John Brassil (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 19, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:“(2) Within 18 months of the enactment of this Act, the Minister shall in consultation with the Commission establish if it is sufficiently resourced to enforce the new powers conferred upon the body.”.”.

I move the amendment in light of the increased workload the regulator is likely to have to undertake. My party is concerned that he would not be sufficiently resourced to execute his functions as intended.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Brassil for tabling the amendment, which I do not propose to accept. The amendment was comprehensively discussed on Committee Stage. On the conclusion of the discussions, Deputy Lawless, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, stated that he was satisfied with the position as outlined and, in particular, he welcomed the proposal that the committee would review the operations of the commission. He then withdrew the amendment.

I can only repeat what I outlined on Committee Stage which seemed to be acceptable to all present. I am fully cognisant of the need to ensure the Commission for Energy Regulation is fully resourced to carry out its statutory functions. This important issue was raised in the Green Paper on Energy Policy published in May 2014. As a result of the Green Paper consultation process, the recent White Paper includes a Government commitment to review the legal and institutional framework for the electricity and natural gas markets. The White Paper commitment specifically states that the review includes the Commission for Energy Regulation's mandate and resources. The matter of how best to implement this commitment is a priority issue and part of my Department’s immediate work programme.

The European Union's 2009 third energy package obliges member states to ensure their energy regulators are fully independent and resourced. In line with this obligation, the Commission for Energy Regulation is legally independent in the performance of its functions under legislation and is only accountable to the Oireachtas. The CER must be sufficiently resourced to deliver on its existing and growing mandate and this matter will form part of the scope of the forthcoming review.

During Committee Stage discussions, I pointed out that under the regulatory legislation, the Commission for Energy Regulation is accountable for the performance of its functions to the joint Oireachtas committee. Furthermore, I stated that I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the forthcoming review of CER's mandate, including the resources, with the committee at an early date. Any issues relating to resources in respect of new powers and functions will be addressed in parallel with the forthcoming review and the development of the new administrative sanctions regime itself. The administrative sanctions regime will take time to implement. For example, it requires preparatory work by CER to develop the performance standards.

As I said on Committee Stage, it would not be appropriate or practical to consider the Commission for Energy Regulation's resources in respect of one particular statutory function and thereby exclude from examination the wide range of other regulatory functions the commission undertakes. It is vital that a holistic approach is taken in respect of any review of CER's resources in light of all its energy regulation functions. In line with the principles of independence, the allocation of staff within the Commission for Energy Regulation is a matter for the commission. As the commission has assumed new functions in recent years, it has shown it can flexibly reallocate and adapt resources as its roles and objectives change.

It is, therefore, proposed to accept the principle of what Deputy Brassil proposed in the amendment but to reject the amendment on the basis that the adequacy or otherwise of the Commission for Energy Regulation’s resources will be reviewed holistically as part of the forthcoming review to which the Government committed in the energy White Paper. Committee members will have a direct role in regard to that.

John Brassil (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In light of the reassurances given by the Minister I will withdraw the amendment and take him at his word.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 24, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 9 of Act of 1999

11. Section 9 of the Act of 1999 is amended in subsection (1) by substituting the following paragraphs for (m) and (n):“(m) to carry out investigations into the functioning of the electricity and gas markets,

(n) to decide upon and impose effective and proportionate measures to promote effective competition,

(o) to have regard to the benefits of developing demand-side participation in electricity markets, including through energy efficiency, demand-response, distributed generation, energy storage and the use of digital technologies,

(p) to have regard to the facilitation of consumers to provide, consume and trade electricity that they have generated,

(q) to have regard to the need to provide for flexibility in the trading of electricity to facilitate trading close to real time in order to better integrate renewable electricity and provide accurate price signals to the market,

(r) to have regard to the use of energy storage technologies in participating in the balancing of electricity demand and supply, and

(s) to have regard to the need to ensure that grid connection policy takes account of renewable energy policy, including any such policy in relation to community energy projects.”.”.

