Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 2004

Vote 30 - Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Revised).

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. A draft timetable for the meeting was circulated. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. On 26 February, the Dáil ordered that the following Revised Estimates for the public services, inter alia, be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 30 - Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I thank the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resource, Deputy Ahern, and his officials for attending our consideration of the Estimates.

Before commencing, I welcome Deputy Ferris to the meeting. It is his first meeting as a member of the committee. I thank Deputy Morgan for his work over the past 12 months.

I thank the committee for its invitation to discuss these Estimates and compliment the Chair on the work carried out over the past year, particularly with regard to the scrutiny of EU proposals during our EU Presidency. With me are my Secretary General, Mr. Brendan Tuohy, Deputy Secretary General, Ms Sarah White, Ms Úna Nic Giolla Choille, Mr. Brendan Hogan and Mr. Jim Lynskey. Also with me are Dr. Cecil Beamish and Mr. Maurice Mullen. One or two others may join us shortly.

My Department's wide-ranging economic remit contributes to growth, competitiveness and balanced regional development. In a challenging public finance climate, my objective is to deploy the resources as much as possible to meet the economic and social objectives of Government. The Estimate before the committee for 2004 provides for a net expenditure of €257.582 million. This is a substantial provision which underpins critical priorities across the communications, energy, marine safety, seafood, marine research, natural resources and broadcasting sectors.

I will outline some of the details of this spending. Under subheads B1 and B2 we have maintained the level of funding for critical marine safety services at €30.877 million. This includes a provision of approximately €26 million for the Irish Coast Guard. This reflects my strong commitment to deliver on high standards of safety in search and rescue in line with our national and international obligations and the interests of public safety. I will bring forward proposals to Government shortly on the establishment of a coastguard agency which basically merges the maritime safety directorate of my Department and the coastguard into one agency which will be based in Drogheda, County Louth, and which will have a strong regional presence around the country.

Some €27.762 million is provided for seaports, harbours and tourism. We have had a high level review of ports and the outcome of that consultation process will inform the finalisation of a ports policy statement which I intend to bring to Government and publish in the near future. Work is continuing on progressing measures and procedures which will underpin the transfer of regional harbours to local authorities.

Subhead C2 allocates approximately €20 million for the fishery harbours capital programme. This is primarily earmarked for the completion of the new harbour development at Killybegs fishery harbour centre which I will open officially next Friday. The total cost of that project is €55 million. It is probably the largest infrastructure project in this area for many years. It provides a critical infrastructure for the North West and creates vibrant new business opportunities. The massive extension of the pier at Killybegs offers more possibilities than just fishing. We hope to work with the local community and build on the opportunities available.

The coming to fruition of the Killybegs project will allow us to proceed with further developments in Castletownbere, Rossaveal, which is jointly funded by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Clogherhead and Cromane in County Kerry. I have also approved funding for 17 projects in smaller harbours and landing places right around the coast to meet the need of local fishing and aquaculture interests and coastal communities. This investment reflects the Government's commitment and will underpin regional development and critical infrastructure to support economic growth, jobs and rural communities.

Funding of €23.515 million is allocated for marine research. Therefore, there is ongoing significant investment support to ensure robust marine research and innovation with strong links to industry which will deliver real economic returns. Our investment over the years has paid dividends in terms of Ireland's standing in the European Union on international marine research. The EurOCEAN conference last week was an excellent showcase for this country. The conference was hosted in Galway by the Marine Institute.

As members of the committee know, Ireland has two state of the art marine research vessels. We also have marine RTDI programmes, a new hub for marine research in the stunning new offices being built at a cost of approximately €30 million for the Marine Institute at Oranmore. There is ongoing collaboration between the institute and the geological survey office, which is also under my Department's remit, on delivering the national sea bed survey. Approximately €25 million is being spent on this survey. The Marine Institute's current review, in consultation with stakeholders, will chart the strategic direction for the national marine RTDI effort to 2010.

Some €37.468 million is being provided to the seafood sector for seafood development in 2004, in addition to the investment in fishery harbour infrastructure. This is a huge investment of taxpayers' money in these areas. Coastal fishing communities will benefit from investment in the continued modernisation and safety improvements of the whitefish fleet, the revitalisation of the inshore fishing fleet, the enhancement of seafood marketing and promotion initiatives, the accelerated development of seafood processing enterprises and the sustainable development of the aquaculture industry.

In respect of inland fisheries, €23.018 million is being provided for in the area of the operations of the central and regional fisheries boards. Consultants are currently finalising the fundamental review of the role of the State with respect to the inland fisheries resources and the adequacy of the current model of governance and management structures. The review is being conducted in two stages. I expect to receive the report on the first stage shortly. Over €2 million represents the Department's funding contribution towards the costs of the Loughs Agency, the North-South body responsible for fisheries conservation and management in Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough.

In the area of energy over €13 million is being expended to underpin energy conservation and to promote the uptake of alternative energy sources. This is delivered through Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI, which is being provided with €13.7 million in 2004, €7.22 million for the energy conservation part of the NDP and €0.78 million under the NDP alternative energy measure, which was established in 2002 to promote the development of a sustainable national energy economy.

Within energy policy, the priorities range from generation adequacy, structure of the electricity market, renewables and security of supply. The promotion of renewable energy is a key Government priority. A number of actions have been taken to drive the renewable agenda forward. The requisite financial and regulatory support is being provided, such as measures to support the commercialisation of renewable technologies. A debate was initiated on the directions and targets for renewable energy policy post 2005. The Government is proceeding with the work of setting appropriate renewable energy targets for 2010, including being assisted by the renewables development group which is advising on the complex issues faced by the sector.

Some €33.77 million is allocated in the area of communications. The Government is continuing the programme of unprecedented State investment in high-speed telecommunications infrastructure building on the MANS and ADSL projects delivered to date. I have Government approval for the roll-out of significant further investment which will extend broadband connectivity to over 90 additional towns. Funding assistance for group broadband schemes will be provided. They will be key to enabling smaller communities to pool demand and get high speed connectivity from a range of service providers. I have also concluded an agreement with industry to bring high speed broadband to every school in the country by the start of the 2005 school year. Some 80% of the funding will be provided by the industry and a very small proportion by the State.

In the area of broadcasting, €218.833 million is being allocated for various issues of licence fee collection. The Comptroller and Auditor General has published his value for money examination of the television licence fee collection and it will be discussed by the PAC tomorrow. I am examining the issue of the future of the licence fee collection.

Provision is made for over €6 million to reflect the new additional functions of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, including the administration of the new public sector broadcasting fund. Five per cent of net proceeds of the licence fee goes into this fund. Legislation was passed in this respect. The fund should increase to approximately €8.8 million this year. It is a new and critical opportunity to enhance and expand the quantity and quality of public service broadcasting.

I have provided the committee with an overview of the issues of which Deputies should be aware. I hope to be able to answer all questions in this debate. I thank my departmental officials for producing the documents which are available to the committee members for their consideration.

I thank the Minister. The format for today's proceedings will be an opening statement from the Fine Gael spokesperson followed by statements from the spokespersons for the Labour Party and the Technical Group. Each subhead will be examined section by section. Any questions about the specific subheads will be dealt with at that stage. Deputy Kehoe is representing Deputy Coveney who is blazing the trail in the South constituency for the European elections.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance today. The Estimates are to be seen against the backdrop of the following situation. Last year An Post received €43 million and is seeking an increase in the price of stamps far in excess of inflation. Post offices are being closed throughout the country, including one just off Grafton Street, the main shopping area in Dublin. RTE continues to experience economic difficulties. The independent broadcasting sector continues to be unhappy at the lack of public funding for much of its public service programming. The fishing industry is in crisis with people abandoning a way of life which they and their families have known for generations. There is no real competition in the electricity sector while the use of renewable energy is still pathetically low. The roll-out of broadband continues at a snail's pace for many people in rural Ireland. The Minister's Department is likely to move to Cavan as it is decentralised along with many other Departments. As the nature of the botched job of decentralisation which he and his colleagues have done becomes clearer by the day, we will continue to witness examples of the most appalling waste of public finances, not least on the Kenmare marina.

