Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY SECURITY díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 2009

Energy Resources: Discussion with Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

I welcome the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan. The committee is grateful for his detailed submission and we look forward to hearing his presentation. One of the issues of particular interest to us is our recently published legislation. We look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that. After he has delivered that section of his contribution, I propose that we pause to allow members to ask questions. We are eager to have an opportunity to deal with that particular issue.

As a matter of courtesy, I take this opportunity to inform the Minister that a newspaper advertisement will be published on behalf of the committee later this week, inviting submissions on the theme of meeting Ireland's energy needs post-2020. As the Minister is aware, the committee recently had discussions on nuclear energy. We are anxious to open up the debate and allow people to have their say. We hope interested parties will make their case.

I invite the Minister to make his contribution.

I am pleased to attend this meeting with my departmental colleagues: Ms Sara White, deputy secretary general; Mr. Martin Finucane, principal officer; Mr. St. John O'Connor, principal officer; Ms Úna Nic Giolla Choille, principal officer; and Mr. Bob Hanna, chief scientific adviser. We will be glad to answer any questions members may have on the range of issues set out in the agenda.

It is appropriate that we should begin with the issue of offshore energy. The committee has made a very valuable contribution via its proposed legislation on the planning aspect. It is an area in which we have great potential. Our target for 2020 is that some 40% of electricity is to be generated from renewable resources. Analysis carried out on the all-island grid study shows that we could get up to 42% if we can manage the variables applying within our system. At a rough estimate, it is expected that some 4,000 MW of power will come from onshore wind, which is the most immediate, commercially viable and deliverable source of renewable energy, but that at least a further 2,000 MW will come from offshore sources within that timeframe.

There is great potential to go beyond that. Offshore generation allows for the scaling up of the renewable technology to allow for the production of large volumes of power. An increasingly integrated European market will allow us to import power to meet our own needs but will also provide the opportunity for us to create a significant industry on the back of the resources we have. On the ocean side, these resources are concentrated around the potential for offshore wind but also offshore wave and tidal energy. If those opportunities can be exploited in combination, there will be opportunities for us to build scaled projects that bring significant benefits and efficiencies. Any map of Europe detailing both wind and ocean resources would indicate that we have some of the greatest potential. It is in our interest to develop that.

The European Union is placing significant emphasis on the development of offshore renewable energy as a potential European energy source. My recent discussions with the Commissioner have included a consideration of our various energy packages. The Commission has included in its strategic areas for development, the development of offshore grids in what it refers to as the north-western waters. In other words, it is looking to Irish and Scottish waters as a location for the potential development of an offshore grid to tap into the offshore resources that exist there. The direct involvement of the Commission in support of offshore wind projects shows that there is a recognition at a high level within Europe that offshore energy may be one of the fundamental solutions to the energy crisis we face as a consequence of insecure gas and oil supplies.

When it comes to delivering on this resource, I have always said that we are at an advantage because we have a properly devised planning framework. The ten-year strategy set out in the report which, as I understand it, was commissioned by Sustainable Energy Ireland and adopted by the Department, defines a four-phase approach to the development of our offshore resources. We came to the end of the first phase early last year. Over the two and a half years of this initial phase, some test research work was undertaken, with the establishment of an initial test facility in Galway Bay. Work done in the wave centres in Cork showed there was potential. Several companies were involved in that and had been working on projects for some years. We made the calculation that it was now time to move up to the next phase, which will still be pre-commercial but will involve a scaling up of our plans in terms of providing grant schemes for prototype devices, further ocean or wave testing facilities, and a feed-in process to encourage any company that is getting close to commercial application to try for a revenue stream from that. The plans also entailed the provision of an offshore grid connected site, in Belmullet as it turned out, to allow the setting out of arrays that would work in a real life environment to produce and ship back electricity.

Crucially, it has become clear that planning also is a key constraint. It has been highly encouraging that large international utility companies with real expertise have begun to team up with Irish companies with technology in this area to ascertain whether they can begin to test their devices in Irish waters and implement a programme to deploy an initial test device, followed by a pre-commercial or a commercial device. I have been both surprised and heartened by the progress in the industrial sector with its plans to deploy devices. In talking to such companies, it is clear that planning and transparency in foreshore planning and planning applications for such developments is a key consideration. The joint committee's report and investigation into the issue was timely because my Department has been performing its own internal analysis that it has been sharing with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in particular. The latter Department will assume responsibility for foreshore planning from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on foot of a Government decision to effect such a transfer and the requisite legislation is being drafted. The mechanism behind such a planning process has yet to be decided and the joint committee's approach and suggestions will be given serious consideration.

