Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1992

Vol. 420 No. 7

Estimates, 1992. - Vote 43: Forestry (Revised Estimate).

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £9,083,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1992, for salaries and expenses in connection with Forestry and for payment of certain grants.

The 1992 Estimates demonstrate this Government's continued determination to resolve the problems of the public finances. Hard decisions have again been taken in the context of framing the 1992 Estimates. The net Energy and Forestry Estimates for 1992, of £6.4 and £9.1 million respectively, represent only a fraction of 1 per cent of the total 1992 Estimates for Public Services. Net expenditure in my Department — Energy and Forestry — has been reduced by 41 per cent over the past four years. This is a very credible achievement when one considers that the reduction has been brought about not by curtailing essential activity but by getting better value for money, maximising opportunities for securing non-Exchequer financing and encouraging private sector development.

After the threat to the availability of oil supplies posed by the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991 had passed without any disruption materialising, energy markets reverted to comparative stability at moderate prices. Nevertheless the lessons derived from that episode were carefully studied at Government and international levels and policies adapted to enhance security and multinational co-operation.

In Ireland's case the measures taken to increase oil stocks and emergency preparedness are retained and increased efforts put in place to improve the efficiency of oil refining and diversify further our energy supplies through integration of gas and electricity networks with those of neighbouring countries. Other major developments affecting energy markets which I will discuss later are: (a) the completion of the European Single Market in the energy sector; and (b) the impact on energy supplies and utilisation of measures to mitigate potential environmental damage through harmful emissions and climate change.

I will turn first to questions relating to oil, which continues to be the mainstay of our and international energy systems. The issue of Whitegate refinery and my Department's continuing efforts to attract a suitable investor for modernisation of the facility is a major priority. The House is already aware that discussions on the feasibility of a specific project have taken place. The results of these discussions are under consideration by my Department, their advisers and the Irish National Petroleum Corporation. A successful outcome depends on prospective partners achieving their objectives as well as my and the Government's being satisfied that a proposal is in our interest. I have stressed also to the House that no hasty decisions will be made on the future of the refinery.

My Department have succeeded in obtaining EC grant aid under the PERIFRA programme for refurbishment work at the Whiddy oil terminal as part of the operation for the input and storage of strategic stocks of crude there. The total cost of the work is approximately £1.8 million and the EC have agreed to fund up to half of this amount. This work will contribute towards an overall improvement to the facilities at the terminal, enhance safety of operation and will also assist us in our efforts to obtain investment for its commercial reactivation.

The gas interconnector link to the UK is now being developed. Progress is well advanced and the project is on target for completion in October 1993. Final Government approval was given to the project in December last. The total cost is expected to be around £290 million in current prices and the European Commission have agreed to provide 35 per cent of that cost.

Another important element of BGE's capital programme this year is the westward extension of the gas grid from Skibbolmore, County Louth, to Mullagh in County Cavan to serve a number of specific industrial and commercial customers. The estimated cost of this project is approximately £11 million, almost 70 per cent of which will be provided by the European Commission in grant aid from its Special Border Areas Programme. Work is curently under way and should be completed by the autumn.

Completion of these projects will enable natural gas to provide a more important role in an energy supply system and provide a more secure and environmentally friendly source of fuel. In 1991 Bord Gáis surrendered £128 million out of its profits to the Exchequer by way of dividend payment. This brings the company's total dividend payments to date to over £288 million. This year the board is expected to contribute £25 million.

The most significant landmark to report in the area of nuclear safety/radiological protection in Ireland has been the establishment of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland on 1 April last, which has now replaced the Nuclear Energy Board. The grant-in-aid for this body for 1992 is £970,000. A sum of £190,000 is being provided in 1992 in respect of the national radiological emergency protection plan, the aim of which is to provide a co-ordinated response to radiological emergencies. The plan will be published by the end of the month.

Turning to electricity, earlier this year the Government approved my proposal for a major review of the ESB future structure of Ireland's electricity industry. I think all sides of the House will agree that the ESB have served the country well in developing a reliable electricity system. In the early stages of the development of the system considerations of economy of scale dictated that the ESB should operate as a monopoly. The ESB are now operating in a quite different economic environment and the justification for a monopoly is less apparent. With the advent of the internal market and the movement towards Economic and Monetary Union the ESB will be increasingly exposed to international competition. For this reason I saw a need to review the existing structures with a view to introducing competition into the electricity sector and increasing transparency of costs.

The European Community have also presented proposals for greater competition in the electricity sector in the context of the completion of the internal market in 1993. The review which I am undertaking will be an important element in formulating Ireland's position at discussions in Brussels on the draft electricity directive on common rules for the internal market. I have recently appointed consultants to assist my Department in the review and I would hope to report to Government on the outcome of the review later this year.

The area of hydrocarbons exploration and development is one to which I attach great importance. The Ballycotton gas field was brought into production in July 1991 three months ahead of schedule and only two years after discovery.

In April 1991 I announced that a frontier licensing round would be held in mid-1993 involving a large number of specified blocks in the largely unexplored Erris and Slyne Trough areas. This is very challenging acreage but initial indications of interest have been good.

On 3 December 1991 I concluded an exploration agreement with Marathon under which a total of seven exploration wells will be drilled. The first of the wells will be drilled in 1992 and the programme will continue to 1996. Bula Oil are also committed to drilling a well in the Celtic Sea this year.

The year 1992 will be one of major significance for hydrocarbons exploration in offshore Ireland. A regime of taxation measures specific to the petroleum exploration and development sector has been included in the Finance Act. The exploration sector will therefore have an important measure of certainty regarding its financial treatment.

