The committee will resume its annual mid-year review of the 2017 Estimates for Vote 29 - Communications, Climate Action and Environment, which amounts to €540,363,000. We will begin with programme C on energy. I welcome the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, and the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Kyne. I ask the Minister to begin.
Estimates for Public Services 2017: Vote 29 - Communications, Climate Action and Environment (Resumed)
The focus of programme C is on the delivery of key elements of Government energy policy. The programme provides €9.4 million to cover the operational costs of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, and more than €98 million in capital funding for sustainable energy and energy research programmes. In excess of €70 million has been provided for the better energy grant schemes operated by the SEAI. The sustainable energy measures include the better energy home scheme for home owners investing in energy efficiency improvements, the better energy warmer homes scheme which delivers a range of energy efficient measures free of charge to low-income households, and the better energy community scheme which encourages community-based partnership to improve the thermal and electrical efficiency of the building stock and energy poor homes. These three energy efficiency schemes are expected to deliver savings of more than 182 GW in 2017 and provide around 8,200 low-income homes with energy efficiency measures while continuing to stimulate activity in the retrofit industry, supporting approximately 3,000 jobs, the majority of which are in provincial towns in rural Ireland. The overall energy programme also provides funding to incentivise the purchase of electric vehicles along with investment in applied energy research, development and demonstration projects, including ocean energy.
Does the Minister feel that excessive pressure will be placed on Ireland's budget in future because we are missing our EU targets, and the fines may be substantial? Do any of the members have questions on programme C?
I thank the Minister for his update. My question is less on the Estimates and more on our future capacity. It is similar to that asked by the Chairman. Recognising that we are behind in reducing the amount of energy lost through heat, does the Minister feel the grant system in place is sufficient to meet the demand in the context of meeting our targets? Should the committee help the Minister to make the argument to Government for additional funding and to increase the reach and spread of these schemes? Does he think the demand for these schemes exceeds what he currently provides? Is there evidence at departmental level that if more moneys were available from Government for these schemes, there would be greater demand?
We are dealing with programme C on energy. Questions should link investment and performance. I will ask the Minister to respond before any further questions from members.
In response to the Chairman's question, it is difficult to know at this stage the type of penalties we face. The significant penalties will accumulate as a result of our failure to meet our renewables targets rather than our emissions targets. We have a big job still to do in that area. Deputy Dooley raised the matter of heat targets, which is 12% by 2020. During the current year we have significantly ramped up capacity, both within the SEAI through current funding but also by significantly increasing capital funding by €100 million this year. There are two related issues. Of course we would like more money. No Minster will say that he or she would not like more money, but there is also a certain level of capacity in the industry and the one thing that would help me would be a multi-annual programme. In talking to the operators carrying out this work throughout the country, their major problem is that there are peaks and troughs. They effectively have six months to carry out these works, from the day the scheme is launched, to the application going in, to it being approved through the SEAI, to the work being carried out and accounted for by the end of the year. The case that I have been making to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is for us to get a multi-annual budget in order that the process can be streamlined to keep people within that sector where the capacity has been built up and to exploit that fully. We can do the programme more cost efficiently and in a more streamlined way, and we can deliver far more for the money we have allocated.
We need to look in broader terms at how we engage people to do deep retrofits, which is a challenge all over Europe. If one could fund that, that would be the way to do it, but this Government does not have the capacity to do that on the scale that would be involved, nor will any future Government. We are working with the European Investment Bank and have had a number of meetings with it on this matter to see how we can leverage people's capital or their capacity through a range of schemes. Some people have access to capital so grant aid might suit them.
Others, especially families, do not have access to cash. The issue, therefore, is whether the investment could be repaid over time through electricity bills. We are considering a number of suites of measures and we have had some constructive discussions on the issue with the European Investment Bank, EIB. There are 120 sustainable energy communities nationwide. We met them in Longford earlier in the year to ascertain if we could have a more co-ordinated approach and if they could leverage this funding through the State. Those discussions are ongoing.
On the energy Estimate, the Minister referred to a meeting held in Boyle, County Roscommon, earlier in the year. That meeting was useful in terms of the Brexit discussion. Something similar could be done on energy because we must bring everyone with us, including all the political parties, business people, local authorities and members of the public, on this issue. We need to create a movement to change our approach to energy use and production.
I note the total Estimate for the year increased by 28% to €115 million, which clearly reflects needs. A significant gap must be bridged. The Minister indicated in the Dáil yesterday that not only would we not reach our target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, we would not even meet the other target mentioned, namely, a reduction of between 6% and 11%. I understand the Minister stated the reduction could be as low as 4%. Is that correct? If so, that would be a serious concern.
On the electrification of transport, the ESB funds the installation of electric charging points, of which we need many more. The parties are generally in agreement on these issues. Who would fund an increase in the number of charging points given that the ESB is not Mother Teresa of Calcutta and will not continue to dish out money for this infrastructure? If the ESB has a responsibility to do this, that would be fine, but as a commercial semi-State company, it will clearly want to achieve a return on investment. I ask the Minister to clarify the position in this regard.
Major changes will be needed in renewable energies. From my meetings with people involved in the sector in the past 18 months, it is clear they have not yet started to consider microgeneration seriously. The big players in the sector and the Government talk about the issue but it is time they started to act to advance microgeneration. The future of renewable energy will not be a handful of sources of electricity generation. The biogas project in County Kildare is being delivered by Mr. Costello. We need to start similar projects nationwide. Germany is taking this approach. Britain, which is not viewed as a green nation, is ahead of us on energy. As a country that is trying to develop a green image from a sustainability point of view, and from the point of view of our agriculture and food production sectors, we must get ahead. We have an oversized agriculture sector and we have not closed the circle. We are producing much more milk and beef than previously. I would like to see much more mixed farming. From a sustainability point of view, we are in danger of crashing the car as we seek to meet our environmental obligations.
We have not even started to address the issue of slurry, which is being turned into dry fertiliser pellets in other countries. Other than one or two projects, including the one to which I referred, we have barely started thinking about biogas. We are heading for a crisis with the European Commission regarding pig slurry. We have had a number of years to take action on this issue but have failed to do so. Will the Minister outline his plans in respect of electric charger points and the agriculture issues I raised?
A great deal of good work has been done on retrofitting houses built in or before 2007, including in 2004 and 2005. While I do not argue against retrofitting these houses, the problem is that houses built in 1917 and 1920, the year the late Liam Cosgrave was born, are not being retrofitted because this is a much more difficult task. Many of the people living in these houses are elderly and experiencing fuel poverty. These homes are affected most by heat loss and are the most expensive dwellings to heat. I have raised this with every Minister in the past six and a half years. I ask the Minister to deal with these houses. While I accept that they are the most difficult and most expensive to retrofit, we must start to do so.
On fines, will the Minister update the joint committee on the position regarding the agreement with the European Union on greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030? I understand that the imposition or timing of fines depends largely on whether Ireland, by 2020, is considered to have started from where we should have been or where our actual position is. The outcome of this assessment in negotiations with the Commission will affect the timing of the imposition of fines for our failure to act on climate change. What is the state of negotiations with the Commission on this issue? When will they be finalised? I understand this is a key issue in terms of what fines we may face.
On the energy support schemes, I understand the Government still provides grants for gas-fired heating systems. If that is the case, when does the Minister intend stopping this practice? It is long past time that support for fossil fuel systems ceased because it is no longer justifiable, regardless of how efficient the system. We must move towards systems that produce zero carbon and do not use fossil fuels. Why are grants being provided for anything connected with fossil fuels? To give another example, the Department funds scholarships for fossil fuel training in colleges. Will these students work in an industry that will no longer exist in 30 or 40 years? Why are we still supporting fossil fuels? I could raise the support provided for peat-fired power stations but I will confine my remarks to the subhead which relates to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. Are we still supporting gas-fired heating systems and, if so, when we will stop doing so?
