Priority Questions.
32 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the restrictions that will be put in place on Spanish fishing vessels within the new Irish Box area off the south-west coast of Ireland; if negotiations have been completed with the Spanish on this matter; and if not, if it is his intention to finalise the issue before the end of the Irish Presidency of the EU. [13853/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe system to apply to the new Irish Box area and to western waters generally relates to the management of fishing effort in defined areas and fisheries. In order to implement this system effectively, maximum annual fishing effort limits will apply to each member state operating in the relevant area or fishery. Such restrictions on fishing effort will apply to all fishing vessels, Spanish and otherwise, whether operating in the new Irish Box area or elsewhere in western waters. The question of negotiating or having bilateral discussions with any given member state does not, therefore, arise.
This matter remains a Community issue and in accordance with the agreement reached last autumn, the Commission presented its proposal in March to establish fishing effort ceilings. This proposal is based on detailed historical fishing data presented by member states for the agreed reference period of 1998 to 2002. It sets down a fishing effort ceiling for the new Irish Box in respect of demersal, crab and scallop fisheries and will apply to all vessels over ten metres in overall length operating within the box.
The Commission's proposal is currently being considered in detail by a Council working group. This technical work is proceeding satisfactorily. Particular attention is being paid to ensuring that a number of valid methodological changes over the previous effort regime will be reflected in the new regime. Of special note in this regard is the inclusion of additional smaller vessels in the new system and also a revised definition for a fishing day. My Department is maintaining close contact with industry representatives to ensure they have a full understanding of the terms of the Commission proposal and I am seeking to have any concerns raised by them examined to ensure the new regulation delivers the necessary protection for the waters around Ireland and, in particular, in the new Irish Box.
The main task now is to complete this technical work and ensure, in the process, that there is no increase in actual fishing effort by foreign fishing vessels in waters around Ireland generally and particularly in sensitive waters off the south and west coasts. I am working to finalise this issue before the end of the Irish EU Presidency and I will be seeking Council agreement at the June Fisheries Council.
This is a somewhat complex issue and I will, therefore, try to simplify it so the Minister can clarify a few matters. The question refers to the new Irish Box area. This comprises approximately one third of the original Irish Box which encircled their entire country. The new box covers an area on the south-west coast. There is also an area which was formerly non-restricted included in the new Irish Box which was not contained in the old Irish Box. As a result, there is some confusion about the new levels of fishing effort that will be allowed in the new Irish Box. I refer here, in particular, to the fishing effort of the Spanish fleet.
I agree with the Minister that the rules have changed somewhat. It will no longer be a case of restricting the number of vessels allowed into the area. The new measurement will be in kilowatt days. Will the Minister be seeking independent verification from the Commission of the figures that will be supplied by individual countries and which will form the basis for the new restrictions to be put in place within the preservation area of the new Irish Box? There are those in the Irish fishing industry who are sceptical as to whether the figures that will be supplied by certain member states in respect of past fishing effort in the new area, and particularly the part of it that was not in the former Irish Box, will be accurate. Is there a proposed system or framework under which independent verification from the Commission would be required as to the accuracy of these figures? In other words, did these boats formerly fish in this area or did they fish further west? That is the key issue.
I welcome the Minister's statement that he wants to ensure there is no increase in Spanish fishing effort, in particular, in the new area. However, the essence of the problem lies in the accuracy of the figures that will be supplied. Independent verification is definitely required in that regard. I also welcome the fact the Minister intends to conclude the deliberations on this matter, which is crucial to the Irish fishing fleet, before the end of the Irish Presidency of the EU.
The Deputy is correct to state this is an extremely complicated matter. That is why discussions at official level with the Commission and the various delegations from the member states are ongoing. We will hopefully be able to reach political agreement in respect of this matter and sign off on the regulations in June. If not, a fall-back position exists. It is the view of all member states that it should be concluded during the Irish Presidency.
I do not know what the Deputy is seeking in terms of independent verification of the figures. The fishing industry is aware of what is happening and has been kept informed of what is being discussed at present. The figures submitted by various member states, including Ireland, obviously have to stand up to scrutiny by the Commission. These figures will ultimately determine the level of fishing effort for each country.
Have we reached the stage where the level of Spanish fishing effort proposed for the new area is approximately 80% of that carried out by the Irish fleet? Ireland has approximately 7 million kilowatt days. Is it correct that Spanish entitlement will be in the region of 80% of that of the Irish fleet? Is that what the Minister is aiming for?