In addition, I have been most anxious to ensure that Ireland's tax treatment of this sector will prove clearly competitive vis-á-vis other countries and will provide a stimulus to intensified exploration efforts off our coasts. That view has been shared by the Government, as is evident by provision in the Act for the availability of a corporation tax rate of 25 per cent for early discoveries. In order to place themselves in a position to qualify for the reduced tax rate it will be necessary for exploration companies to commence exploration drilling within the next few years. The availability of a tax rate of 25 per cent makes Ireland the most competitive location in north-west Europe and a location that no company should overlook when deciding on exploration activity.

Turning to Bord na Móna, in recent years the board and management have undertaken, with the co-operation of the work force, a major reorganisation and restructuring designed specifically to address the company's financial problems. While this process has proved successful in returning the company to profitability, there clearly remains much to be done if the level of indebtedness is to be reduced to manageable levels. This is a primary task indicated to and accepted by the board. Costs are under rigorous scrutiny and productivity measures in all sectors are being sought.

A sum of £300,000 is being provided in the 1992 Estimates for energy conservation activities. The Government continue to attach a high priority to energy conservation reflecting the fact that improvements in this area can save money for the individual consumer, improve the competitiveness of our economy and reduce the emission of harmful pollutants into the atmosphere.

The development of renewable sources of energy has a role to play in the diversification of our energy supply base. I am pleased to say that work has commenced on the construction of Ireland's first windfarm at Bellacorrick, County Mayo, and it is expected that this important project will be operational by the end of October.

A major challenge now facing the energy sector is to continue to meet the energy needs of our industries and citizens in a way that will minimise harmful emissions into the environment. My Department are co-operating closely with the Department of the Environment on policies and programmes which will bring this about.

Turning to mineral exploration and development, we are on the threshold of exciting times in the minerals industry, with a high probability that two major lead-zinc projects are about to come onstream at Galmoy and Lisheen. Clearly, the issue of most concern for the future of the industry at present is that of environmental protection. The Government, as evidenced by the setting up of the Environmental Protection Agency, are absolutely committed to the protection of the environment. However, a balance must be struck if we are to realise the potential of the mining industry. It is essential that these controls be operated in a fair and consistent manner and not in a way which is seen as anti-development and anti-job creation.

I now wish to turn to the Forestry part of my portfolio. Deputies will be aware of the Government's emphasis on forestry as a key national development activity. It is an emphasis that is shared by the EC authorities, who have committed very substantial financial resources in recent years to the expansion of Ireland's afforestation programme. Under the current EC Forestry Programmes Ireland will receive about £75 million from the EC. Without this very welcome funding, we would not have seen the rate of progress that has been made and I think it is a point that is very pertinent in the content of the choice that people will have to make on the Maastricht referendum later this month.

The improved forestry grants which I announced earlier this year reflect the Government's and the EC's determination to ensure that there is no slackening of effort in the aim of increasing the area of forest cover in this country and anticipated the adoption by the Community of proposals to reform the Common Agricultural Policy, including an enhanced role for forestry. At the moment only about 7 per cent of Ireland is coverd by forest — it is a long way behind the Community averge of almost 25 per cent. My aim is that we should reach about 10 per cent cover by around the turn of the century. The increased grants support this aim.

Good progress continues to be made in narrowing the gap between this country and the Community at large. Last year was another record-breaking year for planting. Coillte planted over 12,000 hectares in 1991 and the private sector — predominantly farmers, I am pleased to report — planted over 11,400 hectares.

Trading circumstances in the timber industry continue to be extremely difficult, but despite the fall in timber prices Coillte were still able to turn in a modest operating profit last year. In the context of continuing pressure on Exchequer finances the equity provision to Coillte has reduced from £15 million in 1989 to £10 million this year. Notwithstanding this substantial reduction over that period, I hope that Coillte will be able to repeat the 1991 planting performance in 1992.

I am also hoping that private sector planting can scale new heights in 1992. The provision included under subhead C would permit the planting of over 12,000 hectares. I believe that farmers particularly are increasingly coming around to the view that forestry can play a very important role in supplementing incomes. In a Common Agricultural Policy reform context the importance of forestry to rural communities is identified and I intend to actively promote the advantages of forestry throughout the coming year.

The planting figures undoubtedly attract most attention, but forestry is an integrated industry. For that reason grants are also available under subhead C for harvesting and extraction machinery, nursery developments and various other innovatory studies and pilot projects that support better usage of timber.

I have just mentioned the integrated nature of the timber industry. Now that potential timber supplies are increasing rapidly, there is, in my view, an urgent need to take a strategic look at the way in which the whole industry can be developed to the maximum advantage in the years ahead and particularly to gear the industry towards export markets. Downstream development is obviously an area of particular interest. The Government are committed to the development of an overall strategy for the timber industry in Ireland and I hope to see good progress being made in that regard in 1992.

Forestry research is also increasingly important in the light of the expanding afforestation effort. The increased provision under subhead D will allow Ireland to participate in the EC STRIDE research programme. The health and protection of our forest crop are particular priorities and the funding under subhead D will enable research to continue on such areas as species diversification and tree improvement, forest protection, increased efficiency and environmental and social issues.

