Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 2001

Vol. 546 No. 3

Sustainable Energy Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

It is my great pleasure to commence the Second Stage debate of the Sustainable Energy Bill in the Dáil. The Bill has been passed by the Seanad where it received a broad welcome. I now look forward to an interesting debate on this important issue in this House.

Enactment of the Bill will impact on the vital issue of sustainable use of energy. It will also impact on the need to supply energy to a rapidly growing economy without continuing adverse effects on the environment. It is important to set out my definition of sustainable energy because sustainability is central to my efforts in this Bill and my efforts elsewhere in the energy field. In the Green Paper on Sustainable Energy sustainability is defined as ensuring that the needs of present generations can be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. I set out in the Green Paper that a sustainable energy policy should: ensure security of energy supply in order to support economic and social development while protecting the environment; maximise efficiency of generation and emphasise the use of renewable resources; promote energy conservation by users; minimise emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, both by clean generation and by sustainable consumption levels in all sectors; and maintain local air quality and limit and reduce the Irish contribution to regional and global environmental problems.

The principal objective of the Bill is to establish the necessary legislative framework to allow the Irish Energy Centre to operate independently of Enterprise Ireland as a statutory body and to effect a change of title for the centre to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. Needless to say, the Irish Energy Centre is central to the Government's plans to respond to the sustainable energy challenge as well as our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

I would like to give Deputies some background to the formation of the Irish Energy Centre. In 1995, as a joint initiative the Department of Public Enterprise and the agency formerly known as Forbairt, now Enterprise Ireland, established the centre. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Public Enterprise and Forbairt underpinned the position of the centre as a unit within Enterprise Ireland. That Memorandum of Understanding was intended to be an interim measure only, a step in the evolution of the centre into an independent, operationally autonomous agency. The Bill before the House will serve to clarify and improve the strategic direction of the centre and allow it the flexibility to develop its full potential as one of the significant implementing agencies in the Government's strategy on climate change and the promotion of energy efficiency measures and renewables. Enactment of the Bill will be an important step in the context of giving real intent to the Government's energy efficiency policies in a liberalised energy market.

The Green Paper on sustainable energy, which I published in September 1999, proposes a framework for energy efficiency and the promotion of renewable energy in Ireland. It sets out policy for both limiting energy related COf8>2 emissions and promoting the use of renewable energy sources to help ensure Ireland's compliance with the UN Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The centre is central to the implementation of many of the programmes and measures set out in the Green Paper.

It might be opportune to give the up-to-date position on the Kyoto Protocol at this stage. The adverse effects of climate change are well documented and the publication of the third assessment report to coincide with the resumed negotiations in Bonn in July served to emphasise how these effects are becoming more prevalent. The EU member states are committed to maintaining a firm common position on the protocol and attended the resumed climate change negotiations in Bonn in July and the COP7 negotiations in Marrakech last month prepared to engage in meaningful dialogue with other parties. This determined attitude to finalise the technical details which remained to be resolved in order to make it possible for parties to ratify the protocol next year was rewarded with success in Marrakech and has cleared the way for ratification of the protocol next year. As evidence of this Government's continued commitment to Kyoto, my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, in a speech in Marrakech, committed Ireland to ratification of Kyoto in 2002.

The agreements at Bonn and Marrakech also pave the way for the ratification of the protocol in 2002, as originally scheduled; hence the added urgency to this legislation in terms of meeting our overall commitments. Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, Ireland has agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 13% above 1990 levels. Our greenhouse gas emissions are currently more than 20% above 1990 levels. The latest ESRI forecast contained in its medium-term review suggests a significant rise above 1990 levels in our emissions by 2010 if we continue on a business as usual basis, principally as a result of our rapid economic growth. Energy related greenhouse gas emissions accounted for 55% of total greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 and are forecast to increase to 63% in 2010 if we do not devise policies and measures to abate such emissions.

These are stark statistics, which we cannot ignore. There is too much at stake for us and for future generations. The Government's national climate change strategy, published in October 2000, establishes the framework within which we will seek to achieve the necessary cuts in emissions. The strategy, like the Green Paper on sustainable energy, foresees a major implementing role for the centre. When introducing the Bill to the Seanad, I paid tribute to staff of the Irish Energy Centre. Most of us are aware of the excellent work they do in the area of energy awareness through energy awareness week, car free day and their excellent schools programme. However, I also put on record their work over the period of the economic infrastructure operational programme. In particular, the contribution made under such programmes as the energy efficiency investment support scheme and the self audit scheme was brought to the attention of Senators. I wish to repeat that tribute in this House.

The legislation provides that all the staff currently working in the Irish Energy Centre will become members of the staff of the new authority. The current staff of the centre are either permanent or contract staff of Forfas. It is essential that the majority of the existing staff switch to the new authority. Their dedication, experience and expertise is vital to the new organisation. I am satisfied that the provisions of the legislation in relation to tenure of office, terms and conditions, salaries, and superannuation ensure that all current staff of the centre move to the new authority with conditions no less favourable than those they enjoyed as members of the staff of Forfas. It is only to be expected that some staff might have concerns in relation to these issues and others such as career paths, promotional outlets, and opportunities for training and development.

These issues must be addressed quickly and addressed with openness and frankness as to the opportunities a transfer to the new authority will present. In recognition of that need, I have set up a consultative forum to address these issues. The forum, which is meeting regularly, consists of senior officials from my Department, the relevant trade union representatives of the staff, and Enterprise Ireland. With the necessary dialogue and goodwill on all sides these matters can be resolved to the satisfaction of existing staff. We are endeavouring to provide the utmost clarity for existing staff of the centre. I assure this House, and the staff in question, that as an independent body under the aegis of my Department, the ethos of the new authority will be one with a strong human resource focus and a commitment to the proper training and development of all staff. This is a situation where we can truly say that the experience and expertise of staff is the most valuable resource of the centre. We will ensure that the new authority manage and develop that resource accordingly.

On account of the mammoth task facing the new centre, and as I was conscious of the need to have the necessary institutional arrangements in place immediate on the enactment of this legislation, I appointed an interim board for the centre last December. Professor Frank Convery of the Environmental Research Unit in University College Dublin is chairperson of the interim board. I am delighted with the progress made by this board in carrying out its mandate to oversee the transition of the centre from Enterprise Ireland and examining institutional issues such as structure and staffing arrangements. The interim board has had a number of meetings and is currently meeting on a monthly basis in order to progress the many issues that arise. Considerable work has been done, for instance, in developing a three-year work programme, which was recently approved by the board. The bulk of that programme is based on the funding provisions of the economic and social infrastructure operational programme within the framework of the National Development Plan 2000-2006.

The interim board was instrumental in ensuring that a professional study was carried out in order to ensure a structure and staffing level appropriate to the proposed mandate for the new authority. As a result, the centre has sanction for a new structure and 30 additional posts that will bring the staff complement to 50. The centre is currently engaged in the first phase of the recruitment process. Some 15 new staff members will be recruited before the end of this year.

I look forward to the new work programmes of the centre getting under way. In June of this year, I launched an energy efficiency scheme in public sector design studies followed by the second phase, the model solutions investment support scheme, in August. A third phase of this programme, support for energy management bureaux operations is being planned. When one considers that the public capital programme for 2001 provides for expenditure of 7.6 billion, of which approximately 1.9 billion relates to expenditure on new buildings and major refurbishment of existing buildings, one can see how important this is.

I launched a major research and development scheme, entitled the House of Tomorrow Programme on September 26 of this year. This programme, which has a proposed budget of 21.1 million, offers support for research, development and demonstration projects aimed at generating and applying technologies, products, systems, practices and information leading to more sustainable energy performance in Irish housing.

I have already mentioned the important work being carried out in the area of energy awareness. I believe that many Deputies agree with me when I say that much can be achieved in this area. There is no cheaper solution to the energy emission problem than the conservation of energy and the careful use of energy by all. I firmly believe that it is possible to change the lifetime habits of a society. I am satisfied that with effective awareness campaigns and proper education the harmful effects of wasteful use of energy can be reduced. Evidence of this can be seen with the annual energy awareness week which is held in October each year and is co-ordinated by the centre. It remains the single most important platform for promoting energy efficiency in Ireland. The primary target audience is household consumers. The campaign informs them of how much energy is used on a domestic basis and the potential for savings there, from where this energy comes and the longer term implications of current consumption trends.

The week has proved very successful in raising awareness of the sustainable use of our energy resources and research indicated that consumer investment in specifically targeted energy efficient products increased by 680% during the period of the Energy Awareness Week campaign in 2000. The Energy Awareness Week 2000 campaign resulted in additional energy savings of over 2.5 million being achieved in Ireland. This represents a reduction in C0f8>2 emissions of 21,500 tonnes per annum.

Speaking of education, this is where I believe real progress can be achieved. I would like, for instance, to see a comprehensive campaign for schools developed for teachers and students starting with the junior schools and working up to secondary and beyond. I know, and I am pleased, that the centre is working hard on developing its website and making effective use of the Internet to promulgate the message. We are all aware of how adept children are in the use of modern technology so I applaud the efforts of the centre in this regard. I am looking forward to and I am excited by the prospect of future developments in the centre's schools programme.

In keeping with the definition of sustainable energy I outlined for Members earlier, Members will know that action is required on a number of fronts. I am a great believer in the role that can be played by renewable energy. In the Green Paper I set a much increased target of 500 megawatts of electricity for the contribution of renewable energy towards our Kyoto obligations. In May of this year, I had the pleasure of announcing the fifth alternative energy requirement competition. Under AER V, I am providing market support at various prices for a number of renewable technologies, including large scale wind energy, small scale wind, biomass and small scale hydro power. The amount of capacity on offer, at 255 megawatts, is the largest yet under an AER programme. It is just over half the target I set for the period up to 2005 in the Green Paper on Sustainable Energy. It is more than double the initial offer in AER III.

In announcing the competition I said the achievement of the target will generate sufficient electricity to feed 180,000 domestic houses, prevent the emission of over one million tonnes of polluting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, save on the import of more than 300,000 tonnes of crude oil and other fossil fuels, contribute savings equivalent to almost 10% of our Kyoto obligation and create an investment opportunity in excess of 254 million.

The announcement of AER V is a practical demonstration of my resolve and that of the Government to promote the renewable energy sector. It is also self-evident renewable energy can be foremost among the solutions needed to meet our Kyoto obligations. In concluding this point I should record that the accelerated programme I am implementing builds on the pioneering work on the promotion of renewables commenced by my predecessor in this office, Deputy Stagg. I have been pleased to acknowledge the contribution by Deputy Stagg in other fora, in particular at a recent wind energy conference in Kilkenny.