The Minister should be slow to congratulate himself for the fact that €257 million is being expended by his Department when there is a need to spend that money in a smarter way and do a better job of maintaining the services provided by his Department and those bodies under its auspices.

I welcome the increase in spending on the Irish Coast Guard. I am less than certain, however, that we are closer to providing the kind of coast guard service that is required. I ask the Minister to clarify whether we still rely on the British to help us in this regard.

It is Fine Gael's policy to call for the establishment of an EU coast guard to work towards eliminating drug and people trafficking throughout the European Union and give Europe the protection it needs. I ask the Minister to raise this issue with our European partners. It is a shame that the opportunity provided by the Irish Presidency of the EU has been lost in this regard.

On the upgrade of harbours I ask the Minister to explain the cut of funding for development and upgrading of harbours for fisheries purposes. He states the decrease is due to reduced contractual commitments to the recent development of Killybegs. Is the Minister saying that no other harbour in the country is in need of upgrading? Our fisheries are in turmoil. It would be an act of faith in the fishing community which has had to put up with so much to at least maintain the level of spending.

The issue of coastal erosion is a serious matter especially for those living and working along the coasts. My colleague, Deputy John Bruton, called on the Minister to carry out a course of protection work on the Meath coastland areas of Mornington, Bettystown, Laytown, Mosney and Gormanston. What is the Minister's answer to this request? I ask the Minister to forward me a copy of applications received regarding coastal erosion. My county has problems with coastal erosion and awaits funding from the Minister's Department. I am concerned that the Estimates show a decrease in the cash allocated to this area. The fact that additional funding was allocated last year does not explain why this year's funding was cut by €1.3 million, which is even higher in real terms.

The Government has wasted €421,000 on the proposed marina in Kenmare, County Kerry. I cannot understand how so much money could be wasted. The Minister has never apologised for this waste. It was to keep Deputy Healy-Rae happy during the term of the last Government. Has the Minister any plans to recoup the money from the developer? Those responsible for this mess should pay the price.

Will the Minister make a statement about the future of Bord Iascaigh Mhara? Fine Gael greatly appreciates the great work that has been done by BIM in the past. I would like to ask the Minister to outline the plans, if any, to merge BIM and An Bord Glas. Are any other Departments or boards to be amalgamated? Is the Minster happy, in light of the events in Inver Bay and McSwine's Bay in Donegal last year and the subsequent elevation of the fish kill to a biological event, that enough money is being spent to broaden our knowledge base in this important area?

Turning to energy conservation, I am disappointed that Sustainable Energy Ireland has been given a grant of just €2.6 million, which is barely enough to cover inflation. If this country is to drag itself out of the Dark Ages, it should get serious about the need to conserve our energy and to find renewable sources of energy for the future.

Where does Ireland stand in respect of the Kyoto Agreement? Is the Minister confident that we are doing enough in this area to meet our targets? If we fail, the fines facing Ireland are astronomical. A little spending now will save a great deal of money later.

I have raised Ireland's record on broadband with the Minister on Question Time on numerous occasions. The economy of rural Ireland is suffering because it does not have the infrastructure it needs. Our competitiveness is suffering as the digital divide grows wider. There has been a great deal of discussion about the roll-out of accessibility and fibre optics. How many additional towns will be on-line this time next year? Given that Norway, a country with a lower population density than Ireland, can achieve greater broadband penetration than us, does the Minister agree that something is seriously wrong?

Does the Department know how many TV spongers exist in Ireland? How much do they cost RTE and the State? I bought a house in my home town of Enniscorthy two months ago. A person has come to my house on four occasions to check whether I have paid my TV licence.

I hope the Deputy has paid his licence fee.

I have not paid it yet because I do not have a television. I wrote to An Post to inform it that I do not have a television.

The Deputy should be careful with the word "sponger". The last time I used it I was in the media for four months.

I am aware that An Post has indicated that it is reluctant to continue collecting the licence fee. Does the Minister have a plan B? How will the licence fee be collected? Will an on-line payment system be introduced? Would the Minister like to bring forward any proposals in that regard today? A new system should be put in place, in light of the closure of hundreds of post offices.

Has the Minister considered increasing from 5% the proportion of the broadcasting fund that can be given to private broadcasters to help them to provide public service broadcasting? What programmes are being supported by the fund? Is there scope for growth?

Why is so much public money being pumped into TG4, which seems to broadcast mainly English language programmes, especially at peak times? TG4, which generally provides an excellent service, is required to ensure that Irish speakers have a proper peak-time TV service.

Has progress been made with the proposed merger of the RTE Authority and the BCI into a single broadcasting authority? What kind of savings could flow to the taxpayer from such a merger?

I am sure the Minister will respond to the Deputy's questions as he discusses the various subheads. I have been advised by the Clerk that, as Chairman of the committee, I should not intervene to make comments on the Estimates. I have never before heard of a Chairman being stopped from speaking.

I apologise to the Minister and his officials for my late arrival. I was held up because of the number of meetings taking place today. If rumours of a Cabinet reshuffle in the autumn are to be believed, this may be the last time that the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is present for a discussion of the Estimates for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. He might be assigned to another Department as part of the restructuring of the Government.

I might be sent for an early shower.

I notice that Ireland's EU Commissioner, Mr. Byrne, is not standing again. There is a vacancy for the Minister or one of his ambitious colleagues, such as the Taoiseach. I wish the Minister well when the changes take place. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is one of the most interesting Departments. It is reported on by the business media, but the political media personnel who are permanently in the House do not give it enough attention. The Department is responsible for communications and all that entails, broadcasting, energy and marine affairs. Its remit is equivalent to that of two and a half significant departments in other countries. It is important because it is primarily an enabling and policy-making Department. The work of this committee is significant for that reason. Like Deputy Kehoe, I have some concerns about decentralisation. I am still worried about the policy area.

It is irritating that the Ceann Comhairle's office has prevented Deputies from asking the Minister questions about policy matters such as wind energy or the price of electricity. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled that it is out of our hands because a regulator is in place. I do not accept his ruling because the House has the final say and the Minister makes the final decision on behalf of the country. It is right that we should be allowed to discuss such issues.

Concern has been expressed that the Department's chief policy makers will be in different parts of the country. I welcome the establishment of significant Government offices in Cavan and Clonakilty. I congratulate the Minister on the transfer of the coastguard service to Drogheda. It seems to be an appropriate location. The Labour Party and other Opposition parties are concerned about whether it will possible for senior officials who are responsible for huge and important policy areas to liaise easily on a daily basis and to examine the key issues that arise at frightening speed. If one opens the business pages of the three national newspapers, one will see that about half of the reports relate to matters dealt with by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I wonder if we will be able to maintain the policy focus. While I believe in regionalisation and decentralisation, I do not like the way they are being dealt with by the Fianna Fáil Government. I wonder how they will operate in the vital areas I have mentioned. Perhaps the Department will be divided into two or three Departments at a future stage.

Another ludicrous element of life in this House is that, during the Estimates process, we have to discuss last year's Estimates. We cannot discuss what the Minister, whoever he or she might be, will do in the next budget and what he or she will work for from July onwards. We have to talk about what the Minister did last year. I greatly regret the series of cutbacks approved by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his colleague, the Minister for Finance. My party has received many representations about issues such as coastal protection and management from counties such as Wexford and Mayo. It is regrettable that there have been cutbacks in that area. The Minister seemed to allow the Minister for Finance to slash the important budgets for fisheries, harbours and other areas.

I welcome most of the changes that have been made by the Minister in respect of marine affairs, some of which he mentioned in his speech. I am confused by the Minister's remarks some days ago about the current status of the Irish Box. What is its status? I thought the Minister announced a final result three or four months ago, when discussions were finished before Christmas, but he now seems to be engaged in ongoing negotiations. Perhaps he will give the committee an insight into the future of the national fisheries. The Minister might like to comment on a range of other issues in the marine area. I receive constant representations from those involved in angling, who claim that the Minister is not taking sufficient action in respect of driftnet fishing. They argue that he is endangering fish stocks, particularly salmon, in the Nore-Suir-Barrow riverine area, for example. The Minister should bite the bullet in this regard by standing up for the fisheries sector. Such a move would have other benefits, for example in the tourism industry.

