Vol. 641 No. 5
1 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will grant RTE a licence increase; if so, the amount of same; if he will attach conditions to a licence increase; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29139/07]
On Tuesday last, the Government approved an increase in the television licence fee from 1 January 2008 at my request. This increase follows an independent review by Indecon consultants of RTE's performance in 2006. The review is an annual exercise undertaken to assess RTE's output commitments and its progress in its change programme.
The Indecon report concluded that RTE had exceeded most of its output commitments such as its objectives in broadcasting output and financial managements. It also progressed well in its change programme, including restructuring and change management. Overall, the report concluded that RTE was providing value for money for the Irish taxpayer. Details of the report will be made available on my Department's website shortly.
This increase will bring the cost of a television licence from €158 to €160. This modest increase will allow RTE to continue to strengthen the schedule it delivers in increasingly competitive television and radio markets.
To date the annual reviews to which I have referred have been carried out by independent consultants engaged by my Department. It is my intention to renew and reinvigorate the current annual process. There must be an increased focus on value for money, cost management and more precise and structured performance indicators aligned to high quality, high impact public service broadcasting. I will be asking RTE to engage fully with my Department as we re-engineer and strengthen the process so that the qualitative aspects of measuring RTE's performance are brought more to the fore.
I want to raise two issues with the Minister. First, he might be surprised to hear me say this is a miserly increase for RTE this year considering that in 2002 the Minister stated that RTE will be able to seek annual increases up to the level of the consumer price index and that all future increases will be subject to the strict monitoring of performance against financial, management and programming targets. According to an independent consultant, those performance targets were met and RTE delivered value for money. We probably could not have said that a number of years ago but there has been genuine improvement in a series of sectors in RTE. Does the Minister agree that we appear to be punishing RTE for producing a budget surplus last year by reducing in real terms its licence fee with an increase of €2 when the CPI level would be €4 or €5?
Second, is it not time we did away with collecting a television licence fee and find a more efficient way of funding public service broadcasting? Will the Minister agree that continuing to collect a licence fee is an archaic, expensive, regressive and intrusive way to collect money to finance public service broadcasting? The cost of collecting taxation generally is 1% of the revenue that comes in. The cost of collection and enforcement of the television licence fee is nearly 8% of what comes in and, in addition, up to 16% of households do not pay the licence fee. The rest of us, therefore, must pay for those who are not willing to pay. People who are compliant are being punished for those who are not. It is similar to the car insurance system whereby people who pay insurance must pay for those who do not. Is it not time we examined a more modern way of financing public service broadcasting through general taxation and because in the future many people will watch television through a broadband connection on their computers or mobile phones? Are we seriously proposing to ask those people to pay a licence fee for that, whether it be on a mobile phone or a computer?
One could take the position that it is miserly and that we should have given the full CPI inflationary figure, which would have been closer to a sum in excess of €7 rather than €2 but we must also take into account a number of different factors. First, the actual revenue from the licence fee will increase due to the increased number of households that exist. It does not just relate to the level of licence fee but the number of houses. While I take the Deputy's second point that there are inefficiencies or difficulties in the licence fee collection system, it is becoming more efficient and accurate in the amounts being raised and therefore the cost is reducing. One must recognise also the general financial position in RTE, which is strong currently and something I welcome. It comes on the back of strong commercial revenues as well. It is a balancing act that is further complicated in that the way RTE is meeting its performance targets must be assessed. The agreement with RTE a number of years ago for a significant increase in the licence fee, followed by a period of five years where each year an independent review would be done to determine whether it was meeting its obligations, is the process I was engaged in. RTE has met its obligations but what I determined in this process was that those obligations were reasonably broad and largely based around programme hours in any particular programme category area.
They were the obligations the Minister set for RTE.
The Minister's time has elapsed. We must move on.
I will conclude if I may. We must improve those quality indicators to take into account more qualitative information, better cost management information——
RTE is doing what it was asked to do and it is being punished.
Indeed, and that is why it got a continued increase despite being in a strong financial position.
2 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will put in place a programme of cross-Border training and accreditation system for installers of renewable energy technologies; the current level of interaction between Action Renewables in Northern Ireland and Sustainable Energy Ireland; the timeframe for development of cross-Border involvement on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28950/07]
The Renewable Energy Installers Academy is a joint initiative between Sustainable Energy Ireland and Action Renewables in Northern Ireland. Since late 2005, the two agencies have developed and delivered a cross-Border programme of renewable energy installer training. The programme was granted funding assistance under the INTERREG IIIA programme. It has been developed to address the dearth of trained installers and designers which was identified as a critical barrier to the sustained development of a renewable energy technology market.
