Simon Coveney
Ceist:46 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources when the proposed one-stop shop for State-owned broadband will be introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16854/10]
Priority Questions.
Information and Communications Technology.
The objective of the one-stop shop commitment in the next generation broadband policy paper "Gateway to a Knowledge Ireland" is to facilitate telecommunications network operators in gaining access to ducting that exists along publicly-owned energy, transport and other infrastructure to help reduce the cost of fibre roll-out for backhaul networks.
Government policy is to make available all State-owned infrastructure on an open-access basis in so far as is possible. I do not favour exclusive deals being done whereby one telecommunications company secures exclusive access to a particular State-owned network.
An important step in delivering on this commitment is the Communications Regulation (Premium Rate Services and Electronic Communications Infrastructure) Act 2010, which provides that the National Roads Authority, NRA, is the single point of contact for access to ducts on motorways and other national roads. This means that telecommunications service providers no longer must approach individual local authorities when seeking such access.
The legislation also allows the NRA to make a scheme, which will permit it to impose charges for the use of ducts subject to the approval of the Minister for Transport following consultation with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and the Minister for Finance. I am satisfied that this will provide an open and transparent way of setting access pricing for NRA infrastructure.
I understand the NRA has engaged expertise to assist in developing this new business and that it has been meeting with service providers as part of this process. I very much welcome this development as it is an example of what I set out to achieve in facilitating open access to State-owned ducting. Such open access is a clear policy objective of mine.
The NRA model is a significant advance and I will seek to extend this approach to other suitable State-owned infrastructure.
Not only am I surprised by the Minister's answer, but I am quite worried by it. We have been waiting for nearly a year for a progress report on the promised one-stop shop for State-owned broadband services to facilitate those investing in broadband in Ireland and piggy-backing on investment the State has made, whether in fibre, in ducting or in whatever infrastructure.
The Minister has confirmed today that the NRA will be the one-stop shop and it will deal only with ducting infrastructure. Is it the case that he has given up on the project of bringing together all the State-owned infrastructure? He has now provided this information on the Department's website so it is clear to see who owns what. The purpose was to achieve a co-ordinated approach so that people could use one portal to establish how they could use and benefit from State-owned infrastructure. His reply to my question seems to imply the Minister has abandoned this concept, with the exception of the NRA dealing with the ducting infrastructure. Is this the case?
No. It is a case of evolving what is being done in the NRA and applying it to other suitable infrastructure. The NRA and the roads network is the most extensive network for rolling out open access fibre ducting so it is significant and important. However, it is not the only measure which is being progressed and neither is it the only development related to State assets. For example, there is significant deployment of fibre along the gas pipelines and electricity wires.
The question as to whether the one-stop shop will include all State infrastructure, including what are now commercial entities operating within the commercial market, is a valid question. We have to be careful. In my view, it is better to develop those assets not currently in the commercial market and where there may not be a commercial business case for the agency to work with them and to provide the one-stop shop to ensure those non-utilised assets become available. I do not believe it would be right to bring together every single piece of State infrastructure at this time — including those already operating within a commercial market — and to apply a common approach.
Which one will be under the one-stop shop and which will not?
The one-stop shop will apply in the case of the RPA ducting. I have been informed by the head of the RPA that a commercial case has not yet been made.
What about the MANs?
This is the difficulty. At this point and subject to ongoing negotiation with TIF, it would not be appropriate for us to bring every single piece of State ducting infrastructure together but in cases where the potential for ducting is not being utilised, we will try to make that available. We are dealing with a market and we must be careful that any State actions support investment rather than undermine it.
The Minister is saying the one-stop shop now only applies to ducting. Less than two months ago he stated that such a management system would facilitate the wider objective of promoting co-operation between different telecom providers for backhaul and wholesale services. This now seems to be nonsense. Am I correct in interpreting what the Minister is saying as being that the one-stop shop he refers to is solely confined to ducting and that the level of his ambition to date is asking the NRA to co-ordinate the marketing and use of ducting infrastructure which it has already constructed?
Ducting is important. The deployment of fibre is the crucial piece of infrastructure we wish to facilitate——
We have fibre already in the ground but it is not being used and it is not connected.