I will make two or three points in this regard and ask Mr. Martin Finucane to comment afterwards. We have both a short-term issue and a medium-term issue. The short-term issue pertains to the management of applications already in the system and how one can ensure that viable or potential applications that have a real and immediate call on securing planning approval can get through the system quickly and with a certain clarity. This is an immediate issue, in that we must help those investors who are considering making investment decisions, possibly this year. At the same time, it must be recognised that we must move away from this system towards a much more transparent and easy to manage system in the deployment of this natural resource. This will be done in a number of stages.

The ocean energy unit of Sustainable Energy Ireland is on the point of commissioning a major strategic environmental assessment of Irish waters to map completely the resource around the island. This is crucial because it may allow us to move towards a further stage in which the deployment of the resource will be managed by central government in a much more controlled manner, in which my Department will have a clear interest. This would be similar to what is happening in Scotland where the Crown Estate has taken blocs of water and declared it is seeking expressions of interest in these areas. One manages the deployment in a manner that is similar to the management of petroleum exploration resources, in that one has licensed terms whereby companies make a commitment over a seven or ten-year period to carry out their investigations or programmes.

Such environmental assessment and management constitute one aspect of the medium-term system we must put in place and planning approval is another. It does not necessarily have to be completely connected and in many ways the ability or interest of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in managing the provisions of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act may make it a better location in which to manage the system's planning aspect. I note the joint committee's work has suggested such a strategic infrastructure approach should apply in this area and I agree. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government may be best placed to manage it, as it has responsibility for the aforementioned planning legislation.

These are the broad parameters. As I noted, we must manage a difficult interregnum period in which investments are made under existing applications, the environmental assessment of the resources available to us is carried out and in which a new, transparent and easy to manage planning system and works scheme for the development of ocean energy resources is established. The legislation the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will prepare, as the body responsible for this aspect of planning, will be greatly influenced both by my Department and the joint committee's work as evidenced in the Bill it has presented.

Mr. Martin Finucane

To add to the points outlined by the Minister, many synergies would arise from effecting the idea that everything would reside within the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. As the Minister noted, that Department has responsibility for driving the strategic infrastructure development process and all of the underlying legislative work. However, it also is the lead Department in respect of planning policy on land. In this regard, one must ensure offshore development cannot be considered as a singular entity. One also must consider joining up the pieces on land to ensure a completely joined-up planning approach is taken in tandem. The best and easiest place for this to happen is within the planning policy units in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government because they then will have responsibility for all legs of the project.

I will intervene to state this is where we part company. The joint committee considered this issue and thought about it deeply. It seems ludicrous to ask the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to handle offshore development. It does not handle offshore gas development. This is a natural resource that by right should be within the remit of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Ms Sara White and I were involved with the wonderful organisation that is the Marine Institute, which is where the professionalism lies. The institute already possesses the requisite knowledge of what lies beneath the water and the joint committee believes a beefed-up section of the institute should act as the planning authority in the context of adopting a development plan type approach. In other words, just as local authorities have development plans, the Marine Institute should have a development plan in respect of offshore matters and people should make applications to it for licences and so on. The institute would indicate areas suitable for development and be the body to auction off such sites. When it comes to applying for permission to erect something, An Bord Pleanála is the ideal body, through the critical infrastructure legislation. However, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not have the requisite expertise in the matter of offshore development. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources possesses all the expertise from the old Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources through the Marine Institute and at official level.

The joint committee was trying to think about the future. As the Minister rightly noted, the projects in the pipeline are at a point at which they are ready to move and should be allowed to continue. However, it will be at least a year or two before this legislation is put on the Statute Book. Consequently, any existing applications may be dealt with, if the applicants so wish, under the old system. As for the new system, the joint committee considers that the right structure would be to use the resources of the Marine Institute and An Bord Pleanála in respect of the critical infrastructure process.

I do not think we disagree fundamentally in this regard. I agree with the Chairman that the involvement of An Bord Pleanála and, in a sense, the input of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is on the planning permission side. It is not on the development side in respect of the co-ordination that must take place in resource management. This is a difficult issue because it has both onshore and offshore elements. Onshore grid development is one of the key determinants of what can happen offshore. Consequently, I agree with the Chairman that responsibility for management of the development aspect of the process lies better within a Department such as my own or one of its agencies.

