independent office for boat licensing.

We also have series of roles, some of which are conflicting. We have a broad responsibility for stewardship of public resources. A broad backdrop to the Department and where it has been in recent years lies in rolling the liberalisation of the different sectors for which we have responsibility and, with that, trying to structure those sectors. Finally we have a role of accountability to this committee, the PAC and through the Minister to the Oireachtas.

I will discuss the strategic context. This year the EU Presidency will take up much of our time. We are servicing five different Councils. The extension of the EU from 15 to 25 countries poses a great challenge for us. The big issue is the Lisbon Agenda, which will be discussed at the March meeting of the Heads of Government. The Lisbon Agenda is about positioning Europe as the world's leading knowledge economy by 2010. For us this is about competitiveness, innovation, a new way of doing business and moving up the value chain.

In more recent times we have seen the impact of the accession states as they prepare to join the Union. The previous approach in Ireland back in the 1970s was to have many well educated people in a low cost economy. However, as we are no longer a low cost economy we must add value. This is what will continue to attract and retain people here.

The economic backdrop needs to be considered, including the international slow down and the beginning of a pickup, particularly in the global economy in the tech sector, and the problems with the US dollar versus the euro. We have seen the impact of this on the multinational companies based here.

With regard to the North-South agenda, our aspiration is to have an all-island energy market and telecoms market. Our focus is increasingly east-west, whether it be an east-west interconnector or east-west relations. In a global European perspective there is a greater movement towards connecting networks across Europe.

I will now consider briefly each of these sectors. The core policy goal in the communications sector relates to positioning the economy in the future and availing of opportunities. It is linked to the Lisbon Agenda, which relates to the knowledge economy. We have had a number of helpful sessions with the joint committee in respect of telecoms infrastructure. The joint committee has not yet produced its report, but I assume we will see it soon.

It has been finished.

Mr. Tuohy

We have had very good and helpful interactions in that regard. We have seen many changes already as a result. The broadband action plan, which was announced in the budget in December, relates generally to a pro-competitive environment for telecoms. I can speak about such matters in the absence of Mr. Eamonn Molloy.

The second area in Mr. Molloy's brief is broadcasting. There has been a restructuring of RTE and there have been proposals for a new broadcasting authority Bill, to be produced later this year. The regulatory and normal shareholder-type functions of RTE will be divided. The latter function is that which would exist in a commercial State company. The issue of conflicting roles arose with the BBC recently in the context of the Hutton inquiry. I am also interested in the corporate governance of RTE and priorities such as dealing with inefficiencies, while recognising that RTE has had to deal with challenges. I do not need to remind the Chairman of some of these conflicts, as he has been very engaged with RTE. I will answer any questions that members of the committee would like to ask in this regard.

The liberalisation of the postal sector is a huge challenge. This is particularly true for An Post, which has developed a new plan and will not be in profit this year or next year. An Post has a cost base of about €700 million and a revenue stream of about €650 million. The gap which needs to be bridged represents a major challenge for the company. For the first time, we saw a drop in volumes at the end of last year. This is a demonstration of the impact of electronic issues. There is a recovery plan in that regard.

I am aware that the joint committee intends to deal with energy in more detail. Mr. Martin Brennan, who is an assistant secretary, has responsibility for this area. It is intended to liberalise the markets and to provide for competitive and efficient regulated markets. The challenges are different to those faced in the telecoms sector. The State remains in ownership of the backbone network system. It is intended to liberalise the market - to open it up to full competition - by 2005. Competitors will come in only if they see a rate of return. Electricity charges remained static for almost 15 years in the past. There was a slowdown in investment. There was very little investment in the networks. We have seen a massive investment, of over €1 billion per year, in recent years. This will help to position us going forward. There has been major shift in our emphasis on the movement towards sustainable and renewable energy. We have to ensure that such forms of energy are developed in a timely manner.

A huge issue in the energy sector is meeting our Kyoto obligations in a way that imposes the least cost on the system, while helping our competitiveness. This is not an easy challenge. We can speak about this matter if the joint committee wishes. The Lisbon agenda is aspirational, but Europe has done what Russia, America and China failed to by signing up to the Kyoto Protocol. The cost to competitiveness of going it alone is a huge issue for Europe.

Mr. Maurice Mullen is the assistant secretary with responsibility for maritime safety. Our aims in this regard relate to safety standards and preventing, as far as possible, the loss of life. We are trying to establish an effective coastguard and monitoring system. The joint committee has discussed certain incidents, such as that in Donegal and the sinking of the Prestige. The fact that we seem to have handled such issues well, by comparison to the international experience, is a great credit to the system. There are huge issues in this regard. There are new safety regulations. A new passenger vessel enforcement regime was introduced in 2003. New life jacket regulations are in place. Such developments might sound simple, but they are hugely important as part of efforts to save lives.

The Department is keen to safeguard the quality of the marine environment. It is intended to phase out single hull oil tankers in EU waters. A draft directive on sanctions for vessel owners who pollute EU waters is being brokered by the Irish Presidency. Certain heavy oil products are being banned from EU waters.

Mr. Michael Guilfoyle is the assistant secretary with responsibility for the maritime transport access ports. Some of the port companies throughout the country are State-owned, but others are privately owned. Given that over 90% of all goods coming into the country come through the ports, we need to examine how to make them efficient and how to ensure that they meet our needs. The ports have to be part of the full international transport chain. The Minister will publish this year a comprehensive statement on the ports policy framework.

We would like to oversee the transfer, to alternative uses under local control, of those remaining regional ports and harbours which do not form part of the national maritime transport system. This will be done under the Harbours Act 1996. We hope to transfer smaller ports throughout the country to local authorities. We are working with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to make such ports more responsive to local needs.

We would like to expand Irish-based ship ownership and ship management and to increase Irish seafarer employment. The Department is working with the Irish Maritime Development Organisation, which is based with the Marine Institute, in this regard. We are assessing the entire maritime sector and helping to fund a port management programme at the National College of Ireland. There will be opportunities in this regard in the future.

We need to examine the opportunities that exist in respect of marine tourism and leisure. We are working closely with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism in this regard, for example on marina projects. We have asked the Marine Institute to produce a new strategy to facilitate marine leisure participation.

Marine research is conducted mainly by the Marine Institute. We are bringing forward proposals in 2004 on a new research, development and innovation strategy for our marine area. The strategy is being developed by the Marine Institute. I am sure the joint committee will be eager to address this issue at some stage.

Professor Cecil Beamish, who has addressed the joint committee on many occasions, is responsible for the area of coastal zone management. The Department intends to support and manage the sustainable use and development of our marine territory. It is committed to effective licensing and regulation of aquaculture, for example. The committee has debated this matter with various interested parties. We realise that there is a potential for conflict between the development and regulatory roles and we will respond to some of these issues this year. We are finalising the arrangements for the monitoring and enforcement of marine finfish aquaculture. The review of the Foreshore Acts is under way and legislative proposals will emerge in that regard, if necessary.

We are considering the challenges of integrated coastal zone management. There is coastal erosion in parts of the country. We are bringing forward a strategy to deal with what may be an expensive and long-term problem. The Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill will enhance the regulation of dumping at sea.