Our job is to ensure that the State infrastructure such as the canals, railway lines, roads, is capable of carrying fibre and typically in ducts. We have had discussions with other bodies such as the Office of Public Works and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to discuss what can be done within the Garda stations. It is not exclusively restricted to dealing with the NRA but the NRA is the first major-scale response to making ducting available on an open access basis.
It is not a one-stop shop.
The concept of a one-stop shop is to have a central location within the State in which expertise is concentrated and is made available in a way that will support the commercial market. This is what we are doing.
Postal Services.
Liz McManus
Ceist:47 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the reason the tender process for a postcode system has been suspended; if he has read the report on postcodes of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources; if he will take on board the recommendation of that report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16860/10]
An invitation to tender was issued on 29 January 2010 for consultants to assist in selecting a body to implement and maintain a postcode system. The tender competition closed on 12 March 2010. Subsequently, a technical issue arose relating to the consistency of the request for tenders with the requirements of the public procurement regulations. The issue arose internally in the Department and was not raised by any of the outside interested parties. Bidders were notified by letter of the cancellation of the tender and a notice to that effect was posted on the e-tenders website on 15 April 2010. A request for tender will be re-issued by my Department this week. The need to issue a new tender will have a limited impact on the timeline for the roll-out of the postcode system. It remains my objective to roll out the system by the end of 2011.
I have received and read the joint committee's report on postcodes, which is currently being reviewed by my Department. The report makes a series of recommendations relating to the design and implementation of a national postcode system. These include proposals for future-proofing of system design; the publication of a road map for implementation later this year; clarification of issues arising in relation to data protection; the promotion of postcode usage and the retention of familiar and well-used addresses.
Consideration of the details of the report is currently ongoing in my Department. This includes seeking clarification on legal issues raised by the joint committee. I will be happy to reply to the committee in full, as requested, when this is complete.
I thank the Minister for reading the report. I was rapporteur for the committee and it was unanimously agreed to publish this report and recommend to the Minister that he adopt a particular approach. I am a little unhappy at his response in terms of what he considers to be the issue raised in the report. Will the Minister agree the key issue and the main recommendation is to have a unique identifier system compatible with GPS? Such a system would have significant benefits across the board. Will he state whether he plans to continue with this new tendering process with the old model of using a cluster of properties rather than using the unique identifier system? I urge him to use the opportunity of this delay. In his initial statement he said that it would be in early 2011 and now he refers to the end of 2011. If this gives us a better system I am quite happy to go along with that. However, the main point to be stressed — the Minister did not clarify it and I am concerned he is avoiding it — is whether he will pursue the unique identifier option. Does he intend to talk to the Data Protection Commissioner as soon as possible in order to ensure the issue of data protection is cleared up? Is he satisfied the approach he has adopted in the past of using the cluster of up to 50 houses, is appropriate to the needs of today?
I am very pleased the Deputy opposite is now supporting the post and location codes proposals.
I am supportive of this but not of the Minister's system.
My understanding in earlier statements was that there was opposition. I welcome political support across the House for a post code and a location code. I have consistently said we must have both. In reply to the Deputy's question, there has to be a system that provides a unique household identifier. It might not be just a household but it could also include other street infrastructure which will require a code, such as locating a bus stop. A location code is another example of the benefits of this system. I have always planned to have a code which provides for an efficient postal service and also includes those location code characteristics. In my discussions with a number of parties I have consistently examined how this can be achieved. With the adoption of the post code model recommended by the body set up to suggest the model and by the use of additional digits it is possible to get such a locational code down to the building. Over the past two years I have had a couple of meetings with the Data Protection Commissioner on exactly the issue raised in the joint committee report which I welcome. The concerns originally expressed by the Data Protection Commissioner in 2006 regarding privacy are valid concerns. These concerns can be addressed in a way that allows the development of a location code while at the same time maintaining privacy where appropriate.
This sounds like a real mishmash. Frankly, I would not support a proposal that adopts an old technology pretending it is a new technology. Will the Minister accept the costs involved in having a clustering system, and maintaining it because of new build and old buildings being demolished, is a costly approach?
If we can clear the data protection issue, the technology is available to have a unique-identifier system which would generate enormous benefits not least to Departments, but also to the emergency services and others. It is all contained in the report which I do not need to restate.