No. There is no absolute position as yet in regard to any of the figures. The fishing vessels of the Spanish fleet are somewhat bigger than their Irish counterparts, while there are similar numbers of each. The larger the vessel, the greater the fishing effort it can exercise. We are happy to allow matters proceed towards June while ensuring there will be no increase in fishing effort and the levels which obtained previously will remain in place.
I assure the Deputy that these figures are being mulled over closely by all delegations. There is a fair bit of work to be done between now and the June Council.
33 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he has held talks with ESB management or unions in regard to proposals for industrial action at the company; his views on whether industrial action will result in widespread electricity black-outs throughout the country; the efforts he is making to avoid such industrial action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13875/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra35 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the role he intends to play to ensure that industrial action is avoided within the ESB in June 2004, yet at the same time ensuring that the ESB can move forward in a competitive and efficient way. [13854/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 33 and 35 together.
I do not have primary responsibility for industrial relations issues within Government and I have not held discussions with either the ESB management or the unions since the result of the recent ballot undertaken by the ESB group of unions was announced.
Prior to taking the ballot, my Department acceded to the request from the ESB group of unions to enter into discussions on shareholder and policy issues and has had a number of discussions with the group of unions in recent months. While further meetings are not planned, my Department is available to continue discussions at any time.
I am aware that the ESB group of unions has submitted claims which, at first sight, seem to be inappropriate in the context of national competitiveness and the partnership approach to pay in the economy. It is understood that a claim has been lodged for an 18.5% pay rise. Discussions on this matter are being dealt with in accordance with the established industrial relations procedures and machinery in the company.
It is my understanding, however, that the ballot which was recently undertaken by the ESB group of unions provides a mandate for industrial action in circumstances where the company proposes or proceeds with structural or organisational change which impacts on staff without prior agreement. While I view the results of the ballot with concern, it is clear the mandate is a conditional one. Therefore, it is premature, at this stage, to speculate on the impact on customers and the country generally of any industrial action. I have instructed my officials to keep me fully briefed on the situation as it develops.
I reiterate the point I made to the Ceann Comhairle this morning on the Order of Business about questions on the energy market and electricity, specifically two questions the Labour Party asked about the grid code, as related to wind and about which we got some news today, and escalating electricity prices. As the Minister will agree this House is the place to discuss major policy issues. It is not for the Ceann Comhairle to fob us off with the fact that we have a regulator. We will end up with a host of regulators as every Department will have one and, if it is left with nothing to discuss, the House will have no function.
I am glad to hear the Minister is concerned about the result of the ballot and the fact that ESB workers are so aggrieved as to be considering industrial action. Does he agree that he has a heavy responsibility for this situation? In his two years in the job he has not set out clearly national policy on the future of electricity generation and the electricity market nor has he brought forward the electricity Bill, which I understand will be published in early 2005. We have no opportunity, even in committee, to discuss the fundamental issues arising for our economy.
I welcome the fact that we will deal with the funding Bill next week or the week after. However, will the Minister agree that he is responsible for dealing with the issues? Is the uncertainty about the future of generation, the transmission network, distribution and the supply chain not his responsibility? Does he agree that he should spell out to the nation and the work force where he intends to bring the energy and electricity market, something he has failed to do so far?
On the issue of Eirgrid, why has the Minister not requested the ESB to come forward with the infrastructure agreement, which we were led to believe was on the table some time ago, dealing with the decoupling of Eirgrid and the ESB? That agreement should deal with the transfer scheme and issues that affect workers, especially defined pension and other rights. Is this not a key area of the Minister's responsibility?
We hope there will be no industrial action which will lead to black-outs. However, we learned today that the CER has criticised the ESB because several of its generation plants are only running at 74% to 76% efficiency and capacity. There is a fundamental problem in that area which the Minister has failed to address. Is it not time he took the lead in this area and told the House where he expects future electricity generation and market to develop, especially since we are not far from 19 February 2005, when the market will be deregulated for every household and firm in the country?
I am not sure of the question in that rant. Government policy on energy has been clearly stated. The Deputy's question relates to the issue of the ESB ballot. Government policy regarding any move to give a further shareholding to the ESB, from its existing 5% up to 14.9%, can only happen in the context of a sale or outside investor process, which in effect means privatisation. Is the Deputy exhorting a privatisation agenda on behalf of the Labour Party?