The Department wishes to increase the long-term contribution of the seafood sector to the economy of coastal regions. It is important that we develop this industry, which cannot move because it depends on its location. This is an important issue in peripheral and coastal areas. It is generally accepted that the Minister and his team were very successful when they attended the Common Fisheries Policy negotiations last year. We worked very closely with the industry in that regard.

A key priority of the Department is resource conservation. A new biologically sensitive area is being created around Ireland and various stock recovery plans have been agreed or are being discussed. The joint committee will recall some of the changes we brought about last year in respect of fishery harbour centre fees. This work was necessary from the point of view of the fund that was there. We have started to announce new programmes of investment in fishery harbours. The Minister recently announced arrangements for a new harbour at Castletownbere.

We support the sustainable development of aquaculture in the coastal regions. The development of the industry will involve a quantum change from the present position. There will be a long-term strategy to develop the fishing sector in a sustainable way. The ideas of conservation and development are linked in this regard. There should be an emphasis on sustainable fishing, as opposed to the traditional exploitation of fish, during Ireland's EU Presidency. An independent governing authority for the licensing and registration of sea fishing boats was established last year. We are trying to ensure the efficient management of the fishing fleet capacity.

The engineering section of the Department deals with coastal management, harbours and inland fisheries, matters which come under the responsibility of Mr. Michael Guilfoyle. We wish to conserve the inland fisheries as a viable resource which makes economic and social contributions at national and local levels. We will take a further step in the conservation of our salmon and sea trout stock this year by aligning the total allowable catch of salmonids based on objective scientific advice. We should be fully up to speed on that by next year. A new strategy is being proposed to support the organisational framework for the organisational fisheries sector in 2004. The committee has seen some of the interactions involved and participated in discussions on it.

I move now to natural resources and to mining and exploration. The market internationally is depressed and it is a time of greater emphasis on environmental issues. Recently, the committee was examining the problems of a former mine in Tipperary and could see the difficulties which have resulted from the lack of controls in place during its operation. We are now trying to ensure that exploration and mining development is carried out in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner. Dealing with abandoned mines is not easy. The development of the Corrib gas field has returned to planning stage and will go through the process. We have not been lucky in developing the resources around our coast. Despite a great deal of exploration, we have not had a major success in terms of geology and strikes.

The Geological Survey of Ireland has completed the nation-wide bedrock map series and, with the Marine Institute, has carried out a national sea-bed survey. The agency is working to digitise its various products and make them available. Another key job of the agency involves groundwater protection schemes for different counties, which is very important. There is tremendous expertise in the GSI and great credit is due to the agency for developing that approach.

The Department has faced organisational challenges. Pulling together the different elements of the Department into a single unit has been the work of a year and a half. We feel we are moving ahead and we have begun to develop a new agenda and a new culture. We have signed off on Sustaining Progress and the modernisation and change agendas. We have ideas about establishing the mines safety directors as an agency. Initially, the agency will be within the Department, but it is possible it will move outside in the future. We have similar ideas about some elements of the Department's fishing and seafood sections. Decentralisation represents a great challenge for us, particularly in terms of continuity. We are developing a knowledge management system to capture the knowledge we have before any changes are made and there is movement of people. We are developing a new financial management system, a management information framework and we have emphasised the use of ICT and the Internet.

The question of how to measure performance in a Department like ours arises. We have spent time developing key performance indicators with our divisions. Obviously, the committee will be interested in these. Certainly, we are interested in them from a management perspective. Our intention is to integrate the indicators into business planning and our statement of strategy and to publish them in our annual report.

Thank you, Mr. Tuohy. The presentation was made in record time. Before I hand over to Deputy Coveney, did you have an opportunity to examine the transcripts of the committee's 8 January meeting with An Post?

Mr. Tuohy

I watched the meeting.

I ask you to look at the transcripts as the committee is very concerned about the corporate governance of An Post. I am glad you have referred to that in your Department's strategy statement. The committee is very concerned that information given to it by the outgoing chief executive on 29 January 2003 turned out to be inaccurate. Subsequently, when the new chief executive took over in July 2003, the information available to him was also inaccurate. He found out two weeks later the degree of that inaccuracy. There is a question hanging over the board of An Post as to whether or not it was doing its job properly. The committee may decide in the very near future to go into the matter on publication of the annual report. I presume you have views on the matter given its seriousness.

You are quite correct to state that the committee is starting its energy module on 25 February. Mr. Martin and Mr. Brennan from the Department will, I presume, attend with the Minister. Also, the committee's long-awaited report on ICT and broadband should be ready for publication on 26 February. When you or your officials are responding, you might address these points.

Mr. Tuohy

Do you wish us to take the An Post question?

I do, because it is very important to the committee.

Mr. Tuohy

The Minister has been very concerned. As you know, he wrote to the chairman of An Post last year and asked him to come back to him on a specific recovery strategy which the Department considered very important. He also asked An Post to explain how we got into the situation we did. Front-line responsibility lies with the management and board and it is not the Department's practice to micro-manage any company. On the other hand, as the representative of the State's shareholding function, the Department has a keen interest in what happens. As much of the correspondence is public, the committee will be able to see that the Department was pushing the management of An Post to come up with a survival strategy for some time. The Department felt the company was in a worse position than it had been led to believe.

In terms of corporate governance functions, every board and director has a fiduciary responsibility to the company. It is important that is exercised. I sometimes have a sympathy and an empathy with board members because they are all part-time and very much dependent on accurate and timely information from management. I am not a judge and jury in this case, but I am very conscious of what you have said, Chairman. The Minister is also very conscious of it and of the Department's shareholder and corporate governance role. At the end of last year, the Department held a full, day long session with the Institute of Directors and faculty members at University College, Dublin. A programme was run for all State company directors at which there was a very good attendance. We dealt with issues arising from directors' responsibilities as these are important.

As the shareholder, the Department and the Minister ultimately represent Irish taxpayers. You will be aware that there were serious discrepancies in financial information prepared by the executive of An Post and, presumably, delivered to the board. We have to wait to hear from the board which, I have no doubt, we will call in at some stage. As the information was completely inaccurate, committee members raised the matter here on 8 January. The matter is very serious, but I will not go into today the length of time the Department had also been hoodwinked by An Post prior to the change of management. The committee was misled on 29 January 2003.

Mr. Tuohy

I will not comment on what happened with the committee. The Department has a very good working relationship with the management of An Post now and is in receipt of monthly management accounts, as is the case with RTE.

Is the information accurate? The information which emerged prior to the change of management was supposed to be accurate also. It is a matter of concern to the committee and I am pleased you raised the issue of corporate governance. The committee will examine the corporate governance structures of all the bodies under the aegis of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. You mentioned one other organisation which the committee is monitoring very closely also. I wish to let you know that after the energy module, the committee may very well decide to meet with the board of An Post on publication of its annual report. The members have expressed an interest in private session to meet the board to allow it to account for itself.

Mr. Tuohy

I accept that, Chairman, thank you.

I welcome the Department officials to the committee. It is helpful to have an opportunity to raise some topical questions. I was telling a colleague a few minutes ago that it would be possible to hold a ten hour debate on the issues before us if we were to go through each area in detail. I will stick to half a dozen questions. Deputy Eamon Ryan will probably focus on different topics and among all members, we will hopefully cover the key areas.