Will the Minister try not to straddle both sides on this matter? I would have more respect for him if he said he was sticking with the cluster system. While I may not agree with such a decision, at least it would be a position. To have two systems, however, on top of each other is nonsensical.
The expert advice I received said it is absolutely possible.
It is not desirable, however.
There are real benefits to having a postcode system that works on the basis recommended by the postcode board.
No, the Minister is wrong.
There are real benefits with memorability and being able to apply geodirectory codes and the root network systems in place to a postcode network. Crucially, I insisted at all times on a facility within the postcode system to develop a location-code system that could go right down to a building. This would allow emergency services to get to the right house or Departments to get the level of information they needed for individual houses and, at the same time, work with the Data Protection Commissioner, to protect the householder's privacy where appropriate. I have been told by the experts it is possible to achieve both outcomes. This is what I am setting out to achieve.
We can come back to this in later questions but the Deputy opposite is hitching her wagon to one particular company and technical solution.
I am afraid we must move on.
I prefer the route we have chosen which will employ consultants to assess this and put it out to a tendering competition which will meet the criteria we have set. As long as it meets the criteria of being both a good postcode and location-code system, I will be satisfied.
That is not accurate. I must clarify this. The Minister, in his statement on the introduction of postcodes, hitched his wagon to the cluster system. The report shows, in my humble view because I am not an expert on this, that the unique-identifier system is the best postcode system we can have and is appropriate to our times. To meld the two systems——
Another debate elsewhere would be required to resolve this matter.
——would be expensive and inefficient, ending up with a mess.
Does the Minister want to give a brief response?
It is very possible and I believe it is the right thing to do.
Broadcasting Legislation.
Simon Coveney
Ceist:48 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the plans he has in place to facilitate the roll out of commercial digital terrestrial television, DTT, should the consortium (details supplied) fail to reach agreement with RTE and the broadcasting regulator. [16855/10]
Part 8 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 provides for RTE to develop a free-to-view digital broadcasting service as a replacement for the national analogue television service offering access to RTE 1, RTE 2, TV3 and TG4 and for the subsequent closure of the national analogue television service.
The Act also provides opportunities for the development of a commercial digital terrestrial television, DTT, service. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, an independent regulatory authority, is required to provide for the development of commercial DTT services.
The BAI's predecessor, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, BCI, initiated a competition for a commercial DTT service provider. The highest placed consortium withdrew from the process in April 2009. As a result, negotiations commenced with the next placed bidder, OneVision, which are still ongoing.
As stated in earlier replies to this question, I am not prepared to speculate or hypothesise on the outcome of what is a commercial licensing process which is a matter for the independent regulator, the BAI.
I have made it clear to the authority that I would like to see this process concluded as soon as possible so that clarity and certainty with regard to commercial DTT can be provided to broadcasters and viewers alike. However, the legislation does not provide for a role for me, as Minister, in the competition process for a commercial DTT service.
My priority, in accordance with national policy is to provide for the closure, in 2012, of the analogue free-to-view broadcasting service. The European Commission has set 2012 as the timeline for analogue switch-off across Europe and the Council of Ministers has asked member states to complete switch over by 2012 in so far as possible. It is my intention that this switch off will be no later than the last quarter in 2012. RTE is aware of this and is supportive of the deadline for analogue switch-off.
In this regard, and in the continuing absence of commercial DTT, I recently signed an order, S.I. No. 85/2010, RTE (National Television Multiplex) Order, under section 129 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 requiring RTE to launch a free-to-view DTT service to approximately 90% of the population by 31 October 2010.
The 2009 Act also requires RTE to provide the full national free-to-view digital service, capable of carrying RTE 1, RTE 2, TG4 and TV3, by the end of 2011, or such date as I may specify. I have informed RTE the date for the provision of a national service is 31 December 2011.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
From a broadcaster perspective, the development of DTT services provides more for television viewers in terms of choice and services. The RTE multiplex has sufficient space for eight to ten TV channels, radio channels and electronic programme guides and the legislation provides for RTE to exploit space on the multiplex for commercial purposes. A second RTE multiplex, provided for under the 2009 Act, provides for RTE to roll out high definition, HD, services which will also be made available to TV viewers in Ireland on a free-to-view basis.