The reality is that the public own the shares in a semi-State company. I cannot simply hand over the shares to the unions or the private sector without the proper conditions being met. However, my position on the future of the ESB is well stated. I am not in favour of privatisation. I have said that if there is any sale of the ESB, there will be no sell off of the infrastructure which will remain in State ownership.
The Deputy mentioned Eirgrid and the CER. We expect the difficulties relating to Eirgrid will be sorted shortly and when they are, we will be able to put the agreements together for the complete division from the ESB into Eirgrid.
The ESB gave us an outstanding briefing on infrastructural development in the Dublin region just a few minutes ago, for which Deputies of all parties are grateful. The Labour Party is bitterly opposed to any attempt to privatise the ESB. The history of Telecom and Eircom open up the appalling vista of the privatisation of our national grid. We are opposed to that. As the Minister responsible, is it not Deputy Ahern's job to lay out clearly the future development of electricity generation and the electricity market here? On the matter of Eirgrid, he should indicate clearly which elements of the ESB will be part of the national grid and explain how it will operate.
The Minister has a heavy responsibility. We are approaching the February, 2005 deadline, but so far, he has not met his responsibility.
Who is responsible for the ESB and is it the Minister's responsibility to ensure the country has sufficient energy? I thought the State had a majority share in the ESB. It is scandalous that the Minister cannot come into the House and outline exactly what is happening in the company. I cannot believe that he has not met the unions or management.
On 18 December, when the unions considered holding a ballot on industrial action, the Minister suggested a series of bilateral talks between, first the unions and his Department and second between the unions and the ESB. We are again faced with industrial action, but the Minister says it is not his responsibility. Is there any truth in the suggestions he made on 18 December? I am not sure whether the Minister has had private talks with the ESB, but can he say precisely what issues are being fought for between the unions and the management? Perhaps the Minister would outline answers to those questions.
Regarding the ability of this House to discuss price issues — and this was referred to in earlier supplementary questions — the Oireachtas passed the legislation setting up the Commission for Energy Regulation and independent regulation of a fully liberalised market.
We are not there yet.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot pass legislation along those lines and then say we cannot discuss these issues. That is the case regarding electricity, gas and telecom prices. Regardless of who was in Government, this House abdicated its responsibility to invest properly in infrastructure. Governments postponed sanctioning ESB price increases. These are now independently granted by the CER. That is why the ESB is able to invest significantly in infrastructure and ensure that we do not experience black-outs as happened in the USA, UK and Italy. People may be assured that the infrastructure here has the necessary capacity even though electricity demand here is twice the EU and OECD averages given the rate of economic growth here.
Regarding the differences between the ESB unions and management, the unions want a pay increase of 18.5% and an increased share-holding in the company but to date no case has been made as to why the taxpayer should hand over extra share-holding to the ESB group of unions. I have met the ESB group of unions on quite a number of occasions. What I said in my reply was that I had not met them since the result of the ballot.
34 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources when he intends appointing the proposed three person energy regulation commission; if the work of the three regulators will be divided on the basis of energy pricing, security of supply and environmental issues; and if he intends extending their remit to include the regulation of fossil fuel products other than natural gas. [13861/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn recognition of the critical role which the Commission for Energy Regulation discharges and the importance of the energy sector to the economy's competitiveness, I decided to expand the commission from one member to three members. This is in line with existing legislative provisions in the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 and is consistent with the expansion of the Commission for Communications Regulation in January 2003.
Since its establishment in July 1999, the role and work of the commission has grown enormously. It now includes responsibility for gas, as well as electricity regulation, and is charged with a range of onerous duties arising from the EU liberalisation agenda. This is the appropriate time to increase the membership of the commission. Officials from my Department have been in contact with the Department of Finance about the requisite ministerial consent to the terms and conditions, including remuneration, of the appointment of the additional members.
The next step will involve the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission hosting a selection process for the new energy commissioners. I hope this process will be conducted without delay.
The commission is independent in the performance of its functions, and how it proposes to allocate responsibility within its organisation is a matter for it alone, whether the commission comprises one member or three members. However, I have publicly stated that I want an expanded commission to focus more directly on environmental, consumer and competitiveness issues.
The commission's functions are specified in the Electricity Regulation Act 1999, as amended, and no consideration has been given to extending its remit to include the regulation of other fossil fuel products at this time.