I thank the Minister for providing access to his officials to revise some of the amendments we discussed on Committee Stage. I hope the revised wording can be agreed. Deputy Bríd Smith will address her amendment. Two things emerged in the process of revising the amendments. On the Order of Business the other day, I said we are legislating blind in not having a consolidated version of the Bill. During the Committee Stage debate, I referred to a section which, in effect, did not exist anymore. I said it to the Taoiseach and it applies in other areas but in this critical piece of legislation, we are going to have to find resources somewhere to consolidate Bills to make them intelligible. It is just not right that we, as legislators, are dealing with legislation where we are legislating blind in some instances. That is one lesson to emerge from the debate on the Bill to date.

I am pleased we were able to table the amendments but they are insufficient to position the State to become a leader in the area of matching efficiency and variable supply, promoting self generation and getting the benefit that should and could accrue to this country for being good at this energy transition. We will need much more extensive legislation to take into account the various pieces of the jigsaw the Commission will put in place later this year.

From a green perspective, the news today was deeply disconcerting that the Commission has given us a free pass for the next ten years in terms of not having any effective increase in our climate targets after 2020. That is all the more reason we must put energy and effort into this area because in the absence of any effective increase in our targets what I fear will happen is that we will fall behind the industrial revolution that is happening elsewhere. The countries that have ambitious targets are the ones that will make all the changes and we will end up importing the technology in 20 years' time at huge cost to the State. It will be far more expensive for us to do the transition then.

I hope the Minister will be able to accept the amendment I have tabled but also that he will dedicate the resources to preparing ambitious further legislation to take into account the market reforms and governance reforms that will be coming from the European Union as part of the 2030 package. Even if in a sense we have opted out, which it seems to me we have, at least let us not opt out on the economic opportunity. Let us not see the economy go backwards as an un-green or brown state that does not marry what we have, which is a huge variety of renewable supplies with tech industries. Let us at least try to take that opportunity before it goes.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I have a general point to make, namely, that I do not consider the Bill has a sense of urgency about dealing with the problem of climate change and CO₂emissions. The reading of the Bill does not convince one that there is an enormous emphasis being put on that. There has been a bit of tinkering here and there but the overriding concern is with working and regulating the principles of the market rather than seeing this as a vital and urgent challenge to us all.

Neither does the Bill address why we are already missing our targets set for shifts to non-fossil fuels and towards renewables. In short, as I said on Committee Stage, the Bill seeks to rely on the market way too much rather than relying on necessary measures to set about trying to not just save the planet but to reach the targets we are expected to reach.

The first amendment relates to the board of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI.

I know Deputy Eamon Ryan is not too fond of this, but I want to see it included. I argued with the Minister at board level that we need a representative from the environmental pillar on the board of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI. It is not because we do not trust anybody else. We probably do not trust anybody else but that is not the reason why. It is to provide a balance that will correct the over-reliance on corporate interest that the board could have. We need to see somebody from the not-for-profit environmental pillar sector on it. I think it is fair enough that the Minister is willing to commit to his own amendment and individually and privately to have somebody involved from an environmental background. However, I think that our revised amendment of having somebody from the environmental pillar is very important.

On the access for community groups to the national grid, I consider amendment No. 3 very important, not just because I was asked by certain groups to pursue it, but also because the more I think about it and look at it, the more democratic I think it is. It will unveil part of a solution to our problems of CO2 emissions. If there are communities that are producing their own power and have excess power that they want to put on the national grid, it is absolutely ludicrous not to allow that to happen without forcing them to compete with the big players. We need to encourage community groups to develop sustainable and renewable energy in this way. Given that there is huge opposition at a local level to the big wind farms, this could be a really resourceful and imaginative alternative that works in favour of both the communities and the environment. I would like to push for that amendment. I repeat that the market is not helping the fight against climate change. It is hindering it. If communities are willing to do it in this way, we should definitely go down that road.