I regret that we have not been briefed to a greater extent on energy issues. I ask the Minister and his officials for more guidance or an outline of their thinking in terms of the proposed electricity Bill. While the committee has been briefed by many representatives of the industry in recent months and many of us have an idea of what provisions might be made, we do not know if it reflects the Minister's views on how to avoid with the national grid the mistakes which were made with Eircom. We should not go down that road again. Members have not been allowed to ask questions about policy on the grid code.

Today, we received from the Environmental Protection Agency an interesting report on the environment for 2004 which contains details of a fascinating Wexford study. Our dependence on oil to produce our energy is frightening as is the tiny proportion of production from renewable sources. Can the Minister expand on that in the context of the problems we have had which are, hopefully, behind us?

While I welcome the progress which has been made in the broadcasting area, some of us would wish to make further provisions in the children's advertising code. I note that the Minister has met independent film makers recently to consider the future of the industry and its many jobs for creative Irish people. It would be helpful for the committee to be able to see a general outline of the broadcasting authority Bill as soon as possible. Among the committees I must attend today on behalf of my party is the Joint Committee on House Services, a sub-committee of which looks after broadcasting. As the Minister knows, a full broadcasting channel for Parliament has been proposed. It could be an initiative for the Minister to take during his time at the Department, although whether anyone watches it is a moot point. At election times people will certainly watch. One of the eight BBC channels on the FreeSat platform is a parliamentary channel, which indicates that it is an idea the Minister should explore. While there are 17 or 18 radio channels in the Dublin region, I continue to receive representations from interest groups which feel there should be greater choice. They also consider the choice in radio broadcasting to be restricted.

There was a report in the Financial Times on the profits of O2. It is striking how average revenue per user in Ireland shows that we are easy meat for mobile phone cartel. The Chairman has followed this issue up relentlessly on behalf of the Dáil. What further steps can the Minister take to improve matters? The companies claim revenues are high because we like to talk but they also like to overcharge us. Perhaps we are a soft touch and the Minister’s regulator is not tough enough. As with the recent banking issue, we are charged in ways about which we do not have a clue. We had a useful discussion at our last meeting about the registration of mobile phones and I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider the matter again.

The report outlining a plan of action on broadband which the Minister launched before Christmas was very impressive. Subsequently, we asked that a Minister be given responsibility for broadband although I thought that Deputy Dermot Ahern was the Minister in charge of this area. As my colleague has said, Opposition members are still very unhappy. Historic opportunities are being missed and the Minister needs to take action. While I acknowledge that he has made recent announcements about schools, we continue to lag behind.

The Chairman was ill when we presented our report on broadband but a few of the simple recommendations are still worth looking at. Future observers may well be critical of the fact that the Minister had not taken more fundamental steps in this area before passing on his vast Department to someone else. While I understand the difficulties relating to Eircom and the national grid, it is unpleasant to read that we are still way behind. I will keep my other questions for the Estimates.

Deputies Ferris and Eamon Ryan are sharing time.

I regret not being here for the Minister's presentation. I thought we were starting at 3 p.m. and I apologise to the Minister and his officials for not being here on time. I have a copy of the Minister's speech which I will take to bed tonight and enjoy reading. No doubt it is full of good news and celebration on the future and the success the Government is making of this Department and the running of the country. I am happy to be here to cast doubt on that and to make criticisms. I thought last night about what my main criticism should be and how I should summarise it. It is that I detect a lack of vision and long term direction. The timeframe considered in decision-making should be 20 or 30 years. I am concerned because much of the investment we make has long-term consequences. While it may be possible to avoid hard choices in the short term, decision making on that basis can lead to long-term problems.

The lack of a long-term vision means typically that one reacts to events and changes rather than anticipates them. I commend some of the changes which have been made and efforts to cajole the industry into developing broadband. Despite the degree of attention to this area by the Department, we are still reacting and remain behind the game internationally. While the Minister stated in his speech that competitiveness is our key concern, we are unfortunately three or four years behind some of our strongest competitors. That is not a clever position to be in yet this is the one area in the Department in which there is determination to get us ahead.

There are further examples in the communications area where the typically reactive stance is even more evident. The disastrous management of An Post up to the highest level, including the Minister as he appoints and oversees the board, is an example of how we are reacting to problems. We should be setting out a vision for how the service should be used and ensuring that we have a proper communications system.

One of the most obvious examples of how a lack of vision can lead to problems is in the marine area. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Broughan, that while the Minister can claim great success in fisheries negotiations, we have again ignored the scientific advice and are failing to proceed with some of the conservation restrictions which have been proposed. While the Minister can say we have increased our quota by 8% and beaten off the Spanish, there does not appear to be any long term vision or analysis by the Department. No one seems to be listening to what scientists are saying. The plan seems to be to get away with taking smaller and smaller cod from the sea and to fish stocks which have not diminished. If we listened to scientists, had a long term vision and a 20 or 30 year horizon when considering fish stocks, we would have a different agenda at fisheries negotiations.

Rather than aim for short term gains and beating off another nation, we would consider genuinely the introduction of conservation. I echo Deputy Broughan's point about the preservation of our wild salmon stocks. There may be short term political difficulties and representatives from certain areas who can convince the Minister to persist with unsustainable fishing methods but we should be looking at a 20 year horizon in terms of Ireland's future economic and social gains. Every report which has been produced has indicated that we should be reducing the indiscriminately off-shore drift-net fishing of wild salmon. The political inability to achieve this is an example of how we continue to consider the short rather than the long term.

The point to which I want to return at length relates to renewable energy. If there is an example where we are failing to see the long-term picture, failing to listen to the scientists when they talk about the emissions we will have to reduce and failing to see our huge potential, it is renewable energy. The Minister stated the other day at Question Time that we were victims of our own success, that we had so much wind energy available on the grid that it was the problem. That was probably the most remarkable statement I had heard in my two years in the Dáil. If that is the belief, it gives me real cause for concern that we do not even see the problem which we think we are solving or addressing. We should at least recognise our failures in this regard and start setting out a 20 year vision for the future. I do not get a sense of this from the Department or the Minister. That would be my biggest criticism.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their presentation, about some of which I have concerns but some of which I also welcome. This is not a blanket condemnation.

I note that €19 million is being provided in 2004 for a rescue service from Shannon, Dublin and Waterford. Knowing the west coast from Slea Head to Malin Head and the dangers the western seaboard presents, I have concerns, unless provision is made for such a service further to the north-west, that the coastline is inadequately protected.

On regional and small harbours, I often get the impression that there is a lack of understanding of the benefits to be gained in terms of rural development and regeneration in providing services for small harbours, in particular, given the service they provide for those most in need in the communities they service. This applies from Killybegs, right along the west coast, to Mayo, Clare and the Kerry coast. Small harbours provide facilities, both from the point of view of safety and service. They also provide a venue where people could engage in part-time employment if there were proper facilities available.

In my experience - I know the coastline well along which I have fished for many years - it is highly dangerous and the vessels in use vary from about 18 feet to 36 feet. If the Minister examines the reports available to him, he will find that many of the vessels' owners, due to economic necessity, have found themselves in a position where they have had to sell their tonnage, their boats are unlicensed and they cannot meet safety requirements. A formal injection is needed to provide a support base for those involved in that type of fishing which up until 15 or 20 years ago formed the backbone of the western seaboard and rural Ireland.

Coastal protection is another avenue mentioned in the Minister's report. While travelling along the road the other day, I heard on radio about a European report on coastal erosion. The position is alarming where Ireland is concerned. In parts of the country 25 metres has been lost in the space of 12 months. Although I do not know how accurate the report on the radio was, a big part of the problem is the damage done by the taking of sand illegally from the foreshore, about which something needs to be done.

On licensing and the regulation of aquaculture, a recent "Prime Time" programme highlighted a particular difficulty regarding those who do not observe the rules and regulations and the damage to which such behaviour has led, not only to aquaculture in which they are involved but also to other types of fishing through cross-contamination.