One could configure the State's ocean strategy in different ways, but we have set up the ocean energy unit within Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI. Mr. Eoin Sweeney, who leads the unit, came from the Marine Institute, so there is a good synergy between Marine Institute expertise and that of the new unit. As an agency of the Department, it is the best place in which to manage onshore and offshore resource development. The role of EirGrid and the ESB in this regard is not insignificant. I agree that the process should not be left to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or An Bord Pleanála, but to Departments with interests or expertise in the energy area.

When a developer gets permission for a particular facility within the overall development plan as set out by the energy agencies, it must be done under the critical infrastructure provisions and be overseen by An Bord Pleanála and, ultimately, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We do not necessarily disagree, as placing the function in the Marine Institute or the ocean energy unit of the SEI is a separate issue. Having established the unit and given that it will commission and manage the strategic environmental assessment of our water resources, it can build expertise in conjunction with the Department and, where it is appropriate and the unit can share information, the Marine Institute.

I thank the Minister for attending. The Chairman has focused on a problem that has been presented to the committee several times, namely, the difficulties experienced in getting permission for offshore wind developments. Much time was spent on ensuring that the legislation was fully considered. With all due respect, I do not detect a sense of urgency from the Minister. We are discussing an ambitious target of 40% by 2020. This is the third year in which the Minister has held his position and 2020 is rapidly coming down the tracks. I am not convinced that we can reach the target unless there is a greater sense of urgency and unless the issue is comprehensively and efficiently dealt with.

It seems logical that the system should be within a single Department with the Minister's priorities. He wants us to reach the target. Since the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government handles planning issues and the Minister's Department handles developmental issues, we are perpetuating the current problem, namely, a lack of joined-up government.

How will the current arrangements be streamlined to look after the people in the system? How the Minister intends to include the legislative provisions in the foreshore Bill is difficult to discern. Is there a target date? The Minister mentioned that matters are undecided and that the process will involve consultation, but it sounds like a drawn out situation.

The Minister raised an interesting point on licensing, setting out blocks and looking for expressions of interest in much the same way as gas and oil exploration is handled. While the method has merit, I presume that it will require legislation. We have a specific target date of 2020. It is time that the Minister set out for the committee, every investor with an interest in the matter and the general community the dates for the landmark decisions, be they on legislation or developmental arrangements. We discuss what should be done, but it does not get done.

I also welcome the Minister and his team. His comments were interesting and important, but I am astonished. This morning, the committee listened to an extraordinary presentation by his Department on the question of security of supply. The first issue that arises is the length of time it has taken to bring oil ashore in north County Mayo and its impact on energy security.

The Department also took us through the Porcupine Basin among others, but it does not even know the depth of its water. That is not its area of expertise. I was aghast to hear the comment on connecting to the grid. The point at which we began two and a half years ago, when the Minister was appointed, involved people being unable to get connections. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government making a decision on an offshore location on the basis of its position in respect of the network is not the way to go. We are walking into trouble.

The committee has been examining the matter for two years. Given our difficulty in getting a handle on it, a shift to another Department would be a negative move. This is not a criticism of the Minister's policies. Rather, it is a question of structure and management. It cannot work as he has described it. Time and again, we have been told that a viable proposed activity must be done in the most efficient, effective and transparent way. In this light, we considered what I incorrectly call the urgent infrastructure Bill, originally titled the strategic infrastructure Bill, and the Marine Institute.

For a moment, the Minister should ignore my comments on management moving to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as we are hardly going to change his mind on that disaster. Will he assure the committee that irrespective of the Department involved, he will support legislation to achieve what we are trying to do, namely, give additional powers to the institute and an additional jurisdiction to the infrastructure legislation? We must ensure that the next time someone encounters an offshore issue, it will not take us ten years to figure out how to connect it to the grid. This developmental issue must be tied into the initial business plan of any proposal.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider moving this to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It does not fit with the other issues under discussion by this committee or the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

We can probably agree that it was not right to deal with this matter in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would be perfectly happy to have an argy-bargy with my committee colleagues on which Department — the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources — would be appropriate. As a planner, my instinct is that the planning framework provides an overall assessment of a developmental issue and is probably the right place for the resource. What was once the critical infrastructure Bill and became the strategic infrastructure Bill reflected this fact by being under the wing of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

We are trying to marry many and several issues, those being, the overall assessment of the resource, quantifying the effects of new infrastructure on the resource and the flora and fauna in the wider planning environment——

——and the visual assessment, on which we have received correspondence. I suspect that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the correct place.