I turn first to the issue of emissions trading and the recent recommendations which have been made on ways in which to set cap figures. What role did the energy side of the Department have in arriving at the recommendation issued by the Cabinet last week? What problems does it envisage with regard to the cap figures? While the question may appear overly precise, it relates to a significant policy decision. Once we agree and submit to the European Commission cap figures for approximately 100 of our top companies, above which they will need to engage in emission trading, we will be stuck with them. I am concerned about the decision and ask for the Department's strategies and views on it. Although I do not expect the witnesses to be political, the question of how the cap figures are determined is an important one because they could present a significant problem for potential new entrants to the energy market.

While I want the dirty industries from an emissions point of view to be enabled to continue to operate given that the economy needs them, at the same time, we do not want to reward companies for having high emissions. It appears that a base level has been established which will allow industries to continue to operate as they do at present and will give them a potential significant asset with which to trade if they successfully reduce emissions.

The other policy issue on which the Department should take a much more aggressive approach is also in the energy area, namely, the question of constructing an east-west interconnector between Ireland and Britain. The capacity of the north-south interconnector appears to be insufficient to allow us to trade in energy with Britain. The only way we could produce between 1,000 MW and 1,200 MW of green or renewable energy, an area in which we have competitive advantage due to our wind and tidal conditions, is if we can trade this energy across an interconnector between east and west. The Department must take a much more proactive approach to the question of how to build and fund an interconnector with significant capacity between County Wicklow and Wales, which appears to be the likely route. Will the officials comment?

I will confine my questions to one of a range of issues which arise in the area of communications. When will legislation to establish a broadcasting authority of Ireland be introduced? We discussed RTE, its corporate governance and so forth. It is essential that we establish the BAI as soon as possible. This was part of the deal struck when it was agreed to increase the television licence fee by a significant amount last year. We have still not seen legislation or even heads of a Bill.

The Department's marine function is doing some strategic and good work. The seabed survey, in particular, is an excellent development and we are beginning to move in the right direction with regard to the conservation of fish stocks.

Given the number of questions, many of which relate directly to Mr. Tuohy's officials, I ask Mr. Tuohy to take a note of them.

Mr. Tuohy

I will give a general response.

While I am aware the Chairman is anxious that I conclude, this is a large Department and I have questions on several issues.

I am concerned about the transportation of toxic and hazardous waste, oils and other potential pollutants through our waters, not because we do not have legislation to address the issue - we do - but with regard to our capacity to monitor the traffic passing through our waters. I am also concerned that the Department does not appear to have a strategic approach to handling such traffic, perhaps through satellite monitoring, improved surveillance or other means. We discussed this issue with the Naval Service when we visited its headquarters in Cork and the Department needs to take a strong interest in it because while the legislation may be in place, monitoring remains a problem.

My other bugbear as regards the marine sector relates to the registration of leisure vessels. We need to ensure all such vessels are registered. The shipping register is over-complicated and it is sometimes difficult to register a yacht or leisure craft because it involves a laborious and detailed procedure. The procedure needs to be streamlined and simplified. I am aware of plans to move in that direction and ask the witnesses to outline them to the committee. How can we be serious about planning for marine leisure safety policy if we do not even know how many craft there are and who owns them? This important issue is as relevant with regard to jet skis as to larger boats.

As regards marine tourism, I ask the witnesses to comment, if possible, on a breaking story. We have been informed that a sailing, activity and canoeing centre which received significant grant in recent years has been demolished in the past month because it did not adhere to the terms of the planning permission it obtained. How could the Department sanction funding to a facility without being certain that it is built consistent with planning permission? We need an answer to this question given that €750,000, some €350,000 of which has already been spent, was allocated to a building which has been demolished because it departed from the terms of the planning permission. How could the Department allow this to happen?

Clearly, decentralisation must form part of the Department's strategic approach over the next three or four years. How many departmental staff are willing to move voluntarily? Will the Department encounter problems decentralising its headquarters to Cavan? Will Mr. Tuohy outline the performance indicators being introduced in the Department in line with the benchmarking strategy?

Deputy Coveney always asks many questions. Perhaps Mr. Tuohy would like to spread them out among his officials.

Mr. Tuohy

I will quickly go through the questions and pass the relevant ones to the relevant official. On emission trading and the setting of the cap figures, a Cabinet sub-committee deals with energy and the issue has been dealt with by the Department and the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Taoiseach and Finance.

This is a major issue. For those who may not be familiar with it, part of the commitment under Kyoto involves a slight increase on our CO2 emissions from 1990 levels, with a reduction of 11% to 12% across Europe. The fact that our economy was growing dramatically at the time the agreement was reached has created pressure on our ability to match our commitment. The issue which needed to be addressed was identifying the users. Agriculture, transport and energy are the major sectors. We are concerned on the one hand about industry and, on the other, about consumers. There are two elements to the issue as well as the broad issue of changing behaviour.

I spoke earlier about the problem facing Europe in pursuing the Kyoto agenda on its own and without the Russians, the Americans and the Chinese being on board. There is a real danger that Europe will lose out in the competitiveness league. Mr. Martin will address the specifics later.

With regard to the east-west interconnector, two options are open. Under current legislation only the ESB may assume responsibility for an interconnector because there would be a regulated return on the asset. The Minister will announce proposals for an east-west interconnector in the near future in which he will allow it to be done by the ESB or he will change the legislation to allow others to do it, thus opening up the process. The issue about that is one of size as well, but the general view is that about 1000 MW or two 500 MW would be the way to proceed in terms of opening up the market. Again, I will pass that to Mr. Brennan.

On the communications side, we hope to publish legislation for the BAI in about the third quarter of this year. The problem in the first half of this year is our EU Presidency commitment across all of the sectors. It is very time consuming. The months of March, April and May will be very busy. February has been busy, but not as busy. It is purely a question of resources, but there is a full commitment to doing that.

I will pass the question on the seabed survey to Mr. Guilfoyle. We totally concur with what was said about the conservation of fish stocks. Mr. Mullen will speak on the transportation of toxic waste through Irish waters and its surveillance. We agree that leisure vessels should be registered and Mr. Mullen will outline what we are planning on that front.

My colleague, Mr. Guilfoyle, has been involved with the issue of marine tourism from day one. We issued a press release on that at lunchtime. We certainly had some contact with the media on it. It was on the 1 o'clock news. Mr. Guilfoyle will go through the detail of that.

Decentralisation is Government policy and we will implement it to the best of our ability. We undertook an initial survey which was published. It was a preliminary trawl in which people were asked questions about whether they would like to go to Cavan or any other area. Some 28% of people said they would not mind decentralising somewhere and 6% said they would specifically like to go to Cavan. The experience is that as things progress over time people may opt to go there from other Departments as well, so it is a bit early for me to give a commitment as to what will happen. My job is to drive on the agenda, which we will do, and to make sure that we do not lose much of the Department's expertise in the system. If individual expertise is lost it is necessary to ensure that new recruits to the Department will have the necessary skills. It is a huge challenge for the system and I do not doubt the risks inherent in it, but it is one we must manage and we will do so with enthusiasm and support for the Minister.

I will ask Ms White to speak on the specifics of benchmarking. Many of the issues which cropped up in other Departments were also expressed by our own staff, who have been very positive on this. Competitive interviews and the like are not an issue.