I would like now to deal with some aspects of the Bill other than those relating to staffing and terms and conditions of employment which I have already mentioned. The functions of the new authority are set out in a comprehensive way in section 6 of the Bill. Its functions are essentially to promote and assist energy efficiency measures across the whole economy, to assist and promote the development of electricity generation from renewable sources and, importantly, to advise Ministers in all matters relating to its functions. In this respect, I would foresee that the authority would provide crucial input to future policy development in the area of sustainable energy.

The accommodation needs of the new authority are dealt with in section 20. For clarity, I will set out the background to its current accommodation. Currently, the centre is located in a purpose built energy efficient building in the Enterprise Ireland complex in Glasnevin. The site is wholly owned by Enterprise Ireland. Under the original memorandum of understanding, which established the centre, Enterprise Ireland undertook to provide the necessary accommodation. A site was provided and a specially designed building was constructed on it with European Union funding.

A number of issues now arise in relation to the Glasnevin site. First, Enterprise Ireland intends to relocate its entire staff, currently located in a number of offices throughout the city, to the Glasnevin site. As one would expect, this will result in an evaluation of the buildings, structures and accommodation already on the site. Second, the current Irish Energy Centre building will need to be extended to house the proposed increase in staff. Third, there is the consideration that the new board may wish to ensure its independence from Enterprise Ireland physically as well as statutorily.

In response to the many considerations affecting the Glasnevin site, it was necessary to find a solution, which, on the one hand, would ensure that the authority would have accommodation for its staff on vesting day and, on the other hand, would enable Enterprise Ireland to retain ownership of the entire site. I decided, with the approval of the Government, that the new authority should be given a licence to remain in its existing building at least until there is greater clarity as to the intentions of all the main parties towards development of the site. Needless to say, the accommodation issue is one that is exercising the minds of Professor Convery and the other members of the interim board and I understand from the chairman that the issue is high on the agenda of the interim board. Section 20 provides that the authority is to be given a licence to remain as tenant in its existing accommodation with effect from vesting day.

With regard to the financing of the new authority, the Bill, in section 21, provides that the Minister shall from time to time, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, advance to the centre out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas such sums as the Minister may determine for the purposes of expenditure by the centre in the performance of its functions. Provision is made in the National Development Plan 2000-2006 for an allocation of 185 million over the duration of the plan for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency and promoting renewable energy related initiatives. This funding is intended to support the measures outlined in the Green Paper on sustainable energy. Particular emphasis is placed on the promotion of energy efficiency measures, research and development, renewable energy-combined heat and power, and energy efficient houses and public sector buildings. An element of that funding relates to the day to day activities of the new enlarged centre. Funding arrangements for the new authority are therefore largely in place.

I will bring forward some minor amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. In particular, I will make amendments to Section 39 of the Electricity Regulation Act, 1999, to amend the provisions in that Act relating to the public service obligation. Many Deputies will be aware that the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, proposes to introduce a public service obligation, order under the 1999 Act, requiring the ESB to purchase the output of certain peat and renewable electricity generating stations.

This PSO has particular relevance to my policy on the promotion of renewable energy, which I referred to earlier. During prolonged discussions with the EU Competition Directorate on the State aid aspects of the PSO, it emerged that the PSO funding mechanism, as had been provided for in section 39 of the 1999 Act, which is based on the consumption of electricity by final customers, would have a distorting impact on Irish electricity market. It is therefore necessary to amend section 39 of the 1999 Act to ensure that the enabling power for the PSO complies with the EU Commission decision approving the PSO. While these amendments will not have any material impact on the public service obligations, they are necessary from a technical perspective.

I am signalling my intention to bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to increase the borrowing powers of Bord Gáis Éireann. I had initially proposed providing for this increase in the Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Bill, 2001. However, due to unforeseen delays in the progress of that Bill and the urgent need for this provision, I am now proposing to use the Bill before the House as a vehicle for bringing this matter forward. The current borrowing limit of 698 million is set out in section 23 of the Gas Act, 1976, as amended. This needs to be increased urgently to accommodate BGE's large capital expenditure requirements over the next two years and the proposed amendment provides for increasing the borrowing limit to 1.1 billion. The capital expenditure is related to the upgrading and expansion of the existing gas transmission and distribution networks. This includes major infrastructural projects such as the pipeline to the west and the second Scotland-Ireland interconnector which is required to ensure security of energy supply for the winter of 2002-03. My proposal to include the relevant amendment in this Bill is based on the fact that BGE has already started work on these projects and will need to take advantage of the increased borrowing limits shortly.

I look forward with great anticipation to the establishment of the new authority. The interim board has already given us a feeling for how energetic the new authority will be. I am encouraged by the enthusiasm being shown by existing staff and the boost that will be given by the infusion of new staff over the coming months. I am more satisfied than ever that we are going in the right direction.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I protest in the strongest possible fashion at the way this legislation is being guillotined through the House. It is a disgrace that a Bill which has lain around since it passed the Seanad last May is now being bulldozed through the Dáil in just three hours two weeks before Christmas. That is totally wrong and there is no need for it. I cannot see why this Bill could not have been accommodated earlier in the session. I have no problem with the Bill but I have a major problem with the Government decision to abort the debate without affording Deputies from all sides the opportunity to have an input into it and to ventilate their views on the agency and its functions, ambitions and direction. They should also have the chance to talk generally about energy policy.

Second Stage debates by their very scope and intent are meant to offer Deputies a chance to examine the broad thrust of Government policy and also to set out their stalls on particular issues. The Chair will see the number of speakers due to speak on this Bill but the decision to curtail this debate means many Deputies with good ideas on energy policies will not have a chance to contribute. It is wrong that nine Deputies at most, including the Minister of State in his initial and summary speeches, can now participate in the debate. This is a negation of democracy and is wrong.

I welcome the Bill in that it sets up the Irish Energy Centre on a statutory, independent and stand-alone basis. I acknowledge the contribution the centre and its staff have made to the development of energy efficient attitudes, policies and practices. However, I am at a loss to know how its newly acquired independence status will enhance its effectiveness by virtue of the fact that the Minister of State acknowledged today and in the Seanad that, although it has been an appendage of Enterprise Ireland to an extent, it is nonetheless independent as it stands in exercising its functions. Perhaps the Minister of State will spell out the additional benefits, advantages and powers which will accrue to the agency as a result of passing this legislation.

I acknowledge the agency's contribution since its establishment in 1995. The energy efficiency investment scheme has allocated over £7 million in grants and has given rise to energy savings of £8.5 million and private sector investment of £31 million, which I commend. The self-audit scheme for high energy consumers has succeeded in significantly reducing energy consumption on the part of companies. It has also helped to decrease emissions of COf8>2 greenhouse gases. The programme should be vigorously promoted and more companies are encouraged to participate for the sake of their efficiency and economies, and from an environmental perspective.

The Minister mentioned Energy Awareness Week, which is an excellent idea, and he referred to the targets of saving 2.5 million and reducing COf8>2 emissions by 21.5 tonnes. I wonder, however, without wishing to be cynical, who will be charged with determining the success of Energy Awareness Week. While it is a good idea, the message is not getting through to the average citizen. A great deal of energy is still wasted and we need to transmit the message of saving resources to the ordinary consumer and to small industries.

I would like the Minister to outline the programmes that will be promoted by the new Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. What level of investment will be put into the programmes? There is no use talking about aspirations unless we are specific. What kind of timescale is involved? What targets have been set? I presume, now that an independent agency is being established, that a plan is being set out for the agency's staff. New, dynamic and attractive programmes are vital if we are to reduce our energy bill and if we are to adhere to the Kyoto guidelines. I have said on many occasions that this country has a huge tendency to sign up to protocols and conventions but we are considerably less than assiduous in adhering to their demands and objectives. We did not hesitate to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol but our attempts to achieve its targets have been appalling.

A number of months ago the Government of the United States decided that it was to have nothing to do with the Kyoto Protocol as its demands did not suit American industry. The US President, Mr. Bush, must have been sorely tempted to issue a riposte to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, who lectured the US Administration. If there was ever a case of a Government in a glasshouse throwing stones, this was it. We will not be in a position to preach, pontificate or lecture until we put our house in order, or at least until we make a serious attempt to meet the targets to which we signed up at Kyoto.

The figures mentioned by the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, in his speech speak for themselves:

Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, Ireland has agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 13% above 1990 levels. Our greenhouse gas emissions are currently more than 20% above 1990 levels. The latest ESRI forecast contained in its medium-term review suggests a significant rise above 1990 levels in our emissions by 2010 if we continue on a business as usual basis, principally as a result of our rapid economic growth. Energy related greenhouse gas emissions accounted for 55% of total greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 and are forecast to increase to 63% in 2010 if we do not devise policies and measures to abate such emissions.

We are lecturing the United States despite the fact that our emissions are above 1990 levels, which is a flagrant breach of an international protocol to which we are a signatory. I realise that the Irish Energy Centre has tried to address this problem, but the situation remains appalling. We are behaving in a hypocritical manner and the figures are a damning indictment of our performance.

Five weeks ago I asked the Minister of State to outline the amount of electricity generated from wind and other sources. His reply indicated that, in 2000, 225 gigawatt hours of electricity were generated from wind energy, 6,815 gigawatt hours were generated from coal, 1,777 gigawatt hours were generated from peat, 4,629 gigawatt hours were generated from oil, 9,172 gigawatt hours were generated from natural gas, 847 gigawatt hours were generated from water and 96 gigawatt hours from combustible renewables and waste. Without a major shift in policy involving an effective and comprehensive range of measures, the situation as regards greenhouse gas emissions will continue to deteriorate and embarrass Ireland politically and damage us environmentally.

Ireland has totally failed to decouple economic growth and energy consumption. Interim targets set for 2005 will not be met and there is a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of these issues. The industry feels that any action we take will make no difference as Ireland accounts for only 0.1% of global warming. We try to comfort ourselves in the knowledge that developed countries have a bigger cross to bear as they are main sources of COf8>2 emissions. We point the finger at these countries because the high levels of COf8>2 belching from their electricity generating stations and industrial plants are destroying the ozone layer which protects the earth from the sun's rays. We think of the large industrial nations as being to blame for global warming which contributes to climate change and which will eventually have significant consequences for the earth's inhabitants as temperatures continue to rise. All the evidence suggests that temperatures are continuing to rise.

Over the past 100 years the annual rate of increase in temperature has gone up from 0.3º to 0.6º centigrade. This increase has resulted in significant climate change causing severe drought and famine in many areas. Our attitude is to shrug our shoulders and to suggest that climate change is none of our business as it does not affect us. However, this is not the case. There has been an obvious change in climate in Ireland over the past seven or eight years giving rise to unprecedented flooding and coastal erosion due to rising sea levels. Despite these facts we continue to shrug our shoulders. We are fortunate in that the prevailing westerly winds blow emissions towards other countries. Emissions from the Moneypoint electricity generating station have little effect on this country, but significantly impact on Scandinavia as the prevailing south-westerly winds blow them in its direction.