I have a philosophical question on rights and fairness. Will the Minister talk the committee through the oil and gas issues? How does one allocate those leases and can we consider something similar in terms of wind? There is a danger that people may be staking their claim early and establishing control of a resource by being first in line rather than under a meritocratic system. Perhaps the delegation will talk us through the current system for oil and gas resources.

I remind colleagues that the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act does not cover offshore. It will have to be amended.

My assumption is that the new planning Bill——

We went to the trouble of producing an explanatory memorandum and anyone who reads it will see that we took careful consideration of how licences would be allocated. Sustainable Energy Ireland, which was made responsible as a planning authority, is not equipped to do this.

For clarity, I do not disagree with the Chairman.

The Marine Institute has all the professionals and has done the research. What does Sustainable Energy Ireland have to do with the development of offshore wind? I am so frustrated and disappointed. If the Minister will not adhere to our wishes, at least he should give us an honest and logical explanation as to why. I spent years in this Parliament where good Private Members' Bills were tabled, some of which were Green Party Bills, and Governments rejected them. Here is another example where a suggestion is of no damn use because it did not come from the Government. We put much energy and thought into this. We interviewed people, listened to people and listened to developers to set up new structures to deal with applications. We are told that up to €16 billion of investment could come into this country.

The National University of Ireland, Galway, should be the research centre for the future. There are great opportunities here, yet, as Deputy McManus says, nobody sees this as an urgent matter. We have been fiddling around with the Foreshore Act 1933, which never envisaged offshore wind. We are considering amending the Foreshore Act but foreshore only extends for 12 miles. What will happen when development goes beyond 12 miles? The new turbines that will be available may be located further out.

If the committee has done something wrong, the Minister should tell us. We have received no encouragement for the work we are doing on an all-party basis to develop legislation. By all means, the Office of the Attorney General should examine this to tweak it. The Minister should show us some enthusiasm for the concept of urgent legislation to get this wonderful resource up and running. This would create jobs and investment in this country.

I will respond later.

The discussion so far highlights the lack of a Department with responsibility for the marine. That responsibility for the marine is allocated to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is inappropriate. In light of the level of potential offshore offers, it is appropriate that we have a sole Department with responsibility for the marine. Notwithstanding that, we must deal with the structures as they are. Is it the intention of the Minister to park this Bill and amend the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act and the foreshore licensing Bill to include the proposed White Paper?

The Minister referred to imminent investment and how this will be dealt with. One of the primary motivations of advancing this legislation as quickly as possible is that the existing legislation is not equipped to deal with the technology of the most advanced energy sources, namely, those more than 12 miles from the shore. Along the eastern coast 500 to 600 windmills have been granted under 99 year leases. Most people agree that this is not the best way to advance. This should be re-examined if possible but these are the only ones that can move. By bringing in new advanced capacity to move further offshore it was hoped that some of the current licensed companies could be persuaded to re-examine the matter.

We are trying to develop an economic recovery plan and this represents one of the pillars on which we can build the plan. We must be careful not to dilly-dally too long on how we will progress legislation to have this included under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. We must map the coast offshore and undertake studies that will take the environmental impact into account. I refer to the potential for getting energy to land. The optimum size for bringing energy to land should be examined by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in respect of connecting the grid. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources could also examine this.

A member of the committee referred to the planning authority as being the correct one to make this decision. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not have the wherewithal to gather this information nor does it have the information to hand. The Marine Institute has most of the research done and is well positioned to get this study and sea zoning research completed so that the legislation permits us to identify sites offshore where we can harness energy. We can then license it and put it up for auction. We cannot afford to spend the next 12 months talking about the Department to which we will send this material. We will lose out here.

Reference was made to Scotland and Britain, countries that are at an advanced stage in attracting this investment. One of the utility companies involved in a prototype licensed by the Marine Institute told us that the company is also in discussions with companies in Scotland. Off the north-western seaboard of this country there is enough renewable energy for Britain and the island of Ireland. We should bear this in mind.

I apologise for being late. I assure members that I had genuine reasons. I have not heard what the Minister said but, from the Chair's comments, I understand——

Deputy Coveney might not understand what I said.