Given the historic summit now taking place in Rio, it is appropriate that I should now focus on the environmental dimension of forestry. Events in Rio are certainly heightening awareness of the role which forestry can and must play in reducing the threat of global warming. While tropical forests have received a lot of attention, it is not, of course, an issue for resolution by Governments in those countries alone. All countries have a responsibility, and those in the developed world have a special responsibility to take a lead. Ireland's expanding afforestation programme demonstrates in a very real sense our readiness to put our own house in order before asking others to do likewise.

The role of forestry in the environment is taken fully into account in our forestry programme. My Department have produced detailed guidelines on the impact of forestry on archaeology and fisheries and further guidelines on landscape considerations will be published shortly. All relevant agencies involved in wildlife management, fishery development or preservation of national monuments or areas of scientific or landscape interest are consulted by my Department. If those agencies feel that afforestation would be inappropriate in certain areas, their views are taken into account. In addition, I have announced special attractive grants for the planting of broadleaf forests and for recreational forests, including urban forests, and for diversification of species in suitable locations.

I wish to state clearly that environmental as well as economic considerations lie at the heart of forestry policy, leading to a balanced development which will enhance our countryside as well as providing much needed employment and development.

I have outlined the many significant developments in all spheres of the energy area. The gas interconnector link to the UK is well advanced and our oil stocks are in a healthier position than ever before. A review of the future structure of the electricity industry in Ireland is under way and a major reorganisation is in progress in Bord na Móna, with a view to improving the company's financial position.

That is a laugh.

A new exploration agreement with Marathon will result in the drilling of at least seven exploration wells, there is a high probability that two major lead/zinc projects are about to come onstream and Ireland's first wind farm should be operational by the end of October. All of these developments are designed to enhance security of supply and reduce costs to the consumer, while at the same time taking into account the important environmental concerns.

I have also outlined a number of aspects of forestry and the environment which show that it is an important consideration in the forestry programme. I have referred to the great strides being made in planting levels and what it is hoped to achieve in 1992.

For net Estimates of just over £6 million and £9 million for energy and forestry respectively, I consider that the Exchequer is getting very good value for money. I commend this Estimate to the House.

The Chair appreciates that neither Deputy Flaherty nor Deputy O'Sullivan shouted "Time".

We are glad to have the opportunity of even a mad canter through the area of energy. This is the first time for almost 18 months that the House has had any lengthy debate on energy — if this debate could be called lengthy. I was glad to have the opportunity to listen to the Minister, although I certainly do not share his sense of complacency and self-satisfaction at the state of the Department of Energy. The Fine Gael Party will oppose these Estimates because of the complete failure of the Minister and the Government to take seriously the issue and opportunities of energy conservation.

A year ago in the debate on the Finance Bill I spoke at length about energy, as did the Minister. That was the most recent occasion on which the House had any extended debate on energy. At that time I identified the area of energy conservation as one of serious concern. It continues to be an issue of concern. In the shadow of the Earth Summit, referred to by the Minister, and the challenge presented by global warming and the damage to the ozone layer, the Government's failure is inexcusable. Energy conservation will certainly be given a much greater priority when there is in office a Fine Gael Minister for Energy. In the Estimate the amount provided for energy conservation has been reduced from the extraordinarily low level of £500,000 to £312,000 — a decrease of 42 per cent at a time when increased investment should be made in that area.

As the Minister has told us on other occasions, he does not favour a stated and detailed policy for energy. He considers that that would be inappropriate in a fast-changing scene. The consequences of that decision are inevitable: a lack of direction, contradictions, cross-subsidies and ad-hockery. Our four major State companies, Bord na Móna, Bord Gáis Éireann, INPC and the ESB, ought to be agents for an efficient energy sector. However, they have suffered from the lack of a coherent energy policy. In the Minister's speeches he avoids all of those issues and touches on occasional developments in each area, some of his references being of minimalist nature and quite laughable because of their complete lack of any coherent direction or interconnection. I know that my colleague, Deputy Durkan, is particularly concerned about the Minister's half-page treatment of Bord na Móna and about the consequences for the area that he and so many other Deputies represent of Bord na Móna operating strictly and entirely on a commercial basis without any examination of what that means for a region virtually dependent on that industry.

Ireland is still one of the most energy-intensive producers in Europe. The rate of primary energy used per unit here is about 18 per cent higher than the average of the EC as a whole, although we are less industrialised than other members of the EC. When I have raised that figure previously the Minister has suggested that a reason is that Ireland is a growing, developing economy. That does not stand up to an examination and analysis of other economies that have managed to achieve substantial conservation of energy at times of great growth. Japan, for example, is an island state with very poor fossil fuel availability. After the oil shock of the seventies the Japanese adopted an energy demand reduction policy. While the Japanese gross domestic product increased by 50 per cent, their energy demand actually declined. Therefore, the Japanese are able to sell their products more cheaply as well as doing less damage to their environment.

The argument that there must inevitably be growth in energy consumption when the economy is at a stage of growth does not hold up and is one that we cannot defend and should not seek to use as an excuse for our wastage of energy. This has been said in the Earthwatch options for Ireland in the nineties. I do not take all their analyses as gospel. However, anybody who looks at the graph on page eight of their report, which shows the growth in our primary energy requirements at a time when all our European partners have managed to reduce demand substantially, will realise that our demands are unacceptable and wasteful in a country which needs every penny it can save to provide employment. We are wasting energy and poisoning our atmosphere. This is a priority for Fine Gael and I will continue to press the Minister for Energy at Question Time to give this matter adequate attention.