More significantly, there are considerable economic benefits for Ireland resulting from the switch off of the analogue broadcast services and the consequent release and reuse of this valuable spectrum, which is known as the digital dividend. The digital dividend is a clear enabler of economic and social growth. By extrapolating from a recent European study, the value of the digital dividend to Ireland is expected to be between €2 billion and €10 billion, over 15 years. In this regard, it is vital for Ireland's economic health that this spectrum is released as early as possible.
I raised this issue more than a year ago because I was concerned the tendering process to provide a commercial DTT service was collapsing, following the pull-out of Boxer which had won the competition. I am not asking the Minister to interfere with the competitive tendering process. However, will he recognise the tendering process put in place two years ago to ensure a commercial DTT operation and to facilitate the viability of a free-to-air service will not achieve this?
It is my understanding the negotiations between OneVision and RTE have broken down.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Please allow me to finish because this is important. The Minister bluffs every time he is asked this question, claiming he has no responsibility in the matter, and just sets the date for when RTE must do the business.
The first and second chosen bidders are out of the equation.
They are gone.
The remaining and only other bidder involves RTE itself.
When does the Minister intend to intervene to put a new policy structure in place to get commercial DTT multiplexes up and running? Will he continue to let the BAI handle the process while he takes a hands-off approach when everyone involved concedes it is collapsing?
The legislation passed by this House gives the BAI that task. Yes, I would like to go back to 2006 and change the legislation——
It is the tendering process I am raising.
——but one cannot undo legislation is such a manner. It is not appropriate for the Minister to ignore the legislation and the authority the BAI has to implement the task set out for it. When it is unable to complete the task and decides what the process should be, I will happily look at taking other action. It would not, however, be appropriate for me to ignore the legislation in the middle of a process which has large commercial implications by taking over the role given to the authority by this House four years ago.
The Minister is saying that the process he set up through legislation——
It was set up by the previous Government.
Yes, but the legislation in question is now the Minister's responsibility.
The first two preferred bidders in the tendering process established by the legislation are out of the game. Will the Minister confirm he expects the BAI to move on to the third best bidder? It may not have been a chosen operator at all but, because it was the last man standing, it could potentially be the next operator of commercial multiplexes. That is not the way to roll out digital television. The Minister needs to ask the BAI if it is satisfied that it has exhausted the tendering process set up by the previous Government and how it should deal with the matter as time is running out. At what stage will the Minister have that meeting or will he continue to keep his head in the sand while the system collapses?
I have had a series of meetings with all parties involved on the State side including the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, the Networks company and ComReg, which has had a role in this on the spectrum side. At all stages I have done that on the basis of trying to get an outcome. I regret that that outcome has not come quicker and that the negotiations have taken so long. I have said that repeatedly in the House. However, my response cannot be to get involved in the middle of what could be a difficult legal and commercial process. That would only draw it out longer. I have said to all parties at a certain point that when it comes down to the commercial negotiations it is up to the BAI, RTE and the other parties to work through that. It would be wrong and improper if the Minister took on the negotiating position. It must follow the legislative course and if that comes to an end, we will act but we have made it clear that regardless of that process the switch off will occur at the end of 2012. That is certain, and that gives me confidence that we will get an outcome that will work.
There is no market for DTT without a commercial service.
I am deeply unsatisfied with the delays that occurred but that is the difficult commercial world we live in and I would not make that any easier by stepping inside——
There is no market for DTT without a commercial service. The Minister knows that.
Electric Vehicles.
Simon Coveney
Ceist:49 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the initiatives he plans to take to encourage mutable providers of electric transport charging infrastructure to facilitate competing solutions and implementation; the progress that has been made on setting up new memorandums of understanding with car manufactures in the same way that has been done with a company (details supplied). [16856/10]
The Government has set a target of 10% of all vehicles to be powered by electricity by 2020, which equates to around 225,000 vehicles.
Electric vehicles are an increasingly realistic option to the challenge of reducing the transport sector's greenhouse gas emissions and reducing our reliance on imported fossil fuels. There is now very significant global investment under way in research and development in this area. The technology is maturing to a point where large scale commercial deployment appears feasible in the short to medium term. There is keen interest internationally in Ireland's decision to be an early mover in this field. Ireland is seen as an excellent test-bed, particularly in terms of network infrastructure development.