I will pass to Mr. Brennan the first two questions on emissions trading and energy plus the interconnector.

Mr. Martin Brennan

The Deputy recognised in his questions that emissions trading is primarily a concern for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Having said that, it had a consultancy team carry out the analysis and so on and an interdepartmental committee was closely involved in this exercise. When it got closer to decision time there was intensive interdepartmental analysis in a committee chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach. It was a subject of fairly wide consultation and we had fairly strong input into it.

It must be borne in mind that in constructing the design, it had to take account of the constraints in the emissions trading directive. It was not a green field where one could write whatever prescription one wanted. The other thing to be emphasised is that Kyoto only kicks in formally in the period 2008-12. What you are seeing, therefore, in the first phase is what is referred to in the jargon as a learning by doing exercise. The numbers are not that critical, although over time a market value will be put on carbon, which is probably necessary for economic planning across many of the sectors affected by the regime.

The indications given by the Government are at a macro level and the detailed working out of allocations is delegated to the EPA. The Deputy mentioned the question of new entrants. This whole question is something of a double-edged sword because one could be keeping back emissions permits in anticipation of new entrants that might never materialise. That is as true for industry as it is for electricity.

In the case of electricity, there is specific provision for the two known new entrants, the Tynagh project and the Aughinish project. Bearing in mind that the scheme is to commence from the beginning of next year until the end of 2007, they will be integrated as existing projects. A relatively small amount has been held back for allocations to new entrants, which would not be significant in electricity terms but would cater for a number of significant industrial developments.

The Deputy asked about problems and risk. The real risk is of windfall gains, in particular to the electricity sector across Europe. The Minister has asked the regulator to examine the extent to which that issue can be managed. It is one thing to increase prices to change behaviour, but if that results in windfall gains to a small number of players that does not seem to make much sense, but this issue is being carefully monitored.

In regard to the interconnector, if one was starting from today, the earliest one would have an interconnector physically in place and flowing electricity is about 2008. The issues that arise in the short term are whether there is an appetite for a merchant interconnector where a private sector player would build one and take his chances; whether some kind of halfway house of a public private partnership nature is feasible, or whether it would have to be a fully regulated asset. As Mr. Tuohy said, if it is to be a regulated asset - instinctively we think it might end up like that - it will require legislation, because a regulator today can only control and regulate revenue streams to the ESB. There is an issue around whether confining something like this to the ESB would give a bad signal to the market for the long-term development of the sector.

I have a question on the Kyoto Protocol and your target in regard to green energy for 2007, particularly wind energy. There is a great deal of enthusiasm in my area for wind energy projects. Although they have gone through the planning process they now appear to be at a standstill. What is the situation vis-à-vis the national grid and the recent statement by Mr. Reeves, which created a lot of uncertainty in regard to your targets?

Mr. Brennan

You would probably need a grid engineer to come in and explain this properly, but everybody recognises that an isolated grid gives rise to serious technical issues about its ability to absorb above a certain amount of electricity. It came to a head sooner than anticipated because the rate of success of the AER schemes converting from contract award to construction accelerated faster than was anticipated. The reason that happened was because in AER V we introduced a requirement to have planning permission in place in order to qualify. That accelerated the ability of people to convert. Another factor was the growth of wind energy players outside of the contracted system. The two together were a great success from a wind energy point of view but this accelerated the arrival of these technical problems. Some of these problems can only be resolved by improvements in turbine technology which is outside the capability of small country.

We are technology takers. We have certain ideas about how research might unfold but we are to some degree dependent on the industry to help solve this problem, which is a genuine one. If you want to get beyond that top level you would have to get in some of the engineers.

Mr. Tuohy

I might ask Mr. Guilfoyle to take the question on the seabed survey and the one on Kenmare marine tourism.

Mr. Michael Guilfoyle

The seabed survey remains a top priority of the Department. It is almost completed. We are now coming inshore which is the more difficult, but also more relevant and valuable area. It is also more costly. The challenge for us in completing the seabed survey is to make it meaningful from a customer point of view and to realise the value of what we have been doing to date. We have a lot of data which we are pulling together at the Marine Institute. The Geological Survey of Ireland is working closely with us on this and we hope to start producing usable products from the survey as soon as possible.

On budget day 2000, £5.7 million was allocated for four projects, in Kenmare, Cahirciveen, Rosses Point and Roundstone. These were to be flagship projects in advance of an NDP marine tourism grant scheme, which was launched in February 2002. The Kenmare project was estimated to cost about €1.7 million, which included provision for a pier, a slipway and adjoining buildings. The approval from the Department for this project amounted to €750,000, which was 45% of the estimated total cost. It was subject to a number of conditions. Of most relevance to this debate is the condition of evidence of planning and foreshore permissions having been obtained. On 3 December 2001, a payment of €332,000 was made to the promoters on the basis of invoices reflecting mature liabilities and copies of planning permissions and the foreshore lease that had been obtained. These were forwarded to us in advance, along with the details of the expenditure and the breakdown thereof, which we had reviewed.

We accepted in good faith that progressing the project was in accordance with the planning permissions and foreshore lease forwarded to us at the time of the application for the first payment of €332,000.

Is it normal practice to accept in good faith that planning permission is in order when sums in the order of €330,000 are being paid out in grant aid? Should the Department not contact the local authority to ensure that planning permission is in order? Is there no checking mechanism in place?

Mr. Guilfoyle

The application for the first instalment of funding did include copies of the planning permission and the foreshore lease, as we had requested. In other words, the promoters put details of the planning permission and the foreshore lease in a package to the Department. At the time, the construction of the building was not in accordance with the planning permission. It is significant that the promoters forwarded the planning permission and foreshore lease to us at the same time the building was deemed not to be in accordance with the planning criteria by the local authority. With the benefit of hindsight, I accept that the Department should have engaged one of our engineers at the time to examine the building and consult the local authority.

Could a certifying engineer not certify that the planning permission is in order? Could this not be a condition rather than sending engineers all over the country to examine different projects? If one builds an office block or building tomorrow, for example, one's engineer must sign off when it is completed to certify that everything complies with the regulations. If one is selling part of that building, one's engineer has to sign off and certify that it is built in accordance with the planning conditions and regulations. Is this not more practical than sending engineers around the country to look at every project?

Mr. Guilfoyle

It would be the normal process.

Is a new procedure being put in place?

Mr. Guilfoyle

Yes.

Mr. Tuohy

As Mr. Guilfoyle stated, there is an element of trust involved. When the documents were submitted there was certification that planning permission had been obtained and there were invoices. If the building was not constructed in accordance with the criteria sent to the Department, trust would break down.

Consider the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, for example. When filling in one's application for funding for a sports project, one is asked whether one has planning permission. We need to certify, across all Departments, that buildings will be built in accordance with the planning permission and certified before final payments are made.

Mr. Tuohy

The Chairman is correct.

This is a question for all Departments and I ask that a memo be sent to the other Departments, especially the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. Otherwise buildings could be constructed that will have to be torn down.

When grants are given for the development or redevelopment of a school or the building of an extension to a school, it seems to be normal practice, especially within the Department of Education and Science, that an inspector from the Department examines the site where the building is to be built and ensures adherence to planning regulations. It would almost be the case that the Department would be involved in the detail and design if it were helping to pay for the building. I know it is slightly different for the Department of Education and Science because it owns the schools being built. However, taxpayer's money is involved.