Our policy on conservation has been intermittent and it has never been treated as a serious response to our high dependence on imports or as a real alternative to multimillion investment in new energy capacity. I note that the Taoiseach is now concerned about this and has indicated that he will look very carefully at the application of the ESB for new energy capacity. How does the Minister for Energy feel about the Taoiseach's intervention which was reported in the Sunday newspapers? The Taoiseach's concern arose from the fact that the issue of conservation was being inadequately addressed. I share his concern and I welcome his interest. However, I am sure the Minister for Energy does not welcome the intrusion, and perhaps he will tell us how he feels when we have an opportunity to ask questions later.

The consequences of failure of conservation must also be seen in the context of a growing economy and a growing demand for energy in the light of the failure to bring in efficiency and conservation measures. This means that the ESB will have to provide extra capacity and that they will have to increase prices, which have been held down, resulting in their coming into line with those of our European partners. There has been energy efficiency in fits and starts in the industrial and public sectors. The report to which I referred acknowledged that substantial progress has been made in the industrial area. However, in the domestic area there has been very little progress. The Government have offered very little leadership in this area — there has been some input by EOLAS and the ESB have occasionally taken an interest. However, energy efficiency in public buildings and enterprises still leaves a lot to be desired. Government pricing and tax policies have often directly frustrated conservation.

Fine Gael, in Government, would make a serious energy conservation programme a central plank of all energy policy. This would include the restructuring of the Department of Energy. The inadequate attention given to this area is highlighted by the fact that when you look at the Directory of State Services the conservation section is tucked in with the forestry section and the general office services in the Department of Energy. My view, and the view of the former Fine Gael spokesperson, is that there should be a separate commission in this area and that, at the minimum, there should be a separate section in the Department. The Government would not get away with the inadequate funding of the section if it was given that kind of organised attention.

Does the Minister believe that the current structures are adequate? Does he believe it is sensible to expect the ESB — whose major job is to provide energy and to sell it — to be one of the major engines of conservation? It has temporarily suited the ESB to be involved in conservation because it meant they could cut off investment in further capacity. However, they are now facing that investment and their commitment will be to sell as much as possible of the new electricity they are capable of providing in order to pay for their investment. It is unreal to expect the ESB to be in the driving seat in relation to conservation. Let me be very clear about this. Obviously, all the major energy utilities will have a very important role to play, but the appropriate driving force should be the Department of Energy or a commission for energy conservation which would set targets to achieve instead of expecting the ESB to take on the occasional public advertising programme or to sponsor one.

There are contradictions in regard to Oileáin Cléire, the Minister referred to Bellacorrick, but he wants to forget about Oileáin Cléire. Indeed, he denies all responsibility for it and so do the ESB. An existing wind energy project providing energy for an island community is getting no support from the Department. The only support the ESB give it is to buy the supply at the price agreed and they are unwilling to do this because it is not part of their mandate to support alternative energy. Their mandate is to produce electricity commercially and at a reasonable cost to the consumers. There is no point in expecting them to support a wind energy project. It means that the one project which is up and running will probably fall to pieces. At the same time the Minister announced the establishment of a new wind farm. What will happen to that? There is a very serious lack of organisation in relation to the development of our alternative energy sources. This is a related element which should be looked after by the same section.

Fine Gael consider that a crash insulation programme is vital; new buildings should be targeted first and old buildings second. We welcome the new building by-law regulations in this area, but second rate standards are being implemented. The standards which have been enormously successful in the country which hit the headlines recently for other reasons — Denmark — are not being applied here. A great deal more could be done in this area. It took years for those practices to become law; and indeed the whole area has been given insufficient attention and priority because the Government are not organised in this regard. The public need to be educated and the new Structural Funds should be targeted in this regard. I know that EOLAS have been working in the area of energy conservation and energy efficiency projects, which have a huge potential for input substitution. We talk about substitution for imports and the vast bulk of our fuel is included. We talk about highly labour intensive activities and importing techniques which could be provided here. We are talking about wasted money, energy and employment opportunities. The Minister should take these matters far more seriously.

There is also a great opportunity for public advertising and education programmes, and a proportion of any new EC carbon taxes should be used in the first place for conservation measures as well as for reducing taxes on employment. If other countries are not interested, we should consider going it alone in relation to taxing carbon.

The area of mining is being seriously under-realised. I welcome the oil and gas exploration tax package. The Minister got our unanimous support in this regard; indeed, we tried to push him further when we were debating the Finance Act. There is a need for further clarification in regard to minerals. In relation to the licensing commitments which the Minister gave, will he look at the area of minerals? Is he looking at the Act with a view to amending it to reduce some of the existing uncertainties which can cause confusion in the mining world? Will he address the reasons for the substantial drop in employment in the mining industry in the last two decades? This is an important issue. Will the Minister give us an undertaking to establish a working party which will include representatives of both mining and environmental interests, given that none of the ten major discoveries during the past decade has been developed? The reason they have not been developed is that there is hostility between mining interests and environment groups. Will the Minister establish a working party to troubleshoot that area and produce guidelines which would be in everyone's interest?

I welcome the review that is currently taking place within the ESB. However, I would ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the problems encountered in relation to privatisation and restructuring of the industry in Britain and to ensure that the trade unions become involved. As the Minister is aware, the major review that is currently taking place in the area of labour relations could be put at risk if this does not happen.

In relation to forestry, my party spokesperson will shortly introduce a new Fine Gael policy in that area. I also welcome the establishment of the Radiological Protection Institute. The Minister's policy on Bord na Móna is inadequate and there is a need to establish a regional development fund.

The Minister's policy is a disgrace.