Industry will have to be educated to the prospect that, in 2020, the world market in carbon may be the most active trading market of any commodity. Policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will fail unless their sources, particularly carbon, become traded commodities with an adequate premium to discourage and penalise high emissions and to incentivise and reward clean, green alternatives. The Kyoto Protocol commitments are demanding on Ireland. We do not avail of nuclear power and we have limited hydro-electric generating capacity. We are particularly vulnerable as 86% of our energy is generated using imported fossil fuels. In the UK, for example, steps have been taken and the coal mines have been closed down. In central and eastern Europe, old polluting plants are being taken out of commission. Our industrial development has been relatively recent and thus plant does not have the potential for emission reductions. Furthermore, agricultural methane production will undoubtedly grow rather than remain stable. Such generic issues when added to our economic growth will cause us real problems in meeting our UN commitment.

Notwithstanding these national issues, the only way we will realise our Kyoto objectives and commitments is to introduce an international system within the EU envelope of emissions trading. This would put a price on a tonne of carbon which would have to be payable over a certain sectoral level of gas output, for example, the 1990 levels, from which that industry would have to pay a surcharge for its excess greenhouse gas emissions. This would allow international trade in courses of carbon and other gases by both sectors and individual businesses.

This will not work unless there is an adequate disincentive in place. If people are rewarded for doing nothing the whole process will be a waste of time. Fine Gael will actively support a trading mechanism whereby countries such as Denmark, which has reduced its greenhouse emissions by 27%, will have greenhouse gas tonnages to sell because of their effective environmental policies. The EU institutions will have to introduce a realistic price for carbon that would make it a tradeable commodity.

It is only within this context that sectoral deals can be done on output limits and negotiated taxes. Fine Gael favours the early implementation of such a fiscal system that would give industry, electricity generators and others the necessary market to ensure national compliance with our Kyoto commitments. Allied to this would be the establishment of a national green credit system whereby businesses would be rewarded for reductions in their emissions. Current high inflation rates make it politically difficult to introduce a general carbon or eco-tax. The emissions trading mechanism is the only viable proposal that would not result in a loss of national competitiveness but provide a sustainable basis for each member state to meet its Kyoto obligations.

The resolution of these issues will become more difficult and more costly with every delay in the implementation of such policies. This is due to the ever worsening amounts by which we are exceeding our emission limits to a record annual growth GDP. These measures simply cannot be postponed.

My party believes the conversion of Moneypoint electricity generating station from coal to natural gas is vital and should be proceeded with. This would reduce emissions by 3 million tonnes per year and would also lead to a significant reduction is COf8>2 emissions, nationally and internationally. The re-regulation of the liberalised electricity market to give absolute preferential treatment to combined heat and power plants is an absolute necessity.

Fine Gael is committed to facilitating the establishment of combined heat and electricity generating projects in industrial estates to provide, for example, localised heating and electricity needs for that site up to a maximum output in capacity in megawatts, so that it would not be a competitive electricity generator but efficiently used energy for the needs of that location. This would reduce energy consumption and provide far greater efficiencies.

Future electricity generating plants that are not using renewable sources of energy should only obtain licences if they are 80% efficient. Currently, there is enough waste heat from our electricity generating sector to provide for the entire heating requirements of this country. The heat currently wasted from Irish power stations is the equivalent of 21 million barrels of oil and worth more than $600 million a year.

My party will favour the introduction of green credits to reward and encourage new green electricity suppliers.

Eco-labelling of electricity will be mandatory on all bills. Nationally, targets should be set to increase the proportion of our energy expenditure on renewable resources from 0.5% to 5% of total expenditure. These renewable resources include wind, biomass, hydro and solar power. Energy expenditure this year will be in the region of £4,000 million to £4,500 million. Specific commitments to purchase wind energy will be necessary to meet this objective.

My party also believes it is essential to set a national target for over 10% of total electricity output to be derived from renewable energy sources by 2010. In current terms, this is the equivalent of 540 MW. A package of incentives to support wind and other renewable energy resources will be required for the business expansion scheme, capital allowances and the treatment of energy leasing partnerships. In Government, we will be committed to prioritising the introduction of Government procurement policies to discriminate positively in favour of green products and green services. The direct State purchases of electricity, energy and transport should have an established quota of green renewable resources. All public service vehicles should be low or no-emission vehicles. This is not currently the case, as anybody who drives behind such vehicles will testify.

To improve awareness levels and address the information deficit about our commitments, the following should be done as a matter of urgency: first, the environmental sector should be included as an additional pillar in social partnership as well as being a full member of NESF; and, second, Government development plans must be environmentally proofed. Fine Gael wants environment economic units within key Departments to give ex ante appraisal of Government development plans and policies, including fiscal policy, and to ensure compliance with EU targets and UN protocols. All electricity plants, without exception, must obtain IPC licences. Greater efforts are needed to reduce greenhouse emissions in the energy production, transport and agricultural sectors. There is further scope for EPA and IPC licensing in these sectors. We favour, for example, all electricity plants having to obtain IPC licences, not just the modern ones. The whole area of IPC licensing should be reviewed as a matter of urgency as a key instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Non-governmental organisations should be provided with money to promote awareness. We are committed when in Government to providing, for example, annual funding to NGOs in the environmental sector in order that they can promote greater public awareness and understanding of key environmental concerns. The participation and co-operation of the NGO sector is absolutely essential. It should not simply be Government agency-driven. Each Government memorandum for Cabinet approval should require an environmental audit to state the effects, if any, on the environment of each Government proposal or decision.

There should be a ten year energy reduction programme for all Departments. We believe it is very important to introduce an energy efficiency programme for all Departments targeting a reduction in energy consumption of between 20% and 30% over ten years. All new and refurbished public buildings built by or for the State, including social housing, should have a high energy specification and should preferably include a green heating system. The Government, State agencies and local authorities should be leading the way but, unfortunately, they are not. High energy specification building regulations should be introduced immediately. It is essential, in view of the number of houses likely to be built in the immediate future – and there is a huge need out there – that the new building regulations due to come into effect in 2005 be front-loaded and introduced as soon as possible. This is vital from the point of view of energy efficiency, not to mention our compliance with Kyoto.

The taxation regime should also be investigated. Effective incentives and deterrents should be used to promote the purchase of renewable sources of electricity and energy efficient equipment. Fine Gael advocates different VAT rates on electricity products and electrical goods, for example 5% VAT on green products and 12.5% on non-renewable sources. Furthermore, increased resources must be put into public transport to encourage people to switch from private transport. Dublin city is absolutely chaotic at present. Operation Freeflow was introduced last week but the day of its introduction was the most chaotic in Dublin since Christmas week of last year. Cars were stuck in a total logjam and simply could not move.

At this time, 6,000 cars are being purchased per week in spite of the slowdown of the Celtic tiger and we are still below the EU average for car ownership. The availability of public transport is dire because investment has not been put into it over the years. This is not a political point. We are stuck with a situation which will become progressively worse over the next five to six years due to the lack of buses, the failure to introduce integrated ticketing, the dearth of quality bus cor ridors and the fact that, in spite of all the promises, park-and-ride is a dream rather than reality. Moreover, Luas will not be operational, no matter what anybody says, until 2004 or 2005.

Fine Gael also favours tax breaks for green fuels. Something must be done about the taxation regime for vehicles with high emissions. We will remove excise duties on liquid biofuels. We will also promote and incentivise short rotation forestry for fuels in the national forestry programme, which will provide valuable greenhouse gas sinks. The Minister alluded to something about which Fine Gael also feels strongly, namely, the need for a major programme of education, information and public awareness, to be introduced on a national basis, not in a hit-and-miss fashion. More than one energy awareness week is required. We need to hit the problem hard because of our CO2 emissions and the consequences for climate change and from the point of view of good citizen practice.

The recommendations of Energy Action under the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation need to be implemented. It has recommended, for example, investment over ten years of £1.3 billion to improve insulation standards in housing. Innovation in the renewable energy sector is absolutely essential if we are to manage Ireland's energy demands up to 2015. This will yield very significant savings. Similarly, investment in research, development and demonstration of new and renewable energy conservation processes such as ocean wave, integrated renewable energy systems, fuel cell technology, active solar heating and biomass technologies should be actively supported with appropriate State aid.

I welcome this Bill and the new status of the agency which will follow the passage of the legislation, but as I asked at the outset, what additional benefits, advantages or powers will accrue to it? There is huge potential out there that has not been tapped into. We have been mind-bogglingly slow in pursuing new technology and new opportunities and appreciating what we have. We have everything we need in terms of renewable energy; for example, we have the greatest wave potential power in western Europe. Yet, we have not tapped into it despite the amount of research carried out in universities in Scotland and other places. I welcome the various air programmes and the targets set down for wind power but they are pitifully modest compared to the potential which exists. They will not significantly reduce our current Kyoto liability. From the point of view of the investment itself, from the point of view of economic sense, one cannot get a better investment because it is completely free once the plant is up and running.

Nationally we have 300 megawatts of electricity being produced from wind and other sources but if we look at Denmark, which does not have the same wind capacity, they have over 1,000 megawatts. In Germany, again without our wind potential, 2,000 megawatts is produced. In Denmark 8,000 people are employed on wind farms alone, not including the backup services. From the point of view of geothermal energy, we are only beginning to realise the potential, while Scandinavia is light years ahead of us. We now have one or two houses constructed as models but this needs to be vigorously promoted. We have been very slow to realise its potential. We have perhaps wallowed in the belief that because we do not have radiant sunshine all year long we do not have any capacity or potential for solar energy but it has been proven to be otherwise.

I would welcome the introduction of domestic audits for energy efficiency in the same way as they have been introduced for companies. The provision of home energy surveys with advice for people on how their houses are leaking energy would be of great benefit.

I wish to correct the Minister on one point. He referred to the pipeline to the west. I very much welcome the investment but it is actually a pipeline from the west as we are going to supply the rest of the country.

Mr. Jacob

Touché.

Mr. Gilmore

I agree with Deputy Jim Higgins that this Bill should not be rushed through this House using the guillotine several months after it has passed through the Seanad. It demonstrates the low priority that this Government has for the issue of sustainable energy and indeed the low priority that the Government accords to what is now supposed to be national policy – the national climate change strategy.

Mr. Jacob

I have been trying to get it in here for a long time.

Mr. Gilmore

I have no doubt that the Minister of State has been doing that and, if anything, that reinforces the point I am making. I do not doubt the personal commitment of the Minister of State and am aware of the many personal statements and initiatives he has taken and I commend him for it, but it is indicative of the extent to which the Government to which he belongs does not regard this as a serious issue.