In the European Union context, electric vehicles are now firmly on the EU energy policy agenda. We agreed at the informal meeting of energy Ministers in Seville last January that electric vehicles technology and common standards should be progressed by the European Union as part of delivery of energy efficient and low carbon systems.
Reflecting these discussions, the Commission is currently finalising a policy communication on green vehicles, which will be published shortly.
The Energy Council of Ministers has also recently agreed to the inclusion of electric vehicles as a priority technology sector under the strategic energy technology plan. ESB, through its membership of Eurelectric, is also playing a leading role in work by European utilities and car manufacturers to progress essential technical standardisation across Europe.
On 12 April last I signed an agreement with the Renault Nissan alliance and ESB which underpins Ireland as one of the European leaders in electric transport. The agreement, building on the memorandum of understanding last year, includes the development of a national electric car charging infrastructure, the continued sharing of technical and market data between the parties and the early supply of electric cars into the Irish market by Renault and Nissan from next year.
Under the agreement, ESB will roll out 1,500 charge points nationwide by December 2011. The roll-out has already begun in Dublin and charging points will also be installed in Cork, Galway, Waterford and Limerick. ESB also plans to install 30 fast charge points across Ireland by the end of 2011, with nine expected to be set up by the end of this year.
Progress has been made in discussions with other major motor manufacturers to make early production vehicles available to the Irish market and I expect that other agreements will be developed in the foreseeable future.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department, the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, and ESB Networks are also discussing the electric vehicle infrastructure network build out programme including cost recovery and access arrangements. The potential emergence of other parties with an interest in providing infrastructure is an issue for consideration in that context.
There is general agreement to the principle that the infrastructure being provided by ESB Networks will be non-exclusive and it will be readily accessible by all electricity supply companies. The infrastructure will need to be built on an open access basis to avoid needless duplication of charging points.
We already have a number of incentives in place which demonstrate the Government's commitment to promoting electric vehicles in Ireland. The VRT exemption for electric vehicles and the VRT reliefs of up to €2,500 for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which were due to end in December 2010, have been extended in the budget for a further two year period. At the launch of the agreement last week, I announced the introduction of a grant scheme for up to 6,000 vehicles over a two year period from January 2011, which will provide grants of up to €5,000 for full battery electric vehicles and up to €2,500 for plug in hybrid electric vehicles. The grant scheme will be administered by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and full details will be published well in advance of the scheme commencement date of January 2011.
The support schemes are non-exclusive and will be open to any vehicle from any manufacturer which meets the qualifying criteria.
I support what the Minister is trying to do in terms of making the transition from combustion engine cars to electric transport and mainstreaming that technology, and that mindset, to ensure people realise we can have normal family cars that are comfortable, powerful and safe but which are driven on batteries on the Irish electricity grid rather than by imported fossil fuels. I question the Minister's approach, however, and want to ask him a number of direct questions.
First, why is it the case that even though we have had a memorandum of understanding with Renault-Nissan, and ESB, for many months we do not have a second memorandum of understanding with any other car manufacturers, despite the fact that has been promised for over six months and that almost every car manufacturer on the globe is planning to roll out electric vehicles? Why have we put in place a memorandum of understanding with one of them, Renault-Nissan, but not any others?
The second question is more important. I commend ESB for its involvement in this area but I am concerned that we are creating a monopoly here in what is probably the most exciting industry area that will develop rapidly in the next ten years whereby ESB is the only body providing charging infrastructure, and the technology around that technology, for electric cars. Why is that the case? Would the Minister consider issuing a global tender on behalf of the Government for expressions of interest in providing solutions to put in place an ambitious charging infrastructure to facilitate the complete transition he envisages in the next 20 years? Why has he resisted that approach to try to get the best technology into Ireland?
I will call the Deputy again.
On the two questions, first, our intention is to bring in a number of different motor car companies to provide vehicles for this market as it evolves. I believe further agreements will be signed with other companies. I had a meeting with Mitsubishi recently and it seemed to me that we are close to signing an agreement with that company, among others. The real success we have had is getting some of these leading companies to come here because, to be honest, there is a limited number of vehicles available in the world. Our objective was to try to get some of them to develop the activity here first and the economic benefits that come with that in terms of the spin-off industries that will develop the charging points, the software systems, the payment systems and the management systems that will be needed to make this work. We are open to dealing with other companies. We have always made this a neutral development in that all car companies are welcome as long as the technology is compatible.