I refer to the proposals of the committee on draft legislation that could be used as a starting point and could be amended if the Department sees fit. I hope the Minister will respond positively to this. This is about implementing a vision that the Minister has, which is shared by many members in other parties, namely, that Ireland will be carbon neutral in respect of energy production. Ireland should be a very ambitious exporter of green energy through interconnection and other facilities that Ireland is capable of building. As we pontificate about the legislation and structure needed to facilitate a smooth transition between planning for and developing offshore wind projects, other countries are getting on with it.

One of the most impressive days since I became a Deputy was when we visited the Marine Institute in that we learned of the institute's understanding of the offshore resource in Ireland. The landmass our little country controls is predominantly under the sea. Only approximately 5% to 7% of our land is above the sea. We control 144 square miles. This is a massive resource which will be developed in the future. The Marine Institute has already done an outstanding job of mapping the seabed. It can use the work already done to bring forward an ocean map or offshore map of suitable sites for the type of projects we are discussing. I could not agree more with Deputy Doyle. Some local authorities have used their own initiative to map areas in their counties suitable for wind farms. Prior to being required to do so, Cork and Kerry county councils were zoning areas with suitable wind speeds and which were not visual amenities to encourage proposals for wind. We need to do the same offshore. The Marine Institute can play a fundamental role in this.

I am not sure what role is being prescribed to Sustainable Energy Ireland. As supportive as I am of it, my major concern is that we cannot ask it to do everything. We will end up with a body doing far too much and therefore not doing what it is supposed to do effectively enough, whether this is developing an ambitious plan for electric vehicles, which we were to discuss today, or offshore energy. We have a specialist organisation, the Marine Institute, in terms of offshore resources. Let us use it. If it can map appropriate sites then we can use the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act with An Bord Pleanála, or some other mechanism, to use the mapping to fast-track the awarding of planning permission or licensing to build wind turbines offshore and bring ashore the power. This is what we want.

There is a real frustration developing in this committee, particularly because we have a Minister who we know is committed to this area. We want to play a part in driving this legislation through as quickly as possible so we do not allow a limited pool of investors look elsewhere to build wind farms — it is the big danger — because we have not been pro-active enough in changing what are totally outdated antiquated systems and putting in place a new fast-track mechanism that can allow a developer to look at a map, decide where he or she wants to invest and within a six month period have the process completed and also give a fair say to the public.

The message the Minister should take from this meeting is to get on with it and make some decisions in this area. However, to be fair I have not heard yet what the Minister has to say so I am trying not to read too much into it.

I am thrilled to be able to reiterate the points I made earlier, and I find it incredible that they could be depicted in a manner running contrary to some of the suggestions made. In terms of urgency, when I discuss interim measures for managing existing applications I mean a short number of weeks. We must transfer functions from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government where foreshore planning will reside. This provides us with an opportunity to re-assess the mechanisms to process existing applications.

To answer Deputy Cuffe in this regard, how the oil and gas programme tends to work is that a programme for works is included in licence conditions. It is a stage process and one may conduct seismic analysis the first year, a test well the next and then a full well. One has a programme and if one does not develop according to it one may lose the licence. We hope that in this interim period of a matter of weeks we can establish a mechanism for existing applications which provides real assurance to those on a serious programme for development that the application will proceed with full swiftness.

All Departments are committed to the potential of ocean energy. The transfer to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will allow resources to be deployed in a fast and efficient way to make the assessment of any such application. Perhaps I did not make it clear but a short number of months after this we expect an amendment to the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act to do exactly what is included in sections 7 and 8 of the proposed Bill, namely, that offshore renewable energy projects come within the scope of the Act. We are taking the heart of suggestions and stating that we will achieve them through the best legislative mechanism within months. One may state this is within the remit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but it does not matter. Effectively, it is with An Bord Pleanála, which has implemented the Act during the past year on a reasonable timely basis.

Will the legislation be introduced by the summer recess?

Yes, in that sort of timeframe.

It is hard for us not to be sceptical. The process of switching the foreshore responsibilities from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has taken a year. Now we are being told it will happen within a couple of weeks, which would be great. However, it has taken an eternity. It used to be the responsibility of the former Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, but the part of the title designated "Marine" seems to have disappeared. There is scepticism on all sides which is why it would be great if it happens within a couple of weeks.

This is why as soon as we received the Bill we sent it to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

When will we see offshore windmills being commissioned? We are going through the red tape at present. Will we see the grid being opened to offshore wind power?

That depends on existing developers and their development programmes. As I stated, one of the constraints on recognising the connections to onshore activity is grid development. To return to Deputy Cuffe's point, one of the reasons the process is done through An Bord Pleanála is because community support is necessary. One must be careful not to lump together a development department and a planning application. They are separated out for good reason which is to get a sense of independence and community support. One of the constraints at present is grid development which will probably be held up by community concerns more than anything else.