Where do we stand at the moment? There is still a significant amount of grant aid unpaid. Although I am a strong supporter of developing marine leisure facilities, particularly along the south coast, we have to follow proper procedure. What is the view of the Department on this?

Can we hear the Department's story on this before we start making judgments? The Comptroller and Auditor General will be very interested in this. The matter will be considered in his next report.

Mr. Guilfoyle

We did insist that the planning permissions were in place before we approved the project and before any payments were made. The problem was that the planning permissions were not fully adhered to. We have indicated to the promoters that there will be no more funding for this project and we have sought legal advice on our position and that of the Minister vis-à-vis the money we have spent and further moneys that have been set aside and allocated for this project.

Will Deputy Coveney state the name of the project for the record?

I do not have the exact name of the project but it was a sailing and canoeing marine adventure centre in the Kenmare area.

Does Mr. Guilfoyle know the name of the project?

Mr. Guilfoyle

I cannot remember the exact title.

We will come back to it.

The total cost of the damage amounts to €330,000. Is there any indication that the Taoiseach or Deputy Healy-Rae made very strong recommendations to the Department on this matter?

About what?

Recommendations that this project should be approved.

What has that to do with it?

Some €330,000 of our constituents' money is lying on the ground at the side of the Kenmare River. Were strong representations made by the Taoiseach and Deputy Healy-Rae? This matter arose in the era in which the Government hung by Deputy Healy-Rae's cap. That is what kept it in power.

I can see that Deputy Broughan and I will fight again today. A political question is being asked which is not part of the strategy statement. We are concerned with Deputy Coveney's question on whether the right checks and balances are in place. We will return to this when we have taken questions from the other members who are offering. I wish to take questions from the other members, otherwise I will again be accused of favouring Deputy Coveney. I note Ms White has a question to answer. I also want to bring in Senator Kenneally, otherwise I will be in trouble.

Before we finish on the Kenmare project, I wish to point out that Deputy Broughan has raised a valid concern. I do not expect the Department to comment on the political question. I understand that a top official in the Department recommended that this project should not be given the funding it was granted. I presume the Department has a reason for that decision but it was overruled by a Minister and the Taoiseach. Perhaps we could establish whether the Department was recommending funding for the project.

Is this a matter for another day? Is it one the committee should consider examining in its entirety? It does not have anything to do with the strategy statement. With due respect to the Deputy, the matter has been sprung on the committee. I am not stopping members from asking questions. However political questions have been asked and I do not expect the officials to answer them. The Minister is due to attend a meeting of the committee on——

May I make a suggestion?

We could put this matter to the Minister at that time.

In regard to the project in Kenmare——

We have gone off on a tangent.

This is the committee that invigilates the Department. The Chairman will remember Harold Macmillan's famous phrase, "events, dear boy, events are what determine what happens". This event came to our attention today. It concerns this Department and funding by it.

I note the total cost of the damage is €330,000, incurred as a result of people building a structure without it having been granted planning permission. Is the format for the awarding of major grants that we would examine the Estimates prior to Christmas or would the developments be inspected step by step as they took place? That is a question Deputy Coveney rightly asked.

That is no more than one would do for a sportsman. This has wider implications.

Mr. Tuohy

May I may a comment?

I ask Mr. Tuohy to be brief as I wish to move on because other officials must answer for ComReg in respect of which there are a number of issues.

Mr. Tuohy

Michael Guilfoyle made it clear that these were four flagship projects proposed in advance of the NDP-marine tourism grant - that is the first issue. In regard to the other issues Deputy Coveney raised concerning fisheries, harbours and so on, our engineers are intimately involved in them. This relates to a new series of grants and a new programme that was due to come in under the NDP, and these were the first four flagship projects in advance of that.

As Mr. Guilfoyle said, the process adopted required the person concerned to obtain planning permission, foreshore permission and coming back with the certified expenditure. The problem is that it appears the individuals or the company concerned did not build in accordance with the planning permission. They had sent in material to us with the planning permission and the Deputy correctly raised the point that this issue was not picked up. This was a new type of scheme. Since then we have a process in place whereby our engineers become involved in all projects.

Does Deputy Coveney wish to deal with this matter at another meeting?

Can we leave it at that, as other members wish to ask questions on the strategy statement.

I am happy to do that.

Before we finish the meeting we can arrange to——

Can we have a meeting on this matter?

Absolutely. That is what I am asking the members. I have no difficulty with that.

That would be more appropriate, as the other members wish to contribute at this stage.

I ask Ms White and Mr. Mullen if they would mind postponing answering the questions put to them, as Senator Kenneally has to attend another meeting.

I welcome Mr. Tuohy and his officials and I will not delay them too long. This statement is so broadly based that one could ask questions on it all afternoon. I will concentrate on a number of questions on the marine area, which will probably come as no surprise to members as I come from the maritime county of Waterford.

Cecil Beamish, in particular, will know that the harbour facilities in Dunmore East have been a bugbear of mine for a long time. We are talking about a strategy and it appears that the Department has a strategy to develop every major fishery port around the country except those on the east coast, namely Dunmore East and Howth. I will not speak for Howth because Deputy Broughan is present and Deputy Martin Brady will return to the meeting and they can speak for it, if they wish. However, I am aware of the position in Dunmore East.

A number of years ago Dingle was developed. A great deal of money has been invested in Killybegs, Rossaveal has been developed and an allocation of €25 million was announced recently for Castletownbere. The strategy seems to be to develop the west and south west coasts, but not the east coast. I cannot understand that. I have asked on numerous occasions in recent years when development will take place in Dunmore East but nobody can give me an answer. I ask it again at this meeting.

The need for such development has become more pertinent because of a situation that has arisen on the north wharf in Waterford city, of which Mr. Guilfoyle will be aware as he attended a meeting in Waterford recently. A number of the larger trawlers have been using the north wharf to discharge their cargoes because there is no room for them to do so anywhere else. The harbour facilities at Dunmore East are not large enough at this stage to facilitate such discharge; they are chock-a-block. The owners of the trawlers have had to use the quays in Waterford city to discharge their cargoes, which has not caused any difficulty to date. As many people will be aware, they are up for tender in respect of a major development proposed and are about to be closed. Therefore, that facility will not longer be available. What is the Department doing to make berthage available for those vessels to ensure that they will not be sent away from the south eastern part of the country?

I understand that a facility to discharge cargo could be made available at Belview, but that is no use in the long run, as those vessels also need berthage. If the Government had the foresight to develop Dunmore East, we would not be facing this problem, and we would also benefit from the added bonus on the marine tourism side, of which Mr. Tuohy has made great play today. All interests involved are agreed on what should be done to develop a proper marina in that area. I want to know when will it will happen.

With regard to the Waterford harbour, Mr. Tuohy spoke about the development of harbours in the future. What are the future plans for Belview and for the amalgamation of the ports of Waterford and New Ross and of other ports around the country?

With regard to salmon fishing, Mr. Tuohy referred to conserving stocks in the future. This issue is an old chestnut. Salmon fishermen want to buy y out their licences, but nothing seems to be happening about it. In my area, in particular, the season is getting shorter. Salmon fishing is being made unviable for fishermen. It is time to grasp the nettle and to do something to bring this proposal to fruition.