The overall objective of the initiative is to provide training, accreditation, quality inspection and registration for installers of renewable technologies. This will underpin the development of the market for renewable energy technologies on an all-island basis. To date, the academy has been responsible for the development and specification of installer training courses in each of the main heating technologies — biomass, solar and heat pumps. The academy contracted European expertise to provide advice to the project in developing and delivering the training laboratories and training materials.
The first phase of the project involved a partnership with education centres within the INTERREG region to deliver training to installers and designers. The academy has also set down minimum standards for training providers in terms of facilities, materials and staff qualifications for delivery of approved training.
Following the success of phase one, the academy's accredited training programme is currently being rolled out beyond the INTERREG region. The national training agency, FÁS, is now offering training courses in all of the renewable heating technologies. Two fully equipped training laboratories, to the academy's specification and standard, have been developed as a joint initiative of SEI and FÁS. The Dublin training facility is now fully operational and a facility in Cork will be providing training by the end of this month.
Training materials and laboratory specifications will shortly be made available to all accredited training providers equipped with training facilities which meet the REIA standards.
Sustainable Energy Ireland and Action Renewables continue to work closely together on this important cross-Border project which has already paid dividends North and South. They have already undertaken joint cross-Border industry consultation with a view to further developing the academy model. The sustained expansion of the numbers of fully trained renewable technology installers is a key component of the quality assurance and customer service standards of the greener homes scheme.
I want to ask two questions. The Minister is aware that my priority question is not the one on today's Order Paper. Yesterday, at 4.21 p.m., I received confirmation from his Secretary General that a different question would be accepted as a priority question today. Afterwards, the Minister told me that was not possible. I checked and found that the General Office, which processes questions in the House, could have processed the question at any time yesterday evening. Having received confirmation in writing from the Secretary General that a question on carbon emissions would be accepted, I am concerned by the misleading blame placed on the General Office. Will the Minister explain why I was misled?
This matter will be addressed in the Ceann Comhairle's office.
I have written to the Ceann Comhairle, but I want to give the Minister an opportunity to reply. It is a bewildering matter.
Is the Minister aware of an accreditation problem? No progress has been made to have common accreditation North and South. Civil servants carried out a significant cross-Border study of the blockage, which is on the Republic's side, in agreeing accreditation. What will the Minister do to remove the blockage?
I will happily clarify some of the issues that arose yesterday in terms of which priority question would be tabled.
Late yesterday afternoon, I discovered that a question the Deputy had tabled in which she asked three sub-questions on transport emissions, motor tax and the climate change implications, if I am paraphrasing it correctly, had been transferred to the Departments of Transport and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. She contacted me about her concerns that the question would have been better taken by my Department and I told her that I would do what I could to facilitate her. I contacted my Secretary General and, following discussions, we agreed to have the question passed after removing its motor tax aspect. I asked my Secretary General to contact Deputy McManus in that regard. My office——
That is not what the Secretary General told me.
We must continue with the questions.
The Minister is misleading the House.
The Deputy should take the matter up with the Ceann Comhairle's office.
I am not intentionally misleading anyone.
I am sure the Minister is not.
I tried to facilitate the Deputy yesterday as I am doing today. The questions were transferred. As the wording had not been changed to relate to energy issues and still related to emissions, it was not in order for me to take the question. The question is for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The transfer of questions is a matter for the Departments. We cannot discuss it.
In circumstances where I was told that the Order Paper had been completed, I agreed with my office that Deputy McManus should be asked to——
The Minister should answer the question so that we can proceed.
——submit the question in a reworded form.
I must set the record straight. The Minister does not mean to mislead the House, but the e-mail I received from the Secretary General when I presented my new wording contained only one line to the effect that, having spoken to the Minister, the question would be answered as a priority question.
We cannot continue. This is Question Time, but the matter is——
I appreciate that it is Question Time, but I would like to be able to ask appropriate questions.
The Minister should not be accused of misleading the House.
The Minister is not deliberately misleading the House, but I have been misled.
It was not the Minister. He should answer the question he was asked because we must proceed.
It should concern the Minister that this is not good enough. He would be concerned had it occurred to him when he was in opposition.
We will not resolve this issue on the floor of the House.