That is precisely why we separated these functions. We stated the Marine Institute would be the planning authority to draw up a development plan and put it on public display, let people have their input and adopt a plan.

The only difference in what we are discussing is whether the ocean energy unit in SEI should have the role, as has been developed. It is not on its own. The Department and the Marine Institute are involved in a steering group. Section 5 of the draft legislation states the Marine Institute should be responsible for the preparation of the strategic environmental assessment. We state that Eoin Sweeney and the ocean energy unit should do so. This is imminent.

I do not want to interrupt but I feel duty bound. What is the sense in establishing a parallel unit in SEI when we already have a highly sophisticated and developed Marine Institute which employed Eoin Sweeney? I recall that he brought us out to see the wave bob. What is the point of fragmentation? The Minister could have boosted the capacity of the Marine Institute and kept everything streamlined.

Within the Marine Institute, Eoin Sweeney had a range of various responsibilities and only one was with regard to ocean energy. Now, his attention is on this exclusively within Sustainable Energy Ireland, which is our energy authority. It provides advice on how we will develop. An energy authority is a good place to put an ocean energy unit. One could argue this backwards and forwards but these are the structures we have in place.

This is not about ocean energy. It is about planning for huge offshore constructions. This is like stating we should have building units within the planning section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We are going to build hundreds of offshore towers to the same height as the Spire. These structures will have a significant impact on the marine environment and people will want their say in the planning process. This is an entirely different matter from planning for Ireland's energy future, which will combine wave and wind energy and all the work done by Sustainable Energy Ireland.

We need a streamlined system run by the experts who are already employed in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. SEI will have to approach the experts in that Department——

And the Marine Institute.

——to seek the seabed survey in order to map areas shallow enough to allow wind turbine towers. Why not simply allow the Marine Institute and An Bord Pleanála to deal with planning issues so that SEI can concentrate on incentivising the energy packages which are required strategically? We are merging the two responsibilities even though SEI is not a planning body.

No, we are not.

It is going to be a development body.

We need a development plan for our offshore wind and wave energy resources and any other industries planned offshore.

Does Deputy Coveney not agree that responsibility best lies with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources rather than the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

This is what it is all about.

That is not the question.

This is all about a Department taking control without allowing for the fact that an institute already possesses the necessary capacity. How many people will be employed in the ocean energy section of SEI?

Five people are currently employed in the section.

Are they in place?

What kind of training and expertise do they possess?

Perhaps my colleague, Ms Sara White, can outline the background to the matter.

She appears to be getting frustrated.

Ms Sara White

I apologise. Having been on the founding board of the Marine Institute, members can take it that I have a strong belief in that organisation.

If I may be frank, we are all in agreement on the same issue but we are getting confused. Planning in the developmental sense raises the question of oversight. The industry requires planning in terms of developing business plans and resources. It is not a question of silos or departmental territory but of ensuring SEI and the Marine Institute work hand-in-glove to use the huge resources available to the latter and to Eoin Sweeney — I apologise for personalising this — the head of the ocean energy development unit and a dedicated ocean energy official. As the Minister noted, Mr. Sweeney held a range of responsibilities in the Marine Institute. In a pragmatic agreement between the chief executive and board of the institute and SEI, the dedication of expert resources to the ocean energy development unit appeared the right way to proceed. It is demonstrably delivering in terms of what it has done over the past several months. Prototype funding grants are being issued and the strategic environmental assessment has been commenced. The latter is fundamental to the planning and development of the resource.

Irrespective of the structural answer to who should ultimately be in charge, we are ad idem that it will probably combine everybody’s expertise. Let us use the expertise available to us to best effect in delivering offshore energy.

Will proposals for oil exploration and platform constructions go the same route?

Ms Sara White

Perhaps Mr. Bob Hanna should be invited to address that question. The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 already covers such proposals.

It does not if the proposed installation lies more than 12 miles offshore.

We are not pulling together the variety of structures and rules that currently exist.

Ms Sara White

Petroleum development is a separate issue.

Yes. Will it still come within the remit of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources?

Ms Sara White

Yes.

This morning we listened for two hours to an impressive and comprehensive presentation by the Department outlining every depth in every area of the sea. This is in the minds of departmental officials. Are we not moving away from them?

Ms Sara White

No.