There is one thing we can be certain of and that is Deputy Flaherty is no Flo Jo with her dash. When I was appointed spokesperson on Energy I thought I would be extremely busy and find myself in a confrontation with the Minister at regular intervals, but unfortunately this has not proved to be the case. Finally, we have come face to face with each other on the eve of the closure of the Lullymore factory, with the loss of 109 jobs, which is directly under the Minister's control, given that Bord na Móna form part of his brief.

It is regrettable that this factory cannot remain open, because it is profitable and efficient and a large sum has been invested in plant and equipment there during the past seven to eight years. The reason for the closure given by the representatives of the company is overproduction. This is rather strange. Usually we are told that the reason for closure is that a company did not perform and did not deliver the goods, but in this case people are being punished for being efficient. Bord na Móna, and in particular the management at the Lullymore factory, are reluctant to try to find a market for their product. It seems that they would prefer to turn their backs and walk away. What they are doing in effect is to tear apart the social fabric of this rural community, which is regrettable.

For some reason Bord na Móna are now walking away from the factory at Lullymore in which a high quality product was produced. It has been estimated that the reserves will last for another 20 years. However, Bord na Móna have been bedevilled by losses. They have debts totalling £189 million, and despite reducing the workforce by 2,000 they have not reduced their overall debts. Are they suggesting that if they let go a further 109 employees they will be able to reduce their losses considerably? I do not think so.

In recent days a meeting took place between representatives of workers and management at Lullymore. It has now been indicated that management will seek large sums of money so that they can engage in other areas of commercial activity and they are seeking the support of workers. This defies description. I think this decision was taken on ideological grounds — to take the first shot at selling Bord na Móna and the Lullymore plant in particular.

Deputies on this side of the House could be forgiven for thinking in relation to recent reports — I am not trying to score political points — that there has been a breakdown in communication between the Minister and his Coalition partners. It was stated in an article in a recent edition of the Sunday Business Post under the heading “New Energy Board likely to strain Coalition” that a subcommittee of the major partner in Government has been set up, headed by Deputy Ger Connolly, to investigate the closure of Lullymore. I regret to say that Deputy Connolly, has not been successful and has not convinced the Minister in this regard. The Taoiseach was so concerned about this matter that he allowed this subcommittee to be set up. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us a satisfactory response when he comes to reply to the debate.

Reference was made to yet another investigation in a recent edition of The Nationalist and Leinster Times under the heading “Taoiseach investigates Wicklow Woods shock”. Because the Minister refused to grant approval for a joint venture between Wicklow Woods and Coillte 160 jobs have been lost in a rural area. In relation to his policies in the energy area, it seems we have a trail of destruction and the Minister should offer us some explanation.

With regard to the Whitegate refinery, which is close to my own heart, it seems that we have lost the will to survive. I can say with some pride that during the period when my party were the minority partner in Government we campaigned for the retention of Whitegate in State ownership and that we were successful. Even though it has been placed at a disadvantage and does not have modern equipment, the refinery has surived. At present the Minister is trying to find a good partner for it, but it has been proven that with proper funding it does not need a partner. Have we lost the will to survive? In times of war we were self-sufficient in relation to our energy requirements, but it now seems that we have lost faith in our ability as a nation to produce and guarantee security of supply in times of emergency. This could be done by investing at Whitegate. The matter was never fully investigated to see what byproducts could be produced to create jobs, and that is the source of great disappointment.

I would imagine that the founders of Whitegate, including Mr. Seán Lemass, who played a major role in it, are not resting easily today, given the lack of a commitment on the part of the Government to try to ensure that it remains in State ownership. I am not making an ideological argument only, even though this would be in keeping with the political position adopted by my own party. It is essential that we have the capacity to produce petroleum products, but that is not the case at present and it is regrettable. The only thing I am happy about is that Whitegate has managed to survive despite the lack of funds and a commitment to retain it in State ownership.

It is my understanding that a committee comprised of representatives of the Minister and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are at present drawing up a plan with regard to the privatisation of the ESB. I think the ESB have served this country well, but I have now been told that it is likely that the ESB will be subdivided into four sections, with the profitable sections being hived off. I do not think that would be in the best interests of this nation.

What is the basis for that, Deputy?

I should not have to tell the Minister, as he is well aware of it.

There is no truth in that allegation.

Is the Minister saying that the matter is not being investigated at present?

There is no question about that.

Is a report being drawn up?

There is no report being drawn up on privatisation.

That is not so.

I should know.

Is the Minister saying that the ESB are not going to be privatised?

I have said it several times .

There had been hostility between the Minister and the ESB in recent months with regard to the billing system and the credit scheme. Did that not amount to the first attack on the ESB? At the end of the day, due to pressure, the Minister had to back off somewhat. He has now denied that he is commissioning studies regarding this privatisation. Time will tell. For example will the overseas consultancy services which have been so successful be sold off? Will the Minister confirm or deny that he plans to hive off these services?

Why does the Deputy make these things up and then ask me to deny them? Of course I deny what he said; there is no such proposal.

Perhpas Deputy O'Sullivan would address the Chair. There will bean opportunity later to ask specific questions.

May I ask the Minister, through the Chair ——

The Deputy is only inviting interruption if he asks questions now. He might indicate that he will ask them when questions will be appropriate later.

May I put it this way: would the Minister agree that it the ESB are to be privatised we are likely to come under considerable pressure in times of emergency inasmuch as they will not then be under the direct control of the State? That major consideration must be taken into account. The Minister may laugh——

There is no such proposal.