I welcome the fact that the Bill has eventually arrived. The Labour Party is supporting the Bill and we welcome the opportunity of debating it. This affords us the time to debate the policy framework from which this Bill emerges, which is Ireland's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and the national climate change strategy which arises from that. It is appropriate that we should be discussing this on 11 December because it is four years to the day that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government returned from Kyoto to address this House on the outcome of the Kyoto talks.

We need to take a very serious rain check, if that is not a pun in this context, on the Kyoto Protocol. This country is either not going to meet its commitments or very dramatic changes will have to occur in our consumption patterns, transport and how our industry and economy operate. Unfortunately this "good news Government" has not communicated that message to the public or to the participants in our economy. I believe there has been an official commitment to Kyoto, which is articulated in official statements from some Ministers in the publication of various documents like the Green Paper on Sustainable Energy and in the initiatives that we are undertaking here today which is the statutory establishment of the Irish Energy Centre. In reality what is happening is that the bad news about Kyoto is being kept from the public. The challenges of Kyoto are so heavily disguised that very few know what is really being talked about and on top of that we have some Ministers and some Departments who, frankly, are going in the opposite direction to the commitments which were given in Kyoto.

Let us reflect on what the Minister for the Environment and Local Government brought in here on 11 December 1997 when he returned from Kyoto. I was interested to hear Deputy Higgins putting such strong emphasis on emissions trading as a means by which we would reach our Kyoto commitments. Four years ago the Minister for the Environment and Local Government was less than enthusiastic about what he described as the additional flexibilities in terms of the protocol, which he said could dilute the commitment to real action to reduce emissions. Probably the most substantial contribution which has been made to our commitments has been through afforestation. Four years ago the Minister said that while sinks will help some parties to meet their targets it must be recognised that they cannot provide a long-term offset against continuing emissions from fossil fuels. He was even more sceptical in regard to emissions trading. He said that provision for emissions trading was a crucial element for several parties but during all stages of the negotiations the EU sought to ensure that trading would not become a major loophole and that the requirements for trading may only be supplemental to domestic action and so on. What now appears to be the reality is that those flexibilities and those loopholes, as they were then described, are the lifebuoy which the Government is now grasping in order to save some remnants of its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol.

It took three years, from 1997, for the Government to produce its national climate change strategy. Last week in the House I again asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government about our progress in regard to the strategy. The agreed target for Ireland was 13% in 2010 on our greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. The Minister replied that the EPA projected on a number of occasions that if we continued on a business as usual scenario we would reach a level in excess of 37% rather than the level of 13% plus in 1990. He further stated that the current level was 20% plus on the 1990 figures. I pressed him on the issue and again he stated that the estimation, which is based on many assumptions – one being that economic growth continues at the same level – is that the level will be in the range 34-37% rather than 13%. We have to achieve 13% in 2010 but the business as usual scenario shows us running at about three times that rate. This is not an abstract issue that can be postponed to some future date. There is a requirement under the Kyoto Protocol that we show demonstrable progress by 2005, which is only three years away. We are not going to have demonstrable progress by 2005 because the Government, just as it did in the budget last week where it postponed the financial management of the country and borrowed from next year in financial terms, is also doing so in environmental terms in regard to our commitment under the national climate change strategy. It also borrows from next year in environmental terms and in terms of our commitments under the national climate change strategy.

Mr. Jacob

We will meet our targets on renewable energy.

Mr. Gilmore

Renewable energy represents a tiny fraction of our energy requirements.

Mr. Jacob

Renewable energy meets 6% of our needs and will meet 12% by 2005. Europe requires us to meet 13.2% of our needs from renewable energy by 2010, so we are ahead of target.

Mr. Gilmore

We are not doing so well by comparison with other EU countries. Sweden meets approximately 27% of its needs from renewable energy while Austria meets 24%. While we are making progress, we are still primarily dependent on fossil fuels for our energy and are more heavily dependent on these than most other European countries. Furthermore, we are much more heavily dependent on oil and gas for our energy supply than was the case in 1980. In terms of our import dependence on energy sources, in 1990, 70% of our energy requirement was imported whereas by 1998 it had increased to more than 80%. The comparable figure in the EU was less than 50%.

Energy comprises by far the biggest proportion of our greenhouse emissions. Over the past decade our energy consumption has increased by almost 30% while our CO2 emissions from energy has increased by 30%. Over the same period there has been a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions on a per capita basis. The year 1990 is the base year for the climate change strategy and the Kyoto Protocol. In that year the ratio of CO2 emissions on a per capita basis was approximately the same as for the rest of the EU. Over the past decade there has been a slight decrease in CO2 emissions in the EU on a per capita basis whereas emissions in this country have increased by approximately 25%.

It is estimated that on a business as usual basis, CO2 emissions from transport, by far the biggest contributor in terms of increase, will rise by 157% by 2010 while the increases from industry will be 56% and 19% from the housing or residential sector, which is already the biggest component. How will this process be reversed? The Green Paper on sustainable energy is couched in language which suggests that while there is an official policy objective to reach the targets, it is intended to be reached without upsetting anybody. For example, the section dealing with residential consumers and the non-commercial public sector and small businesses advised it is intended to negotiate changes via social partnership arrangements on a progressive basis between now and 2008. Three years ago we heard the same from the Minister for Finance. For example, he then told the House in his Budget Statement that there would be discussions with the social partners on the issue of green taxes. If these have taken place we have not heard. Certainly, no conclusions have emerged. The section dealing with climate change policy in this year's budget amounted to no more than an increase of 6 cent per litre for low sulphur diesel.

Government policy on green or fuel taxation is to keep talking but act only if it does not upset anybody. It is estimated that the biggest increase in CO2 emissions will occur in the transport sector. Official Government policy is to provide for vehicle efficiency standards and labelling, thus enabling consumers to make informed decisions about energy efficient vehicles. We are all for that. The Green Paper says that Government policy on land use planning is to allow higher density development close to or in existing urban centres along main transport corridors and to reduce the requirement on people to travel, especially by private car. Yet, of the 46,000 houses built in the country last year, 18,000 were one-off dwellings, mostly in the countryside.

I do not subscribe to the view that there should not be housing development in the countryside. However, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development with responsibility for rural development, Deputy Ó Cuív, is running a campaign in the media to the effect that it is good that houses should be built on every boreen in the country. That is in total conflict with Government policy on reducing greenhouse emissions from the use of transport.

Road pricing is another element in the Government's policy. The biggest component of the national development plan is to build more roads. Is it the Government's policy to spend money building them and then charge commuters so that they will not use them? These policies are incompatible. How is it proposed to promote cheap public transport in a city that is completely gridlocked with traffic? The Government's biggest contribution to public transport in the city was to delay the implementation of the DTO strategy by three to four years when it decided that parts of the Luas light rail system should be put under ground. This week alone, the board of CIE decided it will transfer 40% of its rail business from rail to road. It is not possible to have an official Government policy promoting cheap public transport and reducing the transport component of greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time permitting a State owned company to shift freight from rail, which is supposed to be encouraged, to road, which will have a negative impact on traffic and on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.

The net position is that we have a commitment to the Kyoto protocols, in theory, but the Government has no intention of implementing them or, at the very least, intends to postpone implementation until after a general election. We need a new statement from Government, at this point, as to how those targets will be achieved. We are very wide of the mark in terms of the targets we signed up to and we are way off-beam from the national climate change strategy document which was agreed. For example, has the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development talked to the farming organisations about reducing the national herd by 10%, which is one of the commitments in the climate change strategy? What will be done with Moneypoint? There is an ambiguous statement about that in the climate change strategy document but we have no clear statement from Government as to what will be done in relation to Moneypoint or in key areas, such as energy conservation and building regulations. It has been recommended to Government for quite some time that the use of the nine inch cavity block should be discontinued in the interests of energy conservation, in line with the views of most people in the construction industry and professionals in the energy conservation sector. The Government has still not acted on that because there is significant interest in the manufacture of those blocks and, to date, the Government has responded more positively to that interest than to the need to conserve energy.

In the debate in this House, immediately following the Kyoto agreement in 1997, one of the measures advocated at that time by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, as a means of meeting our targets was the national recycling strategy and the new Waste Management Act. We know what has happened to the Waste Management Act of 1996 – it simply has not been implemented. We now see alarming discoveries, on a daily basis, of illegal dumps. There is no coherent waste management strategy. With regard to recycling, the allocation of £11 million – a relatively small sum – last year for grant-aiding recycling projects was not spent. Only £3 million of it was spent. On each of the targets set in the climate change strategy and on all the main headings of our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, we are simply not meeting them and there is very little indication that we will meet those targets by 2010.

I am glad the Irish Energy Centre is being established on a statutory basis. However, I was curious about one section in the Minister of State's address today and perhaps he might clarify it when he is responding. It referred to the transfer of staff and the arrangements being made in that regard, and it contained a lot of coded text. He said: "It is only to be expected that some staff might have concerns in relation to these issues . . ." and so on. He referred to the establishment of a consultative forum which is meeting regularly and said that "with the necessary dialogue and goodwill on all sides, these matters can be resolved to the satisfaction of the existing staff." I do not wish to involve myself or this House in the normal discussions that would take place on such an issue but I translate this paragraph as saying the staff are against the proposition. The Minister of State should tell us if there is an issue here. It is one thing to establish the agency on a statutory basis but if its establishment subsequently runs into industrial relations difficulties, the high aspirations contained in both the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and the Minister of State's speech, may not be met.

On the specific provisions of the Bill, I was curious about a couple of issues and I ask the Minister of State to address them. In relation to membership of the board of the centre, it is generally accepted that Members of either House of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament are not eligible for appointment as members of the board. However, there seems to be a new addition to this category in this Bill, namely, that a person who is a member of a local authority shall be disqualified from becoming a member of the board. The exclusion of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament is now quite common in relation to State agencies and I have no argument with that, but the addition of membership of a local authority seems to cast the net much more widely than has been the case up to now. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain what is so significant about the Irish Energy Centre that members of a local authority could not be eligible to serve on its board.

I am also curious about section 18 in relation to the disclosure of information. I accept that, in any agency, there are rules governing disclosure of confidential or sensitive information. However, the way in which section 18 is constructed appears to widen the restriction on the provision of information to the public by members of the board, the chief executive or the staff of the agency. Confidential information is defined in the Bill as information that is expressed by the board or by a committee of the board to be confidential. That is an issue. One of the main functions of the Irish Energy Centre, as is clear in the Bill, is the provision of information to the public. If there is a prohibition on staff or board members of the agency providing information, on the basis of a very restrictive definition of "confidential information", that will inhibit the provision of infor mation and will ultimately interfere with the work of the agency and its effectiveness.