Before Mr. Tuohy responds, is Deputy Broughan in a hurry? Does he have any questions?

Yes. I thank the Chairman for that. With regard to decentralisation, is the Department in the practice of liaising continuously at senior level with other Departments? Does Mr. Tuohy envisage any problems in that respect in the future? Broadband technology comes under the remit of the Department, but even given that, face-to-face conferences are often the most significant. That is certainly the case from our side of the desk. Are there special costs involved?

Does Mr. Tuohy consider it ironic that Cavan was the chosen location? Cavan has many fine attributes and it is also the county from which the Ceann Comhairle comes. Is the designation of Cavan a little like the scenario of the Swiss navy? When Mr. Tuohy's colleagues in other countries are looking for the port in Cavan in years to come, will they not find such a designation a little strange? Will this type of messing survive the next Government? While I strongly support decentralisation and regionalisation, what Fianna Fáil has done so far is not decentralisation. Are there special costs in the role of the strategic management of the Government?

At one of our last meetings we asked some difficult questions of ComReg. In its defence, it seems to us that everywhere we look, especially in the area of mobile communications but also in the areas of fixed lines and broadband, there has been market failure. Yet we seem to be chasing the ball. For example, the committee invited representatives of the mobile communications companies to respond to the complaints of many constituents, but we found that ComReg was about to start a market analysis, which it has now done. We always seem to be behind. Are there plans for a more significant regulator, perhaps along the lines of what is done in the UK, for all the telecommunications markets? We asked ComReg some tough questions about its powers that could properly be directed at the Minister and the Department. Is there any strategic plan for the Government in the area of digital broadcasting? While there is no intent to move ahead as the Germans have and switch off analogue broadcasting, is anything planned in the area of the digital challenge?

The matter of corporate governance was mentioned. Is it true, as the Communications Workers Union say, that the transformation promised was delivered in terms of savings made by the company? In this case, should the ESOT not simply be delivered as quickly as possible? There are many significant State boards under the remit of the Department. I am sure those in the Department were glad to pass the area of forestry back to the Department of Agriculture and Food. While the Department is an enabling one, it has a vast reach in our national life. Do the representatives think it is time to consider appointing boards of directors of semi-State bodies in a different manner? Should we consider this again, given the failure of the board of An Post?

I had intended to ask a couple of questions about energy, but these have been asked. The ESB seems to be happy about the Kyoto protocols and seems to be looking forward to some kind of windfall. I do not know how that will operate. Over the last couple of months I have raised some concerns about the development of the ship register. What is the role of the maritime development section in the Department? Have the concerns of the public about the ships that were being put on the register coming up to Christmas been taken into account?

I am glad the Deputy asked about flags of convenience. I saw him referring to this on television over Christmas and I could not but disagree with what he was saying. I will be interested to hear what Mr. Mullen has to say about that.

My question pertains to marine safety. I do not live in a maritime county but in a lake county, Westmeath. I am deeply concerned, as are most if not all of the elected Members in the county, about water safety. I do not want to be a killjoy, but I believe the actions of some people on our lakes and rivers are dangerous to the lives of others. One need only refer to what happened in Cobh as well as several other incidents. One Sunday evening some years back there was a fishing competition on Lough Ennell and three fishermen in a row came to my door to complain about the activities of some jet ski and ski boat users. I would be the first to confess that the waters of our lakes and rivers are for everybody, but cognisance must be taken of other users.

The representatives' statement refers to establishing, promoting and enforcing safety. What does that mean? How will it be enforced? Will boats be licensed? Who will police this? What will be the function of the safety agency that is being established? Will it be necessary to enact legislation to ensure the objectives set out in the marine safety policy statement? Can it be done through regulations? I acknowledge the co-operation I have received from the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. I led two deputations to the Minister of State and he and his officials have been most co-operative. However, I am anxious to see action on this matter.

Ms White and Mr. Mullen may answer their questions first and then the Secretary General may answer some.

Mindful that we still have some ground to cover, I will be brief. On the matter of benchmarking and the Sustaining Progress action plan, Deputy Coveney asked whether we could benchmark our performance - whether we could demonstrate through robust performance indicators what we are doing. We set out some of the key business in hand in the section of the presentation dedicated to organisational challenges and strategies. Without being complacent I note, as the Secretary General said, that unlike a number of Departments we have for a number of years had 100% competitive, merit-based promotion. That should be the norm in any event.

We are working on the management information framework and a range of issues which will essentially bring significant efficiencies and innovation to the organisation. That involves many steps in terms of improving teamwork within the Department, delivery and understanding of deliverables by heads of function and divisions, robust business planning, setting and meeting targets and measuring delivery on the sectoral outputs and outcomes as well as organisational change. Robust financial management and being able to access the kind of management information we need for informed decision making is key to all of this. A range of actions are set out in the action plan which, in their totality, are delivering and will continue to deliver a significant amount of change.

We have been advancing a teleworking and e-working policy, which is important in the context of decentralisation and also quality of life for staff. We have a well developed policy of recruiting and placing graduates within the Department, which is important from their own development perspective and also in terms of building the capability and knowledge within the Department. We have a good reputation in the area of ICT, in some cases an excellent reputation, on which we are building further. We are an e-enabled Department in many ways; we are working on e-government projects from a sectoral perspective as well as from an internal perspective. We aim to spend 5% of payroll this year on training and development. The quantity of money is one thing, but the focus on training and development is another. We are working closely with staff and considering organisational requirements for delivering this.

We now need to align the decentralisation project with the modernisation agenda. The Secretary General referred to knowledge management and business continuity issues. We want to lift the game right across the organisation in the context of a decentralisation and regionalisation programme, which will also help to address the issues to which Deputy Broughan referred concerning the means of working. That is a challenge and we will all be involved in dealing with it and coming up with strategies. I am confident this can be done.

Mr. Maurice Mullen

On the transportation of toxic waste, the Deputy is correct in that we all agree there is enough legislation in place at this stage, including under the international conventions. The focus has been on certain issues, such as ensuring the vessels are of a higher standard. The work of the IMO, which has been going on for some time, is improving standards.

The reporting arrangements under the agreement on ship destinations are in place. There was criticism that people did not know where ships were, even if they complied with the Basel agreement. The situation will be improved by the ship security regime where route plans must be in place. Linked to that, we are developing an automatic ship identification system so any ship going through our waters will be identified by the Coast Guard.

We are also examining the aerial surveillance of pollution. Ireland and five other member states have put forward a proposal to the International Maritime Organisation for the recognition of a particularly sensitive sea area between France, Britain and Ireland. While it is primarily aimed at oil tankers, it will in time extend to cover ships carrying toxic cargo. The focus until now has been on the safety of vessels but we are now moving towards knowing a vessel's route and destination. Through the identification system we will be able to monitor ships.

Could we deal with flags of convenience? I disagree with what Deputy Broughan said so I would like clarification.

Mr. Mullen

Ireland has accepted onto its register a number of vessels owned by companies registered in the European Union but without offices here. The implication, however, that Ireland is a flag of convenience is absolutely wrong. The difference between a flag of convenience and Ireland is that a flag of convenience has no surveyors and privatises everything. We have a full corps of official surveyors and every ship on the register is surveyed by them. If a ship meets the international standards and the conditions of registration, it is allowed onto the register.