I hope measures for working with the European Investment Bank on deep retrofitting will be introduced in the 2017 or 2018 budget. One area in which we do not need EIB or private sector involvement is public housing. Why have we not commenced deep retrofitting in this area given that the State has a degree of control over the methods of payment and repayment and so forth?
I welcome the Minister and Minister of State. At the end of June, a total of €28.2 million had been spent under this subhead.
Expenditure is 15% below the mid-year profile of €33.4 million. Does that suggest we are under-spending? Are the moneys not being taken up and used? If so, is that a concern for the Minister? How would he like to see the matter rectified?
I support the concept of co-ops. I grew up in a community that was well served by the co-operative movement. The traditional co-ops were almost one-stop-shops for rural communities. There is tremendous potential in the co-operative model. An entire community in a local area could have ownership of a microgenerator and be incentivised to create surplus electricity as part of a co-operative project, as in the traditional creamery model espoused by Horace Plunkett and Fr. Finlay. I see great potential in building on that concept.
I understand from my colleague that the proposed expenditure under subhead C, as mentioned by the Minister, will increase by 20% into the future. I hope this considerable increase might translate into improved schemes to assist individuals who are doing work on their houses. I recently came across one or two examples. The grant for insulating a standard house is €650. Given that the cost is considerably higher, I am not sure it is sufficiently attractive for it to be taken up to a greater extent.
I have no difficulty in supporting the ongoing retrofitting of council housing stock. I wonder where we are on that issue.
I will bring the Minister in now before the next round of questions.
I think I will have answered nearly all of the questions by the time I have finished responding to Deputies Brian Stanley and Eamon Ryan and Senator Joe O'Reilly.
Deputy Brian Stanley asked about the successful Brexit event in Boyle. He is right when he argues that there is a great deal of merit in having a much broader debate. This suggestion, which was made on foot of the White Paper, is now encompassed in the national dialogue on climate change. I agree with him that there needs to be a debate on a myriad aspects of this issue. The country's renewable energy policy is being reviewed. Deputy Eamon Ryan was probably Minister at the time when we put all of our eggs into one basket, in effect. We made significant progress by putting the focus on wind energy, but many other new technologies have become available since. Solar photovoltaic technology is one such example. Now is the time to look at such technologies and get the public to engage with them. There needs to be a far broader debate on this issue.
I would like to respond to what was said about statistics and targets. Prior to last year, the EPA projected that Ireland's reduction in greenhouse gas emissions up to 2020 would be somewhere between 6% and 11%. Earlier this year it announced that it had revised that forecast downwards. It now states that based on the level of growth in the economy - as we move forward we have to separate the direct link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions because we cannot maintain it - its projection is that the reduction on 2005 levels will be somewhere between 4% and 6%, rather than 20%. That is from where the figures are coming.
Deputy Eamon Ryan asked a question about fines. We cannot be definitive because of the myriad of complexities in this regard. If we do not hit our renewable energy targets, we are looking at fines in 2020. Deputy Eamon Ryan has asked about what will happen after 2020. Depending on the starting point, we could be looking at recurring fines on an annual basis between 2020 and 2030. While there is no dispute about where we need to get to by 2030, the starting point will have a significant impact for us in Ireland. Two or three other member states have a similar issue, but it is particularly dramatic for us in Ireland. If the starting point is our outturn for 2020, it will mean that rather than paying fines in 2021, 2022 and so forth, we will be able to put that money into deep retrofits and supports for renewable energy projects. The argument I have made to the Commission and my colleagues at Council level is that it would make far more sense, not just for Ireland but also for other member states, to spend that money to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions rather than pay fines. The negotiations are ongoing. I will be in Luxembourg on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of next week for further engagement on the matter at Council level. The Council has not yet come up with a negotiating position to engage in the trilogue with the European Parliament which, as members will be aware, has already agreed its approach to the matter. If the European Parliament's position is the accepted one at the end of the negotiating process, Ireland will pay significant fines from 2021 onwards. That money would be far better spent in carrying out the deep retrofitting about which we have been talking.
Will it be a qualified majority vote or do we have a veto? I presume it will be decided by a qualified majority vote.
It will be a qualified majority vote.
I understand the strong position of France and Germany, in particular, is that it should be determined by where we will be in 2020.
France and Germany have taken a strong position on the matter, on which I have had bilateral meetings with the German authorities. My officials have been to Paris and Berlin for a number of discussions on it. There is an appreciation and an acknowledgement of the difficulty in which Ireland finds itself. We need to find a mechanism to deal with it and that is what I will discuss with my colleagues. I have not spoken to my new French counterpart since his appointment as Minister, but I hope to have an opportunity to speak to him about the issue next weekend to explain the nuances of the Irish position.
Deputy Brian Stanley is right in what he said about the issue of charging points which we are examining in the context of the Estimates process for next year and the three-year capital plan. It is an ongoing process.
Senator Joe O'Reilly raised the issue of community microgeneration. In fairness, Deputy Eamon Ryan has on a number of occasions pushed the idea of having an energy community. There is the basis for such an approach. I was asked for my views on the co-operative movement. As a country, we have been wrong to move away from it. The co-operative movement could be very beneficial for many aspects of society in Ireland, including this one. Our policy on sustainable energy communities involves a co-operative approach. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, is pushing this through 120 groups in communities across the country and we want that number to increase. A co-operative approach is the best one to take in this context.
The Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, ICOS, is an organisation that could do this. Traditionally the co-operatives were seen very much in the agricultural sphere but we have a very successful co-operative in County Roscommon that organises home help, the Roscommon Home Services, RHS Home Services, which is a thriving business. There are many opportunities for a similar model in the energy area.
In respect of microgeneration, we have an engagement with the stakeholders and people who are interested in this area on 17 October, which is being organised by the SEAI and my Department. I would encourage my colleagues who are present to attend and participate in that event and to encourage other interested groups to get involved in it because we now need to deal with these issues. I am very anxious to support the microgeneration of energy. We had initially included it in the renewable electricity support scheme. There are a number of complexities that will be teased out at this event but I want to try to run microgeneration in tandem with that. I think the suggestion that Deputy Ryan has made in the past and Senator Joe O'Reilly has made here today is a way that we can overcome some of the challenges.
On grants, there has been a 50% increase in the funding for energy this year. I got a significant increase in that, some €100 million is available this year. Senator O'Reilly asked whether we are below profile but that comes back to questions from Deputies Ryan and Stanley in regard to older homes. We targeted 500 houses for a deep retrofit, spending somewhere between €20,000 and €30,000 per house, carrying out a deep retrofit on fuel poverty homes in particular and the broader aspect of communities experiencing fuel poverty. It has not taken off as quickly as we had hoped. A great deal of work had to be done in respect of it and we are below profile specifically because of that. Deputy Stanley is correct that we are trying to do far more significant retrofits on older homes. We have done a lot of the low hanging fruit in respect of retrofits. One in five homes in the country has had a retrofit carried out on them, supported in one way or another by the State, but now we need to go back and do deep retrofits of many of those homes. We are also looking at the rental sector and what can be done. That is a particularly challenging area that we need to look at.
Under a well-being scheme, we have done significant deep retrofits on homes in the Dublin area. We established a pilot scheme and we have targeted people with COPD initially. We are now looking at families who have children with asthma. We have had very positive anecdotal evidence from the pilot project to date that people are more comfortable in their homes, yes their homes are more energy efficient but we are finding that those people are getting sick less, they are presenting at hospital less, their stay in hospital is shorter and there is a significant health benefit in respect of that. I hope we will have empirical evidence by the end of the year on those results which I hope will justify ramping up the capacity. This comes back to the issue I raised earlier in regard to multi-annual budgeting.