The issue is the same on the grid. We are not looking to restrict other companies in terms of developing charge point infrastructure. It has to be a common design, however. One action that is happening, and in fairness to ESB it has been leading it, is in regard to Eurelectric. We are looking to get agreement across Europe, and in other parts of the world, on a common type charging infrastructure to ensure the cars come with a standard recharging mechanism. One of the reasons for doing that is that it is non-restrictive. It is not creating a monopoly. It is opening up the market to other companies to provide similar infrastructure.
I hope the Minister will accept that I would welcome new memoranda of understanding with companies like Mitsubishi and, I hope, many others. My main concern is regarding charging infrastructure. The Minister said there is no obstacle to other potential operators of charging infrastructure as long as they all abide by the requirement for standard plugs and so on. That is obvious. We must have the same plug to allow us switch from one system to another but we should be encouraging a non-standardised approach towards clever charging systems tailored for different usages. For example, the position of a TD who might drive 50,000 miles a year will be entirely different from that of an elderly person who drives to the shop three or four times a week. We want to encourage competition and new solutions from companies like Better Place and another half dozen that currently provide interesting, exciting solutions in other parts of the world. We want them all testing in Ireland and competing with ESB to ensure we get the best technology solutions for Irish consumers. We are saying there is no obstacle to inviting that into Ireland but we are asking ESB to do the job. I would like to see ESB tested and competed with to ensure we get the best possible solutions. That will probably be through an ESB dominated charging grid but if we do not invite those other tenders we will not be able to get the benefits of competition.
I agree with the Deputy. I met with Shai Agassi of Better Place, one of the companies the Deputy mentioned, and said that we are open in that regard. This is new technology but we are at the frontier. We are the first country to put this out on a nationwide basis. This is one of the locations to which people will come to try to test out these systems.
In terms of the way this will develop and what ESB has agreed to, it is not exclusive to any one company to put in meters but in regard to its meters, we are saying it should be open to other suppliers also to use those charging points. Even though ESB might put in an extra piece of infrastructure, it would be on an open access basis in that another supply company could come in and provide some of the innovation or charging flexibility the Deputy mentioned. I believe the characteristics of this technology will work best when the network is more open and accessible to different technological solutions, be it a project like Better Place coming in with a battery changing system or a——
What about a global tender to invite expressions of interest?
The agreements with the leading international car companies are in effect exactly that. What we are seeing, with other companies such as IBM and its smart cities network coming in to work on the back of this, is a global tender. This is a global call from Ireland that we are going to develop this technology and inviting companies to test different systems here because we believe we will achieve economic benefit on the back of this.
Alternative Energy Projects.
Noel Coonan
Ceist:50 Deputy Noel J. Coonan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he is satisfied that Gate 3 can adequately deal with new wind farm proposals to get grid connection in a timely manner. [16586/10]
The Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, has statutory responsibility for grid connection offers and for oversight of EirGrid's grid connection process, including the Gate process for renewable energy.
The CER decision on the Gate 3 round provides for connection offers for 4,000 MWs of renewable electricity capacity. Approximately 90% of these offers are wind powered capacity, including around 800 MW of offshore wind. The Gate 3 decisions, combined with the existing renewable capacity and projects currently being built and connected, point to the 40% target being met and even exceeded by 2020.
Ireland's national renewable energy action plan, which is to be submitted to the EU Commission by next June, will set out the detailed projections and strategies to achieve the national target. The plan is being developed in consultation with the renewable sector and all stakeholders.
The projects in Gate 3 were selected by the CER on a "first come, first served" criterion. Grid connection offers for projects within the Gate 3 process began to issue in December last year and will continue to issue on a phased basis until mid-2011. The Gate 3 process was extensively consulted on by the CER. Through public consultation and dedicated industry workshops, all industry stakeholders were given the opportunity of responding in advance to the proposed connection process. To ensure the process operates efficiently and to keep the industry fully informed of developments, the CER has also established a Gate 3 liaison group involving EirGrid, ESB Networks and the renewable industry associations. This is an important forum for information exchange, for the transparency of the Gate 3 process and to ensure delivery on time for all parties.