The Labour Party is supporting this Bill and we will table a number of amendments on Committee Stage. We greatly regret that the Government appears to have turned its back on the Kyoto Protocol and on the national climate change strategy which it published only a year ago. Just as it has done in the context of the budget and the financial management of the country, the Government has simply stored up trouble for the future in relation to the environmental management of the country.

Mr. Killeen

The Bill follows on from the Green Paper on Sustainable Energy introduced in September 1999, which set out to ensure that the energy needs of the current generation could be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and which set quite a difficult target in that regard. It is a worthy and commendable aim, but I cannot help believing it is somewhat patronising to assume that future generations will be unable to find or invent new sources of energy for themselves. On the other hand, the climate change effects of the use of energy are enormous and the difficulties posed for the environment by greenhouse gases need to be addressed independently of other considerations.

The main objective of the Bill is to allow the Irish Energy Centre to operate independently of Enterprise Ireland and become the sustainable energy authority of Ireland. One of the tasks the new authority will face will be to address our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. A sustainable energy policy should ensure security of energy supply in order to support economic and social development while protecting the environment. It has become clear recently that it is difficult to supply our electricity requirements and the ESB has had to find sources from outside the country to supplement the available supply. That was a difficult task. The new authority will also have to maximise the efficiency of generation, emphasise the use of renewable resources and promote energy conservation by users. In its short existence, the Irish Energy Centre has had particular success in the latter area and ordinary people have become aware of the need to conserve energy, not just because of the costs involved but because of the damage that can be done to the environment. The final aim of the new authority will be to minimise emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants by promoting clean generation and sustainable consumption levels in all sectors.

The new authority will also be obliged to maintain local air quality and limit and reduce the Irish contribution to regional and local environmental problems. I assume it will be given the resources to allow it to provide monitoring centres in various locations throughout the country which will allow it to monitor air quality. The latter is one of the most important considerations which must be taken into account when looking at people's quality of life.

The Irish Energy Centre was established in 1995 under Forbairt and has had a considerable impact on the efficient use of energy during the intervening period. It has also managed to attract considerable private sector investment into desirable developments.

It is difficult to limit energy related CO2 emissions without there being a dramatic increase in the use of renewable energy sources. In that context, a previous speaker suggested the use of localised energy production within or close to huge demand locations such as industrial estates in which there is a considerable excess and waste of energy. The new authority will face up to this task and will be proactive in facilitating developments in this area. There will be a need to bring together diverse interests, some of which will be in competition with each other, in order for progress to be made. The prospects for success in this area are good.

It is notoriously difficult to gain planning permission for wind farm projects. The Minister of State has sought to support the provision of wind energy, but objections are frequently made when wind farms are proposed. It is interesting that, in many cases, the objectors are those who are most vocal on other green issues. I accept that there are difficulties for people living near wind farms because they are extremely unsightly and noisy and many complaints are made about them. One can sympathise with and support the objections of those who live near wind farms. However, one might take a more cynical view of the activities of those who call for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the use of renewable resources, on one hand, while spending an inordinate amount of time, energy and resources fighting attempts to provide alternatives, on the other.

At least two previous speakers referred to the Moneypoint generating station. One of the proposals relating to the station is that it should be converted from using coal to using gas. This would have huge implications in terms of employment levels at the station. There is a large trained and committed work force in place there at present and if these people's jobs were to be wiped out by a State authority – which seems likely under the proposal to convert to gas – alternative sources of employment should be planned for and provided, either on-site or in the immediate vicinity. I have grave reservations about a policy that will address one problem, in this case the emissions from the station, while contemporaneously creating a major social problem, namely, unemployment. It is possible to do both and responsibility for this lies with the State agencies. I do not want to see one State agency proceeding with an initiative of which another is well aware and in respect of which it could already be working actively to address.

The effects of emissions from Moneypoint on Scandinavia, the Scottish highlands and elsewhere were referred to by previous speakers. When I was a member of Clare County Council, I frequently raised my concerns about the possible effects of such emissions on the Burren. The ESB has a station in the Burren where it monitors these emissions. I am sure this is quite proper and above board but it does not increase one's confidence in the system when monitoring is carried out and supervised by the body likely to be the cause of the emissions. At one stage and over a period of three to four years, the county council provided an independent benchmarking study of lichen growth in one of the uppermost areas of the Burren. Unfortunately, however, when resources became scarce eight or nine years ago it was one of the initiatives that were dropped. I understand the original study material is still available at the county council's offices and it would be worthwhile to consult this data and, on the basis of it, conduct a further two or three year study into the effects, if any, on lichen growth. Lichen is the most sensitive organism in the Burren area and is also the most likely to show the effects of any deterioration or changes in air quality which might have occurred.

While the debate is raging as to whether Moneypoint should be converted into a gas powered station, the option of providing scrubbers should be given more serious consideration than has been the case heretofore. This has been dismissed out of hand on the basis of cost. I accept that the costs involved would be substantial but we must bear in mind that coal is likely to be cheap and readily available for some time. The cost of providing scrubbers as against that of converting to gas might not be as unattractive when viewed in that context as opposed to its being considered in isolation. At a minimum, the authority should involve itself in deciding on which is the better option. We must also take account of whether the alternative sources are reliable, readily available, less damaging to the environment than coal and not likely to be better utilised elsewhere. The latter should be included in the equation when considering the impact of conversion on natural gas supplies because there is potential for massive use of natural gas at Moneypoint and, perhaps, at other planned stations.

While the debate about the future of the station tends to rage on occasion and then lie dormant, nothing is being done about extending its capacity to add extra electricity to the national grid. It is time the debate on the future power source used at the station was concluded and that its potential to provide even more electricity, as originally planned, should be explored and acted upon.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Ireland agreed to limit gas emissions to 13% above 1990 levels. The Kyoto agreement was signed in 1996 when, one assumes, the Minister did not expect the huge level of subsequent growth in the economy and the consequent demand for energy. I understand that greenhouse gas emissions are approximately 20% above 1990 levels. In 1990, energy related greenhouse gases accounted for 55% of total emissions and by 2010 they are likely to account for 63% of these.

The national climate change strategy of 2000 provoked a debate on the causes of such change. I recall that a number of experts seriously undermined current theories about the causes and effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The authority needs to bear in mind that there are very powerful interests involved in energy production which it will have to take on. The Minister's description of the work of the authority as a mammoth task was certainly accurate. On a much more modest level, the solid fuel industry has objected in recent weeks to the proposals in the discussion document currently with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government and has mounted a very strong lobby to continue to be able to sell coal and petroleum coke. That is an example of the difficulties the authority is likely to face in addressing the question of emissions down the line.

There is also the possibility of introducing building regulations to make houses and other buildings much more energy efficient. However, the attendant costs make them unattractive in a climate where the cost of providing new houses is virtually prohibitive for many couples. Such a policy may be glibly trotted out, but it needs to be thought through and if its implications involve extra costs and the State is causing such costs to accrue, the State clearly has an obligation to address that.

We are committed to dramatically improving our public service infrastructure. During a debate in Private Members' time weeks ago the Minister outlined the huge level of spending on the public transport infrastructure and the large number of extra vehicles that have been provided. Simultaneously, many Members argued that there had been little impact on the overall situation and that if any impact was to be achieved huge additional financial resources would have to be provided for public transport. It will be necessary to make judgments and choices about where money can best be spent in terms of the debate being conducted here today.

There have also been attempts to introduce a taxation policy which favours green energy use. There seems to be some scope in the area of, for example, private motor cars and electrical goods. I would not anticipate a huge level of objection and it would have the potential to impact quite appreciably.

Recently there was a debate between An Taisce and the Minister of State on land use policy. Throughout rural Ireland the vast majority of people favour the viewpoint of the Minister of State in that regard. However, as Deputy Gilmore said, a very substantial number of one-off dwellings have been built in rural Ireland over the past year or two. Perhaps we have missed an opportunity here. There could be a requirement that a minimum area of plantation be produced on half-acre sites. That would certainly improve the visual amenity and would, over a period, contribute considerably to the afforestation programme. That is an idea that could be examined in the short-term.

Many people outside this House are saying publicly and privately that we signed up to daft targets in the Kyoto Protocol. It is very fashionable in some quarters to attack President Bush for his denunciation of the protocol. However, there are many who think he is a lot closer to reality than some of those who are promoting the targets of the protocol. The Minister outlined the EU position. Ireland is committed to that position and it is certainly what we would like to achieve. However, an element of realism needs to be incorporated into the debate if we are to reach these targets. There are implications for spending policy that must be faced up to.

The Oireachtas itself has demonstrated some of the lack of action about which Deputy Gilmore complained. This Dáil dropped the Joint Committee on Sustainable Development; it is currently a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government. It has no dedicated staff and there is no support available for the members of the sub-committee. It is very difficult, therefore, for the sub-committee to do its work and for the Oireachtas to hold Departments to account in the way it is required to. Some of the meetings at which Secretaries General and senior officials of Departments made presentations on sustainable development were very instructive. In some cases the attitude would induce pessimism and depression in anyone who was committed to moving us towards the targets of the Kyoto Protocol. I could not help thinking that if this is the attitude in some of the Departments, who could blame ordinary people if they have difficulty in facing up to the commitments in the Kyoto Protocol and the Government's programme.

While the sustainable energy policy must ensure that we do our own business, it should also independently monitor and take action on factors outside the State. I refer particularly to the situation at Sellafield. It would be a move in the right direction if the authority were given the right not only to monitor and study effects on the air in Ireland but also to move independently in the courts at European level rather than having the Government do it. It would be of enormous benefit if the required action could be taken at this level. It is not clear from what the Minister said or from a reading of the Bill how much power the authority will have in relation to independent Departments. It must have the right to call Departments to account for their policies, practices and procedures. Not having that right would constitute a very great weakness in its operation.

I welcome the legislation and the setting up of the authority. It has a hugely important role to play in the Ireland of the new millennium and I trust it will be successful.

Ms Clune

I propose to share my time with Deputies Crawford and Sargent.

I welcome this Bill. It is important that we move forward in this area and establish procedures to develop alternative, renewable and sustainable sources of energy. Fine Gael supports this Bill and I look forward to more detailed discussions on Committee Stage.

The Minister referred to the Kyoto Protocol under which we have agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 13% above 1990 levels. However, currently our greenhouse gas emissions are about 20% above 1990 levels and rising. I questioned the Minister for the Environment and Local Government on this issue last week with particular reference to the budget. The reply was that under the Government's national climate change strategy, published in 2000, we would see the introduction of energy taxes and so on in the budget, but the budget contained no measures aimed at reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. This is very disappointing. In 1997 we had a debate in this House following the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. Nothing has changed since. We have not made any progress. The Government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is, therefore, questionable.