On the development of our fisheries, there appears to be a large support base geared toward commercial fisherman rather than those fishermen involved in fishing for lobster and crayfish and what is left of drift-net and draft-net salmon fishing for whom there does not appear to be any support. We need to look at this. I have only just got this today and have not looked in detail at where the finance will go but there must be an injection of funds in this area.

The Deputy might make his other remarks under the relevant subhead.

I will not be available because I must attend another meeting. I will come back if I can. I also have to attend the meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food.

I welcome the proposal on the roll-out of high speed broadband to each area which is long overdue. This will be beneficial to rural Ireland and I welcome it from every point of view. This is one of the most progressive elements of the report.

There is provision for a general question and answer session on Vote 30 from 3.15 p.m. to 4.40 p.m. As the Vote is divided into subheads, I ask members to be brief if they have any questions. Are there any questions on subheads A1 to A12 which deal with the administrative budget?

What is happening as regards consultancy services? I note there is a slight decrease in the allocation this year but, given that it is a policy-making Department which deals with such matters as the broadband report, it is still a significant amount of money.

I note the decrease in expenditure this year on the Information Society Commission, an area for which the Minister is not responsible, although some think he is. It is the Chief Whip, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin, who is responsible. It was alleged that she had agreed to a standard, the Microsoft standard, for the development of ICT in Ireland when software engineers who probably had also been in contact with the Minister stated we should have opted for a Linux type open source standard. Does the Minister have any concerns about this? Given that he is the real IT Minister, was he even consulted?

Given our interest in telecommunications over the past year, I was interested to see that the bill had dropped from approximately €1million to €700,000. Is there any reason for this? I imagine it is a standard cost.

Can the Minister give us any indication of the number of consultancy projects? Are there any particularly large projects which take up the bulk of the budget or is it intended that there will be a small number of ongoing consultancy services? Are there any particularly large projects about which the Minister can advise us that were carried out within the €2.5 million consultancy budget?

The figure refers to a large number of ongoing consultancies, most of which are small. Most of the larger ones are to be found in the telecommunications area. The reduction in posts and telecommunications referred to has arisen mainly because of a change in the Department in that forestry grants are no longer paid by the Department. They are now paid by the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Regarding the issue connected with Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin, these are international standards. We do not set them. Microsoft has proprietary standards and there are also open source standards. All are used in Government circles. It is an area for which I have specific responsibility. The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin,——

Is the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, making decisions for us about IT?

These matters are subject to public procurement. The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, does not make the decisions. They are made by CMOD and the Departments.

The Minister has the power to direct ComReg in terms of policy issues. Can he avail of the 100 or so civil servants working in the telecommunications regulation sector to carry out examinations of projects so as to reduce the cost to the State of outside consultants?

That happens from time to time. The CER carried out consultancy studies on the interconnector and other issues relating to the energy sector. We carry out consultancies on matters for which we have direct responsibility. We only employ consultants where it is absolutely necessary and where the expertise is unavailable in the Department.

I appreciate the sentiments expressed by all members regarding the broad remit of the Department. It is a substantial Department. Some of the State agencies with which we deal, have more staff than we do. That is the way things are. I held my tongue earlier when certain remarks were made, but lest anyone take my silence as a sign of agreement I only agreed with the various complimentary remarks.

Legislation has been passed on independent regulation. It is a fact. I do not have the final say on prices. I do not think the Deputy or anyone in the House should lead the public to believe I or the Government have an input.

The point I made was that in regard to the grid code, we did not know the final shape of it, and I do not see what is wrong with us discussing that issue in public. It is a vitally important matter for the future of Irish energy. Why can we not discuss it in the Dáil?

The committee has the opportunity to bring in the regulator. He has only been brought in once. He told me he would like to attend the committee more often.

The Ceann Comhairle will not allow Opposition Deputies discuss a matter such as that, or the price of electricity with the Minister. It is crazy.

I do not have any problem discussing issues for which I have responsibility, but I cannot discuss those issues for which I have no responsibility, that is, those matters which are statutorily given to the regulators in these areas.

The Minister could give an opinion on what is going on.

I cannot. It is a bit like the issues relating to the broadcasting commission and advertising aimed at children. Responsibility has been given to it under statute to look after those issues and consult with the public. I cannot give personal views on these matters, other than the views of my party.

The Minister said on Question Time last week that the new electricity Bill would bring back the ability for the Minister to direct the energy regulator. That means we are, and should be, entitled as policy makers to discuss what type of directions we should give to any such regulator.

We will have an opportunity to discuss the aspects of the legislation on which we will have some influence. Currently, we do not have any say in pricing in the energy or telecom market. I cannot reciprocate Deputy Eamon Ryan's noble intention of bringing my speech to his bed. I have more exciting things to do in bed than read his speeches.

I remind Members that they will have an opportunity to make a five minute response at the end of the different sections. The Minister will also have five minutes to conclude at the end of the meeting. It would be more structured if we focused on the different headings. We would get through business more quickly that way. We have only examined one subhead because members will not stop talking.

I also remind members that we are currently in the energy module of committee business. We will spend the next three to five months on that matter. I am sure some interesting proposals will come out of that process.

We will now examine subheads B1 and B2, the Irish Coast Guard, maritime safety and marine regulation. Are there any questions?

Will the Minister explain the wrecks and salvage category?

We will bank the questions.

The Deputy asked earlier if we rely on Britain. The answer is, "No". We work in conjunction with Britain but there was a time when we had to rely, more or less exclusively, on its ability to look after our coastline. That is no longer the case. In fact, more often than not, it requires our assistance.

The sum allocated for wrecks, salvage and relief is €1,000. It is a token provision regarding the disposal of wrecks which may be required by legislation. I do not think there has been recourse to spending on this in recent years.

Does the marine casualty investigation board investigate matters such as the one that occurred in Fethard almost two years ago?

The location of the important national coast guard office was welcome news for the citizens of Drogheda. Will the Dublin radio communication network centre also move to Drogheda, given that we were trying to keep the three centres?

Deputy Cowley has availed of every opportunity to raise the issue of the introduction of a helicopter emergency medical ambulance service.

He could have raised it under Standing Order 31 in the Dáil.

He could have. Can we expand our coastal helicopter service to include such a role? Is there flexibility in terms of its operation to include emergency transfer when there is no call for marine rescue services?

It provides that service when the need arises. One has to be careful about where one draws the line. Resources go to a dedicated air-sea rescue service. We should continue to have the emphasis on rescue, but it does take people from accident scenes to the required medical facilities. Valentia and Malin will remain the monitoring centres from the point of view of rescue. The corporate headquarters, containing the back-up services, will be based in Drogheda.

If there were a tragedy in the Irish Sea or a grave rescue mission and it became known that we had no radio centre on the east coast, would everybody not regard this decision with grave concern?

There should be no concern because the area is fully covered. There is full coverage from Valentia and Malin and, consequently, the fact that there is no comparable centre on the east coast does not matter.

I do not accept what the Minister is saying. He is going down a dangerous path based on the information I have been given on the number of emergencies on the east coast compared to the west coast and bearing in mind the number of people on the Irish Sea at this moment. Furthermore, we considered the Maritime Security Bill yesterday and last week when members expressed concern that there should be easy access.

Accessibility refers to the infrastructure and the helicopters.

I know what the Minister is talking about.

They are well spread around the country. Changes are only being made in respect of radio cover and the call centres.

It is a saga. I know the details.

If the Deputy knew the details, he would understand what we are doing. It is logical.

Some of the things the Department does are anything but logical and transparent.

I disagree.

We might have to examine some of the issues concerning the future reconstruction of Departments.

Are subheads B1 and B2 agreed? Agreed. We will proceed to subheads C1 to C5, pertaining to seaports and shipping, fishery harbours, coast protection, marine and natural resources and tourism. We have ten minutes to deal with them. Members should confine their remarks to the spending Estimates and we will bank the questions.

Why did we have significant cutbacks in the harbours provision for 2004 and in coast protection and management? A number of Deputies asked about this in the general discussion.