The Minister still has not said when the commission will be in place. Perhaps he is unable to say. He says the matter is now with the Department of Finance and will go to the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission. I am keen that the Minister should put a date on it. In what quarter does he expect this three person commission will be in place?
The Minister rightly stated that environment was one of the areas of concern. Last week I attended a conference on climate change organised by the EPA in Dublin and attended by leading scientists from around the world. Listening to them, if I were in charge of energy regulation I would require the grid company and others to tell me in three months' time how they would make Ireland's energy 60%, 70%, 80% renewable. I would not want to hear the problems. I would want to hear the solutions, and I would want them in three months' time.
Is it not the problem that the Minister does not have the power to regulate and direct? Unlike the position in telecommunications where he can and has in the past year issued regulations and policy directions, with regard to the energy regulator it does not matter what he or we think; there is no ministerial power to issue directions if we have serious concerns regarding, for example, climate change and the need to change our energy policy accordingly regardless of what engineers say is or is not possible. There may be occasions when we as policy makers must tell the engineers we want to hear not about problems but solutions.
When does the Minister expect the three person commission to be in place? Is it possible in introducing the electricity Bill to return certain powers to the Oireachtas or the Department given that there are certain issues where it is necessary to issue directions and tell the people involved in a particular industry that for broader policy reasons they are required to take a certain direction? Will the Minister consider such a change?
In answer to the first question, it is not within my remit to say when the three person commission will be appointed. I would like to think it will be in a relatively short time, that is, in a few months. It is up to the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission to determine that and, obviously, it depends on the calibre of the candidates who come forward.
On the issue of renewable energy, since I came into office there has been quite a significant increase in interest in this, particularly in the context of the AR6 contracts. To a certain extent we are the victims of our own success. There are significant technical issues to be addressed. I called together the industry and all the other interests in this area, including the ESB, the regulator and other companies on a renewable energies group which met for the first time this week with a very short time frame to build on the consultation process and the recently issued consultation document on renewable energy.
Regarding directions, I have already pre-empted the Deputy. Legislation is being prepared to give the Minister power to make further directions in the area of energy analogous to the directions already being given and quite successfully implemented in the telecommunications area. That legislation will be brought forward as soon as possible. I would not like to think it would be 2005 before it is brought forward. We had to bring forward quickly the funding legislation relating to the ESB. However, the other legislation is being given priority and it will include power for the Minister to make directions.
I welcome the announcement that the Minister will reintroduce those powers in recognition that the legislation was flawed in that regard. I find it remarkable that the Minister can say we are the victim of our own success when I see the development of biomass and biofuel products in other countries, the development of wind resources, the investment by other countries in new technologies such as wave and tidal technologies where we should take a massive lead, and when I see every block being put in the way of development of renewable energy by the main State companies, the regulatory authorities and by the Minister. I see nothing but failure and lost opportunities in terms of development of cleaner energy technology.
The Minister says I admitted there were technical difficulties. I see nothing but opportunities in this area and I find it remarkable that the Government is not pursuing those opportunities and issuing directions to the State companies and to his Department to make sure we avail of them.
The Deputy is extremely naive if he believes there are no technical difficulties in, for example, putting a massive amount of extra wind on to the grid.
The Government is blind to the opportunities.
If the Deputy does not understand that, I suggest that he should meet those who are involved in the industry. Such people know the difficulties——
I will meet them tomorrow
It is high time that the Deputy met them.
It is high time the Minister saw the opportunities.
People in this House——
The Minister sees nothing but difficulties.
If elected politicians in the House have the same sort of idealistic view about renewable energy
The Minister is full of hot air.
There are difficulties in respect of renewable energy
Where is the biomass?
There are difficulties in respect of technical matters.
Where are the biofuels?
There are difficulties in respect of pricing for the future.
Where is the wave technology?
Those who are pushing renewable energy
Where is the tidal plan?
——should tell the people that renewable energy will actually cost them more.
It will bring huge wealth to this country.
It will hit people in their pockets.
Like peat.
We have heard the usual Green Party obfuscation.
There are huge opportunities.