I acknowledge the commitment of the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, to establishing renewable sources of energy. I was heartened to hear that we are on target to meet our requirements in that area. That is very positive. However, we are behind in meeting our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. The Minister confirmed today that energy related greenhouse gas emissions accounted for 55% of total greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 and that if we continue as we are, that will increase to 63% by 2010. This is very serious for us. We have legally binding commitments. The Kyoto Protocol is a global commitment. We are committed with our EU partners to meet greenhouse gas emission targets. It is worth noting that Ireland did well under that agreement vis-à-vis our EU partners, in that Ireland is allowed to increase its emission levels while other countries had to reduce them. That is recognition that our economy is developing. We do not have nuclear power, thankfully. However, our economic growth is proceeding at a rapid rate and that is having an effect on our emissions.

There are many opportunities and options available to the Government, as have been outlined in the climate change strategy. It is necessary, however, to see some commitment on policy on the Government's part rather than another publication being produced to gather dust on a shelf. This issue is, and will be, a challenge for us. Nobody said it would be easy.

Deputy Jim Higgins outlined our party's proposals to deal with climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. They include converting Moneypoint from coal to natural gas and only giving licences to electricity generating plants that are not using renewable sources of energy if they are 80% efficient. We would introduce green credits for savings in electricity. It is also essential to set targets of energy output to be derived from renewable energy sources by 2010. I will not list all the elements of our policy but it is important that some measures are put in place immediately because our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is questionable.

Ireland has access to vast wind energy. It is the main renewable source that comes to mind. It is a valuable source of energy and as an island nation we have huge potential to develop it. We are aware of the objections that arise locally, which are understandable. Nevertheless, it is important that we move forward in this regard. When I was a student in university I studied wind and wave energy. There is tremendous potential in both but, unfortunately, the use of wave energy has not advanced. We can learn from our European partners about using wind energy. Denmark, Norway and Sweden utilise this valuable resource. It is a free and renewable source of energy and does not require fossil fuel. Ireland is 86% dependent on imported fossil fuels, something that must be addressed if the country is to remain competitive.

I regret there has been so little time to debate the Bill and this important topic. Many Members of my party would have liked to contribute to the debate. The main point which must be emphasised is our lack of progress in meeting our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill. I have been involved in efforts to get biomass production off the ground over the past eight years. I regret the time limit on this debate but I welcome the Minister of State's statement that he is a great believer in the role of renewable energy. Unfortunately, that has not been turned into actual supply.

The Minister said he will allow increased borrowing to facilitate the upgrading and expansion of the gas pipeline to the west and for the second interconnector to Scotland. There is no gas pipeline in north Monaghan which puts the area at a huge disadvantage. The towns of Ballybay, Castleblayney, Clones and Monaghan do not have the advantage of connection to the gas pipeline, unlike Carrickmacross and other towns in Cavan.

Only 2.5% of our energy comes from renewable sources. In 1995, Sweden generated 25.4% of its energy from those sources. Denmark generates 1,500 megawatts of energy from wind power. Spain generates 2,500 megawatts and Germany generates 6,000 megawatts from the same source. Ireland generates only 95 megawatts even though it has the best wind speeds in Europe. I am aware that there are planning problems and so forth but we need to quickly get to a situation where we utilise our single cheapest energy resource to the full.

A new directive is due from the EU which suggests that we must produce 12% of our energy from renewable sources by 2010. The EU alternate report says we could supply approximately 40% of our energy from renewable sources A total of 15% of the world's energy requirements are satisfied by biomass, which arises from wood or agri-waste. Energy from biomass has advantages as it replaces energy that would otherwise be generated using fossil fuels. Biomass, therefore, would reduce carbon emissions.

On three occasions I have visited a biomass plant in Scunthorpe in the United Kingdom. On one of those visits I accompanied the then Minister, Deputy Stagg. That was more than five years ago. The plant uses chicken and turkey litter. It is located in an industrial estate beside a chocolate factory and adjacent to a village. Under three different AER programmes, a similar proposal for north Monaghan failed to be chosen through the competition although few, if any, of the winners went ahead. Through the fifth programme, direct from Brussels, the same company has now received its licence and agreed to supply the grid.

This type of biomass plant can supply both heat and power. In real terms, the main benefit for the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan and the Border area is that it will use as fuel poultry litter and mushroom compost, substances which have been causing serious problems not only for farmers but for the environment. Two thirds of the poultry in Ireland are produced in County Monaghan, as are two thirds of the mushrooms. There is a need for an urgent move forward on this project because neither poultry producers nor mushroom farmers can get planning permission to upgrade their premises, let alone extend them. An industry that is stagnant can die. There is also import substitution when a product cannot be provided economically at home. A biomass plant could solve that problem and allow the restructuring and extension of poultry and mushroom units.

There are genuine fears but also an element of scaremongering about this. It is a major issue for my region. There are fears among local people, which is only natural. People worry about the unknown. However, there is also serious scaremongering. Unfortunately, even some of the local media, who have been offered free transport to see a plant of a similar nature in Scotland, refuse to avail of that opportunity yet they write pages and pages about the dangers.

There is a need for education and for a full effort by Government to ensure both wind and biomass energy are fully utilised in the next few years. The lack of energy in some areas is also a problem that must be taken into account. If alternative energy was available in local areas it could provide the impetus for other types of production and industry.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this topic. As we approach the Finance Bill, I urge the Government to ensure that proper taxation structures are put in place to allow those who would be interested in investing in alternative energies to do so in the same way as those in towns are allowed to invest in housing.

Mr. Sargent

Gabhaim buíochas le Fine Gael as ucht a chuid ama a roinnt. Tugaim faoi deara go bhfuil roinnt leasaithe sa leagan is déanaí den mBille um Fhuinneamh Inmharthana, 2001. Tagann na leasuithe sin ón tSeanad agus cuirim fáilte rompu. Ach tá gá le tuilleadh leasaithe. With regard to amendments, there is a need to reduce the Minister for Finance's veto which exists in the Bill. The Minister has shown through this year's budget that he is an enemy of sustainability and he should not have power, or the axe, over members of the board of Sustainable Energy Ireland at this stage. The Minister for Finance needs to make a Road to Damascus conversion on sustainability. He has not allowed any reduction in VAT for renewable energy, for example, and there are many other problems, from an environmental perspective, with which he seems unable to cope.

Tá gá le gníomhú de réir ár mbriathra chomh maith. The Government needs to be clear about its wish to dismantle the Euratom treaty when it comes up for review, and should not allow the treaty continue in its present form. It continues to fund nuclear power and starve renewable energy of similar funding. That is the situation in the European Union, of which we are a part.

The Government's approach to the Kyoto Protocol has been shameful. In 1997, we were given an allowance to increase our bubble above 1990 levels. One year later, in 1998, we had already broken through that bubble and were forging ahead towards the cliff. In 2000, we were up 20% over 1990 levels and there is now speculation that we may be two to three times too high when it comes to the cut-off point in 2010 or 2012, whichever year is decided on for that.

Deputy Killeen said it will cost money to have sustainability. It will cost much more not to be sustainable. The Kyoto Protocol will be a serious and sore sting in the tail for this and succeeding Governments if they fail to get to grips with our runaway greenhouse gases. Already, more people suffer in this country through fuel poverty than in any other EU member state. The poor will suffer most because of the failure of this and previous Governments to ensure energy insulation in buildings, whether old or new but particularly older buildings.

The test for this Government, and the next, will be whether Ireland adopts the report which Energy Action commissioned in 1999 entitled Houses for the 21st Century. It is not too extreme to say that comprehensive report will save lives. It will also save a large amount of money, as I mentioned regarding the Kyoto Protocol and insulation, and will improve the quality of life for many, particularly the elderly in our community. The Government is talking about this but needs to act to have credibility. This is not a debate about ad hoc actions and implementing that report would make for a very good start. This is not like having a particular event such as the Millennium celebrations, marked by a ribbon-cutting ceremony, but a debate based on scientific research. It is about the challenge to live within the limits which have been defined for us, not by any Government, but by the natural world which sustains us.

I am glad the word "sustainability" is used in the Bill because it is a much abused term. Perhaps it needs to be understood by using a metaphor. The metaphor I would like to use is that of the "ecological footprint." At last, by using this term, we have a way of expressing – and measuring – our impact on the natural world. At the latest computation, the "footprint" of the average Irish person covered 5.9 hectares of the planet's biologically productive area, or more than three times our fair share of the globe's resources. Since the world's population started soaring towards 10 billion – a figure at present trends only a little more than 30 years away – the application of an ecological carrying capacity to the human global habitat has grown more and more compelling.

It underpins the whole notion of sustainability agreed by the Irish Government at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. From it has evolved a measure of the area of land and sea needed to produce the food and resources we use, and to absorb the wastes we create. The planet's total productive area works out at roughly two hectares per person. Allowing 12 % to protect the rest of the species in the world – not enough, but that figure has been proposed by the scientific community – we are left with 1.7 hectares per head available for human use.

At the beginning of this Government's term in office in 1997, the average human "footprint" was already 35 % bigger than nature could regenerate on a continuous basis, and growing fast. In that year, in the Sustainable Development Strategy for Ireland prepared for Government, UCD's environmental institute used four measures of domestic consumption – fossil fuels, built-up land, food and forestry – to arrive at an Irish ecological footprint of 2.38 hectares per person, or a total of 86,325 square kilometres. We are living with the assumption that we have 1.25 times the size of the State at our disposal. We are dumping and exploiting other countries to maintain the quality of life we enjoy here.

Other countries need to be looked at. India, Pakistan, China and Egypt are among the very few countries which consume at a level well within the planet's life support capacity. The United States, predictably, has a monstrous "footprint"– 10.3 hectares per person, or almost twice the area needed by the average west European. Ireland comes in at 5.9 hectares, on a level with Sweden and more than half a hectare ahead of the UK.

This is not a debate about efforts, tokens or back-slapping concerning what the Government has done or promises to do; the budget is no great example of the Government's seriousness in this regard. It is an opportunity to evaluate and compare, strictly and scientifically, where we stand with regard to other countries, but more importantly where we stand in terms of our global impact and how we, as a sovereign State, use resources that are not ours. We need to face that challenge and to report back on how we are getting on. We are getting worse. That has to change. Let us reverse that trend and ensure that we will, at least in years to come, become sustainable. We are a long way from that objective.

Mr. Stanton

I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this very important debate. It is probably one of the most important debates in the House this year, and perhaps for a number of years to come. It is disappointing, however, that the debate is being guillotined in three short hours and being held at this time, on this day, in this week. It should have been held earlier in the year, or perhaps at a different time when more Deputies were present and more interest could have been generated. The Minister said he looked forward to an interesting debate on this most important issue. It is a pity that more people will not be able to contribute. We are talking about the future of our country, our planet, and civilisation when we discuss energy levels and the impact misuse of energy is having, and can have, on the future of our planet and on our lives.