On the question of the National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, and seeking a report on the impact of biofuels on developing countries, the last amendment on-----

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a separate group of amendments.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that a separate group of amendments the Deputy is discussing?

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will stay with the group of amendments we are currently dealing with.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Which amendments are we currently dealing with?

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in Deputy Ryan's name and in your own name, respectively.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Smith is jumping ahead of herself. We will get through the other amendments in a few minutes.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am all mixed up.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are okay. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together.

During Committee Stage, both Deputies Ryan and Smith expressed their views and their promotion of demand-side participation, flexibility and community participation in energy markets in order to provide mechanisms for consumers to participate actively in the market through production, sale and possible storage of electricity and to allow for aggregation services in the market. I stated on Committee Stage that I believe the concerns of both Deputies are already substantially provided for in the existing legislation, specifically under section 9(4)(b) of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999. Furthermore, the policies advocated by the Deputies were also supported in the energy White Paper published in 2015. The White Paper acknowledges the crucial role of citizens in the transformation towards a decarbonised electricity sector. It acknowledges that community-led energy efficiency and renewable energy projects will play an important and vital role in the energy transition.

In order to accommodate the Deputies, I propose to accept the text of the revised amendment proposed by Deputy Ryan, which amends section 9 of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999. The amendment is consistent with the policy to increase electricity market flexibility, encourage demand response, facilitate renewables and foster the integration of the Irish electricity markets with other EU markets. The majority of the issues raised by the Deputies are being considered and implemented as part of the wholesale electricity market redesign that will be delivered by the regulators next year. We will also consider the issues of electricity market flexibility, active citizen participation in the markets, demand management and innovative services in the market in the context of the European Commission's legislative proposal due for discussion and negotiation by the member states later this year.

The issues of community engagement, electricity generation consumption and demand reduction are important policy matters and are highlighted in the programme for a partnership Government and in the energy White Paper. The issue of grid access for communities is also a crucial matter for development of this sector and this is why it is prioritised in the White Paper. I am happy to accommodate Deputy Ryan's amendment that highlights the importance of this policy consideration, noting the Commission for Energy Regulation's, CER, ongoing consultation on grid connection policy, which considers the issue of community grid access. It also takes account of my Department's forthcoming consultation on the support of the renewable sector, including community-owned projects.

I commend Deputy Smith's efforts to develop an amendment on this issue but I ask the Deputy to withdraw it and to consider supporting the revised amendment put forward by Deputy Ryan, including the paragraph related to the policy vis-à-viscommunity projects and grid connection that we are accepting. It is Government policy to support and facilitate community participation in the electricity market. However, this must be done with due reflection and consideration of the implications for all electricity consumers, including those who do not have the means or the opportunity to benefit from participation in community undertakings. Those with the means and the opportunity to benefit from involvement in community participation in the electricity market should not be allowed or be prioritised to do so at the expense of those who cannot so participate. It is for this reason that I believe we should not accept Deputy Smith's amendment, well-intentioned as it is, without in-depth and detailed consultation and citizen engagement. This is why the CER has carried out a considered and detailed public consultation involving citizen engagement, honest connection and grid access policy.

Just to explain what we are talking about here, there is the potential for an unintended consequence in relation to Deputy Smith's amendment No .3. I agree with the principle of it. I said that on Committee Stage. We have tried to reflect those concerns in the amendment that has been tabled by Deputy Ryan. However, we have seen in other EU countries that the people who have connected to the grids are the people who have the resources and the capacity to do so. Yet, people in fuel poverty have actually ended up funding that connection to the grid in reality. There are additional costs associated with connecting small renewable projects to the grid. I agree that they should be connected but we should not be asking people who are in fuel poverty or those that do not have the resources to connect their own renewable projects to the grid to fund the total cost of this, or a substantial amount of it. I know that would not be Deputy Smith's intention or objective, but it is a potential unintended consequence of the amendment as it is currently worded.