I met a delegation from the trade union movement over lunch. The movement is pulling its head apart in order to support the Government on economic initiatives and job creation. I do not question the Minister's motives but I cannot relate the two matters.

We are not moving away.

If somebody walks into the Minister's office and announces that he or she has cracked the problem of ocean energy technology, we have no legislation to allow him or her to develop resources further than 12 miles offshore. We have consulted experts from Scotland. We have sufficient headaches in regard to upgrading the onshore network. This was seen as necessary legislation if we were to develop properly researched strategic infrastructure in areas further than 12 miles offshore. However, the matter is being subsumed into the bigger picture, thereby preventing elements such as the onshore grid from being addressed.

I do not disagree with the proposal on extending the scope of the 2006 Act to offshore developments. The expansion to the continental shelf can be provided for in an amendment to that Act. I am somewhat frustrated at the sense among members that we want to give that away.

That is fine but will SEI issue the licences?

Somebody else will issue licences.

That is one aspect. As Ms White noted, two planning issues arise. The first involves planning permission for particular facilities, such as putting a bit of metal in the sea and ensuring it is environmentally sound.

That is the remit of An Bord Pleanála.

That is why one extends the 2006 Act to this area. We are agreed in that regard.

We all agree.

On the development side, an interim issue arises in respect of existing applications but it is recognised by the industry that it is sensible to perform a strategic environmental assessment of the resource and to start managing it on the basis of planning for what we want to develop. This probably relates to whether we can get the grid developed in certain areas in order to make it viable to proceed. It does not make a significant difference whether this is done by SEI and the Marine Institute in co-operation or by some other agent. We agree this separate planning role should rely on ocean energy expertise.

I agree. That is why we said that the Marine Institute should issue the licences and auction the sites. Somebody has to conduct an auction if two developers compete for the same site. The Marine Institute is the professional body in this regard. We agree with giving An Bord Pleanála a role in planning.

Who issues the licences? Is it the Minister's Department or is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

Ms Sara White

Probably the most tricky issue in this is property rights, which is what the lease and licence is all about. Somebody investing many millions or billions in an offshore area will want to know about property rights. This is a long-term investment and nobody will build something and not have certainty about entitlement to remain. That is fundamental. The foreshore lease or licence is State property and through various mechanisms, the State allocates that property right. The Deputy has made an interesting proposition that the Marine Institute becomes the licensor——

A mapping authority.

Ms Sara White

——or the allocator on behalf of the State of that property right. That is what we are talking about.

Whether the Marine Institute is the right place to go for that requires some further thinking and debate. I am probably wading into things I should not. There is the allocation of many property rights offshore and in the sea. There are perennial and endemic issues surrounding the allocation of property rights in terms of aquaculture, the fisheries dimensions and competing users of the public resource. There is a host of complexities in the allocation of property rights to an offshore wind farm, for example, an ocean energy project, a salmon farm, a large oil and gas installation or major marine safety infrastructures. It is not just as simple as the elegant solution of saying that the Marine Institute should be the allocator of the property rights offshore.

Where will the other property rights reside or should they all be given to the Marine Institute? That would be one way of doing it but one should bear in mind that the Marine Institute is also the development agency for the fishing sector, so there is the possibility of a conflict of interest. These are the kinds of relevant issues.

Is that because it would not fit into the overall plan? We thought the Marine Institute, in developing the forward planning aspect, would look at fishing, shipping and sites for development of wind energy. It would consider the overall picture and nominate suitable sites that would not interfere with fishing or shipping, etc. In drawing up a development plan, like a local authority, it would take into account fishing, shipping and everything else. That is why we wanted it to draw up this area plan that would identify suitable areas for development. Having done that, it would ultimately issue the licence after the person has achieved permission from An Bord Pleanála to erect the structures.

It should, purely and simply, be that somebody can go into the Marine Institute with €10 million in funding that he or she wants to invest in offshore wind energy and be told where to build. Those in the Marine Institute would then be able to specify zoned areas for development, how to go about the project, if there are other parties involved and the way in which the site could be publicly auctioned off. The person could put in a bid and get permission, the planning application for An Bord Pleanála would be put in place and the person could go back to the Marine Institute. The people there could provide a licence that would permit the person to proceed. That is the way we envisaged this issue being dealt with efficiently, openly, transparently and quickly.

