Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

I will share time with Deputies Cowley, Connolly and Finian McGrath. I look forward to them coming into the Chamber. I speak in this debate in advance of our party's spokesperson, Deputy Eamon Ryan, who, I hope, will have an opportunity to contribute before conclusion of Second Stage. As a Deputy for Cork South-Central in close proximity to the Whitegate oil terminal, I have a particular interest in how the State structures its oil reserves and energy security. I start on this point because the Bill is typical of much of the legislation introduced in this area in that it reflects a patchwork approach to energy legislation and the absence of an overall national energy policy. While a State agency with responsibility for national oil reserves is necessary, establishing a State agency with overall responsibility for energy security should be an even greater priority as it would, as Deputy Broughan noted, take a more holistic approach to the energy equation.

It is unfortunate that the House must discuss legislation in a vacuum. This debate takes place in the absence of the White Paper promised by the Minister and against the backdrop of a good report on energy issued by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Our economy is still overly dependent on imported fossil fuels. The legislation should signpost what will be the nature of the oil reserve in future, including the volume of oil we will need to maintain current consumption and projected requirements for the next ten, 20 and 30 years.

As Deputy Broughan noted, Ireland has failed to follow the example of Sweden which has made a commitment to have an economy free of fossil fuels by 2025. This legislation will, therefore, create another State agency which will persist with doing things as they have always been done. The only saving grace is that the new body is a State agency. Policy in this area has danced in and out between relying, in the first instance, on foreign multinational companies to build refineries and procure oil reserves, establishing a State agency to fill a gap and then selling it to multinational companies and, as the Government is doing now, defining a remit for another State agency. We have no reason to take pride in the lack of consistency in our approach to oil use throughout the history of the State.

As one whose constituency office in Cork South-Central is located about 100 yards from the Whitegate oil terminal, I have continuing concerns about oil storage infrastructure. The Whitegate refinery is 30 to 35 years old and one hears regular reports about the condition of its fittings, frequent flare-offs and so forth. The sites in Whitegate and Whiddy Island are Seveso listed facilities which have the capacity, as we know from a previous incident at Whiddy Island, to cause tremendous damage because they store volatile substances. I seek clarity on storage capacity and the costs it will generate for the agency. Deputy Broughan referred to the capacity held outside the State and the ability to control and minimise this potential storage cost to ensure the agency is able to operate within its cost base.

On the governance issue, I ask the Minister to explain a number of issues. The memorandum appears to question whether the House should even debate the legislation given the number of sections described as standard features or provisions. The proposed governance of the agency requires greater scrutiny. While I note the chief executive will be available to Oireachtas committees to explain the operations of the agency, scrutiny of the role of commercial companies is excluded from the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member. Although I accept the agency will operate on a self-financing basis, this is only by virtue of its power to collect a levy or tax. For this reason, the activities of the new body should be open to examination by the Committee of Public Accounts, not only on the grounds that it engages in financial transactions but also because it will have stewardship over an important national resource. We cannot cede complete control in this area to a body which has a hands-off relationship with the Minister and is at even further remove from the House in terms of accountability.

Deputy Broughan also referred to applying a gender quota of 40% to the composition of the board. I oppose the decision to give the Minister a sole appointing role in connection with the six members of the board, albeit not with the chief executive.

The Bill states that appointees must have experience and competence in either oil or oil related industries, chemical or chemical related industries, finance, economics, legal matters, energy production and supply industries. As such, the criteria cover a wide range. The process of making appointments to public bodies needs to be radically overhauled. Despite the decision to lay down criteria for membership of the board of this agency, we all suspect that most public appointments are made on the basis of the political party to which the appointee belongs and the party that happens to be in government. While I accept that this Minister is fair and open-minded in this regard, experience shows that too many of those appointed to State boards are the wrong types of people and have been selected for the wrong reasons.

This legislation will be applied by the current and subsequent Ministers. All legislation that provides for appointment to State bodies should include a provision requiring that appointments are made on the basis of high levels of scrutiny and accountability. For example, a chairman or chief executive should be interviewed by an appropriate committee of the House, either prior to his or her appointment or in the period between being appointed and taking office. In addition, appointments to the position of director should be ratified by a committee. Too much of our legislation provides for direct appointments by Ministers, which ultimately leads to ministerial and political patronage.

Given what we know about the long-term future of fossil fuels, a question mark hangs over the long-term future of the proposed agency. Perhaps it is an exercise in whistling in the wind in the name of energy security that a body of this nature is being established when known reserves of fossil fuels may not last beyond the 21st century. For this reason, as I indicated, the remit and purpose of the agency must extend beyond oil and fossil fuels to cover energy security.

On paper, the Government has commenced a discussion on addressing energy issues and the Minister, who has left the Chamber, deserves some credit for recent grant initiatives, even if they come several years too late. The new measures will have some effect, however small in scale. Grants available to assist in modifying houses to facilitate the use of wood chip, geothermal or solar energy will affect fewer than 10,000 houses in an economy in which 70,000 to 80,000 houses are built per annum. We are not even playing catch-up in terms of delivering the type of energy-efficient housing we need.

On transport, an issue raised by Deputy Durkan, while the Government has introduced legislative measures, including two initiatives announced in the most recent budget, it shows no intention of implementing them. One, a tax relief for converting engines to flexi-fuel use, was announced in the budget and introduced in the Finance Act. To date, this relief has been availed of for only 12 vehicles. The second measure, a biofuel initiative was trumpeted more loudly than the first. A follow-up to a pilot programme which took 18 months to get up and running, it is still not in operation because the Government has not even bothered to ask the European Commission for its view on whether it constitutes a state aid. For the reasons I have outlined, I have little confidence that the Government will introduce the type of alternative measures required to enable us to take a more relaxed approach to energy security in the future.

See this speech in context