Deputy Stanley also raised the issue of agriculture. I am sure many members were in Mount Street yesterday at the discussion on the Mercosur talks. I spoke to Commissioner Phil Hogan on the issue of carbon leakage. We see it in industry. Neighbours of Deputy Dooley in Limerick speak about carbon leakage, but we do not speak about it in relation to agriculture. A far broader debate needs to take place on carbon. We are making progress in the area. We have engaged in the largest genotyping project in the world and have now genotyped 1 million beef animals in the country and that gives us a basis to improve beef production, reduce the overall carbon footprint yet a significant amount of work still remains to be done in the area. We are moving in the right direction.
Senator O'Reilly spoke about France and Deputy Ryan raised the supports we are providing, not just what we are supporting. We are considering solarPV which has not been supported up to now. The SEAI is reviewing all of those grant supports, the current rates, the technologies that are supported and will make an announcement shortly. The objective in the general grant scheme is to grant aid one third of the cost, with two thirds coming from the household. The SEAI is reviewing those costs, if I can secure a multi-annual budget, we can build up the capacity in the country which should help to drive down the cost in that area.
I have addressed most of the questions.
The Minister has answered comprehensively.
This is a lovely building. I feel great.
Yesterday, I received a written reply to a question I tabled on the renewable electricity support scheme, RESS, and I am not happy at all with the reply - not that the Minister told me any lies
I hope not.
No, Minister. His reply was aspirational as it included remarks such as: "embracing new technologies for communities, and smaller microgeneration, but on the other hand that is not the evidence of what is done. Less than a year ago, I tabled an amendment to the Minister's Bill to allow small communities access to the national grid and he argued vociferously and hard against it. The majority voted against it. Yet in his response to my question he outlines the facilitation of grid access for community-led projects; ring-fencing of capacity for community-led projects; and the establishment of community benefits register. He does not respond by actually doing things that will give the community the idea that the Department is interested in its needs. For example, the Minister voted against the recent Sinn Féin Bill on the regulation of turbines. What that Bill was attempting to do, in my view, was to give communities reassurance that they were not going to be imposed upon by ginormous wind farms up against their homes and their farms and that there would be some kind of tight regulation on how the major commercial interests in the energy field would be regulated and controlled. The communities are not getting the reassurance at all, except in the very nice language used in written answers. Nothing is being done in fact to reassure communities that the Minister is interested in them having a role and buy-in to renewable energy in this country. Unless we get that buy-in, understanding and support and trust between Government policy and local communities we will not do anything except facilitate commercial renewable energy technologies.
There were interesting reports in the media about farmers in County Offaly having to block Element Power from continuing to construct these ginormous 169 m high turbines near their land. I do not think the Minister would like to live beside these turbines and neither would I, and when local people object to them, they are being called NIMBYists who are stopping progress. On the other side, if other local communities try to buy in to producing their own energy and gain access to the national grid, that is also being blocked by the Minister.
I, therefore, see his policy as full of holes and contradictions.
I would like the Minister to spell out to us how the new renewable electricity support scheme, RESS, will help local communities buy into renewables because that is absolutely the future. Perhaps sometime we could invite someone from the energy department in Germany, where they are doing this correctly, regulating it correctly and having a huge level of success, to tell us a few things about how we could do things differently in Ireland. We are blessed on this island, as far as nature is concerned, with the amount of access we have to natural renewable energy. Compared with a country such as Germany, we should be way ahead instead of way behind.
I thank Deputy Smith. I will bring in Deputy Lawless before bringing in the Minister, and that will be all the contributions under this programme.
I thank the Minister. I listened to some of the contributions. I apologise for being late. I had another commitment coming into the Chamber. I never expected to be speaking in this Chamber - certainly not so soon. I know some of our colleagues on the committee, such as Senator Leyden, have had esteemed careers in the Lower House before progressing to the Upper House and that Deputy Dooley did this in reverse. I am sure many Members have made that journey. I think Senator O'Reilly has as well. There is a lot of movement. I will not predict the future for myself, but it is a pleasure to be here in such august surroundings. The Chamber looks very well in its new home.
Back on topic, I want to inquire into and express a few opinions on the Government's energy policy and the whole energy spectrum. I listened with interest to Deputy Smith's comments and I certainly sympathise with much of what she said. The wind industry in particular is controversial, and I know the Minister knows this from his own constituency no less than nationally, but I hope there is a sense of consensus emerging. We struggle with the reality that the communities affected closest to wind turbines in particular struggle. I have seen this at first hand and do not think the wind developers and some of their practices we have seen can be condoned in any shape or form. They have ridden roughshod over local communities, with a complete lack of consultation, driven neighbour against neighbour and been responsible for all sorts of sharp practices. There was a suggestion that the main wind farm in my constituency of Kildare north, bordering into Meath - I serve Meath as well - was an attempt to sterilise the entire two counties because it was such a widespread farm and was not necessarily a strategic imperative in terms of energy production but was perhaps an attempt to get in there and wipe it out before someone else could do so. There were all kinds of misdemeanours at play there. I hope we are seeing a consensus emerge on the committee and more widely that renewable energy in different forms is the way to go. The technology of offshore wind is becoming a little more affordable and that solar energy is beginning to emerge and seems to be less controversial with local communities - so far anyway. Time will tell. We have heard talk of biomass, although I am not sure it is viable, considering the raw product required to go into it. Then there is wave energy, in respect of which I understand there are difficulties in terms of technology. However, as technology progresses, I hope we can make that journey.
We have seen the likes of Portugal, Spain and some of the other Mediterranean countries, which of course enjoy greater access to solar energy than we do, make great strides and, I think, go energy-negative in terms of pricing a few times. Some of them have run out of renewables for a few days at a time, which is quite unprecedented and very welcome. Deputy Smith mentioned Germany and other countries and how they operate. When a few of us from this committee travelled to the renewable energy conference about a year ago in Copenhagen, that was one of the topics we discussed with parliamentarians from around Europe. We sometimes think Ireland is unique, our situation is very different and we are against all these things when everyone else is for them, but in fact when we discussed the matter with other members of parliament from around the EU, we discovered that it is almost the same everywhere and that no community welcomes a renewable energy project on its doorstep, whether it is central Europe, Scandinavia, the Mediterranean or, indeed, the midlands in Ireland.
However, what they have done right and what seems to enjoy greater appeal or greater acceptance is where there is a far greater degree of local involvement, participation and dividend for wind projects. For example, along the Scandinavian coastline, where there are little self-sustaining communities, there is a small wind farm that has the support and encouragement of the local community and there is a direct dividend in terms of both share options or share ownership schemes and energy credits. Therefore, if one lives near the wind farm and is involved in its production or involved in it in some other way or impacted in some way, one enjoys a credit on one's energy prices or even a share certificate which can be cashed in sometime or passed on to one's estate if one wishes to do so. There may be some lessons to be learned from that.
I looked at the estimates and the figures. I am concerned about the implications. The whole difficulty with this is that we are trying to toe a fine line between being sympathetic to local concerns and yet meet our climate change targets. I do not have the date of the meeting, but in a previous committee hearing we heard from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, which suggested that for each percentage point below 16% we fell in respect of our overall target, we would be fined in the region of between €100 million to €150 million. Therefore, if we fell short by one percentage point, we could be looking at a €150 million fine, and if we were down by ten percentage points we could be looking at a €1.5 billion fine. I ask the Minister, or perhaps his officials, whether he has any view at this stage or, even better, any figures as to how we are looking for our 2021 targets. Are we potentially looking at fines in excess of €1 billion and, if so, what might they be or where exactly are we positioned in that space?
I ask the Minister to answer Deputy Smith's and Deputy Lawless's questions before we move on.
