Priority Questions
1. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding EirGrid’s Grid 25 plans; the total cost of these plans; if he will issue a response to the 35,000 submissions to the Grid Link project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4479/14]
View answer3. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the way the concerns of residents will be accommodated in the plans for the new EirGrid pylon network; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4495/14]
View answerWill the Minister update the House on EirGrid's Grid25 plans, the total costs to date of the plan and respond to the 35,000 submissions on the Grid Link project?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 3 together.
EirGrid’s Grid25 national transmission grid development programme is vital for future socio-economic progress in Ireland, for regional development throughout Ireland, and to ensure that current and future generations of consumers have access to more reliable, sustainable and affordable energy. Grid25 represents an investment in the electricity transmission system of around €3.2 billion in the coming 15 to 20 years.
During the course of engagement by EirGrid in the recent public consultation processes, and most recently on the Grid Link project on which 35,000 submissions were received, a number of key concerns emerged. This has necessitated considerable review and reflection to determine the optimum approach needed to address those concerns that are valid, while at the same time ensuring adequate and effective transmission capacity in the State.
Arising from examination of the concerns expressed, I have proposed a number of measures to deal with the immediate concerns on the Grid West and Grid Link projects, while also addressing the generality of commentary on the need to improve stakeholder and community engagement on all Grid25 projects for the future.
I have appointed an independent panel of experts, to be chaired by the Honourable Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness. The panel of experts will decide the terms of reference for comprehensive route-specific studies of fully underground and overhead options for the Grid Link and the Grid West projects. The panel will be required to ensure the process for taking forward the Grid Link and Grid West projects accords with the highest standards of integrity. They will also be asked to ensure the studies are complete, impartial, objective and comparable and will report to me on these matters in due course. The overhead and underground options will be published side by side, in objective and comparable terms, before consideration is given to the appropriate next steps for each of the projects.
EirGrid will be required to undertake the two studies, as determined by the independent panel of experts, which will take account of, inter alia, environmental and visual amenity impacts, technical efficacy and cost factors. The independent panel will have power to commission additional work if there is any perceived deficiency in the studies presented.
Additionally, I will ask the chairperson of EirGrid to undertake a comprehensive assessment, with a view to improving EirGrid’s community engagement processes and procedures, having regard to the significant public concerns raised on this issue. I believe EirGrid will respond to the demands of meaningful and extensive public consultation and will take account of lessons learned from the most recent consultation process in addition to consideration of the Government policy statement of July 2012 on the strategic importance of transmission and other energy infrastructure. A package of community gain measures to address issues of visual impact and property devaluation for overhead options of grid projects are being developed in close discussion with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will also engage expert assistance to review and report on international developments since 2007 on any potential health effects of electromagnetic fields emanating from transmission grid infrastructure. In 2007, an expert group established by the then Minister with responsibility for energy published a report on health effects of electromagnetic fields. The forthcoming review will bring this 2007 report up to date.
The situation is different regarding the North-South transmission line for several reasons. The reality is that planning for this project has been under way for the past ten years. A planning application has already been submitted for the part of the project in Northern Ireland and that planning process is in train.
I thank the Minister. EirGrid's Grid25 project is exercising minds in a raft of the countryside where it is proposed to go ahead. Is the North-South interconnector covered under the jurisdiction of Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness? Will it be part of her considerations? There are conflicting reports from various political parties and I would like it clarified. For completeness, we called for an independent international review prior to Christmas.
Many of the people who have contacted me and the groups that I have spoken to have expressed health issues as their main concern. If there is to be any completeness or confidence in the debate the health issues must be to the fore. I would like the Minister to clarify the current position on the North-South transmission line.
I shall respond to the second question first. There is no question of the health issue not being included in the panel. Rather it is a matter that relates to the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Responsibility for any concerns in respect of electromagnetic fields or non-ionising radiation is a matter for him also. As I said in my formal statement, he is arranging for expert advice to bring the 2007 report up to date. It is not a question, as has been said, of having nobody on the expert panel with a medical or scientific background in the area. That matter is the jurisdiction of another Minister and the memorandum that I brought to Government requires him to do so and to bring it up to speed. He will do so.