The consultation that CER is involved in takes account of the Government policy to facilitate community energy schemes as stated in A Programme for a Partnership Government and the White Paper for energy. CER is looking at all of the complex issues around this at the moment with the objective of reflecting in the best possible way the issues that Deputy Smith has rightly been raising, that have been stated in A Programme for a Partnership Government and in the energy White Paper. I also believe that it would be premature to legislate on this issue in advance of the forthcoming Government consultation on renewable energy schemes, which includes consideration of community schemes. We will be putting forward detailed proposals for public consultation. We believe that the public should have a direct input into the final structure of this before we legislate for it. Only after such public consultation and citizen engagement would it be appropriate to develop primary legislation, if it is necessary at all, to promote community energy schemes. Our energy White Paper commits us to undertake such consultation before we develop policy, including in areas of community ownership and renewable supports.

The issue of community ownership is not black and white. Currently, we are very much engaged with this with the wind energy regulations. I have received as many suggestions on what community ownership and participation should be as I have on the setback distances of wind turbines. It is not as black and white as people might be lead to believe. It is important that there is flexibility. What is in the interest of one community and what that community wants to get involved in is not necessarily the formula that will work in another community.

As Deputy Eugene Murphy knows, I see that in our own county concerning different renewable projects with can have different impacts in communities.

In addition, under our existing long-standing electricity regulation legislation, the Commission for Energy Regulation and the electricity system operators have strict legal obligations on non-discrimination between users seeking to connect to the electricity grid. This amendment is in conflict with that obligation.

It would not be appropriate to insert such an amendment, as drafted, adding to the service functions as a licence condition under section 14 of the Electricity Act.

I further caution that Deputy Bríd Smith's amendment, as drafted, if accepted by the House would have to undergo suitable due diligence with regard to its alignment with and impact on the broader legal and regulatory framework as it currently exists before it could be considered whether it could be commenced.

I hope Deputy Smith can consider what I have said. We are both on the same page concerning this and we both want the one objective. I ask Deputy Smith to work with me in the consultations that will take place. If it requires primary legislation then we can progress that issue either from this side of the House or the other side, but it may not require such legislation. Let us see what comes out of the public consultation first because, as I said, this is not as black and white as it might seem.

Deputy Eamon Ryan raised the issue concerning the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 and the amendments thereto. He is right in that it needs to be addressed. It is impossible to read that legislation currently. I have a formal response on it which should be in the Deputy's in-box at this stage. We are quite willing to work with Members to see that consolidated legislation moved. How we progress that is something I can talk about to the Deputy or other Members privately. There is merit in what he is saying, however.

Deputy Ryan has tempted me about this free pass we have got to 2030, but it is anything but a free pass. Deputy Ryan knows probably better than anyone else in this House that the commitments we signed up to for 2020 could not be achieved. They were set at a benchmark that we did not have. We did not put forward the date that could substantiate having a proper and realistic target in place. Sadly, because we signed up to a pig in a poke at the time, we are now potentially facing fines. Missing our target by 1% will cost us €150 million per annum. That money would be far better spent in supporting Deputy Smith's initiatives to encourage community participation, as well as dealing with energy efficiency issues for communities across the country and particularly for older people.

Earlier, Deputy Eugene Murphy and myself were talking about the quality of houses in many rural areas, which need significant investment to bring them up to today's required insulation standards. That can provide benefits for people including comfort, as well as dramatically reducing energy bills. Every barrel of oil that is not purchased has a direct impact on our environment. I would rather see that money being spent on dealing with Deputy Murphy's constituents and the issues raised by Deputy Smith, than paying it in fines because of the way we signed up to this.