I will deal with the straightforward question first and then come back to the broader comments made by Deputy Smith and Deputy Lawless. Our overall renewable energy target for 2020 is 16%. For energy efficiency it is 20%, for renewable electricity it is 40%, for renewable heat it is 12% and for renewable transport it is 10%. The 10% target is legally binding; the overall 16% target is legally binding; the others we can chop and change, so to speak. Based on the current trajectory, it is expected that we will come in at 13.2% but, with policy implementation between now and 2020, we hope to come in at somewhere between 15% and 16%, so that is what we are working towards at present. Currently, based on 2016 figures published by the SEAI, we are at 9.4%. They are the answers to those questions.
I take the point that Deputy Lawless made about examples across Europe where they have run on 100% renewable energy for a day or two but I think people fail to realise that Ireland is actually a global leader in this. It is not acknowledged. Today we can take a 60% loading of variable renewable energy, which is wind in the main, on our grid, an isolated grid. There is no country in the world, no grid in the world, that can take that potential loading. Yes, across Europe they have had 100% renewables on a particular day but they are networked into other grids. They can do that. They can manage that variability quite easily because they are concerned with a Europe-wide grid. We have an isolated grid here. It is known globally as the Irish problem. We have already tested it on a loading of 65%. That will go live in the new year. Again, we will be the global leader in this regard, and our objective is by 2020 - in order to take 40% renewable electricity onto the grid, 36% of which is projected to be wind - to be able to manage a potential loading at any one time in the grid of 75% variable electricity. It is called the VS3 project and we expect to be doing that by 2020. Globally, everyone is looking to Ireland as to how we are doing this. There was a major international conference in Trinity College earlier this year to which all the grid operators from around the world came because they want to see what we are doing here. We have departments of energy all over Europe and across the globe visiting us to see what we are doing here, so we are a global leader.
We are a global leader in terms of grid management.
Yes. Coming back to the broader question that Deputy Smith and Deputy Lawless asked about the communities aspect of renewable energy, I was appointed 16 months ago as Minister and I think in the first interview I gave I made the point that we need to engage with communities more and we need to broaden the renewable energy portfolio and not put all our eggs into one basket. I think that interview came two days after my appointment. I accept what Deputy Smith says.
However, she does not have the facts and maybe there has been a weakness on my part in failing to explain what we have done in the past 16 months. These are on the Department's website. One of the first things I did as Minister was to tell the Department that we needed to review our renewable energy policy because I have always felt we were putting all our eggs into one basket. The review is ongoing and is looking at the broad range of renewable energy technologies, not just wind. I agreed a new code of practice with the wind industry, to which it signed up at the end of last year and which incorporates a clear complaints procedure, a process in which there is level of engagement with local authorities and a requirement for the industry to report, on an annual basis, on how it dealt with complaints. This addresses the problems with existing wind farms, some of which I have personally experienced. The industry has written to each Member of the Oireachtas stating that there is now a dedicated email for Deputies, Senators and councillors to engage with the code of practice. It was not easy to agree but we agreed it and I acknowledge the work of my Department and the industry in doing so.
The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland has started an engagement to put a community gain proposal in place. The challenge is how to put something in place that is real and tangible but also has the flexibility to deal with different measures in different communities. One community may wish to buy into a wind farm or another renewable energy proposal that has been proposed. In other areas, the community may want to develop an enterprise hub or a tourism project. I told the SEAI that I wanted to see a community dividend that has a long-term economic benefit to the community beyond the renewable energy project. The SEAI has published its report and there is now a consultation process as part of the renewable electricity support scheme. I look forward to the input of the public in this regard. I want real and tangible community dividends from renewable energy projects across the country.
Has the Minister put timelines on this? People are getting a bit impatient.
The closing date for the consultation process is next month and it will be finalised by the end of the year. It will be done in tandem with the renewable electricity support scheme.
I am asking about its implementation.
It will be a condition of the renewable electricity support scheme. Any project developer looking for funding under the new renewable electricity scheme has to comply with the new community engagement and community dividend conditions. The renewable electricity support scheme is out for public consultation at the moment and the closing date is also next month. Communities are very much to the fore in this process. We have spoken to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, about giving priority access to the grid for community-led projects. It is within the commission's competence, not mine, but I have expressed the views of members of the joint committee. The commission is accountable to the committee, and not to me as Minister, so I suggest the committee invites the Commission for Regulation of Utilities to come before it to make its point. I have expressed my views and they are built into the renewable electricity support scheme, as they are built into the proposals that come out in the new scheme when it is adopted early in the new year.
Sustainable energy communities are all about developing capacity in communities across the country to put forward their own proposals or to engage with the promoters of such proposals, of which there are 120 across the country. I addressed them in Longford earlier this year and they are an integral part of driving the agenda. New wind energy regulations are out for public consultation at the moment.
Deputy Bríd Smith also asked about the Private Members' Bill that was proposed last week. I am opposed to that approach for a number of reasons. Setback refers to the nearest single turbine and not a wind farm so it is the same whether one turbine is being built or 50 are being built. I do not think that is right. A wind farm of 50 turbines will have a far bigger impact on a community than a single turbine and this is why the approach we are taking is one based on noise. I look forward to Deputy Smith's input into the consultation. The noise criterion takes into account not just the proposed wind farm but all the existing wind farms whereas the Sinn Féin legislation cannot do so. The system we are proposing is far more robust. We have taken the World Health Organization standards for night-time noise, which are lower than for daytime noise, and are applying them on a 24-hour basis. We will put the regulations in place and will give the Environmental Protection Agency the resources and teeth to ensure that if a new wind farm breaches the new standards it will be shut down until it complies with them. I am looking forward to the input of the public in the consultation. By using noise as the primary factor, we deal with wind farms and not just a single turbine as happens with the setback approach.
I have written to the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government to say we need guidelines to assist local authorities in respect of solar farms. One of the first actions I took as Minister was to sign an international agreement with seven other EU and EEA member states on the North Sea's ocean energy technology development, allowing us to share capacity research across the Irish Sea and the North Sea. We are one of the global leaders in research in this area, with the MaREI centre developed in conjunction with Science Foundation Ireland, and a number of international investors have been in contact with the Department in recent weeks on the subject of the deployment of ocean energy renewables here. I want to broaden the renewable energy suite and not just look at one area.
A microgeneration meeting is taking place on 17 October where we will look at how we can best support microgeneration deployment, whether for roof-top solar or communities generating their own renewable energy. The SEAI and the Department are leading this.
I reject the suggestion that we have not brought communities to the fore on this. What I have done in the past 16 months can be seen in the material published on the Department's website. As Deputy Smith said, there is a long way to go on this issue. I accept that communities were not the focus in the past. I ask people to judge me on my record and on the documents currently out for consultation. The impact in that regard will be evident in the coming months.
I ask members to keep contributions to points of clarification because there are a lot of other programmes to get through and we are tight on time.
The Minister's overview of wind strategy was useful and I thank him for it. Fianna Fáil will make a submission on that issue.
I asked about Ireland's potential exposure to fines in the context of not meeting targets. Ireland could potentially face fines of over €1 billion if it does not meet certain targets and based on current performance it appears unlikely to meet them. It is important to note that if the State is on the hook for €1 billion or €500 million that would certainly have an impact on future Estimates and is very pertinent to the debate on Estimates and budgetary implications. I am a little confused because the Minister said that we are currently at a figure of 9.4% but also mentioned 13.2%. If I understand him correctly, one figure refers to renewable energy sources and the other to energy efficiency. We have to get to 16% in both cases so it seems a leap must be made. The Minister discussed how that might be done and how we might get to or close to 15%, although that would still be 1% less than the targets and could mean a fine of €100 million. However, better that than a fine of €1 billion. That is of major importance and very much on the money, if one will forgive the pun, in terms of Estimates this year, in the years to 2020 and subsequently. It is important to make those figures and be clear about them.