As regards the North-South issue, it might be best if I state my few formal words that coincidently happen to address Deputy Moynihan's other question. Detailed studies have already been conducted for the North-South project, most recently by the independent international commission of experts appointed in July 2011, arising from a commitment in the programme for Government. A route-specific underground analysis was conducted by PB Power which found that the cost of undergrounding would significantly exceed the cost of the more usual overhead cables. The PB Power analysis was considered and confirmed by the independent commission who estimated that the cost of undergrounding would be at least three times that of overhead cables.
The North-South transmission line is a critical and strategically urgent transmission reinforcement and is of critical importance in the broader North-South context. This is because as well as reinforcing the grid in the north east region of the State, the transmission line will be a vital link in maintaining the security of electricity supply for Northern Ireland into the future. I recognise, however, that the public would be reassured if it knew that the overhead and underground options for the North-South have both been investigated and that the already published studies are sufficient to enable a similar comparison to be made by An Bord Pleanála when they come to decide on the merits of the planning application.
I shall give a specific answer to Deputy Moynihan's question. Tomorrow I shall meet the chairperson of the expert review panel, Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness, to discuss the work programme for the panel. I will ask her to consider what work, if any, the panel might usefully undertake to establish whether or not there has been parity of treatment between the North-South transmission line project, in terms of the work undertaken to date, and the very issues that the expert review panel will examine regarding Grid Link and Grid West into the future.
As the Minister will know, many communities are extremely concerned about the huge pylon infrastructure. Their concerns are all very well-grounded in terms of its huge effect on the environment, fears for their health and its impact on people's daily lives. Is the Minister concerned that many of these groups are unconvinced by the commission that he has established? They view it as a way of getting the issue past the local and European elections that will be a huge point of protest and pressure on the Government. Is he aware that people are concerned that EirGrid, which is driving the project, shall play a key role in the investigation and, therefore, will be seen to have an undue influence on the outcome?
The committee shall comprise five members and the Minister has included two noted professors. One of them is noted for a report published some years ago that championed privatisation and public sector cuts of an extreme nature. The second professor has pushed for stealth taxes, property taxes and water taxes to be imposed on householders and other taxpayers for many years. I put it to the Minister that the ideological neo-liberal bent of the two individuals will not give confidence that the report, or the views that influence the report, will be anything except what is driven by the interests of the establishment.
I entirely accept - as I have on dozens of occasions - that it is imperative that EirGrid is sensitive to the concerns raised by community groups and citizens. I have gone to great pains to ensure that the views and concerns, not just of groups that I have met but citizens generally, are taken into account and assessed in terms of how EirGrid and the Government ought to respond. I also accept that some people are never happy unless they are unhappy and I do not agree with the Deputy's claim that there have been concerns expressed about the probity of the exercise now under way. The steps that I have put in place to deal with the issues - highlighted in the public consultation - will be supervised or overseen by a panel of distinguished experts and chaired by a former Supreme Court judge. I do not and have not heard anybody who believes that a panel of that eminence - established to oversee the integrity of the process - can be questioned in terms of it independent or competence to see that the steps taken are fair, objective, impartial, comprehensive and comparable. I am absolutely satisfied about that and I am indebted to those people for giving their time to supervise or oversee the implementation of measures that are particularly and specifically designed to respond to the concerns raised during the public consultation.
I thank the Minister but I must call Deputies Moynihan and Higgins. Deputy Moynihan shall be first.
With regard to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government having jurisdiction of another aspect of the project regarding health, the project itself and the concerns of the communities, the two Departments should be on song and completely together. With regard the statement that was issued on Tuesday, it should have been announced that one Department was commissioning the report and the other Department was parallel with it, and not that they will do something.
The concerns that people have about health, the visual impact and destruction of their communities are well founded. Since the project was announced it has generated a large amount of fear. At this late stage the two Departments should say that they shall take the project and do it as one and not say that one Department may update the 2007 report or whatever. That information gives more cause for concern within communities.