Time will tell. Once again the Minister's ideology has come to the fore in this regard.

With regard to radiological protection there was a reduction in expenditure this year from £240,000 to £190,000, and within a period there have been further announcements of irresponsibility on the part of our neighbours and lives here are being threatened. I would have thought that an increase rather than a reducation was called for. For some reason, known to the Minister only, this most unwise reduction has been effected. Various medical authorities have pointed out the dangers posed to this country by the Sellafield plant. Yet the Minister has not taken appropriate action, placing lives here under threat.

On the question of Coillte Teoranta, we are spending more than £9 million on the forestry sector within the Minister's Department while some of the greatest and oldest forests in Europe are disappearing. What has the Minister got to say about that? What is he doing to protect our woodlands? In this regard there appears to be complete lack of supervision by the Minister and his Department.

Bord na Móna have served this country well. In times of crises worldwide Bord na Móna came into being here providing us with a much-needed service. Is what we are witnessing at Lullymore the beginning of the end of Bord na Móna? Have that body become so debt-ridden it will not be possible for them to survive?

What is to happen to our mineral rights? Is the Minister happy that the proper environmental protection will be in place in areas where there will be mineral exploration, in places of, shall we say, pilgrimage worship; are they under threat? Can we have an assurance from the Minister there will not be any conflict between the interests of local people and/or pilgrims and of those who want to exploit such resources?

On the emissions from the Moneypoint plant, will the necessary investment be made to ensure that such emissions will be considerably reduced in the future since they are posing a major threat to the surrounding population? We must recognise that people are becoming increasingly environmentally conscious. Many Members have left to represent this country at the Rio de Janeiro Summit and we must ask: are we playing our proper part in that regard? It would seem to me that we are not.

Areas of outstanding beauty are being spoiled by the ESB pylons located along such routes. We cannot deny the importance of tourism to our economy. Yet these unsightly pylons are located in some of our most environmentally sensitive areas. With a little investment it should be possible to rid ourselves of these eyesores in any part of the country. For example, anybody travelling in one of the most scenic parts of the country, the Barnesmore Gap in Donegal, far removed from my bailiwick but nonetheless an area of outstanding beauty, will see it is scarred by ESB activities simply because there are these unsightly pylons, in full view of tourists, running parallel with these routes.

I regret to inform the Deputy that his time has elapsed.

I share your regret, Sir.

In so far as I have to cut off the Deputy in the middle of his energetic contribution I regret having to obey the rules.

In my brief contribution I should like to emphasise two points. First, I commend my party colleague, the Minister for Energy, and his Department, on their impressive achievements in the energy and forestry sectors in recent years and on their ambitious plans drawn up for those sectors.

Second, I should like to draw attention to the invaluable input of the European Community to developments which have taken place in our energy and forestry sectors. It is particularly appropriate, in the present climate of that input, to recognise that many vital developments in those sectors would have been impossible without Community membership.

The achievements of the Department of Energy in recent years become all the greater when we note that they were made against a back drop of a huge 41 per cent reduction in expenditure in the Energy and Forestry Votes. I do not believe any Government Department experienced such a drastic budgetary reduction. Indeed, it is a tribute to the Minister, and his staff, that they have been able to contribute so selflessly to vital further reductions in the levels of Government expenditure. They deserve credit in particular for the progress they have made against that difficult background.

The Department's success and ambition are underlined in the two key areas of gas and electricity. For example, with regard to gas, work plans are well on target for the completion of the historic gas interconnector to the United Kingdom in October 1993, without doubt one of the most significant engineering projects undertaken to date by this country and one which is of crucial national importance. Not only will this historic link allow us access to the European grid and open up the possibilities of our exporting gas but it will settle once and for all doubts about the security of gas supply in the future, thereby eliminating the fears of many people that access to this progressive, modern and environmentally-friendly product would cease at the end of life of the Kinsale gasfield. We should remember that this historic project could not have been completed without the generous support of the European Community who are providing 35 per cent of its cost.

The Maastricht Treaty campaign has suffered unfairly from confusion and misinformation. Only when we witness the enormous support the EC has given such projects do we understand how misleading and damaging are some recent claims. Membership of the European Community has been an invaluable asset to this country, enabling us to undertake projects such as the gas interconnector, which would be unthinkable in the absence of such membership. The Minister, and his Department, have demonstrated their ability and far-sightedness in the case of the electricity generating industry and the review of its structures now under way.

I should like to say a few words on the matter of forestry. When we consider the relevant debates taking place at the Earth Summit in Brazil we can reflect with certain satisfaction on our improving record of investment in forestry. In 1991 we saw a record planting performance in this country in which both the State, through Coillte Teoranta, and the private sector made enormous advances in promoting and developing our forestry sector. The importance of this sector was clearly identified in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which set out ambitious planting targets of 30,000 hectares by 1993 and repeat targets at this level for each year up to 2000. That ambition has been largely met this year and will now certainly be achieved on target. It should be remembered, in particular, that this year's figures were achieved against the huge uncertainties arising from the confusion over the shape the eventual reform of the Common Agricultural Policy would take. Clearly the Minister's decisive action in introducing higher grants ahead of the completion of the Common Agricultural Policy reform discussions eased the emerging problem and gave a significant boost to the sector.

It is particularly important that our overall forestry strategy focuses on the creation of rich value-added products which will ensure job creation in this country. Forestry investment is, of course, almost uniquely welcome because of its benefits for the Environment and I believe we can all look forward to increasing environmental rewards for this country from the policies currently under way.