The Minister plans to go from the current rate of 9% to 15% within two years. How much of that change will be accounted for by increasing the mandatory requirement for biofuels in petrol? Given the scale of the fines Ireland is facing for its failure to tackle climate change, if the Minister is negotiating with the French and German Governments on the basic premise that Ireland should not be fined for not reaching emissions targets but allowed to spend money instead, the Minister would need his budget to be doubled or tripled on budget day in order to correlate potential fines and proposed spending to show the French and German Governments we are serious. Does the Minister agree that if his argument to the French and German Governments is that Ireland should be given a chance to spend the money on reducing emissions rather than paying a fine, that would behove the Minister, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, and the Government to show they are serious by doubling or tripling the Minister's budget. Does he agree? That is the scale of the fines we are facing. If, rather than paying a fine we would spend it on reducing emissions, that is the scale of expenditure increase his Department should be given.
The Wind Turbine Regulation Bill 2016 brought by Sinn Féin stipulated that wind turbines and wind farms would have to come in lower than the World Health Organization noise guidelines. Bills can be amended. The Bill was Sinn Féin's opening shot. The Minister said the proposed Government guidelines are now open for public consultation and the noise guidelines will be retrospectively applied. Does that imply that under those guidelines, which are not regulations, turbines would have to be switched off in wind farms that exceed recommended WHO noise levels?
When is the strategic environmental assessment due to commence? It was indicated by the Government during the Dáil debate on the Wind Turbine Regulation Bill that the contract for the strategic environmental assessment was going to tender the very next day.
I thank the Deputy. I ask the Minister to keep his reply as brief as possible.
I cannot answer Deputy Stanley's second question off the top of my head but I will get my officials to furnish him with an answer. My understanding is that the contract for the strategic environmental assessment has gone to tender but I am not absolutely sure of that.
The guidelines cannot be retrospectively applied to existing wind farms. However, because we are considering noise rather than setback they may be considered when a new application comes in for a wind farm. There are several wind farms in the midlands, which is the neck of the woods Deputy Stanley and I are from. If one of those wind farms submits a new application, that must take into account the noise generated by the existing wind farm. Depending on wind direction, there can be a mutiplier effect in relation to the new project based on noise from the existing wind farm. That is how it will be taken into account. It cannot be retrospectively applied to projects that are already operational but if a new project is applied for account will be taken of the impact of existing wind farms in the area.
The difficulty with Deputy Stanley's Wind Turbine Regulation Bill is that it relates to setback rather than noise. The approach of the Government is very different in that regard. The guidelines go into that issue in great detail.
Deputies Lawless and Eamon Ryan asked about the penalties Ireland could face on not reaching its renewable energy targets. Deputy Lawless is right to say they could potentially be €1 billion but they will not be anywhere near that and I will momentarily address that issue. There was a 50% increase in the voted energy budget this year. I will be pushing for further increases in the coming years. The current priority is to get a budgetary commitment over several years because it is important to show an upward trajectory in it and significant investment must be made in the coming years. Regardless of fines, that investment is needed.
The 2020 renewable energy target for Ireland is 16%. As of 31 December 2016 we had achieved 9.4% and, therefore, have 6.6% to make up by the end of 2020. Based on the current trajectory, it is estimated we will achieve 13.2%. We are considering the policy measures that will take us up to the 16% target by 2020. Deputy Ryan asked how much of that will be accounted for by increasing the mandatory requirement for biofuels in petrol. While I am open to correction, that will be approximately 3% between now and 2020. We are currently at 5% on our renewable transport target and expect a further increase of 3%, most of which will be made up by biofuels.
We are also looking at how we can ramp up capacity in the area of EVs in the coming years and we are in negotiation with the Minister for Finance on this matter.
We are now moving on to programme D - natural resources. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Kyne, and ask him to make a brief opening statement before I bring in members.
The focus of programme D is to manage Ireland's mineral, hydrocarbon and other geological resources in a sustainable and productive manner. The programme provides funding of €3.7 million for mining services, including €1.6 million for remediation works at historic mining sites at Avoca and Silvermines. The programme also includes an allocation of some €12 million for Geological Survey of Ireland services, including €8 million for the Tellus and INFOMAR mapping projects. The INFOMAR project is Ireland's national seabed survey and is managed by the Geological Survey of Ireland in co-operation with the Marine Institute. The Tellus project consists of aeroplane mounted geophysical measurements and ground geochemical sampling. Data from the project will allow for improvement in geological maps, new radon mapping and agricultural mineral maps. Data from the Tellus project will also facilitate better land use planning and research.
The estimated target coverage for the Tellus programme was 9,000 sq. km in 2016 but 6,000 sq. km in 2017. Will the Minister of State explain why this is the case, given the fact that the estimated allocation for the subhead increased by €2.5 million?
We were not long gone from the Dáil in July when the Minister of State made an announcement that he was licensing an exploration in the Porcupine Basin for gas and oil to Tony O'Reilly Jnr. I have not been a Deputy for too long but I have never felt as gutted as when I heard this. It was a kick in the face to do this when we had shut down and the committee and the Dáil had gone. The Minister of State made the announcement without flagging it to us in advance, and this is part of a policy that flies in the face of everything we have been talking about in respect of climate change, saving the planet and delivering on our targets. Any old eejit in science could tell us we need to stop extracting fossil fuels, but the Minister of State has licensed an exploration in the Porcupine Basin where there may be twice as much as in Corrib, despite the latest results which do not look good but about which I am not convinced.
If it is in the ground, leave it there. That is the general philosophy for dealing with climate change but we seem to have every intention of extracting it. On top of that, we have passed an anti-fracking Bill, which effectively meant we should leave something in the ground if it was on land. There was serious opposition to an amendment that would have extended the Bill to offshore resources, with people saying it would delay the Bill, which was sponsored by Fine Gael and supported by us. Doing so would have meant the plan to grant this licence, which was already signed, sealed and delivered and announced after the Dáil closed, would have been scuppered. It is extremely disappointing and flies in the face of any attempt to deal with climate change in this country, so I ask the Minister of State for an explanation. I had a question for him yesterday but I was not able to be in the Dáil when the Minister of State took questions, although I believe Deputy Boyd Barrett took one of the questions for me. I got a written answer from the Minister of State but it does not address my question at all. Will he explain why this was done in the way it was done, and why he thinks it is okay to allow oil and gas companies to explore for further extraction of fossil fuels from our shores?
Is the Minister of State satisfied that there are sufficiently robust safeguards in respect of gold mining? Are the safeguards being kept under review from an environmental point of view? There is concern in a community in County Cavan over prospective mining in that county and I understand there has been an enormously hostile reaction on the part of a community in Tyrone to gold mining there. Is the Minister satisfied with the checks and balances? He may revert to me if he wishes.
I note and appreciate the Minister of State's support for amendments of mine to the Government Bill on minerals and mining earlier in the year. The amendments were around revisiting older mine sites and extracting some valuable materials that may have been left behind the first time around. They also concerned the circular economy which stresses the need to reduce, reuse, recycle. Has any progress been made in these areas? An action team was to have been implemented within the Department for these issues. There was also to be a research function in the Department and this was to be incorporated into its core activity. On the INFOMAR project and the Marine Institute, there was to have been an oceanography institute which was supposed to become a centre of global excellence as a result of its proximity to the Atlantic coastline. Is this happening? I would be interested to hear if the Minister can give any further information on this project.
The Chair asked about the Tellus project and she is right. There has been a reduction in the forecast to 6,000 km in 2017 because the works in 2017 have taken place in Galway and Mayo, much more mountainous terrain and prone to inclement weather conditions. Low-flying aircraft need clear skies so there were time delays in the work.