I call Deputy Higgins. We are almost out of time so I suggest that the Minister respond to the two contributions together.
There is no question about the eminence, independence or competence of the Minister's panel. That was not the point that I made. I made the point that there are two formidable personalities on the panel who are driven by right-wing neo-liberal philosophies. That is bound to have an effect on the outcome in regard to the balance between ordinary people and the needs of the establishment and, in this case, costs. Does the Minister accept that undergrounding, at an extra cost, is worth the prize considering the fact that it will have much less effect on the environment and there are less concerns regarding people's health? It is demeaning to communities and individuals that have expressed their concerns about this huge pylon project for the Minister to describe them as being never happy unless they are unhappy. These people are faced with the prospect of having pylons placed beside them which will be 45 m in height and with cables carrying 400,000 volts of electricity giving rise to serious concerns about the effect of electromagnetic fields on health, particularly children's health.
These are all very serious concerns so people have a right to be unhappy, to express that unhappiness and to try to get the situation changed.
I most emphatically did not refer to the people expressing concerns as being in the category to which Deputy Higgins refers when I said there are some people who are never happy unless they are unhappy. I was referring to Deputy Higgins and people who think like him who dismiss out of hand the fact a measure has been born out of the public consultation process and is designed to respond to the concerns of citizens and who engage in allegations about the supposed right wing ideology of two members of the panel. For the life of me, I cannot see what their supposed ideology or philosophy has got to do with this. The question is whether they are eminent citizens of probity who will ensure the process is conducted with integrity and that it is fair, authoritative, objective and complete. This expert panel, chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Mrs. Catherine McGuinness, is not charged with making recommendations to me about what should or should not be done about the build out of necessary grid in Ireland. It is charged with the responsibility to ensure the studies we are doing in response to the public consultation are carried out in a proper fashion and that they can be relied on in terms of the professional competence, authority and fairness of the reports. I am not putting in an expert panel to replace a State agency or anything like that. I am putting in a panel to ensure that what is done is done in accordance with best practice and proper principles.
On Deputy Moynihan's question, I agree with him that it is imperative there is co-ordination and co-operation between two Departments that have different responsibilities and that is happening. I assure him of that. However, I cannot take over the function of another Minister. If, say, there was a taxation element to this, I would have to deal with the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Finance. I cannot take over the responsibility that is reposed in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I can assure Deputy Moynihan that there is optimum co-operation between the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, and myself on this issue.
2. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if discussions have begun with the relevant authorities as to the amount Ireland would receive from the export of energy from renewable sources following the signing of the memorandum of understanding with Britain; if so the amount they expect to receive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4552/14]
View answerI am troubled that there is so little information on the outworking of the memorandum of understanding with Britain on the export of renewable energy from the midlands. Will the Minister give an update on the current position?
In January of 2013, the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Mr. Edward Davey MP, and I signed a memorandum of understanding on energy co-operation. That memorandum sent a strong signal of our shared interest in developing the opportunity to export green energy from Ireland to Britain and will result in completion of consideration of how Irish renewable energy resources, onshore and offshore, might be developed to the mutual benefit of both countries.
Following the signing of a memorandum of understanding, work is progressing with a view to entering an intergovernmental agreement with the UK in 2014. Regarding the development of the intergovernmental agreement, significant work streams are ongoing in the areas of project management, the intergovernmental agreement itself, European Union liaison, communications and stakeholder management, economic analysis, policy on renewables export and grid issues, regulation, legislation, and land and planning. The work that is being done by my officials on the development of the intergovernmental agreement with the UK is separate and distinct from the work being done by EirGrid on the development of the domestic electricity grid, a point that continues to be confused, sometimes deliberately, I suspect.
With regard to the development of the proposed export project, it is important to note that this must await the completion of an intergovernmental agreement, the putting in place of a renewable energy export policy and development framework, and the obtaining of planning permission for project proposals, subject to environmental impact assessment as necessary.