I warmly welcome this Bill which has been published for quite some time and which has gone through the Seanad. This Bill, which is very important, sets up the Irish Energy Centre as a statutory agency and gives it all kinds of responsibilities and powers. It is important that we, in this House, support the proposed work of the centre. There is, however, more to it than that. We, as elected representatives, have to lead the people. We have to talk about changing the national mindset. We have to get people to think about conserving energy and about alternative sources of energy. I noticed recently that we had an energy awareness week. We should have an energy awareness year and not just a week – it should be ongoing and should gain momentum. All the people have to be educated on how energy can be conserved and used.

The problems we could face are horrendous. We import 70% to 80% of our energy needs and yet we could generate so much more. From an economic point of view, we could do much to improve the situation. We know the way the economy is going and we have seen how international incidents can affect oil supplies. We are very dependent on foreign energy. There could be a double benefit to us if we developed sustainable energy in that we would help our environment and our balance of payments. We would also create employment for our people. There are many advantages to developing these forms of energy.

I am critical of many aspects as well. For instance, house building is an area to which we should start to turn our attention where energy conservation, use and misuse are concerned. We do not emphasise enough the need to develop and put in place building practices and regulations to ensure energy is conserved. Simple things – for example, south facing windows – attract the sun. I am told that in the summer, all the heating requirements of a house could be generated from solar heat alone and yet, as far as I am aware, there are no incentives, supports or advice for people who might wish to develop solar energy in that way – for example, heating water on the roof of a house.

We should be able to develop biomass to a greater extent. People in Sweden, Denmark and Austria use wood burning stoves. We know of the effect that has because timber is a renewable source of energy, the carbon sync is replenished and we do not add to the problems of carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases and so on. This country is well suited to growing timber of all varieties. Willow coppicing is something on which we should start to work and develop. There is another advantage to doing that because our farmers are under pressure and if we can develop bio-energy crops for agriculture, it will assist them as well. We should start to look down that road in a big way.

As far as I can see, the only part of this Bill which is important is section 6 – the functions of the authority. The rest of the Bill is standard and sets up the new agency. While it can be looked at, section 6 is the one we really have to consider. There is nothing in it about which one could quibble. It is important that this agency is given the resources and the authority to drive the functions it will be given by the Minister and the Oireachtas when the Bill is passed.

I began by talking about changing the mindset of the people. I ask the Minister to ensure this happens straightaway and that advertisements are placed, television programmes are made and programmes are developed for schools – I know a certain about of work has been done on that already – so that the mindset of our people is changed and that they do simple things like turning off lights and heating and turning down thermostats to conserve energy.

I spoke about building new houses but we also have to look at older houses to see how they can be adapted to conserve energy. I am talking about isolating cavity walls and pumping foam into them to ensure heat loss is minimised and ensuring double glazing is used, especially in older houses. Money for some of the schemes to assist older people in replacing old windows and doors has run out this year. There is major heat loss from the homes of some older people thus causing discomfort to them. I refer to the essential repair grant scheme, for example, and the other schemes administered by the county councils and the health boards.

It is also important that finance is set aside for research. Wind energy has been developed to a large extent. There are issues around wind energy – for example, the visual aspect of the windmills to which, I think, people are getting used. We have another massive resource around our coastline – wave and tidal energy. Programmes are being developed and experiments and research are being done in some of the universities in this area. This is an area into which we have to put more resources and provide more support. We are surrounded by some of the wildest seas in Europe. If we can generate a fraction of that power, it would be to our advantage.

We all know of the importance of hydro-electricity. I am not totally convinced that it is used to its full potential. There is potential for smaller schemes to be developed around the country and it might be useful if some research was carried out to see if that could be done. There are old mills and old mill-races around the country which are not used. Perhaps we should investigate to see if, with modern technology, they could be converted into places in which hydro-electricity could be generated. Heat converters are another form of energy. It is expensive to do this initially but it is something at which we should look. I have been told, for instance, that if one places pipes under a garden with water flowing to a heat converter, one can raise the temperature of water in a house to heat radiators and so on by a substantial amount even in winter. We need to be imaginative in how we deal with this area.

Many agencies, including the Irish Bio-Energy Association and others, have been ploughing lone furrows in this area for many years. It is important that they are supported in the work they do. Some grants have been made available to them but more is needed and perhaps that could be done through this agency.

The members of the agency should be people with imagination, drive and a proven track record in the area of energy conservation and in the sustainable energy field. I look forward to the Committee Stage debate on this Bill. As I said, there is only one major section in it and we are very supportive of it. Not only should the Department of Public Enterprise be involved in this Bill but there should be a cross-Department and Government approach to sustainable energy. For instance, the Department of Environment and Local Government should be involved where building, road use and so on are concerned. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment should also be involved; indeed, one could go through all the Departments. All Departments should be linked up. All our policies and legislation should be energy proofed. That would be a good start. I know there is talk of poverty proofing legislation in other areas. I have been told by way of parliamentary reply that Departments do not use any green energy at the moment, that the State itself does not use any green energy. The State should play a lead role in using green energy, conserving power and heat and putting into practice what it preaches. That is quite important.

We also need to start looking at other forms of energy. The Department of the Environment and Local Government should develop cycle lanes. We have to do this. When we think of sustainable energy forms, we just think about electricity and heating houses. However, a massive amount of energy is used by our modes of transport.

Across the country people are being dissuaded from using bicycles, which are a green form of transport. Obviously they help people keep fit as well. We have seen horrific accidents here in Dublin in which people have been killed and badly injured while using bicycles. I have called on Ministers and Departments before to develop cycle lanes and pedestrian walkways in cities and rural areas. The countryside is also quite dangerous for cyclists. Many young people and their parents are afraid to cycle on the roads, even in rural Ireland. The roads are too narrow. The traffic is too fast and there is too much of it, making cycling highly dangerous. Therefore, we may need to start considering one-way systems, even in the countryside, so there will be space on the roadways for pedestrians and cyclists. This would encourage people to get out of their cars and start using their bicycles.

Electric bicycles should also be considered. We must look at how they are taxed and insured. They are insured as motor vehicles whereas they are really bicycles. Other countries have changed regulations to allow people use electric bicycles instead of motor cars and motor cycles.

All our energy, in some shape or form, comes from the sun. I know we do not have much sunshine here but we get enough of it. Our main forms of energy are coal, oil, etc. Those forms of energy were not exploited for hundreds of millions of years in some cases, but now they are running out. Also, they pose problems from an environmental point of view. We can harness the energy of the sun through wind farms, solar energy, wave power, biotechnology and other means. We should start doing it now.

I support the Minister of State in bringing forward this Bill, even though it is a bit late. I know he was anxious to bring it forward earlier than this, but parliamentary time did not allow for it. We will certainly support it in every way possible. This is the way of the future.

Mr. Deasy

This is a most interesting subject. One can fantasise and get carried away. I wish the Minister of State the best of luck in promoting this Bill, which is designed to promote sustainable energy. There were some rather interesting statistics in his statement. However, there are other questions I would like him to answer in his reply.

I am particularly interested in the progress we are making with regard to wind farms. They are the most obvious and significant source of sustainable energy we can have. It strikes me that there is a considerable geographical imbalance in the number of wind farms which have been developed so far. They virtually all seem to be in the north-west or extreme south-west.

We are sometimes carried away by the fallacy that our country is more beautiful than anywhere else and that our scenery is incomparable. That is not necessarily the case. There are vast tracts of land here that would be very suitable for wind farms. This should be accepted easily. It seems that the protest group syndrome has grown to such an extent that if one wants to do anything it is objected to. This is not just the case with regard to land-fill sites, roadways, motorways or telecommunications masts, but also wind farms. If one suggests that a wind farm be put in one's own locality or county, people rise up in arms and protest and say "We cannot have it. You cannot destroy our natural beauty.". We must compromise in every walk of life.

I see compromises all over the world. For instance, when one goes to Holland or Denmark there are hundreds of wind farms. If one goes to England, one sees a considerable number. However, I was told in a reply to a recent parliamentary question that on a comparative basis, when one takes population and size into account, the number of wind farms in England is much the same as ours. They do not have a huge number. They have some in some areas which would be regarded as highly scenic in this country. If one drives down to Lands End in Cornwall, one of the more scenic counties in England, one will see two very large windmills off the main road on the way. The English are pragmatic. Protest groups are not succeeding in stopping progress everywhere and anywhere.

Most parts of this country are suitable for wind farms. I would like to see a county by county study of how many applications have been made, how many have succeeded and why progress has not been made in a more general manner. The amount of development so far has been largely in the north-west – Mayo, Sligo and Donegal – and I wonder why there has not been any development in the eastern part of the country, where there is ample room for such developments. This is a windswept island. For much of the year, it is miserable. Tens of thousands of people fly off to Spain, Greece and other sunny locations because of the wind and rain here. Rain could be considered as another string in our bow as regards sustainable energy. Rivers and mountain streams afford the possibility of developing hydro-electric schemes on a small basis.

I know incentives have been provided to people to develop schemes, the terms of which are quite attractive. However, I still do not think the country is aware that we can have more sustainable energy schemes. We can reduce our huge imports of crude oil, coal and fossil fuels in general. It would be nice if the Minister of State put a figure on how much those products cost, as they create greenhouse gasses. It would give the public a start to realise we spend hundreds of millions of pounds on this every year.

I propose to give five minutes of my time to Deputy Boylan.

Acting Chairman (Ms Fitzgerald)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Deasy

It would be good to have such a figure as that would strike a note in the public imagination.

I know a major scheme is planned for the Kish Bank and there are probably more planned for the Wicklow and Wexford coast. What will be their capacity? It is all about capacity. How many such planning applications have been made throughout the country? I refer to reasonable applications and not hare brained schemes. How many such applications have received planning permission and how many have been refused permission by the local authority concerned? Also, in how many cases has planning permission been refused on appeal to An Bord Pleanála? That should be itemised. If something useful is to be done one must get down to the nuts and bolts; I hope the Minister of State takes my point. It is essential to quantify these matters.

There is not one wind farm in my county. There were attempts to build some but we had bloody murder with the usual protest groups. It seems they won the day, though I am not sure if some applications are still proceeding. I would like to know. I like matters to be itemised on a county basis. I am not so keen on doing that on a regional basis. Perhaps the Minister of State will itemise matters when he replies.

There has been a reference to other sources of sustainable energy and the development of hydro-electric power should definitely be pursued. The considerable rainfall and hilly terrain in so many parts of Ireland mean there are many fast-flowing streams. Accordingly, hydro-electric schemes would be viable but I do not know if there is sufficient technical knowledge. I do not doubt if the Dutch had our hills they would generate a huge amount of sustainable energy, so much that they would probably not need to import oil or coal. They are an ingenious race, as are the Germans. We are a little slovenly when it comes to this. We are not as imaginative or inventive and we seem to lack the technical ability which western and central Europeans have to a considerable degree.