Deputy Smith asked about oil. Energy security deserves a full debate and my Department has been in contact with the Chairman of the committee in this regard. Subject to the work programme, the subject deserves fuller research in the context of renewables, oil and gas and offshore exploration. The licence was signed by me in July. A lot of research is held in the Department on active licences, and the 2015 Atlantic oil and gas exploration licensing round was launched in June 2014, which opened all of Ireland's major Atlantic basins, Porcupine, Goban Spur, Slyne, Erris, Donegal and Rockall, for licensing. The form of petroleum authorisation on offer was a two-year licensing option, and 43 applications were received from 17 companies by the close of the round in September 2015. As at 30 June 2017, there were 65 extant and active offshore petroleum prospecting licences, licensing options, exploration licences, lease undertakings and petroleum licences. An application to drill from Providence Resources was also received and the overall assessment of the proposed exploration well comprised three key elements: a technical review of the proposals, undertaken by the petroleum affairs division of the Department; an environmental review, undertaken by BEC Consultants, an independent consultancy appointed by the Minister; and a financial review to ensure compliance with section 22 of the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety (Amendment) Act.
First of all, no oil or gas was found at that site, which has now been plugged. The drilling ship has left and the survey has ended. No application for approval to drill will be granted unless the Commission for Energy Regulation has issued a safety permit and approved a safety case and the Irish Coast Guard has approved an emergency response plan and an oil spill contingency plan. The marine safety policy division of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the Irish Coast Guard, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, the Marine Institute, the Department of Defence, the Department of Justice and Equality, An Garda Síochána, the Health and Safety Authority, the Commission for Communications Regulation, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Irish Aviation Authority, the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the underwater archaeological unit of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht are notified in the case of any application to grant approval to drill. Permission to place a temporary well head and associated infrastructure on the seabed is also sought under section 5(2) of the Continental Shelf Act 1968.
I would like to comment on the larger question. I appreciate that we got cross-party support for the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development (Prohibition of Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing) Bill 2016, which was proposed by Deputy McLoughlin. During all debates on the Bill, I said we do not support a prohibition on offshore fracking or on offshore oil exploration. This is an issue of energy security in the first instance. If oil or gas were discovered anywhere off the coast, it is likely that it would take a decade for that oil or gas to be brought onshore. Even if it were never brought onshore, the knowledge of its presence would provide energy security in an uncertain world.
The Government's energy White Paper acknowledges that irrespective of everything that is going on, Ireland will continue to rely on fossil fuels until 2050. At present, 45% of our energy usage comes from natural gas. While much of that gas is imported, some of it comes from the Corrib field. The Kinsale and Seven Heads fields are winding down and will cease production soon. This country is continuing to rely on natural gas, in particular, to meet its energy requirements. In the absence of the knowledge that we have an offshore source of natural gas, which would provide energy security for this country, we rely on imports from Norway via the UK, which could become more complicated as a result of Brexit. We have to look at the energy interconnector to France that may be in the pipeline up to 2025. That would mainly import nuclear energy from France. There is a wider debate to be had about energy security, the use of oil and gas and the question of renewables. All the information about licensing is provided on the website. I am aware that additional information about the application has been provided since the granting of permission for the well. I hope the committee will engage in research about energy security. It should bring in representatives of industry, Friends of the Earth, An Taisce and the international energy authority to discuss fully what is happening on a global scale and on an Irish scale with regard to oil and gas use.
Senator O'Reilly asked about mining. I passed on information about the current application in his local area to him and to other Members of the Oireachtas yesterday. There are legacy issues relating to mines. Thankfully, the level of environmental requirements to be met by any new application surpasses anything that has happened in the past. Notwithstanding the legacy issues in places like Avoca and Silvermines, we should also look at the exemplary Boliden operation at Tara Mines near the Senator's locality, which employs more than 500 people. The highest environmental regulations are observed at the mine in terms of safety, resources and the tailings facilities. The application in the Senator's locality is at an early stage of advancement. It is an application for a prospecting licence rather than an application for mining. For mining to happen, a full planning process involving environmental assessments and, most likely, oral hearings will have to be completed. Under new regulations, remediation of mining sites is part of any planning application. Any company that may be granted a mining licence in the future has to provide a fund to ensure some of the problems that arise in this industry can be remediated. We are familiar with the problems that have arisen in the past at Silvermines, Avoca and other sites.
Deputy Lawless spoke about the circular economy, which we supported in the recent minerals development Bill. On the question of looking again at old sites, I have expressed concerns about the practicality of such a move rather than the concept itself. As it happens, I went to Silvermines last Monday to attend a public meeting of the community there, which is dealing with legacy issues in the locality. The Department is engaging with the community and spending money on remediation. I suggest that any talk of looking again at tailings facilities with a view to reactivating them should be considered with caution. There would be huge opposition to any suggestion that the tailings facilities in Gortmore, for example, could be remined. During the 1980s and 1990s, local people endured wind blows and felt that they suffered the impacts on human and animal health and on farms. I appreciate that the amendment we proposed was supported by the Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geosciences. I know the Deputy has done a lot of research with the centre. This could certainly be considered on a small scale. Any proposal would have to be contingent on public support in the local community before it could be looked at. I will get the Deputy a fuller update on the steps that have been taken to date.
I will also have to look for an update on the oceanography institute because I do not have the latest information. The Marine Institute is doing exceptional work as part of the INFOMAR project, which involves important work to update the seabed mapping programme. A great deal of the offshore work has been done. There is now a concentration on inshore work, which is slower and more complicated. This project will provide us with some valuable information, particularly with regard to marine safety.
I would like to make a comment and a request. My precise point is that we are so reliant on fossil fuels that we should not see our future as a continuation of what we are doing now. As we try to deal with climate change, surely we have to factor an energetic and well-funded ambition to move away from fossil fuels into what is going to happen over the next ten or 15 years. There is no evidence of such an ambition. This is the problem with everything we do here. The evidence of a commitment to renewable energy in this committee and in the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment is not strong enough. The Minister of State says and writes wonderful things, but I am sorry to say it is just rhetoric. Where is the evidence that we are actually driving ahead with a determined attempt to get renewables to the top of the agenda? Rather than doing this, we are issuing licences.
The Minister of State startled me when he referred to the number of applications for more drilling and more extraction of fossil fuels from our shores. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State could email me the beginning of his reply. I am particularly interested in the list of those who are informed of these decisions, which seems to consist of everybody from An Garda Síochána to the lighthouse keepers. Is there any chance he could inform the Deputies and Senators who sit on this committee and try to grapple with the challenge of climate change that licences are to be issued? We should not find out when we are on our holidays in County Donegal or elsewhere that the Minister has made a decision of this nature. I suggest it is extraordinary carry-on.
My point, which has not been addressed, is that we need a discussion on our whole energy strategy. On the one hand, we are saying lovely things about renewables, climate change, communities, and wind and wave energy, etc. On the other hand, we are flying ahead with the issuing of licences for the extraction of more fossil fuels from our shores.
The suggestion made that we should sit down with the energy sector and examine all these issues is a very good one and I would like to see it implemented. Otherwise, this is an extraordinarily frustrating experience.
I thank Deputy Smith. It is an important issue for this committee and I am sure we would have the agreement of all members to have a longer debate on the wider issue of energy.
I am not trying to do anything in secret. I will certainly provide the Deputy with that information. As I said, there was a lot of information on it, and I would have answered questions in the past on the Atlantic margin programme. I agree there are bigger issues. As I said on radio after the licence was issued, I would hope that future Ministers in my position will not even have to consider such matters because there would not be a need for oil or gas. Perhaps that will be the case at some stage in the future. There are many technologies relating to electric cars, but we are still a long way from finding alternatives to jet fuel and the fuel used for the marine sector. These are intense users of hydrocarbons. Alternatives might come in to play. In terms of the aviation sector, I am aware that the possibility of mixing bio-gas with jet fuel, which would reduce reliance, is being examined but that is some way off.