From an Irish perspective the potential benefits being examined include jobs created, community gain, interconnection benefits, corporation tax receipts and rates paid to local authorities. A full cost-benefit analysis is ongoing to determine if it is mutually beneficial for Ireland and the United Kingdom to enter an intergovernmental agreement in the coming months to facilitate trade in renewable energy. The amount of energy to be procured by the UK and the mechanisms for sharing the resultant economic benefits, including an appropriate return to the Exchequer, are among the matters to be addressed ahead of signing any intergovernmental agreement.
I am as wise as before I asked the question and I think the people who are listening are as wise as they were before I asked the question. I see companies buying and leasing land, and paying a good deal of money for it, obviously in the knowledge that whatever about changes to planning guidelines or permissions, those companies are going to make money from generating electricity that will be exported to Britain. There is a fundamental aspect here. The Minister said this work is separate from EirGrid and that people seem to be confused and that, sometimes, it may be deliberate. Is it not true that the transmission lines for the export of energy to Britain are not capable of being connected to the Irish grid and that they will never be used to supply electricity to Irish people, even as a standby?
I will return to the Deputy after the Minister replies.
It certainly cannot be the case that, on the one hand, we are building out and improving the grid, which has no relationship to the wind export project about which people are complaining, and on the other hand that the transmission system for the wind export project can never be connected to the Irish grid. It is one or the other. I say again, for the umpteenth time, that if there is not an intergovernmental agreement and unless the economics stack up for both countries, as with any trade agreement, there will not be a wind export project. The wind export project being worked on is dependent on an intergovernmental agreement and on the economics working out to the benefit of both countries.
I thank the Minister.
It is an entirely separate technology. The technology that will connect the wind export project to the British grid, if it goes ahead, is a sub-sea cable and an underground cable to wherever the electricity is being generated.
I will come back to the Minister as Deputy Colreavy wishes to come in again.
The fundamental problem is that we simply do not have a national strategy for energy in Ireland, and in the absence of a good national strategy, we have companies who are setting the agenda. I find it extraordinary that after three years of discussions in respect of the memorandum of understanding, the Minister cannot quantify what the benefits will be to this country. I am aware he has said that we will have reached our renewable energy targets by 2020.
I do not believe we reached them in 2011 and 2012. I understand that in December the Commissioner waved a yellow card at us, and that we could be fined €20,000 per day because of our failure to reach targets. I do not know if that is true but it was certainly reported. I would like the Minister's comments on it.
The fundamental problem is that we do not have a strategy. The companies are doing the running and setting the agenda, and we will pay for it either financially or in terms of lost opportunities. We will be exporting green energy that we need ourselves.
We do not need it ourselves. If there was a question of domestic need, that would come first. We have capacity to generate more than what we need domestically. If we can find a market in which to sell the excess, why should we not open a new trade sector in green energy?
The process has not been under way for three years. I said in my formal reply that the memorandum was signed last January. I set out in my answer some of the very complex issues that must be resolved. There is no surprise at all that an intergovernmental agreement would take this kind of time. It is important that I, as guarantor for the Irish people, ensure there is a benefit for the Exchequer and State; otherwise there will not be an agreement. If I were rushing into an agreement, Deputy Colreavy would be accusing me of being hasty.
There is a national strategy in place but Deputy Colreavy fails to acknowledge that, as is his entitlement. I will be publishing a Green Paper on energy policy within the next six weeks or so and perhaps he and I can make a fresh start with that paper. I look forward to his input.
It is not reconcilable to allege we are improving grid transmission to accommodate the wind export project to Britain and, on the other hand, question whether we will ever be able to connect the wind export project technology to the domestic Irish grid. People must decide which side they are coming down on.
4. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he has any concerns over the wide variation in the amount of energy generated from wind power on the national grid from week to week; the plans he has to integrate the Irish electricity grid into the European grid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4480/14]
View answerI wish to ask the Minister about his concerns over the wide variation in the amount of wind energy generated on the national grid from week to week. In September, for instance, only 43 MW of energy was generated. In December, 1,769 MW was generated. What is the Minister's view on this variation and what are his plans to address this issue?