There are undoubted challenges inherent in ensuring that connection offers under Gate 3 are matched by the timely building out of the distribution and transmission system. I have made clear to EirGrid, ESB Networks, CER and the industry that addressing those challenges is a critical priority.
I wish to put on record my disappointment that my original question in regard to the national coal miners was not taken, in respect of which I have not yet received an explanation. I am hopeful the Ceann Comhairle's office will give me an explanation in this regard as I am concerned about who is protecting who on a serious matter.
I will ensure the Deputy receives a reply to his query.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
On the Minister's reply, the term "on a first come, first served basis" is inappropriate at this particular time. This is a wonderful area in which people are considering investing. Many people are ready and willing to invest in this area. Many of the projects in Gate 3 will probably never come to fruition. I believe the Minister should be considering producing a strategic plan in regard to the locations where these investments should take place, taking account of wind speeds, proximity to the grid and affordability of the project. In other words, projects must be ready to roll out. It is in this respect we differ from the Minister.
Is the Minister in control of policy or is CER dictating the trend in this regard? We are not delivering to people who want to invest in this project. If the Minister had money to invest at this particular time would he choose to invest in current wind energy projects, despite his having to wait seven years to get on a grid to obtain connection or would he consider buying out somebody currently on the waiting list, which is not satisfactory? The Minister needs to take immediate action in this regard.
We must constantly review procedures to ensure we are delivering on our target to provide more secure, cheap and clean energy supplies. I take the point that we must constantly review the process. We must also examine what has gone wrong in the past. One of the reasons for our not developing as fast as we should was our stop-start policy. The moratorium introduced in 2005-06 had a huge negative effect on the financing of some of these projects resulting in the delays that took place. I am wary of adopting and then starting and stopping policy. The approach we are taking is working. I am told by EirGrid that an expected 500 MW of wind is due to connect this year. This is what we need to do. To my mind, we need to achieve 500 MWs year-in year-out for the next seven to eight years. I would be reluctant to change policy on which there was consultation and in regard to which I spoke to the wind energy associations in terms of the advantages and disadvantages involved. Like the Deputy, I, too, wonder if this "first come first served basis" is the right approach in terms of assessing which projects are in the Gate and which are not. While the industry agrees there are difficulties with the approach it is by and large the best in terms of getting wind turbines or stations built. There are real problems in getting Gate connections, planning permission and the financing required. However, it is happening.
Given the market is working and delivering at this time the 500 MW a year that we need and the Gate system allows us to at least plan the development of our grid, which is the crucial constraint, I ask that the Deputy support the current approach.
If policy is not working and is wrong then there is a need to change it. Part of the Minister's argument in support of it working is that the industry is in the queue. I inquired of EirGrid this morning the number of wind farm proposals for County Tipperary. The response I got is interesting. Of the 46 projects concerned, eight are already connected, 14 are in Gate 3 and 24 are in the queue. I ask that the Minister investigate the 12 applications submitted with no project name included. I am concerned that the Minister's policy may be leaving this open to speculation. Is the regulator on top of his job? We do not want happening here what happened in the financial industry. The Minister is leaving this open to speculators, people who can apply and then sell on to others ready and willing to roll with a project but who would otherwise have to buy their place in Gate 3. I ask that the Minister examine this element of speculation.
I disagree with the Deputy that the process is not working. If we are building 500 MW a year, which we will, I am told, do this year, that to my mind is what we need to be doing. Deputy Coonan implied earlier that I should allow the regulator to do his job. In a later contribution he stated that——
I asked who is in control of policy.
It is appropriate in a regulated market that the regulator and transmission grid company apply the proper planning constraints around the grid, which is the big constraint, and that the regulated market be allowed to make some of those calls. I do not have any involvement with any one wind farm or developer. It is best that this is approached on a scientific regulated basis, learning the lessons from some of the other industries. We must ensure a proper regulated approach to this, which is what the CER is pursuing. As long as this is working and delivering the power which I believe we need and is creating power, jobs and raising investment here——
What about the speculators?
There is a huge opportunity being lost here.
I do not have any time or interest in a speculative model. By and large, what we are seeing is a series of companies engaged in a proper market. The ones of which I am aware are reputable and are often State companies. I believe we must have good planning, regulation and grid management to make this happen.