36 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the call from An Post staff at the recent Communications Workers’ Union conference in Galway, for an inquiry into the previous mismanagement of the State postal service; if he has plans to recommend such an inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13876/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am aware of comments made at the recent conference of the Communications Workers' Union in Galway. In light of the current financial difficulties faced by An Post, I am convinced the most effective means of ensuring its long-term future is to focus on the critical challenges it faces rather than to concentrate on past performance and management. I trust this view is shared by all stake holders in An Post. Deputies are aware that the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has examined An Post's problems on two occasions since the start of 2003. Unlike the management of An Post, the Communications Workers' Union chose to not attend the most recent meeting of the joint committee devoted to examining the company's financial situation, which was held earlier this year. I do not propose to call for an Oireachtas inquiry into the matter, as to do so would be a matter for the Oireachtas itself.
I would like to return briefly to the issue of alternative energy sources before I ask supplementary questions about the postal service. We tried to raise the grid code and other issues relating to wind generation, but we were not allowed to do so. Despite the Minister's comments, such policies are matters for the House. One could probably fuel a small generator — perhaps 2 MW — from the hot air the Minister generates on the other side of the House.
Does the Minister agree that the An Post workers are right to feel a deep sense of grievance about the managerial regime that existed before July 2003? The result of An Post's first loss of €7 million in 2001 was that the chief executive was rewarded with an additional €100,000 in salary and a bonus of €21,000. Is it not right, therefore, that workers are aggrieved?
With regard to the Minister's area of responsibility, where is the An Post strategic recovery plan? The House discussed the plan when there was a crisis about two months ago. Where does the Minister think it will go? What is his role? Does he still hold monthly meetings with the board of An Post? Does he continue to monitor closely what has happened to the company?
Does the Minister agree that the 2003 An Post report, which Deputies received a few weeks ago, makes quite frightening reading? The chief executive of An Post, Mr. Donal Curtis, said that its finances are on a knife edge and he predicted a difficult future for the company. Does the Minister share the reaction of many Deputies to the report? How does he envisage that the recovery plan will roll out? Mr. Curtis said there will be a reduction of 40% in managerial posts. He is looking for a reduction of 1,450 in staff and major changes in the sub-post office network, which provides a vital social service throughout the country. He also spoke about other services. For example, he constantly referred to the cost of delivering to rural Ireland, which many of us would have thought of as the purpose of An Post. Does the Minister expect the price of a basic postage stamp to increase significantly in the near future?
I understand that An Post will apply, if it has not already applied, to the regulator for an increase in the price of a postage stamp. My officials and I continue to meet the board of An Post almost on a weekly basis to discuss the company's precarious financial position. Although it is an independent company, my Department has to conduct financial scrutiny to ensure that its problems do not get worse. We would like to see an improvement in An Post's financial circumstances.
The Deputy also asked about the recovery strategy. Discussions with the Labour Relations Commission are ongoing. There is a deadline of Friday of this week, but I anticipate that the discussions will continue thereafter. I ask the Deputy to use his influence to get the CWU to come to the Oireachtas to make its case to the joint committee. It had the opportunity to make its case before the strike, but it chose not to do so. The management of An Post attended a meeting of the committee. We can all blame individuals and groups of individuals for what happened in the past, but we should accept the situation as it is and look forward. The Deputy has criticised a particular person, but the reality is that the situation was overseen by a board, of which four members are worker-directors, as well as a management team. Having examined the difficulties faced by An Post as part of the recovery strategy, it is clear that difficult decisions will have to be made, not only about price increases but about restructuring the organisation.
The Minister placed the Postal (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill on the legislative programme last autumn. When does he expect that the Bill and the projected ESOP for the work force will be brought forward? Another controversial aspect of the report relates to the universal service obligation and the quality of service. The rating given to An Post for its next-day delivery of the basic postal service by its invigilators, PricewaterhouseCoopers, is far more impressive than that given to it by ComReg. ComReg has claimed that An Post has a next-day success rate of 74%, but An Post claims that the rate is 94%. Who is telling the truth about the quality of service?
We have to accept ComReg's figures because they are derived by means of a comparison with An Post's EU partners. The company's figures for next-day delivery are not as good as we were originally led to believe.
The Deputy mentioned that the legislation to provide for an ESOP is on the legislative programme, but it has not made progress because certain indicators of the commitments that were made under the agreement have not been reached. This matter is being discussed as part of the ongoing discussions between the Labour Relations Commission, the trade unions and the management of An Post. As I have said previously, the Government favours the issue of the transformation agreement, although an absolute proviso has been included on behalf of the taxpayer: the savings commitments that have been made have to be met before there is any transfer of shares. We are willing to examine these issues in the context of the restructuring of the company.