EirGrid is the transmission system operator, TSO, for the electricity transmission system in Ireland. The functions of the TSO are set out in SI 445 of 2000 and include the operation of a safe, secure, reliable, economical and efficient electricity transmission system with a view to ensuring that all reasonable demands for electricity are met, having due regard for the environment.
The conventional generation required to support variable renewable energy such as wind energy is covered in All-Island Generation Capacity Statement 2013-2022, published by EirGrid and the Northern Ireland transmission system operator, SONI, in 2013. The capacity statement examines the expected electricity demand and level of generation capacity forecast to be available over a ten-year period. This analysis and forecasting allow EirGrid and SONI to establish the outlook for generation adequacy in Ireland and Northern Ireland over the timeframe. Based on analysis of factors such as increasing levels of renewables and changes in the conventional generation portfolio, the statement forecasts that Ireland’s generation adequacy outlook is positive for each of the next ten years.
It is important to note that the cost of subsidising renewable generation varies throughout the European Union. The additional costs of renewable generation in Ireland are marginal. The European Commission estimated only last week that renewable energy added less than 1% to retail energy prices in Ireland. This compares very favourably with figures for other member states as well as the average increase of 6% in retail energy prices across Europe. I remind the Deputy in the context of recent discussion on the urgency of the construction of the Meath–Tyrone transmission line that such costs, along with costs called constraint costs, will be further reduced when that link with Northern Ireland becomes operational.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
EU policy is to encourage greater integration and interconnectivity between member states. EirGrid has the statutory responsibility to explore and develop opportunities for interconnection of the Irish transmission system with other systems. Enhanced security of supply, increased competitiveness, and the ability to integrate greater quantities of variable renewable generation resources are some of the potential benefits of further interconnection between the transmission grids of Ireland, Great Britain and mainland Europe. I understand from EirGrid that a number of studies are exploring different aspects of the feasibility of additional interconnection and these will feed into any decisions on future interconnection investment.
Given the considerable emphasis on wind energy and the talk about expanding wind energy capacity, is EirGrid or the Government concerned that we could become over-reliant on wind energy such that there would not be enough electricity in the system during crucial periods of high demand if there were insufficient wind at the time?
On the subject of the proposed wind energy farms in the midlands that are to export electricity to the United Kingdom, will all the energy be taken underground to the point where it is to go under the sea?
The Deputy raised a very complex, technical question that I have struggled with for quite some time in an effort to understand. It essentially concerns the capacity of the system to accommodate renewables generally, and wind energy in particular. The transmission system operator, EirGrid, is very highly regarded not only in Ireland, but also internationally in terms of its technical competence in dealing with this issue. The Deputy is correct that when the wind does not blow or blow adequately, backup is needed. This is when additional costs are incurred.
Only last week, the paper produced by the European Union estimated that the marginal cost in Ireland is 1%, as I stated in my formal reply. In some other countries, it is as high as 13.5%. If my memory serves me correctly – one should not hold me to this without checking – there was a day last year on which 50% of our domestic need was met by wind energy. This is very high by comparison with the figures for any other European country. A process called the DS3 process is in train to examine future capacity in this area.
If the wind export project to Britain gets under way, the cable from the midlands to the point where it goes under the sea will be underground because the technology will be distinct, separate and different.
That basic point is fundamental to the issue of EirGrid. If we are capable of running an underground cable from the midlands to the point at which it goes under the sea for export, why can we not run cables underground for the internal supply? I refer to the North-South and east-west interconnectors, which are part of the Grid25 programme. If cables can be run underground for the purpose of exportation, it should be done internally also.
It is not a question of technical capacity only. Undergrounding is possible but it is much more expensive. Deputy Colreavy's party leader said yesterday that the norm internationally is to put cables underground. The international norm is that 1.5% of transmission cables are underground, including in economies that are far wealthier than ours.
