Dr. Amanda Slevin:

I respond first to Deputy Stanley's question on delays or drags on the transition of companies to renewable energy development. There does not seem to be a drag on companies like Statoil which has announced that it will move to more renewable energy development. We see massive international companies announcing these plans and smaller ones are acting too. Statoil is a semi-state company and there is an impetus for Norway to move to renewable energy. The state faces contradictions in that it is very dependent on oil and gas production. Nevertheless, there is a recognition that it wants to move in a more sustainable direction.

There is little impetus in Ireland for oil companies operating here to move given the largely supportive policy framework. The Bill would change that and companies would be obliged to move to renewable energy or at least consider it more deeply. They are not forced to do it now as there is a great deal of leniency around authorisations and there is a great deal of support from the State. To encourage companies to move towards renewable energy development, changes in supports are needed for both companies and communities. One of things hampering renewable energy development has been the policy framework excluding communities from decision-making. That has exacerbated conflicts and caused communities to resist renewable energy developments. We need to look at how we properly resource renewable energy development and how we ensure that communities are part of the decision-making. That must be the core approach. It will involve changes to planning legislation. It is not enough simply to change guidelines for companies. There must be a statutory obligation to involve communities in the process. What is stopping companies is that they are not forced to do that in Ireland. They are not made to move towards renewable energy and our planning process creates conflict.

Deputy Lawless asked why we still do not have any royalties after three reviews of licensing terms nor do we have any State participation. He asked if there was anything that could be done. There is a great deal that could be done. However, we need to go back to where this started. In 1959, we had an authorisation which granted all rights to Irish territory, onshore and offshore, to an American oil company for £500. In 1962, a different American company went to the Norwegian state and said it wanted all rights to a particular acreage offshore. It offered $200,000 but the Norwegian state said it would not do it because the resources belonged to its people. Norway said that decisions around oil and gas exploitation would be made in such a way as to maximise the benefit for the state.

The issue with the Irish approach is ideological in that resources are not seen as belonging to the people, despite what the Constitution says. Policy decisions have not reflected that provision. We have also had a strong influence from the oil industry historically in its resistance to change. Justin Keating's 1975 terms went against that. He introduced royalties and State participation. He saw oil and gas exploitation as a matter for the State for the benefit of the people. That was successfully changed by the State in subsequent reviews.

We have a problem with the influence of the oil industry on decision-making and we have a problem with ideology which does not see resources as the property of the State. That can be changed. If we were to have hydrocarbon exploitation in future, we could place the licensing regime on a production-sharing footing. Norway developed its approach on the basis of production sharing with the state placing an obligation on oil companies to carry the state's costs. That allowed the state to develop activity offshore while maximising its benefits. There are plenty of lessons to learn from Norway, including how to manage resources to maximise benefits for our State.