The Minister of State did not mention wave power, though that sector has considerable merit and has been viewed for many years as a viable source of sustainable energy. There is a narrow inlet leading into the back of Tramore Strand called Rhinneshark. The current there when the tide comes in and out is quite ferocious and could surely be used to generate electrical power. There is also constant wave power off the west coast which it should be possible to harness. The Mini ster of State should tell us in his reply if this is being done anywhere in the world. If so, it could be done in Ireland. We have much windier conditions than Holland and Denmark, which have many wind farms. We have the wave power. Even when there is not a puff of wind there is a huge swell off the west coast. Ask any fisherman or anyone in the Naval Service. The sea off the west coast as it is always rough for seagoing. Unfortunately we have yet to devise a system for retaining static electricity. It is amazing with all the Nobel prizewinners and the geniuses coming out of universities around the world that nobody has yet found a method of storing static electricity. Many of our problems would be solved if we could store static electricity rather than depending on generating electricity.

The Minister of State referred to his objective of using sustainable energy to fuel the energy needs of 180,000 homes. He should quantify how many such domestic homes there are in the country. Should it not be possible at least to meet the electricity needs of every domestic user in each county by sustainable energy? That is a simple objective to aim for – that every county would have enough sustainable energy to supply domestic needs. It should be a goal of the Minister of State.

Will the Minister of State give a break down of how the various fuels are used to generate electricity? For example, how much power do we need for domestic use, for industrial use, transport, street lighting and so on? It is all about quantifying these matters. If one wants to solve a problem one must identify it. I want these issues quantified and a better effort made.

The Minister of State is doing a very good job in this sphere. He is trying but the public at large does not understand the incentives that are available, such as the various grants. We are not getting the message across at local level that much more can be done at that level as well as at a national level. I want a break down of the figures.

The best of luck to the Minister of State.

Mr. Boylan

I thank Deputy Deasy for sharing his time with me and I echo his good wishes for the Minister of State, who is doing an excellent job. We wish him well in his campaign against the British Government and Sellafield. He has a fight on his hands regarding Sellafield and the MOX plant. The manner in which the Minister of State, the Government and the country are being treated in that regard is outrageous.

Energy is taken for granted by the present generation. Conserving energy is not a buzzword. When one presses a switch the light should be there. A gas heater should work when switched on and one should complain to Bord Gáis or the ESB if it does not. Many people forget to turn off lights or the television when leaving a room. Although these are small matters individually, they lead to a waste of energy when taken collectively. People are unaware of the need to conserve energy and Members of the Oireachtas are no better or worse than anyone else in that regard. That many Members did not care about turning off the lights in their offices meant that timers were fitted, so that lights would be switched off automatically. We should address all issues, including those directly related to ourselves.

Deputy Deasy made an excellent contribution and I fully agree with him on wind farms. Harnessing wind produces clean energy, but it is not a new process. When I was a small boy growing up on a farm in County Cavan, many people generated energy from wind and they had artificial light long before the ESB's rural electrification programme. Windmills have been updated and modified and those we see today are not unsightly. Deputy Deasy argued that each county should be self-sufficient regarding energy production and County Cavan is leading the way, thanks to the endeavours of a progressive businessman, Seán Quinn, who generates power from wind for his cement plants and glass factory. It is lovely to see ten windmills churning slowly on the horizon of the Ballyconnell Mountains as one comes along the road. A gale force wind is not needed to drive the windmills, as a little breeze will set them in motion. They represent the way forward as they are noiseless and do not discharge emissions.

An application was made by an outside company to Cavan County Council for planning permission for a wind farm with 38 windmills. The council granted permission and welcomed the development. There has been an objection, however, from An Taisce, a faceless organisation without a mandate which pretends to be concerned about the environment. If An Taisce is genuinely concerned about the environment, it will recognise that windmills have a key role to play, as they are nice to look at and generate clean power without emissions or noise. The public should be made aware of An Taisce's two-faced attitude to conserving the environment, as it has objected to a means of proper and clean energy production. Not only do wind farms generate energy, but they provide an annual income for small farmers on whose land the windmills are constructed. It is generally true that windmills are built on high ground, which may be defined as marginal in farming terms. A farmer receives an up front payment for the nuisance of the construction of a windmill on his land, as well as a good annual income. Farmers are fully in favour of wind energy.

Another instance of natural energy can be found in Glangevlin, in the west of my county. An American company has proposed to drill for natural gas in the area, as it is sure that there are substantial levels of gas about 2,000 feet under ground. Cavan County Council displayed its progressive nature by giving planning permission for test drilling in Glangevlin, but objections from An Taisce have meant that the project is at a standstill. Although An Taisce claims to be con cerned about the preservation of the environment, it opposes the utilisation of this natural resource. The gas can be cleanly brought up to ground level to allow Bord Gáis to pipe it into the system and make it available to homes and industries for heating and other uses. The Glangevlin area of County Cavan has not had many resources or much development in the past, so the gas find there should be used to benefit Counties Leitrim, Cavan, Longford and Sligo. I want to Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, to be aware that the development has been stopped by an unelected body without a mandate, which is unfortunate and unacceptable.

I will make a final point about smokeless fuels, although I appreciate that it is not the responsibility of Deputy Jacob. Why is the Minster for the Environment and Local Government continuing to allow the installation of solid fuel cookers in local authority houses, given that he is talking about bringing in a ban on non-smokeless fuels? It does not make sense to me, so how will he square the circle? Elderly people are worried that they will not be able to use turf and coal to keep warm. An old woman told me that although she will be able to breathe clean and fresh air, she will die of the cold. The people of this country will not stand for that and she will not die of the cold as long as I can help it. We need clear policy making if we are to talk seriously about smokeless fuel and cleaning up the environment. Is there an abundance of smokeless fuel, to ensure that older people will not be left in the miserable cold?

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I thank the nine Deputies who made thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions to this Second Stage debate. I appreciate the level of support, in principle, for the Bill and I look forward to committee and further stages. We live in an era in which environmental issues are increasingly topical. The planet is vulnerable as a result of years of practices relating to natural resources which cannot be sustained. The issues involved cannot be ignored and Governments throughout the world have been forced to act. Available scientific evidence, notably the recently published third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, indicates that substantial measures are required if we are to avert the environmental crisis we face.

The Government is firmly committed to the principle of sustainable development. In April 2001, I attended a major international conference on the matter in New York, organised by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. I reaffirmed and outlined Ireland's commitment to sustainable energy policies and indicated how Ireland will progress to meeting its energy requirements in an environmentally and economically sustainable way. The Kyoto Protocol, as mentioned by many Deputies, has set challenging targets for Ireland, but the Government is determined to meet its obligations. Deputies have made clear that we need to be committed to meeting the Kyoto guidelines and to taking all necessary measures. The general approval of Deputies for the principle of the Bill is encouraging.

Deputy Jim Higgins asked about the additional advantages of the establishment of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland under this Bill. It will be an independent agency, guided by its own board and capable of presenting its case at Government level. It will be released from the restraints of the human resource practices which obtain in larger organisations. The interim board has already made a significant impact on the structure and staffing of the authority. The board has raised the profile of the body and facilitated a renewed impetus for the work that lies ahead.

Deputy Jim Higgins also asked about the programmes envisaged. Programmes are already under way and I compliment the staff and the interim board under its excellent chairman on being active in advance of this legislation.

A key commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium was realised in June 2001 with the launch of an energy efficiency scheme in public sector design studies. This was followed in August by the second phase – the model solutions investment support scheme. A third phase of this programme – support for energy management bureau operations – is being planned. This programme will cost 12.7 million and will aim to stimulate the application of improved energy efficiency, design strategies, technologies and service in public sector building construction and retrofit projects. The programme will act as an exemplar for good practice and as a demand leader for the service of the technologies involved. Deputy Gilmore and others referred to the responsibility of the public sector to be involved in these issues.

Deputies also referred to research and development. On 26 September 2001, the house of tomorrow programme for 2000 to 2006 was launched. This programme has a proposed budget of 21.1 million and offers support for research, development and demonstration projects aimed at generating and applying technologies, products, systems, practices and information leading to more sustainable energy performance in housing. This is a key issue which was raised by Deputies during this debate. A research and development programme for renewables is also being prepared.

Over the lifetime of the National Development Plan 2000-2006, £146 million has been earmarked for expenditure on the built environment, research and development, renewables, the expansion and upgrading of the grid and energy conservation and awareness. Some Deputies were uncharitable towards the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, regarding his budgetary provisions, but I remind them that £146 million, a substantial amount of money, has been ear marked by the Minister for this important area in the next six years.

Deputy Gilmore raised staffing issues to which I referred in my introduction. The Deputy asked whether staff were against the establishment of this stand alone body, but nothing could be further from the truth. Staff will be moving from a large organisation with 800 staff to a body with a complement of about 50. As I stated in my opening speech it is natural that staff would be concerned about career paths, promotional opportunities and so on, issues which need to be, and are being, addressed. The consultative forum has been established to ensure staff have an opportunity to discuss these issues in an open and transparent manner.

I was uplifted by the positive contributions of Deputies Deasy and Boylan. The Deputies sent a strong message from this House about the advantages of renewables, particularly wind energy, which are most suited to our climate. Deputy Deasy referred to the geographic imbalance in the spread of wind farms. There are about 22 commercial wind farms at present, but we would all aspire to a greater geographic spread of such sites and a significant increase in the amount of electricity generated using this excellent source. The Deputy was correct in stating the action in this regard is on the western seaboard, particularly in the north-west and south-west. However, a number of planning applications have been lodged for on-land projects in the east, and one or two projects have already secured planning permission.

Deputy Deasy also referred to the offshore situation. There is substantial interest in offshore wind generation off the east coast such as in the Kish and Arklow banks. The Deputy asked for a substantial amount of information, some of which I can give him now, but I will arrange for the remainder of it to be supplied to him in due course.

Deputy Jim Higgins in particular will know about AER V. The application deadline for this competition closed on 30 November and 58 applications were received. We stipulated that we would accept only applications with planning permission as we wish the projects to move to the building phase as soon as possible, rather than falling at the initial planning phase as was the case with previous competitions. A total of 58 applications have been received involving more than 300 megawatts. This is a healthy and encouraging scenario from my perspective and that of the officials in my Department who have worked so diligently on this offer. I have little doubt the competition will provide the maximum result and will go half way towards meeting our target between now and 2005. We will be moving to the next phase immediately which will deliver the second half of that target by 2005. We are on target in this respect.

Six or seven developers are active and interested in projects off the east coast involving about 1,500 megawatts. Licences have issued from the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources to allow this work to continue. I thank Deputies who contributed to this debate and look forward to Committee and Remaining Stages.

Question put and agreed to.