While the issue is cost, there also can be technical questions. In the case mentioned by the Deputy of the North-South interconnector, technical questions exist that have always concerned EirGrid and engineers because unlike southern Munster, the North-South project entails meshing two different systems and even if there never was an issue with money, the engineers have technical concerns as to what technology should be used. However, on Deputy Moynihan's main point as to whether it is possible nowadays to run a DC cable, the answer is "Yes" but there are related questions and a huge difference in cost.
5. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the effect recent reports that the EU will reduce renewable energy targets post 2020 will have on the development of wind turbines and the extension of pylons here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4553/14]
View answerI welcome the Minister's intention to produce a Green Paper on energy in Ireland. If this leads to comprehensive policy on energy, I will work enthusiastically with the Minister on it and I look forward to it greatly. The European Union surprised me and many observers by deciding to scale back on the renewable energy targets for 2020. It would be instructive to probe into the reasons this decision was made but I do not have access to that information. Will such scaling back on the renewable energy targets by the European Union have an impact on our strategy, when we have one, in respect of renewable energy here? In particular, I refer to the matter on which Members have just spoken, namely, the outworking of the memorandum of understanding regarding the export of green energy to Britain.
In the first instance, it is important to state the paper published by the European Union last week does not in any way scale back on the 2020 targets. The 2020 targets remain extant across Europe and Ireland is still required to meet its target of 40% of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2020. Anything the European Union announced last week in respect of events post 2020 does not in any way affect the targets for 2020.
The European Commission published a package of documents last week, which includes a communication setting out its ambitions for a 2030 energy and climate framework. The Commission’s proposals include a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below the 1990 level, an EU-wide binding target for renewable energy of at least 27%, renewed ambitions for energy efficiency policies, a new governance system and a set of new indicators to ensure a competitive and secure energy system. It is not the case that the EU will reduce renewable energy targets post 2020, as suggested by the Deputy. On the contrary, the Commission's communication builds on the framework agreed for 2020, which set a target of 20% of energy in the EU to come from renewable sources. Considerable analysis of the Commission’s proposals is now required by all member states to ensure the framework allows for action that is cost-effective and does not place a disproportionate burden on EU energy consumers. Additionally, the Commission will be working closely with member states to ensure that each member state develops and implements a national plan for competitive, secure and sustainable energy. These plans will require each member state to set out how it will contribute to achieving the EU binding target for renewable energy of at least 27%.
The Government's overriding energy policy objective is to ensure secure, sustainable and competitive energy supplies for the economy and society. Renewable energy has a critical role to play in achieving this objective. The sector provides a real and sustainable economic opportunity for Ireland both in terms of further developing a sustainable, indigenous source of energy and, potentially, as a clean export.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Government remains fully committed to delivery of the target of 16% of energy coming from renewable sources by 2020. It continues to make progress across all three areas and particularly in electricity, where Ireland has set its own target of 40% of electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020. In 2012, 19.6% of electricity demand was met by renewable generation. It is critical that every effort is maintained if we are to reach the 16% target for 2020, as it would provide the solid foundation on which to build in order to reach the 2030 objectives.
To date wind energy has been the largest driver of growth in renewable electricity, contributing most towards the achievement of the 2020 target. In 2012, 15.3% of electricity demand was met by wind generation. At the end of 2013, the total amount of renewable generation connected to the grid was 2,300 MW. It is estimated that a total of between 3,500 and 4,000 MW of onshore renewable generation capacity will be required to allow Ireland to meet its 40% renewable electricity target. Currently, approximately 3,000 MW of new generation, the bulk of which is renewable, has taken up connection offers under the Gate 3 grid connection programme.
With regard to the question of the impact on the grid of further renewable energy development, expert technical analysis clearly shows the need for reinforcement and upgrading of the high voltage transmission network to ensure secure, reliable power supplies for all to underpin economic development and to realise the potential of Ireland's clean indigenous, sustainable renewable energy resources. However, as I have stated many times previously, the concerns of local communities must be at the heart of infrastructure development. Early, ongoing and transparent communication is critical if vital energy infrastructure is to be delivered and to ensure these benefits are realised for all citizens.