I welcome the increase in subhead C4 - the marine and natural resources tourism programme - from €500,000 to €2.8 million. I would like further details on why there is an increase.

Several years ago, Bord Fáilte, now known as Fáilte Ireland, had a significant budget for infrastructure development projects pertaining to inland fisheries. That budget was cut and effectively eliminated over the years and the organisation does not have any role at present. Nobody has stepped into its shoes in this area. On what is the money now being spent? Given my interest in fishing matters and angling, what are we investing in facilities for inland fisheries?

What is the position on the Kenmare marina? Were or will there be any moneys recouped?

In regard to Kenmare, a payment of €332,000 has already been paid. The issue of whether there was planning permission is subject to the obtaining of legal advice in order to protect the State's interests. However, the promoter has advised that he intends to rebuild the centre in line with the original planning guidelines. I understand he has demolished the parts that do not have planning permission. We are keeping a close eye on it.

Will he bear the full cost of redeveloping it?

Yes, probably subject to whatever balance of the grant is payable. This amounts to another €400,000, but would be subject to the promoter's fulfilling all the criteria. Undoubtedly, he will have lost some money. I disagree with the Deputy's suggestion that a marina in Kenmare is a bad idea.

I did not say that.

He inferred it. If it were in his constituency or in mine, we would all be delighted with it.

Who will pay the legal cost?

That will arise in the discussions and the legal advice. The taxpayer will not bear the brunt of it.

The national development plan provided €84 million for capital investment in fishery harbours. Expenditure up to the end of 2003 was just under €84 million. The further allocation of €21.24 million for 2004 effectively reflects the fact that the Killybegs development, which will cost €55 million, is nearing completion. A total of €24 million was spent in 2003 in Killybegs and a further €9 million is to be allocated under the allocation for 2004.

On inland fisheries, a sum of €90 million was invested by the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, between 1994 and 1999. The national development plan programme of investment support for tourism and recreation and angling falls under the inland fishery subhead. As I said, we are carrying out a review of this area, the first phase of which will be completed shortly.

A sum of €29.5 million was spent on coastal protection under the national development plan to date. I do not agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan's view that the Department is not considering various issues strategically. We are carrying out a strategic examination of coastal protection with the intention of developing a more medium to long-term view rather than reacting to immediate problems around the coast.

I wish that section was discussed with the energy section of the Department, which seems to have no concerns about global climate change and reducing our emissions in light of the fears that exist in this regard.

Bearing in mind the Minister's statement about long-term vision and operating as a unit, it seems we will be involved in coastal protection due to some of the threats that arise for the forecasted rise in sea levels, yet the energy section of the Department does not seem to have the slightest concern about this issue.

The Deputy is incorrect. The Department commissioned an aerial survey of the entire coastline with a view to feeding into the review on strategic long-term planning for coastal protection. Considerable work is going into this.

The Department appears happy that our only response to the emissions crisis facing the planet is that we buy credits from the Russian or other Governments. We do not know this will take place. As far as I can see, we do not have any reduction strategy.

I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.

I am talking about reducing our carbon emissions, which are the cause of some of the coastal protection issues we are facing.

Is the Deputy contending my Department's view is that we should buy credits from Russia?

At a recent meeting of the committee Department officials stated that Ireland's main response to the problem would be to buy, on the international emissions trading market, the ability to keep polluting and that we do not have any reduction strategy.

That is not my information.

It is what the Minister's officials said at a meeting of the committee.

One of the officials who was at the meeting is present today so we can verify what the Deputy is saying.

We can return to the issue on the energy section. I complimented the Department on the increase in the budget from €500,000 to €2.8 million but I did not get a response to my question on the purpose of the increase. Am I correct that the Minister said the investment in inland fisheries was under the previous national development plan, which ended in 1999, and was not continued in the current national development plan?

It is continued under the national development plan. Subhead C4 concerns the proposed spend on Rosses Point, Roundstone and Kenmare marinas.

Are those three marinas responsible for the increase?

Are subheads C1 to C5 agreed? Agreed. Let us now consider subheads D1 to D3, pertaining to Marine Institute grant-in-aid, Salmon Research Agency grant-in-aid, and the national seabed survey.

The findings outlined last year on "Prime Time" regarding the lack of management in the aquaculture industry were shocking. There is a need for much greater monitoring of sea lice levels in our salmon fisheries. Recent reports that sea lice levels have increased in some of our most important fisheries. For example, I have received correspondence from some of those involved in the protection of some of the most important sea trout and salmon rivers, which indicate that sea lice levels in them are rocketing to their highest levels in ten years. Given the worrying concern about our management of our marine resource, why has the budget to the Marine Institute been cut by 3%? This is particularly pertinent given the massive fish kill in Inver Bay and the uncertainty as to its cause. I could continue to list various other areas in which it is far from clear that the right thing is being done.

The issue of sea lice is dealt with in a more holistic way and involves more than just the Marine Institute. There is no doubt it is a problem which is why the Department has an ongoing action programme which includes conservation measures; a national sea trout restocking and rehabilitation programme; and bi-monthly inspection of salmon farms, particularly during the critical periods of February to May, and on a monthly basis otherwise. The results of the lice inspections are published, circulated widely and are available for public scrutiny. Corrective measures to control the harm inflicted on farms by sea lice are incorporated fully into the Department's management and inspection regime.

Single bay management policies for all bays are being advanced with full industry participation such as, for example, the clams project. Fallowing regimes are also being progressed together with single bay management as an effective long term means of controlling sea lice and minimising disease problems. Significant national programmes are being but in place and the Marine Institute has a monitoring programme which it carries out on behalf of the Department. The issue of sea lice is one to which we are paying more attention than heretofore, particularly on the management side.

A serious problem in respect of sea lice levels became public last year but it seems the levels are higher than ever this year, while at the same time the budget is being cut. Last year in Inver Bay saw one of largest ever fish kills but there was no proper scientific evidence to determine what exactly caused it. Statements have been made about conservation, in respect of which the Marine Institute has a hugely important role to play by providing information about the current and future state of fish stocks. In that context and given the massive pubic concern about the problem, why are we cutting the budget for an institute which is providing some scientific analysis of what happening?

The main reason there has been a reduction in the Marine Institute budget this year is that last year we had to make the final payment on the marine research vessel. This is no longer part of the Estimates, therefore, the money available to the institute is greater because we do not have to make any further payments on the research vessel. The Marine Institute is well funded and staffed to cover the scientific research and monitoring programmes which it has to carry out.

The Donegal Bay situation was an extremely complex one about which there were many suggestions and accusations as to its cause, the majority of which did not stand up and were ruled out. The overall findings of the Marine Institute was that the cause of the mortalities was multi-factorial. The net cumulative result was much greater than it would have been had the initial event occurred at lower water temperatures and in the absence of secondary infection of the gill tissue of the fish. No single issue could be identified as causing the situation.

Part of the problem was that we did not have all the scientific information we wished for. This demonstrates the importance of having all the information available.

The Marine Institute had all the science knowledge available to it. It interviewed everyone who had anything to say about or do with the issue.

I am talking about water samples. The Marine Institute did not have all the sampling techniques it needed to carry out a proper analysis.

That is not my information.

That is what it states in the report.

Are subheads D1 to D3 agreed? Agreed. We will proceed to subheads E1 to E5 in respect of fisheries conservation and management, fish processing, aquaculture development and the aquaculture licence appeals board.

What is the future of Bord Iascaigh Mhara? Have there been talks or proposals to amalgamate it with any other bodies?

The Deputy asked if there was any question of BIM merging with An Bord Glas. There was never any question about that but there were some discussions about other proposals about which there are conflicting views. The jury is still out on the matter and no decisions have been made. Some people have suggested that where two State agencies are marketing food produce in different locations around the world, it would be better to pool their resources. However, there is equally a fear that the promotion and marketing of fish products from this country would be subsumed and lost if it was merged with Bord Bia.

BIM is relocating to Clonakilty under the decentralisation programme together with the seafood and coastal zone functions of my Department. This will be beneficial because the various agencies which are responsible for fisheries and the promotion of fishery products will be in one location.