An argument arose about whether those companies registering ships should have an office in Ireland. We do not insist on that because it is against European law and Irish owned vessels are registered under other flags. Ireland does not operate a flag of convenience in any shape or form and any ship on the register meets international standards.

Did our surveyors inspect those ships that did not come to Ireland?

Mr. Mullen

Any ship under our flag will be surveyed in the port in which it docks.

Are they inspected by Irish surveyors?

Mr. Mullen

Yes.

At least one of the countries I mentioned is not yet an EU member state.

Mr. Mullen

The only companies that are entitled to sail ships under the Irish flag are registered in the European Union. The companies that presented these ships have registered offices, most of them in Italy.

Mr. Tuohy

Senator Kenneally asked about the harbour facilities at Dunmore East. There was a programme of harbour development in recent years - Killybegs received over €50 million in investment - and we are continuing that programme. The Minister announced the first fund in Castletownbere but that is not the only fund.

Why do we not appoint harbour masters to Howth and Dunmore East?

Mr. Tuohy

That is part of the package of measures we are trying to put in place in the fishery harbours. Harbour masters are departmental staff so we must get approval from the Department of Finance. Places that are not very busy do not pay a salary that reflects the work involved. Good people must be paid a good salary but a small harbour may not have enough work. We are discussing this with the Department of Finance, it is not just about building the harbour.

Howth and Dunmore East are being downgraded by not having harbour masters.

Mr. Tuohy

There are vacancies at the moment but that does not mean they will not be filled. We are discussing our programme for the fishery harbours and their management is a key issue.

Berthage was mentioned. The Waterford port company decided to sell its north quays area and that does not involve us. While Mr. Michael Guilfoyle has been helpful to the company, it is a matter for the port, not for the Department.

There are also ongoing discussions about amalgamation. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, has spoken about the need for rationalisation. We will make proposals in the Minister's review of the ports, as I mentioned in the initial submission.

We are about to publish this year's salmon figures and there will be full scientific figures by next year.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The south coast ports versus the other ports were raised. The total level of investment in fishery harbours has increased significantly in recent years. In the late 1990s the two significant developments on the south coast were completed. Since then, major investment has taken place in Killybegs ,which will be completed this year but which takes half of this year's budget. Killybegs would by far outweigh all the other major pelagic fishery ports in fish landing volumes.

Castletownbere is the premier whitefish port in the State and the Minister has announced a project over the next two and a half years to complete a project begun some decades ago to create an integrated marine seafood industry centre there.

There has been significant expenditure on the lowering and shaping of the sea cliffs at Dunmore East harbour, cliff stabilisation works on the harbour road and repaving of the harbour area. The long-term structural development required in Dunmore East has been the subject of significant discussion and a port users group was established to look at the issue. Major pier development is needed. There will be further examination of that issue during the year but the Minister is still considering the details of the project. It will be a multi-annual project and work has commenced on it. Initial work done last year and we are considering how to make progress this year.

Mr. Michael Guilfoyle has been dealing with Waterford specifically. The vessels involved there are incapable of using Dunmore East which does not provide a short-term solution. Therefore, it is being looked at in the context of the Waterford Harbour Port Company, with which my colleague, Michael Guilfoyle has been dealing.

I remind the members that we must look also at a number of Commission regulations. The Order of Business is under way and some of the Opposition members have left, not out of disrespect to the officials. I am conscious of the time element, and that we must finish this ComReg discussion. A number of questions were asked relating to Mr. Guilfoyle's area.

Mr. Guilfoyle

The Senator is correct in that I did facilitate a meeting. As the Secretary General says, the matter of the accommodation of the fishermen in Waterford is one essentially for the port management and the fishermen. Constructive dialogue is on going between them. A question about the future of Bellevue was asked. The committee will be aware that Waterford Harbour is in financial difficulty. There are dredging problems associated with the future of Bellevue. We are currently working with the Department of Finance on a business plan for Waterford Port in an effort to see it through its current difficulties, which are essentially due to a pension fund deficit and an outstanding AIB loan.

A consultant's report which we got last year recommended a number of amalgamations of ports with a view to rationalising port activities and capacities in Ireland. Dublin and Dún Laoghaire were specifically mentioned, as were New Ross, Waterford and Rosslare. We have met the management and board chairmen of those ports, and there are dialogues in progress. The Minister will decide what stance to take regarding a policy statement which the Secretary General has mentioned. We will publish a report on ports policy in the first half of this year, and will look for amalgamations only where they make sense.

Buy-outs in the salmon area are not currently a live issue. Our policy is to maintain a sustainable commercial fishing activity. Buy-outs are expensive and may not be cost effective. Our current policy on the conservation of salmon and sea-trout is progressive alignment of the catch, whether recreational or commercial, on the scientific advice. That is currently going through an intensive process with the National Salmon Commission and the managers of the fishery boards. As the Secretary General has indicated, our plan is to align the catch on the scientific advice by next year. We are making good progress on that. That is our approach to conservation, rather than buy-out.

Mr. Mullen

We have identified that local authorities can introduce by-laws for jet skis in areas directly under their control and we are encouraging them to do so. The problem involves water not under their control, for example in lakes.

That is fine. That is why I asked about registration arrangements.

Mr. Mullen

The Minister is currently preparing draft legislation which will enable local authorities to introduce regulations in waters not directly under their control. This is a priority.

That is welcome news.

I am advised that the Opposition members and our own members have to go into the Chamber. I propose that after Deputy Eamon Ryan's question we finish with the strategy statement. I hope Dr. Beamish is not in a hurry and that he might wait until after the Order of Business, when we will return and finish with the regulation that we must deal with today.

Dr. Beamish

Two of my colleagues, Denis Maher and James Lavelle were going to take the two specific points.

Certainly.

I have three short questions, all related to one topic. Sustainability is supposedly to the forefront of everything we are talking about. I see no evidence of sustainable policies being developed throughout Departments in general, but in any areas I cover we use the word like a rag to cover over a completely unsustainable policy. In energy we talk of reducing CO2 emissions while in reality we are allowing for an increase. In fishing we talk of conservation, while there is an increase in the quota of fish we are taking out. We talk of protecting salmon yet we are allowing indiscriminate offshore out of sea dredging which anyone interested in conservation or sustainability knows is not sustainable.

I could note many areas of unsustainability. Regarding energy, I cannot agree with the contention that it is the dramatic success of the AER project that has us in difficulty with the grid at present. It is years of neglect in setting up the systems that should be put in place to allow removals onto the grid. Has the Department a target of megawatts in order that we can get on the grid by 2008? Does it agree with the Garrett Hassan report which says there are no technical restrictions or limitations that seriously come into play until one goes over 2,000 megawatts under the current system? Does the Department agree that some 2,000 megawatts of power can be introduced within the next four to five years, or does it believe that this figure is too high? If so, what is the maximum figure the Department accepts?

Regarding fisheries, is there a single conservation measure introduced that can be shown to have a major effect, technical or otherwise, in reducing the unsustainable nature of our fisheries policy? We talk of these great conservation measures we are introducing. Has any been shown to have a scientific effect?