I am sure the Minister was going to get to the point regarding the question I asked, namely, will this have an impact on the outworking of the memorandum of understanding between ourselves and Britain? I am sure that were I a negotiator on the British side, I would be seeking to ascertain what will happen here after 2020 and how this might have an impact on the cost and financial arrangements in connection with that memorandum of understanding. A huge programme of work is envisaged with regard to turbines and pylons all over the place, which is causing a great deal of public disquiet. Yet, the principles underlying this appear to be that post 2020, the negotiations will be different following this announcement from the European Union. What impact does the Minister believe it will have on the aforementioned negotiations and on the potential benefits to be gained by both Ireland and Britain? Have those potential benefits been changed following the European Union announcement?
One of these days, Deputy Colreavy must tell me where he stands on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. If we are to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and if we are to move towards decarbonisation of the electricity system, we must then reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and must use more renewable sources. I repeat for the tenth time this morning, that the improvement to the grid has nothing to do with whether there is an export project to Britain because, as I indicated in the last exchange with Deputy Moynihan, it is a separate technology underground to plug into the British grid and so on. The reason the grid is being strengthened in Ireland, on the advice of the expert State agency with responsibility for the delivery of an infrastructure fit for purpose, is to maintain economic progress in Ireland, to disperse employment to the regions and to ensure we have a system that is capable of doing precisely what I stated at the outset, that is, to reduce Ireland's dependence on fossil fuels, which cost us €6 billion per annum to import, as we are net importers. It also is to ensure that Ireland had a transmission system that is capable of exploiting a highly valuable renewable indigenous resource we happen to have in plenty here and this is what the Government is seeking to do in this regard.
I wholeheartedly endorse the Government's intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a project I wish to see work and the reason I ask these questions, put forward proposals and am constantly talking about the need for a national strategy is precisely because I wish to see this work. However, when I see proposals for 2,500 turbines, the energy from which is to go elsewhere, I must be sure the Irish people will get considerable payback on that. I repeat the problem I have outlined from the outset, which is that on the one hand, companies are paying big bucks to buy and lease land while on the other hand, the Government tells me no financial arrangements have yet been agreed, planning guidelines must be considered and discussed and that it is up to the companies in question if they wish to take a chance in this regard. However, such companies are not taking chances. Decisions have already been made and neither I nor the Irish people have been told what arrangements have been put in place. That is my problem in this regard.
I agree entirely with Deputy Colreavy that if we are to open a new traded sector in green energy, the benefit must redound to the Irish nation. I could not agree more and that is what I have been explaining since I got on my feet this morning. This is the reason painstaking attention must be devoted to negotiating an intergovernmental agreement because unless there is benefit to Ireland, there will not be an agreement. In fairness, I believe this is an advance on Deputy Colreavy's position. The position of some of his party colleagues, including in the midlands, is that they are opposed to selling energy to the Brits.
I have tried to explain before that I cannot see the difference between trying to sell them beef or tomatoes or briquettes and selling them energy. I know that no responsibility in our parliamentary and governance system attaches to individual Deputies. Any night one tunes into "Tonight with Vincent Browne" one will hear them talking nonsense-----
The Government talks nonsense.
-----on subjects on which they do not bother to inform themselves. They do not have to take any responsibility. If one does have to take responsibility for something it has to be done patiently and with great care.
Deputy Colreavy knows that I cannot stop anybody buying land from anybody else in Ireland. My fellow county man attempted to collectivise the land in the eighteenth century. He did not quite succeed. He ended up giving the seal of approval to peasant proprietorship and we have lived with the implications of that ever since and there are many people in the country who would say that was a great step forward. To underline the point, if anybody wants to go to Deputy Colreavy’s part of the country or any part of the country to buy options on land I cannot do anything about it. They have to make their own decisions according to their own judgment and their own commercial opportunity. There would be uproar if I sought to prevent people selling them land and doing business.