Deputy Eamon Ryan on E1 to E5.

If I can, I will refer to the Inver Bay incident last year, the consequences of which mean that the future of the fish farming industry is being seriously challenged by increasing environmental risks, possibly as a result of climate change, about which we spoke earlier, as well as increasing water temperatures. In that context, will the Minister outline why there is a significant increase in the Estimates for aquaculture development costs? I understand the provision is primarily for the shell fish area. However, has account been taken of the developments of last summer which were very traumatic for people in the industry? I do not wish to come down on these people solely because they are in a difficult position but I imagine it will be difficult to finance aquaculture development given the catastrophic losses last year.

The increase of €1.31 million in subhead E4 is for a demand-led grant aid scheme, therefore, the allocation is estimated in line with requirements for 2004.

Is that mainly directed towards fin fish farming?

Shellfish.

Is Deputy Ryan happy with the Minister's responses? Are subheads E1 to E5 agreed? Agreed. We now move to subheads F on inland fisheries. Are there any questions?

I wish to clarify whether these subheads are mainly directed towards the central fisheries boards for the funding of their officers and services.

Are the subheads under F agreed? Agreed. Subheads G1 to G3 refer to petroleum services, energy conservation and the farm electrification grant scheme. Are there any questions on these subheads?

During Question Time last week I raised with the Minister a report published by Forfás seven years ago which advocated major investment in science and technology research projects in renewable energy and energy saving areas. It seems we have not implemented any of those recommendations. I understand financing of €4.5 million was available for renewable energy research, about €500,000 of which goes towards research on wave power. Is this included in the budget we are discussing or is it in a separate budget?

I asked the Minister about long-term vision. In recent years we have seen a doubling in the cost of energy as the price of a barrel of oil has increased from €20 to €40. It is predicted it could rise to €50. Security of supply is important in Ireland because we are so dependent on imported fossil fuels. Is the Minister happy that a 3% increase in expenditure in the energy conservation budget reflects the major importance of reducing our energy use and developing alternative energy resources? Can he set out his long-term vision in terms of investment in this area? Is he happy with the level of investment in energy conservation? Is he happy with the level of investment in research in new renewable technologies?

As the Deputy knows, some time towards the end of last year I instigated a review of the options for future renewable energy policy targets and programmes. I referred to this in my speech earlier. This review will set new targets between 2005 and 2010 and beyond 2020. There has been a substantial response to the call for submissions. We are currently considering this.

I also recently established the renewable energy development group, whose first meeting I addressed. At the meeting the group considered issues to do with the next market support mechanism, the possible introduction of net metering, research and development, grid upgrade, application backlog and the wind moratorium, which was, thankfully, addressed recently by the Commission for Energy Regulation.

The Sustainable Energy Act was passed about 18 months ago. The money that was allocated in previous Estimates to Sustainable Energy Ireland was not taken up as much as we would have liked. I am happy to report that SEI is significantly ramping up activity in this area.

The Deputy may have noticed my recent announcement that I intend to decentralise SEI to my home town, Dundalk, and as part of this there will be a major practical demonstration of renewable energy in conjunction with local authorities and State agencies as well as the Northern authorities. We have already raised with the Northern authorities the question of designating the Newry-Dundalk area as a research and development area for renewable technologies. I spoke to the new UK Minister with responsibility for energy, Mr. Barry Gardiner MP, in Dublin this morning and my officials have been in contact with their Northern counterparts. The Minister is more than willing to work with us in this respect. As we outlined in our discussions with SEI, we are hoping to use the general cross-Border area as an exemplar of renewable technologies in practice.

There are examples of these new technologies all over Europe. The time for demonstration projects is over - we need to start introducing some of the technologies that have been proven to work across the Continent. It is remarkable that seven years on from the Forfás report, we are still talking about research and demonstration projects.

The Minister suggested I contact the grid regulator, which I did last week following lengthy meetings with the wind generation companies. There is too much emphasis on wind. We need to spread out and consider biomass and biofuels. There has been a remarkable transformation in the ability of turbines to overcome some of the difficulties that had been raised by the regulator and the grid company. They will be able to ride through power outages and will help regulate the voltage and frequency of the grid. Some difficulties remain in the modelling of such changes, but I take the word of GE and other companies that these new technologies are possible.

In this regard, the Department's position that 800 MW of wind energy is the maximum amount we can take is now looking increasingly ridiculous. We should be setting our sights at 3,000 MW to 4,000 MW of wind energy, not just in Newry and Dundalk but all over the country. Changes are happening so quickly in this area that the Department is following rather than leading, at huge cost to Irish industry and jobs as well as the environment.

Is the Minister happy with the level of investment? Whatever about SEI having failed to spend its budget in previous years, let us look at today's budget.

I will give the figures in this area, which are not unsubstantial. In biomass, the total being invested by SEI in research and development is €3.293 million; in wind, €3.03 million; in ocean energy, €357,000; in hydroelectric energy, €400,000; in solar and GSHP energy, €245,000; and in geothermal energy, €175,000. This is a total of €7.5 million, which is a substantial amount.

In the matter of emissions, my official attended the meeting referred to and answered the questions in this area. When he was before the committee the question was where would the liquidity to supply the carbon market come from. He responded that there was much potential in Russia to sell credits and that in respect of climate change generally, Europe could arguably get better bang for its buck in places such as Russia and China. To be fair to the official, he was telling it as it is. The Deputy should not put words in my mouth.

I am not. As I recall, that is exactly what was said. It reflects Government policy, which is that we do not have a moral obligation in this area and we are not particularly interested in reducing emissions. In every instance our first priority is to buy our way out of the problem.

I assure the Deputy he does not have a monopoly in this area.

I have an interest in it and I have a right to express it.

The Deputy may have an interest in it, but we also have an interest in the greater good. The Deputy's party leader is against motorways except when they are in his own constituency.

I do not know what that has to do with this issue.

My question is in regard to subhead G3, the farm electrification scheme. What is the uptake of the scheme?

It is a demand-led scheme and shows an underspend in the 2003 out-turn. The scheme provides grant aid of 80% to an applicant, up to specified limits. A total of 20% of this is borne by the Department and 60% by the ESB. Since the scheme is demand led it is not possible to predict the grant uptake, but it is a very small scheme.

Does the €7.5 million for energy research come from the energy conservation grant or is it a separate item? The energy conservation grant deals mainly with energy reduction measures.

During the last year the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, made the point that the USA was currently investing $27 billion in research on the move towards a hydrogen economy. It was implied that this was a problem. Should we not be thinking in a different way? That $27 billion investment represents a country recognising an opportunity. We should be leading the world in these technologies, particularly in the areas of wave and tidal energy, in which we have assets other countries lack. Is the Minister happy with levels of investment of around €300,000 in such technologies? What about a visionary statement on where our energy will come from in 20 years?

Is the Minister happy that an investment of €7 million is sufficient? Does that sum come out of the €13.7 million allocated under subhead G2 or does it refer purely to energy conservation measures?

The total comes out of the €13.7 million.

That means we are spending about €6 million on conservation and €7 million on research in new renewable technologies.

Yes, there is €5 million on current which includes pay.

Does the Minister have an approximate figure for our expenditure on imported fossil fuels?

The pay and operational cost is €3.5 million; the large industry energy network is €750,000; the house of tomorrow research programme is €770,000, public sector building energy efficiency is €2.85 million; the home energy ratings scheme is €200,000; the low income housing programme is €850,000 and the renewable and research and development programme is €1.8 million.

How much is the country spending on importing fossil fuels, to the nearest €50 million?

I cannot give that figure off the top of my head.

I might have to put down a parliamentary question. I imagine it is in the order of €3 billion or €4 billion.

Is that a parliamentary question?

Yes. I will follow it up as such but it has only just come to me now.

I feel a parliamentary question coming on.

: There will be a question. Guessing at the nearest billion, it is, perhaps, €3 billion or €4 billion, yet only €13 million is being spent on measures that would have a dramatic effect in cutting the bill. Are we happy that that is a clever long-term investment?