My Department and I tried to facilitate the question. Unfortunately, the wording of the question as resubmitted was not eligible to be taken.
It was accepted by the Minister.
We must move on to No. 3 because our time has elapsed.
I did everything to facilitate the Deputy, but the question was due to be answered by a colleague.
This is rubbish.
I would happily accept a reworded question.
The Minister accepted it. It is not right for a Minister to continue in this way.
It is a matter for another Minister.
The Secretary General of the Department, having spoken to the Minister, accepted the question I submitted. I will not accept this or any other Minister persisting in saying things that are inaccurate.
I must explain. While Deputy McManus's comments are true, my office pointed out that the question could not be taken because it referred to certain Ministries.
Why did the office tell me the question could be taken?
I accepted the office's explanation and asked it to maintain the agreement to set this question as a priority question.
I wonder who is in control of the Department.
3 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the status of the second phase of the MANs roll-out; the way he envisages MANs operating with a broken up Eircom; if he has been promised extra money in budget 2008 to make up the shortfall caused by a recent supplementary estimate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29140/07]
Under the second phase of the metropolitan area networks programme, 92 towns were targeted for investment in high-speed open access fibre optic networks. To date, MANs are either completed or under construction in 63 towns and a further 29 networks are in the detailed design phase. In conjunction with other next generation networks, MANs will play a key role in the delivery of high-speed broadband services for decades to come.
MANs operate on an open access basis. Eircom has the same entitlement to use the MANs as any other operator. Eircom has submitted a paper to me addressing a number of issues related to the future provision of broadband, including a suggested structural separation of the company into network and retail arms. My Department has met Eircom to clarify issues raised in its paper and will engage with it again in due course.
The reallocation in 2007 of unspent funding due to timing purposes from the national broadband scheme has not given rise to any shortfall of funding for the Exchequer funded broadband programme. The 2008 Exchequer provision for broadband will be revealed in budget 2008 on 5 December.
In a one-word answer, how much is the second phase of MANs expected to cost? While the Minister is looking for the figure, I will make one or two other points in the form of questions.
The Minister's record on broadband has not been covered in glory since he took charge. Since his previous Question Time, the Minister has effectively bailed out the Greener Homes scheme with €10 million he took from the broadband roll-out capital budget for next year. Will the Minister inform the House of how much he anticipates the second phase of MANs will cost? The previous Minister gave the House a figure in a commitment in March. Is €10 million missing from the figure?
I do not have the exact figure. It refers to an historical estimate. As I do not want to guess, I will revert to the Deputy with the figure.
With all due respect, the Minister has had time to prepare for my question on whether the second phase of MANs will proceed and whether the 92 towns that were promised fibre optic cable and the associated benefits can expect the phase to be completed on time. The Minister does not have the cost figure.
The figure was an initial estimate and the final cost will depend on a number of factors. The second phase of MANs contains different elements, such as a proposal for wireless MANs and fixed line MANs. The former needs clearance from the European Commission before it can be approved and go out to tender. One cannot know the exact costs.
The fundamental question relates to whether the €10 million addressed in the Supplementary Estimate passed by the Dáil affects the MANs programme. At the time, I clarified that the programme would not be affected. The €10 million in funding was included in the budget as an allocation for the national broadband scheme. Due to start in 2007, it will be delayed until early 2008 because of complications in the process. The funding was reallocated to the Greener Homes scheme. The €10 million reallocation had no consequences in terms of the contracting or spending of MANs.
It did.
Allow the Minister to conclude.
It is important that I have a final chance to contribute. Does the Minister expect the House to believe that, when a Department receives an allocation of €10 million from the Department of Finance with a broadband capital expenditure label, he can whip the money from that budget to bail out an entirely separate but worthwhile section of his Department that had overspent? Does he expect us to believe that has no impact on national broadband roll-out?
Yes, I expect Deputy Coveney to believe that. While I cannot pre-empt the 2008 budget, we will see on 5 December whether there is funding for the national broadband scheme, and if there is, my proposal is watertight and accurate. What would Deputy Coveney have done differently? Would he not have reallocated budget to fund the greener homes schemes in the sensible, orderly manner I did?
I am not the Minister.
I used proper management procedures to spend the budget according to a multi-annual framework in the areas where it is needed in a particular year, and I would not have done otherwise. The budget was available because it was not going to be spent. Would Deputy Coveney not have done the same?