The alternative is that somebody with €10 million, or more in the context of what is required, would go to SEI and ask where to start investing money in offshore wind energy. The SEI will show them, presumably under the Department's structure, some sort of mapping system of offshore sites indicating where it would be appropriate to apply. That person would have to get a planning application together through the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, which is under the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The party would have to deal with the Department in getting the legalities right around leasing arrangements and so on. The party would also have to deal with the ESB with regard to connecting to the grid, as well as EirGrid.

We are trying to create, as much as possible, a one-stop shop where a developer or investor can go to ask how long the process will take and what needs to be done. The only two bodies that should be dealt with are the Marine Institute and the planning system, which would be An Bord Pleanála, which would essentially make the decision. We are looking to make it as easy as possible and to streamline the process.

I do not disagree with that. Getting such a grid as part of that streamlined process is probably the most complicated development difficulty.

We do not fundamentally disagree that there should be a single track licensing and lease system from the State on the back of a well-resourced environmental assessment of the resource. It should also be on the back of a connection to what is our grid development, so that we put the development to the point where it is most likely to be developed quickest due to the onshore grid development. Whether that centre is in the Marine Institute or SEI, there must be co-operation between the two anyway, as there must be a connection to the energy grid side.

I presume the Department will still grant the licence under the system.

Whether it is SEI, the Marine Institute or the Department is a detail. The fundamental principle is that it should be a single development system, where the developers come to whatever State agency is responsible and get the information and assistance they need.

I am trying to gain an understanding of the policy. The principles are there and the Minister is right in that there is a certain amount of agreement on them. It seems there should be an urgency to get the mechanisms of this sorted. I do not understand the plan.

One of the main ways of getting it sorted is through the establishment of an ocean energy unit, taking the best people we have and giving them responsibility for the development policy of the process.

We know they will do the mapping and that is not an issue. We do not know if they will be the developmental or licensing agency.

The mapping has already been done by the Marine Institute.

Eventually they will give us all sorts of maps.

I presume that in legislation——

The Marine Institute was able to tell us where the seabed is ideal for bringing on shore the electricity being generated. It knows exactly what part of the west coast, for example, is best. It is all there. That is why we are asking why somebody else needs to be involved. If the institute wants to seek the assistance of SEI behind the scenes, that is fine.

The institute is the authority and professional body so we should be able to say the process is transparent and open, with a system for auctioning a licence if there are competing interests. It should be a one-stop shop where issues can be dealt with quickly. People can be transferred to the Marine Institute from some other body to beef it up, but that is the ideal set-up for getting the process up and running very quickly.

We have made our point and I am very conscious that the Minister went to the trouble of giving information on many other aspects. We can leave the issue with him and perhaps he can correspond with us as to his thoughts having listened to our strong views. The Minister will accept that we have no vested interests and we are only concerned with getting this up and running. The idea of the Bill was to make it easy for people to concentrate. We were hoping the Government would take the Bill on board and put it through as Government legislation. That is our interest.

It is fair to say that at a time when the political system is under close scrutiny, particularly in terms of the work done by committees, there is a duty on the Minister to recognise that when there is cross-party development in a co-ordinated way to produce legislation, I would expect him to bend over backwards in this regard.

Can we move on?

As soon as I got the Bill, I wrote back to the Chairman saying it was very useful and that we would be able to use some of the provisions in it. I sent this to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, stating that it was useful and that we could use it in our switch-over process. I absolutely agree we should mark good work when it is done in committees.

We all have the same objective.

With regard to the change to the strategic infrastructure Bill, is the Minister recommending that geothermal energy be included?

The intention is to put it in the minerals Bill when we consolidate that legislation. That is the proposal.

Would the Minister like to move on? I thank him for listening to our strong and, I hope, constructive views. How is the Minister fixed for time?

I am slightly constrained as I have to go to a Cabinet sub-committee meeting that was planned for 5 p.m. However, 5.15 p.m. would be all right.

By all means. We can invite the Minister back some other day if he so wishes.

The second issue was the renewable energy directive. I will give a broad outline and then ask Ms White, Ms Nic Giolla Choille or Mr. Finucane to give further details.

There is a vote in the Dáil.

We understand the Minister's position. We ask that perhaps the deputy secretary general come back to the committee with the officials. We have the Minister's contribution.

I promise I will come back again on another occasion if the Chairman wishes.

I thank the Minister.

Are we coming back today or are we talking about another date?

We will adjourn until 25 March because the date of our next fortnightly meeting would otherwise be during the week of St. Patrick's Day.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 11.15 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 March 2009.
Barr
Roinn