Our over-riding policy objectives within the responsibilities of the Department of Energy must be the provision of competitively costed energy with every regard to security of supply and full recognition of environmental and safety concerns. I am entirely happy that these policy objectives are being achieved admirably by the Department and again I pay tribute to the Department and to the Minister and wish them continued success in the coming year.

I am sure the Minister is not unaware of the impending closure tomorrow, 5 June, of Lullymore briquette factory with an immediate loss of 109 jobs in the plant and a further loss of 50 to 60 jobs in the service industries in the general area. I wish to register my deep disappointment and dismay at the lack of action by the Minister and his ministerial colleagues over the past number of weeks. The workers at Lullymore have made repeated submissions to Government suggesting ways and means by which the plant could be kept open. As my colleagues Deputy T. O'Sullivan and Deputy Flaherty said, Lullymore is a cost-efficent and viable plant that has sold all its produce in the past.

The Minister is completely at variance with Government policy as expressed in the revised Joint Programme for Government which specifically states that it is an objective of Government to retain indigenous jobs. The Minister is, however, presiding over the closure of a viable factory which is the embodiment of that objective. The people in the constituency and I not only are disappointed but see this as a ministerial imprimatur to the death of Bord na Móna. Does anybody think that the closure of Lullymore will result in a return to profitability for Bord na Móna? If so, the Minister and the Government are sadly mistaken.

It was suggested that the Minister intimated — although I cannot prove it — that the senior party in Government might give their approval to retaining Lullymore, in which case Lullymore could be saved, and perhaps the Minister would reply to this point at a later stage. I urge the Minister to take his courage in his hands, even at this late stage, and do something similar to what he did for Allenwood power station a little over a year ago. He can give the people of Lullymore the support they need by keeping the station open. Indeed if all fruit fails, those employed at Lullymore are prepared to operate the plant on a lease from Bord Na Móna. Would the Minister consider giving them that option?

We are now going to proceed to an experimental innovation whereby during the next five minutes Deputies are entitled to invite the Minister to answer specific questions before he makes his ten-minute uninterrupted concluding speech.

It would not be appropriate to sing a song at this stage, but does the Minister know the words of the song which goes likes this: "Oh to be in Doonaree"— because I want to ask a number of questions on the forest parks. The management of forest parks under Coillte Teoranta has deteriorated desperately over the past number of years. Has the Minister assessed the potential of forest parks for tourism-related job creation and other wealth-creating activities? If so, what proposals exist for exploiting the potential to the maximum degree?

Second, I also wish to ask about the processing of forest produce. A great deal of our forestry produce is sold to Northern Ireland or exported abroad and I wonder if the Minister intends to develop an all-Ireland policy for processing our wood produce so that we can benefit from the added value arising for the processing of the raw material.

On the question of the tourism potential of forest parks, let me say that all the forests were transferred to Coillte Teoranta on the establishment of that semi-State company. Coillte Teoranta are charged with implementing Government policy on forest management. It has been Government policy for a number of years that the forest parks would be open to the public. Where Coillte Teoranta have come forward with specific proposals on tourism-related projects, I have encouraged them to proceed. There is a major proposal for Lough Key Forest Park in County Roscommon and after full consideration with all the local elected representatives from all parties, which Coillte Teoranta undertook at my suggestion, there was full agreement locally on the project and I gave my official blessing to Coillte to proceed with the project which is still at the embryonic stage. I am very conscious of the potential of the forest parks and Coillte Teoranta have responsibility under the Act for implementing policy and I am satisfied that within the resources available to them they are fulfilling their obligations to the best of their ability. This is a long term policy and I hope that in time we will see major utilisation of the forests and a follow-on from the opening to the public of forest walks to more sophisticated developments, bearing in mind the potential of forests, as suggested in the Deputy's question.

On the question of forest produce, there is no doubt that we have an active forestry policy and it is important that we have strategic plans for the use of forest produce, which includes saw milling, the timber industry in general and the use of pulp. Members will be aware of my Department's policy and the way it is implemented by Coillte Teoranta from the replies I gave to questions at Question Time on the necessity of the establishment of a major pulp plant to absorb the ever-increasing volume of forest produce that will become available as more and more of our large forest areas mature. There is tremendous potential for added value and there is a great necessity to achieve the highest level of added value by processing our produce here. At present some of our forest product is being exported because we have not yet established a pulp mill which can absorb——

It is a long walk.

——the increased volume which will come out of our forests in the years ahead. Coillte Teoranta have engaged in very extensive discussions in regard to this issue. A project with a Swedish company, Stora, had progressed some distance. I think they had invested £1 million in feasibility studies on the establishment——

On a point of order, am I right in saying that the Minister is abusing the system whereby Members might ask him a number of short questions and get a number of short replies before he concludes the debate? He is destroying the spirit of the decision of the House to allow a Minister to be questioned for five minutes by giving a long, rambling and uninformative reply.

He is grinning like little Red Riding Hood's granny.

(Interruptions.)

I am available to answer any questions the Deputies may ask. I am not responsible for the arrangements which were made. The question went on for two minutes and I have only taken about two minutes to reply.

The Minister has taken two and a half minutes.

The Minister should tell us what he is going to do about the Lullymore briquette factory.

The Chair was about to say that we had experienced enough of the experiment to conclude that if it were going to please everybody it might please one Deputy. I think this procedure will have to be revised. This is the second attempt we have made at trying to do the impossible. If Deputy Stagg has a very brief question he can ask it now before the Minister makes his reply. The Minister will not reply to it now but he may do so in his final reply.