My job in Opposition is to ensure when a Minister is in charge of different areas he does not prioritise one area over another when they are equally important. The roll-out of broadband is as important as the greener homes scheme.
I agree with the Deputy.
Yet the Minister has taken €10 million from the broadband budget. Whatever budget we have for broadband next year it should be €10 million higher.
I agree that one area is as important as the other, but where one has an unspent allocation in one area because of the timing of a particular project, and a demand in another area, it makes sense to do what I did. I would love to know what Deputy Coveney or anybody else would have done differently.
4 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if, following comments from a spokesperson from EirGrid, he is satisfied that demand for electricity will not outstrip supply and cause blackouts in winter 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29141/07]
The Government is committed to ensuring that electricity supply consistently meets the needs of Irish consumers and business. My Department liaises closely with the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, which has key functions in security of electricity supply, and with EirGrid as the independent transmission system operator. Reporting to the CER, EirGrid has responsibility for managing generation adequacy and monitoring generation capacity. EirGrid produces an annual winter outlook report, which provides a rigorous analysis of Ireland's electricity generation capacity to meet expected demand over the peak winter months.
The 2007 winter outlook report was published by EirGrid last August. Based on its analysis and on detailed contact with each of the power generators, EirGrid forecasts that electricity generating capacity will be sufficient to meet demand this winter. EirGrid has indicated that developments related to potential outages could lead to reduced capacity margins at times during the winter peak period. However, it remains EirGrid's assessment that there will be sufficient capacity on the system to ensure security of electricity supply this winter.
The report assumes a peak demand this winter of 5,250 MW. This compares with the peak demand last winter of 5,035 MW. EirGrid calculates that generating capacity of 5,930 MW will be available. This includes the new 400 MW facility at Huntstown, which is now in service. This compares well with a peak generating capacity of 5,836 MW last year. It is also expected that connected wind capacity will reach 900-1,000 MW by year end. This is a significant and welcome increase of more than 25% of installed wind capacity since the start of the year.
As with any power generation system, it is not possible to give definitive guarantees that generation adequacy will always be maintained. By their nature, high-level forced outages on the system cannot be predicted. Plant outage, whether planned or unforeseen, must at all times be critically managed to maintain security of supply. EirGrid operates a range of demand control measures to assist in managing demand at peak times.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
These include reducing demand by agreement with large users in the interests of ensuring domestic customer supply is maintained.
Our generating capacity must ensure an adequate margin between electricity supply and demand. Medium term capacity will be enhanced with the power generation plants under construction as well as the new electricity interconnectors scheduled for 2011, North-South, and 2012, East-West. The provision of new flexible plant and the continued strong growth in wind and other renewable energy is critical in that context. Key imperatives for electricity supply and demand are energy efficiency and a diverse fuel mix. Radically improving energy efficiency and achieving the ambitious renewable energy target set by the Government will significantly enhance security of supply and ensure that demand itself is more sustainable.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I welcome the increased output from wind generation, which is moving towards 1,000 MW. The fact that the concern comes from EirGrid means we have been given fair warning that there is a significant likelihood of power cuts this winter. Last December Ireland reached a record usage of more than 5,000 MW. This year it will increase by 2-3%. Does the Minister agree that while we have a maximum generation capacity of just over 6,000 MW, for the majority of the time we operate at approximately 78% output, or 4,800 MW, which is significantly short of the output we need? Does the key concern not relate to the three plants the ESB is required to decommission and therefore are not investing in and upgrading, which increases the likelihood of outages from those plants? Is it not a key concern that the ESB is required to close plants when there is high demand pressure? Must not the overriding priority be security of supply, even more than pricing and competitiveness?
I agree that supply security is a crucial consideration in our energy policy and relates to the plant we have and the fuel mix we use in future. We must be careful not to generate an over-reliance on gas or any other fuel supply in our mix. The Deputy is correct that there are difficulties around the reliability of older plants such as the three to which he referred. The problem is related to the age of the plants — in some cases more than 50 years — not to any policy decisions on their future ownership or operations.
There have been key developments in securing supply in the short to medium term. The development of new power plants is on line for the next two or three years as Bórd Gáis and the ESB are contracting new large power stations. The response in renewable energy is only a fraction of the amount we need to develop. Rather than celebrating 1,000 MW of wind power we must plan for a multiple of that and arrange our planning and other systems to provide for that power source. Development must be delivered in a timely fashion. I hope Deputy Coveney ensures Fine Gael proves useful in ensuring the proper, swift and safe development of infrastructure such as interconnectors north-south and east-west, in the national interest. These will provide a valuable additional security of supply to cope with a difficult situation in which our demand for electricity is growing significantly.