We cannot restrict sustainability to commercial sustainability. Sustainability requires a mix of economics, social and environmental sustainability. We concentrate purely on economics and that does not give a correct definition. Can the Department commit to what the Minister alluded to in his speech in response to a Dáil question, namely that we will go to single river management, and start taking scientific measurement in terms of how many salmon are going up each estuary, with the number taken from that estuary therefore based on what is sustainable for that estuary, rather than having a net 30 miles off the Cork or Kerry coast which takes salmon in an indiscriminate manner from the rivers Liffey, Nore, Barrow, Suir or Slaney? Are we going to start being sustainable in terms of operating that conservation method, or are we happy to see the continuing decline in wild salmon stocks? The three questions are: what is our target for renewable wind energy in the next five years, what conservation measures are we talking about in terms of fisheries, and what is our proposed timetable for the introduction of single river management in terms of wild salmon conservation?

Mr. Tuohy

We are committed to sustainability, and I do not agree with the Deputy in that area. The Minister has made the issue of sustainability clear within the Department. The Deputy talked of different facets. One cannot simply close down different areas. One must graduate towards that. Mr. Guilfoyle has made the point on the salmon issue, that by 2005 the scientific evidence will be in line with the salmon catching side. People's livelihoods depend on these issues too and one cannot change a system overnight.

Regarding energy, if one of the transmission system operators, Eirgrid, says that the system is at risk if one goes over a certain amount, then it would be imprudent for the Minister, and for the regulator, not to take note of that. This is not an issue in which we have expertise. While we have a policy role, one is relying on the people charged with the responsibility to advise one. There is no doubt that we are committed on the energy side to renewable energy and greater use of it. The Minister has stated this a number of times. That must be built into the system so that the technical issues involved and the stability of the network are not compromised. I understand there is a figure in Denmark of about 17% to 20% of the network, after which there arises a real issue of the stability of the networks. This is a new technology, as the Deputy is well aware, and network stability is an issue. I will ask Michael Guilfoyle to respond on the third element, dealing with the broader issue of conservation and river management.

Mr. Guilfoyle

As I mentioned, the plan is to have a programme of aligning the catch on the scientific evidence, and a great deal of work is being put into that by our scientific establishment in the Marine Institute and elsewhere. A good example of what we might aspire to in Ireland is the way in which the North-South body, the Loughs Agency, operates its fishery in Derry. It does so on the basis of information on the passage of fish up and down the river and the carrying capacity of the catchments. It allows and disallows commercial fishing on the basis of those data. For several years, a very effective, sustainable fishery based on scientific evidence and data to support it has operated there. We are probably a long way short of that in the South because we do not have sufficient data-collection installations. However, we are working towards that. By 2005, we hope to have an alignment of the catch on scientific advice. The issue of interceptor fishing, to which the Deputy is referring, is very important and has been addressed in several reports. It is proposed that we move to a single-stock or single-river management approach. I cannot give the Deputy a timetable on that, but it is a concern and an aspiration for the future.

Why is it not possible, given what they have achieved in Derry regarding counting of fish in major rivers, to have a timetable for phasing out indiscriminate drift netting at sea? We are concerned here with a long-term strategy here. Everyone agrees that it is the right way to go and that it is a hugely important stock for conservation and economic interest. Why is it not possible for us to set a timetable to achieve that?

Mr. Guilfoyle

The management of the Foyle represents current best practice in Ireland. We aspire to replicate it around the country. However, we are talking about a very expensive infrastructure of fish counters. The Deputy is probably aware that fish counters are extremely difficult and fickle pieces of equipment. We are working to install the best infrastructure that we can get. We have not done that yet, but we are working towards it in the context of the resources that might be available to us. At some point - we hope in the not too distant future - we will have throughout the island a system for the sustainable management of salmon based counting and the scientific evidence. I cannot give members an exact timetable for that, but we have made great progress on the management and conservation of salmon relative to the situation two or three years ago, when we did not have a quota system and did not feed in the scientific advice. We now have a regime and a programme which will go a long way towards a sustainable management of the salmon resource. We have yet to achieve that completely.

Mr. Brennan

The first thing to be said is that, in calling for a moratorium on grid connection offers, the transmission operator spoke in terms of the risk to the safety and security of the network. I do not think that any regulator, Minister or civil servant will ignore advice based on safety concerns. Regarding the Garrett Hassan report, that is like scripture and can be quoted in support or in defence of any cause. The conventional view is that, for the whole island, about 800 MW can be accommodated safely and that, beyond that, one needs to have advances in voltage regulation and the ability to constrain the wind power at certain times. The constraining of wind had an impact on the economics. The industry must improve the technology to facilitate voltage regulation at the turbines and so on. We have issued a public consultation document about the future of wind energy. The closing date for submissions is very soon, and based on what we get from that, we intend to review where we are. However, our current target of 500 MW was set in consultation with the industry within the lifetime of the previous Government. The group was chaired by Professor John FitzGerald.

Another point to make is that there is no longer much disagreement in the wind energy industry regarding the moratorium. It is now widely recognised that there are serious technical issues to resolve, and the focus is on that. There has been total transparency. Both the regulator and the grid spelled out in CityWest some time ago what exactly the issues were, and there has been very little dispute concerning their analysis. We will move to a new target. Our current target is 500 MW.

Before I thank the Secretary General for the strategy statement, I would like to check something. Is Mr. Reeves the electricity regulator? To whom is he responsible?

Mr. Tuohy

To the Dáil committee in the same way as ComReg.

Perhaps Mr. Lenihan might send to the Secretary General an e-mail we received from somebody pointing out that at a recent conference, Mr. Reeves said that he was not responsible to anyone. We will deal with that when he appears before us very shortly. Perhaps Mr. Tuohy might conclude with any additional points, after which we will suspend until five minutes after the Order of Business. I beg the pardon of the two officials, who will have to wait until the end of the Order of Business, after which we will take the management of community tariff quotas for certain fishery products.

Mr. Tuohy

I thank the committee and chairman on all our behalves. Every time we come before the committee, we go away with homework, and today is no different. We know that the committee is systematically going through the different areas of the Department, and if we can help on any of those at any time, we are more than willing to do so. The statement of strategy is a living document. It was put together within six months of the new Government's formation.

I take some of Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments. We are now thinking about the next step in the statement of strategy, and over the next 12 to 18 months we will be examining that. It has a three year life. We will be very keen, if people have ideas or suggestions, to engage them, either bilaterally or through the committee, to take some of them on board. Some of that will come out of the work that the committee has done in the different areas at which it has looked. My colleagues and I would be keen to see input from everyone on that. Wisdom is not exclusively in any one area, and we are more than willing to accept that some very good comments are coming out of the committee.

Thank you. Perhaps Mr. Tuohy would be kind enough to send on a list of the State boards for which he is responsible in the various areas and a list of board members. I will ask the Clerk to send him a copy of our work programme for the next six months, which deals with energy. I have no doubt that we will be engaging with Mr. Brennan and whomever else appears on 25 February. Then we have Mr. Reeves in the first fortnight of March. We are looking forward to hearing from him. Following that we will consider the different energy modules.

Sitting suspended at 4.40 p.m. and resumed at 6.40 p.m.
Top
Share