Can a question be asked even though no time will be left for me to reply?

Strictly speaking, no time will be left. The question could be asked and the Minister would not be obliged to reply. If Deputy Stagg wishes to express a hope——

If it was not possible to reply within the time then why allow a question to be asked?

That is a cynical attitude for the Minister to adopt.

The Minister is being flippant.

If we want correct order the Chair has to call on the Minister now to make has final reply.

May I ask a very brief question?

Is it a rhetorical question?

We have spent two and a half minutes on points of order.

May I ask the Minister if he and the Government have examined the proposal by the Bord na Móna workers to take over and lease or buy the Lullymore plant and operate it themselves? Perhaps the Minister can answer this question in his reply.

Will he approve that proposal? It is a simple question.

Deputies will not help by shouting across the floor. The Minister has the remainder of the time, during which he will make an uninterrupted concluding speech.

I hope he does not avoid Lullymore, as he has done so far.

I do not have much time left to cover many points, but if the Deputies opposite want me to deal with the issue of the Lullymore briquette factory then I will do so. I wish to remind the House that I have already dealt with the Lullymore question on a number of occasions both in the Seanad and the Dáil. Having been an Opposition Deputy for quite a long time, I am familiar with the political tactics being used by the Deputies opposite.

The Minister will be an Opposition Deputy again.

The issue of the Lullymore factory has been well answered. As the Deputies are probably aware, I had a meeting with representatives of the action group from Lullymore. I gave them the full facts of the situation and explained that the board of Bord na Móna — chaired by, I think a close friend of the Deputy's party — had made a decision that there was overproduction in the briquette manufacturing side of the Bord na Móna operation and there was an excess of one factory. They carried out an extensive survey into the briquette manufacturing process and concluded that it was necessary to close one factory and that that factory should be Lullymore. The board discussed this proposal and made a decision to close Lullymore. The workers suggested during the course of discussions I had with them that the operation should be continued by them. I should point out that no proposals as such were put before me. I explained to them that this would defeat the purpose for which the board had made their decision — if Lullymore was to continue manufacturing briquettes it would only jeopardise the viability of the other briquette factories.

I thought the Minister was in favour of competition. He refers to competition all the time.

Unfortunately, the sales of briquettes are projected to decline.

That is nonsense, and I think the Minister knows it is.

The solid fuel market has declined.

It has not declined.

The Minister is hoping it will decline.

The people familiar with the market who work in Bord nä Móna and who advised the board in this matter have concluded that it is necessary to reduce the number of production plants in order to ensure the viability of the overall briquette manufacturing side of the Bord na Móna operation. It is in the long term interests of the viability of briquette manufacturing employment in Bord na Móna that this decision had to be made. This decision was taken after careful analysis of all the factors involved, detailed comparisons of the advantages and disadvantages of the four existing briquette factories at Derrinlough and Croghan in County Offaly, Littleton in County Tipperary and Lullymore in County Kildare. Total briquetting capacity in the four factories amounts to approximately 560,000 tonnes whereas projected sales in the current year amount to 400,000 tonnes.

They are not trying to sell the briquettes.

In effect, capacity exceeds current and foreseeable demand by a little more than the equivalent of a factory's production. Bord na Móna estimate that if sales of briquettes decline by an average of 2 per cent per annum over the next decade overcapacity will continue to increase. Bord na Móna dealt with their overcapacity problem in 1991 by closing each of the factories in turn for a period of approximately 16 weeks. However, this arrangement did not provide sufficient savings and closure of a briquette factory is seen by the board of Bord na Móna as an essential element in the drive to improve profitability and secure the long term future of the company. Bord na Móna anticipate that the decision to close the factory will save the company approximately £10 million over the next decade.

That is a farce. This is the first of many closures.

The Minister should ask his Department to examine Bord na Móna.

The Minister without interruption.

It is disgraceful.

Please, Deputy Durkan.

I listened to Deputy Flaherty talking about Bord na Móna. It is important to remember that the State supports a policy whereby the Bord na Móna operation is subsidised to the extent of approximately £35 million per year through the price paid for its peat products for electricity production in the peat burning power plants.

With regard to energy conservation and efficiency, there is a dilemma here for anybody in charge of energy policy. These plants were built with a design lifespan of 25 or 30 years. Some of these plants have reached the end of that design lifespan and their efficiency has disimproved enormously. This presents a very major problem for the company. We have to recognise that the continued use of the turf and peat burning stations is not something we can expect to last indefinitely. As I have already announced, I have instructed my officials to carry out a study — Bord na Móna are carrying out a similar study — into modern technology and peat burning to see if the economics of a new technology plant would offer a viable option. It may be possible for us to continue to exploit our valuable peat resource in this way. A modern peat burning plant, which is deemed to be economically viable, cost efficient and able to produce electricity at a price equivalent or related to the cost of other fuels, particularly oil, would probably consume approximately one million tonnes of peat per annum. This issue is being examined at present, but I do not want to hold out the expectation that such a plant will be built. A decision in this regard will have to be made based on the viability of the project and other factors.

Deputy Flaherty referred to energy conservation. I recognise that there is a great need to increase public awareness of the careful use of energy. Great savings can be achieved through the application of an energy conservation policy and I have striven to make some advances in that area. Huge sums of money could be spent nationally on research and so on.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but the time has come to put the question, in accordance with the order of this House.

Vote put.
A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.20 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 June 1992 in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day.
Barr
Roinn