There is other research on new technologies which is not funded by the State, for example, the Marine Institute is doing work but other private operators, including the ESB, are doing research in this area. We do not have the luxury of the Deputy's blinkered vision. We must also ensure that the lights do not go out and that we continue to have an energy source. The Deputy stated earlier that we could put 4,000 megawatts of wind onto the grid. The experts in this area, on whom we are obliged to rely because they run these systems, tell us that cannot be done and there are independent reports to support that view. The Deputy would be the first to have my guts for garters in the Dáil if the lights went out. I would not have the luxury of saying that the Deputy was the very one who wanted me to concentrate on wind power.

When one adds a significant amount of renewable energy on to the grid, particularly wind, it has a destabilising effect on the integrity of the grid so we must take a balanced view of this. More wave projects have been submitted to me than I have had hot dinners in the last two years. To a certain extent, one was wackier than the other. We must be extremely careful about the investment we make in new projects to ensure that there is at least some possibility that, ultimately, the taxpayer will get value. That is a matter for the SEI to decide. It has the budget for this and it determines what amounts are granted. I have no say in this.

At present, 87% of our energy is coming from imported fossil fuels and if we continue with our present patterns in terms of electricity generation we will be very dependent on natural gas coming from Siberia or elsewhere. Looking ahead 20 or 30 years there are serious concerns about this. To take up the Minister's point about keeping the lights on, if we want to keep them on 20 years from now are we not taking great risks by making ourselves over-reliant on that narrow source of supply?

I answered that earlier. I have already asked that a review take place for new targets, and benchmarks in this area of renewable energy, to bring it up to 2020. We are taking the long-term view on this.

Does the Minister think that €13 million will get us there?

It is a cumulative expenditure.

The annual budget is €13 million.

It is a growing budget.

It has grown from €13.3 million to €13.7 million at a time when the price of a barrel of oil has gone from €30 last year to €42 yesterday. It is not growing enough. That is my point.

The Deputy has made the point several times. We will have plenty of opportunity to return to the subject in our own modules. A delegation from the SEI recently attending a meeting of the committee. Are subheads G1 and G3 agreed? Agreed. We will proceed to subheads H1 and H2, covering regional broadband and multi-media developments. Does Deputy Ryan want to say something on this?

Yes. This is an area in which I would welcome some investment. It is a visionary investment but it could be a "field of dreams". How can the Minister assure me that it will not be a "field of dreams" and that we will use existing assets where possible? What measures have we put in place to guarantee that we are not re-laying fibre adjacent to existing fibre in this budget of €32 million?

We are not taking action on this to duplicate what is already there, alive and active. One has only to look at the ESB investment in the two loops, which is significant, similarly with regard to Bord Gáis Éireann and the National Roads Authority. We are in effect piggy-backing on several existing infrastructures. As the Deputy can see from the programme, we are investing in areas to ensure that there is no digital divide. Areas that the private companies will not cover will be serviced by an alternative network whether fixed, wireless, satellite or other available technology.

I accept the Minister's point about using the ESB or Bord Gáis Éireann grids which is a useful back hall network for these local networks but the real concern is that we may be replicating the incumbents and other telecom companies' fibre on a local level. I am not talking about connection to the door but local fibre networks around a town. One of the recommendations of the report, which the Chairman led so ably, was that we would not duplicate assets. Instead, we would be clever and use a carrot and stick approach to ensure that the incumbent telecom companies would make their fibre assets available for this network. I cannot recall what stick we were thinking of using if they did not do this. The Chairman may recall. There was a clear recommendation in our report that the clever investment would be to provide assets where they were not available but where existing fibre was under-utilised, which is the position in most cases given the capacity it can take, and that we would ensure that our investment did not duplicate it. In what negotiations are we involved and what are we doing on the ground to make sure that we are not duplicating fibre?

Before the Minister replies I should explain that what we tried to outline in the report is that where the fibre, the network and the infrastructure were already present we did not want to be forced down the road of recommending that the Government would roll out assets as well. We were effectively telling telecom companies that if they were not going to do that, it must fall to the Government. I am not allowed to say much but as a committee we are very supportive of the Minister and the Government in the roll-out of broadband. In particular in Cork the metropolitan area network is working, Smart Telecom is the first operator and it is evident that someone else can have a network without the incumbent. The Minister saw the fruits of that when he recently visited Cork.

It is not just a matter of providing infrastructure in areas where it is not already there because there is an issue of price and choice for people who want to get into this. If one concentrates on going into those areas where there is no existing infrastructure there will be a monopoly elsewhere. We must make our system available on an open access basis. Where we went into the 19 areas the incumbent followed immediately in 17. The two areas it did not enter were Manorhamilton and Gweedore, which may be self-explanatory. An additional 88 towns of populations of more than 1,500 as per the Central Statistics Office figures are now to be included. The incumbent, Eircom, has subsequently decided to go into those areas.

In the scale of things, we are using resources that would not equate to those of private companies. We are doing it in such a way as to pump prime private investment. Anyone in the industry will admit that the strategic decisions made in this area, particularly the investment in the back hall, has been the key to enabling new competition in the area. As an open market, it is up to the private sector to provide the services at the best price. In recent times, the price has come down substantially and it is apparent that there is more competition in the area. All of the wireless and cable companies have welcomed the MANS projects and back hall facilities provided by the ESB, BT Esat, Bord Gáis Éireann and the National Roads Authority.

How many kilometres of the network being introduced this year involve the use of existing fibre put in by telecom companies?

I do not have the exact figures but it is a single figure of approximately 5%.

Are subheads H1 to H2 agreed? Agreed. We will now deal with subheads I1 to I15, grant towards the RTE television licence collection payment, BCI, TG4 and broadcasting fund.

Has the Minister any figures for television licence spongers and is it costing the State much? An Post is reluctant to carry on providing the facility for collecting the TV licence fee. Has the Minister any proposals for another agency to collect the licence fee? Are there plans to introduce Internet facilities for television licence applications and payment which would be a simple process?

The licence fee evasion rate is estimated to have come down from 16% to 12%. Since I took office, a liaison committee between An Post, RTE and my Department has been established to examine other avenues in further reducing the evasion rate. Deputy Kehoe claims that RTE is in financial trouble. However, this year's accounts, to be published soon, will show that RTE has gone from a deficit of €50 million in the previous year to profit. We are looking at alternative methods of licence fee collection, to the point of putting it out to tender which may introduce a payment facility on the Internet.

I am delighted to hear that RTE will be back in profit. Will An Post's financial statements for this year show a similar improvement?

An Post's financial situation is perilous but the indications are that matters have turned around. My Department has told An Post it is important that it deals with its core business, which is also management's view. That is why it wants to drop the television licence fee collection. This is not to suggest that An Post would not apply for the tender in due course. All these issues are on the table at the Labour Relations Commission. The discussions are on-going but have been fruitful.

I welcome the increase in the Estimates for TG4 as I enjoy the channel very much. It is also important in the promotion of the State's first official language. The channel has been a remarkable success. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has received a 57% increase in funding in the last year. The same amount is being spent on the broadcasting commission as research into alternative energy development. Is the Minister concerned that Parkinson's law will apply to the many regulatory authorities created? In time, these authorities will develop their own bureaucracies, employ their own consultants and public relations agents, when the same function was provided more cheaply by the Civil Service. I know of the difficulties in the broadcasting area and the issuing of licences that forced the creation of an independent regulatory authority. However, the danger is the mushrooming of these expensive quangos.

Reports on this issue have been published. I often cite the example of the electricity situation where, historically, governments of all political parties refused to allow the ESB to increase prices. Only when the Commission for Energy Regulation was established were increases granted to the ESB. If they had not, the ESB would not have been able to renew its infrastructure and ensure continuity of supply. That example illustrates the necessity to take regulatory issues out of the political sphere. The political view may be coloured by political concerns which in the long term may not be good as it could prevent investment in utility infrastructure.

Given the number of regulatory authorities, there has been a debate as to whether there should be only a single regulator. I am considering the situation in the broadcasting area to see, under the Broadcasting Authority Bill, what permutations we can look at given that the BCI is changing its role and acquiring more responsibility. The increase under subhead I.3 is referable to the 5% fund which was legislated for, and is connected with money from the RTE licence fee.