Fine Gael will be responsible. The Minister knows I have pushed the interconnector from this side of the House for six or seven years. It is disingenuous of him to suggest otherwise.
The Deputy must ask a question.
We do not want answers on the medium and long term. The question refers to this winter. Can the Minister assure businesses and households that there will be no power outages this winter?
The EirGrid report, which is the proper, professional forecasting method, suggests we should have proper supply. However it is tight and requires all of us to be careful in our use of energy, particularly during peak times, to ensure supply meets demand.
Then it is conditional.
5 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he has considered setting guaranteed fixed prices over a set term for energy produced from wave sources to secure supply and help develop the technology; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29143/07]
The renewable energy feed-in tariff support programme, REFIT, provides guaranteed fixed prices to new renewable energy projects in proven technologies. It is possible to set guaranteed prices for technologies that are proven or are near to market readiness based on known cost elements. These guaranteed prices allow developers to recover the investment made over the life cycle of the project which can be between ten and 15 years or longer. I intend to expand the eligible categories under REFIT to send clear signals to the market about support for renewable energy technologies as they emerge from the research phase into proven technologies capable of commercialisation.
The development of ocean energy technology is in the research and development phase. The ocean energy strategy, which was launched in 2006, presents a framework for the development of ocean energy in Ireland. This strategy presents a phased road map towards the commercialisation of ocean energy in Ireland by 2020. The programme for Government sets a target of 75 MW of ocean energy by 2012 and the Government's energy policy framework sets an initial ambition of at least 500 MW by 2020. The accelerated development of Ireland's ocean energy resources is a key priority for me. The ocean energy strategy sets milestones along the way for assessing the state of technological development and determining the related actions needed to take the technology and commercialisation forward.
Phase one of the strategy currently envisages support of non-grid connected prototype devices operating in the Galway Bay test site. Indicative measures proposed for phase two include capital grant support for single grid connected prototypes, together with support for grid infrastructure and a possible price support mechanism. Phase three envisages possible support requirements for full scale offshore projects which include capital, infrastructure and price support.
Similar to the development of wind energy and in line with developments in other EU member states, wave and tidal energy technology will require long-term electricity price support until they have achieved sufficient production and deployment rates and have demonstrated the high reliability required to give confidence to investors. A price support mechanism for Ireland will be calculated based on an assessment of the resource and the state of technology development.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am quite excited by the developments that have occurred, especially in the wave energy sector. It is not an exaggeration to say that Ireland is leading global research and development in tidal power. The key ingredient to commercialised wave energy is a fixed tariff mechanism which is set at a price that will allow companies to finance long-term wave energy projects. The sooner the Minister brings forward that proposal, with detailed pricing on offer, the sooner we can try to increase the likelihood of beating the 500 MW from wave energy by 2020. I think it is possible to achieve that target earlier, given the success of the prototype currently in the sea off the west coast.
We need to learn from the lessons of the AER schemes and the initial fiasco in promoting them by forcing developers to compete on price, driving it down to such a level that their proposals were non-viable and were therefore not built. In moving from a prototype to a commercially viable proposition for wave energy, what is the most ambitious timetable the Minister can outline?
I agree with the Deputy that we need to learn as we move along. That competitive tendering process for the supply of renewables would not be appropriate in this instance, and we are better off moving towards a fixed price structure. It will be phased and we are currently moving towards a test and research phase. We will then have a testing of the connected prototype, which will still be a non-commercial phase. That will require a certain type of fixed price support, possibly with a time limit. People will be encouraged to go out, test the facility and bring it back in and allow other operators access to whatever grid connection points they have. We will then move into the fully commercial non-prototype stage, where a commercial operation has a guaranteed fixed price over a period of years to give the investors the necessary confidence they need.
Each of the technologies have slightly different requirements, but I would include off-shore wave energy in this general development of ocean energy as it will also have a significant resource and some common characteristics such as grid connections and the need for a support price. I agree that we have huge potential and that we must show urgency in the development of that resource. The State's role in this is to ensure the regulations make it happen quickly, to provide grants and support prices where necessary, but also to leverage support from the private sector. If we can develop an international expertise and show a lead, we can take the technology from here, deploy it in other locations around the world and become a world leader. That is certainly my aim, as well the aim of the Deputy.