I would certainly offer the Department's support for any work the committee does on the area of energy security. The national mitigation plan is addressing that entire area but there are serious decisions to be made. For example, Moneypoint, which is a big producer of energy, is reliant on imported coal. It has to transition to an alternative over the coming years. Will that be natural gas and where will that come from? The peat stations in the midlands are a finite resource. They are considering integrating biomass in those stations. What are the alternatives in those areas?
I have huge concerns relating to the planning process. We talk about offshore wind and wind farms. As important as they are regarding climate change and our renewable policy, there is huge opposition in my constituency to some of those projects. I have huge concerns that if we progress with offshore wind, for example, there may be objections to bringing that energy ashore. Will the current objections get through planning processes? There is a bigger discussion to be had, and I will certainly support that.
We will move on to Programme E - inland fisheries. Does the Minister of State want to make a statement or will we move on to questions?
Programme E provides grant aid to Inland Fisheries Ireland, which is responsible for the conservation, management and regulation of Ireland’s inland fishery resource. The inland fisheries programme includes an allocation of just under €17.6 million towards the staff costs of Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The Loughs Agency is a North-South body and is co-funded on a 50:50 basis by my Department and Northern Ireland's Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Also included in the programme is €11.6 million for non-pay current and capital expenditure by the two agencies.
I will start by raising the issue of the mysterious pink salmon reported in the west's river systems. Is there a risk to native Irish salmon and should a new metric be used now to address that risk? I will call Deputy Lawless who has also indicated.
My question is about conversation as well, particularly around salmon stocks but also on wider stocks. There was a peak internationally, and in Ireland, in the 1970s and the 1980s of salmon catches by rod, which, unfortunately, declined exponentially in the past decade. I am told there has been some recovery. I am aware that a number of measures were taken here, including fishing bans, etc. At the end of December 2016, a number of notices were issued and in some cases rivers reopened but others were closed as part of an attempt to manage stocks, primarily of salmon but also presumably of sea trout. I would be very interested in the Minister of State's views on how effective those measures have been and how we are doing in general in that sector. I am aware Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, remains concerned. I suppose it is its job to be concerned, but I would share its concern. I do not necessarily believe we are doing anything wrong. It is a huge global challenge and it is imperative that we get it right. I would be interested to hear from the Minister of State where we are in that regard.
The Chairman is correct. Unfortunately, the Pacific pink salmon was found in Irish waters, in the Galway weir fishery, in June of this year and also in the River Erriff, in County Mayo. It is not a new occurrence. It occurs periodically, and incidents have been reported as far back as the 1970s, but we do not want this Pacific pink salmon to intermix and breed with our Atlantic salmon stocks. It is imperative, therefore, that anglers report catches of pink salmon to Inland Fisheries Ireland. There is a hot-line number, 1850 34 74 24, and it is important that if anglers come across these salmon they notify Inland Fisheries Ireland, which is keeping a close eye on this matter. It is an issue about which those of us in the Department are worried.
Regarding Deputy Lawless's comments, salmon stocks have gone through a precarious existence over many years. There was a ban on commercial drift netting in 2006. For the initial year, there was an increase in stock numbers. Since then, unfortunately, that increase has stopped and there has been a reduction. Thankfully, the reports for this year are better and this will help improve the five-year averaging in terms of each river's conservation limits. As the Deputy is aware, there is a process that is gone through based on science and international best practice. If one has a higher return in 2017, that will improve the five-year average of rivers. It is hoped that when this is put out to public consultation before the Christmas period, more rivers will be reaching the conservation limit and therefore could be opened for the 2018 season.
There are some 147 distinct stocks in rivers, river sections and estuaries and, as I said, an amount of scientific work is going on regarding salmon stocks. We do not know the reason there has been a decline in recent years, whether it is due to global warming, the big trawlers offshore, sea lice or disease, but my Department is acutely aware of the importance of the salmon stock for Ireland.
I appreciate the Minister of State may not have the figures to hand but they might be sent to me later. I ask specifically about the Liffey, the Slaney and the Ounavarra rivers in terms of salmon stocks, and sea trout also if he has the figures on performance. I am aware they have all been subject to audit.
I do not have the figures with me. I have had a number of representations on the Slaney in particular, which was closed this year. The Department is examining a number of issues local anglers have raised relating to some of the reasoning behind that. There is a wider issue in regard to closing rivers. Many anglers believe that if we close rivers we are taking out the eyes, so to speak, and the security of the local angler in terms of action against poaching. That is something we are investigating with a view to considering if we can extend the catch and release to all rivers that are closed, depending on the type of hooks used to ensure the chance of survival is maximised. Clearly, no angler wants to see a river closed, but this is about protecting a hugely important species. There is a requirement under European directives. We all want to see healthy rivers and thriving salmon stocks into the future. I will get those figures for the Deputy.
We will move on to Programme F - environment and waste management.
The purpose of Programme F is to promote the protection of our natural environment, the health and well-being of our citizens and the transition to a resource-efficient circular economy in support of ecologically sustainable development, growth and jobs.
The environment and waste management programme includes an allocation of €31.5 million towards staff costs, non-pay current as well as capital costs of the Environmental Protection Agency. The programme includes €11 million grant funding for the remediation of landfill sites, disposal of historic tyre stockpiles and repatriation of North-South waste.
Also included in the programme is €1.75 million to fund a range of Irish academic and research institutions involved in economic modelling and analysis which supported the recent publication of the national mitigation plan and the draft national adaptation framework, as required under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.
I note that there is almost €40 million in the environmental fund for waste prevention and enforcement initiatives, litter prevention measures and so on, but it does not take into account what local authorities are spending in this area. They have to dig into their budgets every year to provide a lot of funding for environmental measures. The plastic bag and landfill site levies are obviously doing their job, but we need to broaden the number of sources of income for the environmental fund. I introduced a waste Bill in the Dáil a few months ago. The provisions of that legislation would certainly go some way towards achieving that objective in the context of the return of disposable items.
In the document before us dealing with Programme F, percentages are given for recovery rates. While I welcome the increased levels of recovery, the figures we have available are only up to 2013. They are for municipal, household, commercial and packaging waste recovery. I would welcome more up-to-date figures. While I do not expect to receive the figures for this year, or even 2016, we should certainly have figures for 2014 and 2015. Perhaps there is an issue with the gathering of that data, but I just wanted to highlight the point.
Litter has become a huge problem. We need to introduce heavier penalties for illegal dumping which formed part of the Bill I introduced earlier this year. People certainly should not throw cigarette butts out of their car windows, but we really need to get to grips with those who come along in pick-up trucks or lorries and tip loads of waste, some of which may be hazardous, in the Dublin mountains, the Slieve Bloom mountains and elsewhere. We need to tackle the people who are dumping huge amounts of waste illegally on a commercial or semi-commercial basis.
I would like to see figures for the levels of waste reduction, although it would probably be hard to produce them. If we are to get to grips with the problem, waste reduction at source is the key. We have to stop the production of waste. We are all aware of recent reports on the international plastics industry. As a small island nation, we have a chance to do something about this problem on a North-South basis. I hope, when the Executive is up and running in the North, we will be able to take initiatives in this area to deal with tyres, plastics and so forth in a joined-up manner. We need a joined-up, all-island approach to the reduction of waste at source, which is the really big issue.
Reports on 9 September last highlighted the fact that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission had refused to join the group being established by the Department to monitor domestic waste collection charges. Where do we stand now, if the commission has pulled out? What credibility does that body have? Monitoring is fine, but what power does the Minister have in controlling what the refuse collection companies charge their customers? When are the changes coming into force? Last July we were to have an exclusively pay-by-weight system. However, there was a lot of debate and discussion about that matter at the time and the introduction of such a system was deferred until September or October. Where do we stand now? What power does the Minister have to keep control of charges? As I recall it, from the discussions we had at the time, the Minister will have very little power. What about the powers and credibility of the monitoring group? Will it just be a commentator? Will it be stating that what is happening is terrible and that it is not happy about it, while being able to do damn all about it?