There may be instances when it is best to take certain decisions out of the political arena, but as politicians we are doing ourselves an injustice in this case. I will give an example where I credit a member of the present Government for making a tough decision which would never have been made by a regulator. I refer to the legislation on smoking which the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, single-handedly pushed through. I fear sometimes that by distancing ourselves from tough decisions we are doing the people a disfavour because in certain instances it is only politicians who can come to a firm conclusion that a certain action is the right one to take, and push ahead with it, though there might be strong opposition. It is sometimes difficult for commissions, regulators or other bodies to take a visionary direction and make a tough decision.

Regarding the Broadcasting Commission's regulation of advertising to children, I disagree fundamentally with the Minister on the appropriateness or otherwise of politicians being involved and having a say in that. I fear that the regulation we get is well meant, but cautious rather than courageous. I do not mean this in any pejorative sense, but the nature of bureaucratic decision-making is more cautious than political decision-making. While in certain instances we may have had corrupt and misguided political decision-making, we should not write politicians out of the role of making hard and important decisions. Politicians can sometimes make more creative, courageous decisions. I am wary of us doing ourselves down in that regard.

I agree to a certain extent. It would be a great speech to be made by a politician, but Deputy Ryan is the person who complained of the lack of vision of this Department, and no doubt he complains similarly about other Departments. To a certain extent, regulators can take a longer-term view than can the birds of passage which politicians are in Departments. A regulator in the fishing industry might be able to take a more long-term view of plans than a political process might do. There is a balance to be struck between the two.

In the area of electricity and essential services, areas for which I have the responsibility, and which are driven by the opening up of markets, one cannot open up a market to the private sector and then have Ministers regularly intervening with political policy points of view. That is one of the reasons why my ability to insist on policy directives and their implementation is hamstrung to a certain extent by the directives handed down by the EU regarding the opening up of markets, which is good because it ensures open competition. If Ministers were to involve themselves on a virtually daily basis in directing regulators to do their bidding, the system we have put in place, as instigated by the EU, would not be workable.

I do not think Ministers should be involved in day to day management, but they are ultimately responsible for establishing long-term policy constraints within which people operate. We cannot simply say the European Union wants us to deregulate the electricity market, for example, and open it to competition. The Minister and I know that the Government, because of the importance of the matter, will intervene. That intervention must be consistent and to a certain extent must be predictable by people involved in the industry, because they must know what the long-term vision is.

That is so at a high level. Another example close to the Deputy's heart involves the Environmental Protection Agency. That too is a body set up to independently oversee its particular area. It is preferable that such supervision is free from the political process. In that way the agency's work can be independently done at arm's length from the political process where there might be political considerations affecting the results the general public would want.

In terms of the Broadcasting Commission and its work, it would have been appropriate for the Minister to give a direction or a policy of the Government's views regarding advertising aimed at children. The matter should not simply be left to the regulator in a Limbo to decide what regulation we want. I do not like the way the relevant Minister in the United Kingdom has gone about this matter, but she has at least intervened to set out some broad parameters to which she believes the industry should adhere. The regulation of children's advertising is an example of where it is appropriate for a Minister to set out in advance certain broad parameters as to where the Government wants to go. It could then be left to the regulator to carry out the work. To say nothing and insist politicians should say nothing on a policy issue which has serious long-term implications in health and industry is inappropriate.

It is not a question of us saying anything. I am restricted from saying anything because I have to deal with the existing legislation. I have already indicated publicly that I intend to change the legislation with a view to allowing the political process, namely the Government and Minister of the day, to give political policy directions in this regard. I have to deal with the here and now, and under the legislation I am obliged to implement, as is the Deputy, the Minister is in effect not entitled to give a personal view. It is entirely a matter for the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland.

Thank you, Minister. We will now take subheads J1-J6, changed management fund, K, other services and L, appropriations-in-aid, all to be taken together. Are there any questions on the last three sections before I ask for concluding remarks from the Opposition spokespersons?

Under subhead K, other services, the mining services figure has increased from €28,000 to €2 million. Could the Minister supply some detailed background on what is involved there?

That Vote for 2003 is primarily increased provision for payment of compensation by the Minister to the owners of private mineral rights in cases where developments impinge on these rights. Some claims expected in 2003 did not mature, so there is a carry-over in addition to new claims in respect of new State mining facilities. The cost of any such compensation is recouped from the mining companies and receipted as an appropriation-in-aid to the Department's Vote.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending the meeting.

The committee will be addressing the issue of renewable energy within the next six months. It is an area which falls within my remit in the Green Party. We are going to see increasing public concern about the emissions issue, about global climate change implications and, because of the global geopolitical situation, about the availability of fossil fuel supplies A long-term vision is needed. I take the Minister's point that the Department has been commissioned to look ahead to 2020 and report on what percentage of renewables we may be able to use at that time. Ireland is falling further behind all the time. In five years' time, I fear that we will realise that we must be leaders in these technologies, but instead will be going to Austria to buy our wood pellet machines, to Germany for our solar power technology and to Scotland or elsewhere for our wave technology.

This is an area where we should be world leaders. I was at a presentation by the Stockholm Environment Institute, SEI, last week. An expert from the Dutch Government was giving a talk on biomass and biofuels. Again it was embarrassing to hear him say he found it remarkable that in this country the same attention was not being paid to biofuel development in comparison to what was happening throughout the rest of Europe. This is the hottest area, where it is all happening and we have one research farm, somewhere, with a rape seed crop instead of 10,000 making this fuel which can be used in cars. The technology is already proven. We are missing out on a major opportunity.

If the concern, as set out in the Minister's speech, is competitiveness and jobs, as it should be, why are we not leading the field in biofuels where we have a perfect climate for growing the crops, from which there is a residue which may be used in the fodder industry? Are we not again talking about a research study which has already been done so many times? Why do we not have 5,000 Irish farmers using biomass? I would cite the German government as an example: it realises the opportunities that exist. These products may not be commercially viable now. The Germans believe they will start to become commercially viable in 2010, because of the increase in fuel prices, linked to other events. They are now investing massively in these technologies because they know it takes five to ten years to build up the technological expertise and develop the know-how, that is, the people on the ground who can do it. They are willing to subsidise it over that five to ten year period so that when it is viable - which it will be - they will be the world leaders in it. We should be doing the same and we are not. We are falling further and further behind in the energy area. We are going to realise in five years' time that this is where the jobs, the money and the environmental improvements would have come from.

The talk, constantly, is about new groups to study the possibilities. We do not need that much study. It is happening all over Europe and it should be here, but it is not.

I disagree with what the Deputy has to say in this respect. A substantial amount of research and development is ongoing in this country. Given the country's size and resources it is far more preferable, when comparisons are made with the Germans and the Dutch, that we put these resources into niche technologies. It would be preferable if, so to speak, we could "piggyback" on some of the research that has been done in the more developed countries including those with a better economic climate than the one we have had over the last 30 to 40 years.

On the more general point as regards the Department, I must compliment the committee on the work it has done. This is one of the more active committees in the House. I compliment the Chairman and members. Although I might have my disagreements and gripes with the committee it mirrors the Department well and, as previous speakers have said, it is a broad remit. I am delighted to see that it is now concentrating on energy, because like the Deputies on the other side of the House, it is an area that is occupying a considerable amount of my time, given the issues inherent in it. It is an area in which there are no easy or quick solutions. Every decision made is long-term and strategic. The lead-in time for building new generation - whether it is renewable or fossil fuel energy - is substantial, so the decisions we take have to be made on good solid grounds. For instance, the interconnector is a major decision, and one from which future generations will reap benefit, particularly in the area of renewables.

Similarly, we will be launching an extensive review of the electricity sector, generally, with a view to putting a long-term strategy in place. We are also reviewing the merits of bringing forward an energy plan which will hopefully work for a ten-year period and then be renewed on a ten-yearly basis. Like Deputy Eamon Ryan, I agree that more strategic planning needs to be done in this type of area. I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee.

Top
Share