I thank the Deputy. I have one question which is related to the local authorities. I note that by mid-2017 they had not drawn down as much as was expected for landfill remediation projects. Will the Minister explain why that was the case?
I will answer the Chairman's question first. There is a certain lead-in time required for projects of this nature. Budgeting and procurement usually take place in the first half of the year. As site work can only take place in favourable weather conditions, it is expected that the main part of the expenditure from this allocation will happen in the second half of the year.
The household waste collection price monitoring group has been established and had its first meeting on 13 September. A company has also begun the process of monitoring the rates charged by household waste collectors. The company will report back to the monitoring group on a monthly basis and the results will be published. They will be monitored and analysed and will provide an evidence base in the context of future monitoring or additional regulation of the waste market. I have asked the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, to carry out a study of the operation of the household waste collection market. We have been working very closely with the CCPC in relation to the price monitoring group and the study it will carry out. The decision was taken by the CCPC to focus on the study of the operation of the household waste collection market, which is why it decided not to be directly involved in the price monitoring group. However, the evidence collected from the price monitoring group will feed into the overall study under way which the CCPC expects to finish early in 2018. The study will assess the nature and scale of consumer and operator issues in the household waste collection market and consider if the introduction of an enhanced regulatory regime could efficiently address these issues in the short and longer term. It will include research on current issues in the waste sector, an economic assessment of the household waste collection market and an overview of the waste collection systems in other countries and make recommendations to me. That is the role of the CCPC.
On the powers available to me, it is a competitive market. The powers are actually with the local authorities rather than me, as Minister. If, based on the aforementioned study and the work of the price monitoring group, there is a requirement to change the regulations in this area, we can look at doing so.
On the broader issue of illegal dumping, I have said on numerous occasions that I believe it is both economic and environmental treason. It has a huge impact on communities and areas all over the country. As Deputy Brian Stanley knows, Senator Catherine Ardagh's Bill has completed Second Stage in the Seanad. We also have Deputy Eamon Ryan's Bill which has been discussed by this committee, as well as the Deputy's own Bill. There is a myriad of Bills, but I want to see progress in dealing with the issues of illegal dumping, the generation of waste and how we dispose of our waste. I am quite willing to engage constructively with the committee in that regard. We can deal with this issue in a piecemeal fashion, with one Member after the other bringing forward Private Members' Bills, or we can deal with it in a comprehensive manner.
I am on record as saying that I am open to any constructive suggestions coming from any side of the House in relation to this, whether from Deputy Stanley, Deputy Eamon Ryan-----
Is the Minister prepared to look at the return of deposit scheme, which is part of the Bill that I introduced, and the changes in penalties, but also the requirements on landlords and tenants, as part of the committee deliberation? The Bill has only gone through First Stage and I understand how the system works.
We have looked into the deposit return scheme and the costs involved are phenomenal. I am on the record as saying if I had that money there are other ways that I would spend it. However, let us see what comes out of this.
Deputy Stanley is asking - this is one of the issue we have to look at - how do we broaden the environmental fund and what areas do we go into in regard to it. There is a broader debate to be had here and I am willing to look at that. However, I want to ensure if we are spending public money that we are getting value for it and that we are having a tangible impact on the generation of waste and addressing the issue of illegal dumping.
We have put significant funding into it. This year, we have increased investment, both in terms of resources to the local authorities but also capacity within the EPA. The waste enforcement regional lead authorities have been working with us on the illegal dumping initiative. We have made significant progress on that this year, both in terms of cleaning up black spots across the country and deploying new technology, such as the use of drones. Some local authorities are using drones to gather evidence. There is also use of CCTV. More needs to be done in that regard.
I announced an initial allocation of €650,000 for the initiative to combat the illegal dumping problem. The demand from local authorities was double that and as a result, I increased the budget to €1.3 million. I will look at new initiatives that come forward from the local authorities, subject to the budget next week and having the Estimate. I believe that I will have the Estimate to look again at initiatives coming from local authorities across the country.
With regard to the waste statistics, there is a disappointing two-year time lag. We are working with the EPA on that to see whether we can bring them more up to date. According to the current statistics, the glass recycling rate is 87%, the paper and board recycling rate is 79%, the metals recycling rate is 81% and the plastic recycling rate is 35%. As the committee will be aware, part of the problem is in regard to being able to recycle much of the plastic being generated. We are well in excess of the EU targets on all of this. We are one of the leaders across Europe in rates of recycling. Of course, more can be done. I am willing to work with colleagues here to see what initiatives will work in the Irish context that will give us the best value for the money we spend in this area.
We will now move on to programme G - appropriations-in-aid, if the Minister would like to make a brief opening statement.
Appropriations-in-aid are income receipts into my Department other than from the Exchequer. The vast majority of receipts - €222 million of the total of €238 million - are a pass-through of the television licence funds to RTÉ, TG4 and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland along with a collection fee to An Post. The balance is made up of mining and petroleum income accounting for €8.8 million of the total receipts, some €4.6 million in pension levy and pension contributions relating to my Department and agencies, and €2.6 million in other miscellaneous income.
As there are no questions, we will now move on to administration. These subheads have already been covered in programme expenditure. If there are no questions, we will move on to the Environment Fund. The Minister may make an opening statement, if he wishes.
The Environment Fund was established by the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001 and comprises revenue generated from levies that were introduced in respect of plastic bags - currently 22 cent - and waste sent to landfill sites - currently €75 a tonne. A sharp decline in landfill levy is projected from 2018 onwards, reflecting the commencement of the Dublin waste-to-energy Poolbeg incinerator and a significant reduction in landfill capacity with the necessary statutory consents to accept waste. I have approved allocations, totalling some €38.76 million from the Environment Fund for 2017, to fund such measures as the National Waste Prevention Programme, enforcement initiatives relating to waste management, litter prevention and environmental awareness activities.
Did Senator Leyden want to come in on any of those topics?
I welcome the Minister to the House. On this historic occasion, I want to pay tribute to the late, great Liam Cosgrave and sympathise with his family, Liam, Mary and Ciarán.
I am the only Member of the Seanad who served in the Dáil with him, from 1977 to 1981, and I was present in the Dáil Chamber on 5 July 1977. That day, I voted for Jack Lynch and Liam was there. He stood aside as Taoiseach. That was the last time he was Taoiseach. I served with him in the Dáil until 1981. He was an absolute gentleman.
I was in the Percy French Hotel in May 1977 when there was the famous Ard-Fheis speech about the "blow-ins" who could "blow out or blow up". He was referring to Bruce Arnold. Let Bruce now respond to that, if he wishes. Just to say, it was an amazing speech. Jack Lynch was present watching. The pipe nearly fell out of his mouth when he heard the speech.
I extend my deepest sympathy to the Cosgrave family. I met him regularly. He was an absolute gentleman. He was a statesman. He was a national hero. He was a patriot. I pay tribute to him for such a wonderful life, and making such a great contribution.
We had a minute's silence at the beginning of the meeting. I ask Senator O'Reilly to be brief because there will be expressions of sympathy in the Dáil. The Minister is anxious to speak as well.
It would remiss to not contribute quickly to this. I second the remarks of Senator Leyden.
Mr. Cosgrave was an extraordinary patriot. He gave exemplary public service and had absolute integrity. He is a role model that we cannot aspire to properly imitate but we should certainly make some effort.
We would all concur with those sentiments.
I acknowledge and echo the sentiments that have been expressed by my two colleagues. The one thing which one could always say about Mr. Liam Cosgrave was that he had integrity. He was the epitome of integrity. He served as Taoiseach during a very difficult time in our history and he did an exemplary job at that time in very difficult circumstances.
I propose that the committee publish the opening statements and briefings in relation to this meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The joint committee adjourned at 12 noon until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 October 2017.