Over the next 400 months, I am committed to bringing the Government, and future governments, along that road in order to have a decarbonised society by 2050. I see the 2030 targets, which are only 160 months down the road, as a stepping stone along that route. I have the same objective on this as Deputy Ryan. It is important, however, to set achievable, realistic and affordable targets. We should not set targets that have been unattainable and unachievable from the day we signed up to them.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad the Minister raised those issues because we need to have that debate. I fundamentally disagree that the 20% reduction target we set for 2020 was a pig in a poke or an impossible target. It was absolutely achievable to my mind, but it depends on the extent of political ambition. It also depends on whether one sees it as an imposition or an opportunity. I see it as the latter. I know the rest of the public administrative system does not see it that way because we fought with them tooth and nail on it. The fact that we do not think it is achievable or that it is a huge imposition to try to achieve it, means we are not achieving it. That is a fundamental problem. We were heading in that direction back in 2011. Our emission reduction targets were 14% over the previous five years. Half of that was due to the recession, but the other half was due to the introduction of ambitious political measures to achieve energy efficiency, promote renewables and promote better transport efficiency. I therefore disagree and think it was fundamentally achievable.

We now have a big problem, however, because if one looks at the figures today the target we are setting for 2030 is our 2020 target. We effectively got away with a 20% reduction, even though the headline is 30% if one takes out the pass. It will be an expensive pass but we will get a pass on the ETS side and the agricultural side. Effectively, therefore, we are 10% less and are back in 2030 to our 2020 targets.

My fear is that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and every other Government Department, including Finance, which do not have the same ambition as the Minister to try to make this change will not give him the political space or capital to increase his budget three or five-fold, which is what I think we need to do. My concern is that we will miss out on the economic opportunity from it.

As regards Deputy Smith's amendment on community ownership, I have heard the argument expressed widely that there is a social justice issue involved. If, for example, we allow people to create and generate their own power there may be knock-on consequences for others. That fear should not hold the Minister back from freeing up Irish people's ability. The scale it will take for that to become an issue is five, ten, 15 or 20 years away. We have to win over that section of the public who want to do it. The benefit of that, as the Minister said, will be the barrel of oil not used, which will far outweigh any other knock-on effect such as who is paying for the grid. That can be managed.

For too many years I have heard people use that as an argument to block the transition that is happening elsewhere and needs to happen here. I support Deputy Smith's amendment in that regard. I will leave the issue of board placements to a separate debate which is coming up later. We have a consultation on community ownership but we have been waiting for and listening to consultations for God knows how long. The White Paper should have made us come to a categoric view on it. We should now be implementing it but we are not, so I support her amendment on promoting community ownership. The wording we have agreed in my amendment provides a facility for that policy introduction and I hope the Minister will be able to use that very quickly. However, let us not do it on the basis of fear that in some way by promoting self generation or community generation it will be a big cost on the rest. That is not a big fundamental first issue: it can be managed. I would not allow that to hold us back.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In response to Deputy Ryan, I do not think it should hold us back. I do not see that as a block on it. My point, however, is that we need to ensure that whatever we put down in primary legislation is carefully drafted. There is this consultation and CER will come back to us shortly concerning its view. It may very well propose that we need primary legislation in this area. I am quite willing to work with all Members of the House to facilitate the passage of such legislation if that is required. However, there are many ways we can deal with this. It is not just the issue of grid access. Even if we had primary access for community groups to the grid tomorrow morning, it would not change one iota of the practical aspect of this.

A combination or a suite of measures is needed to do that, and I am committed to doing it. It is set out in the White Paper and the programme for Government. I think there is unanimity in the House that it can and should be done. I am slow to put in primary legislation a provision which I believe could have potentially unintended consequences. That is the only reason I gave that example. I do not see that as a blockage and I think it can be overcome. As I said in this House on the day I was appointed, I do not see blockage as a reason not to do something. It is just another issue to get around. I want to work with all Members to ensure we can achieve that.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy Bríd Smith pressing amendment No. 3?

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Acting Chairman would explain the procedure.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were discussed together. The Minister has accepted amendment No. 2. Deputy Bríd Smith can press her amendment if she wishes.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 25, line 14, to delete "concerned."." and substitute the following:"concerned.

(c) The Commission shall promote and support community electricity undertakings in accessing the systems of electricity distribution and/or transmission.

(d) 'Community electricity undertaking' means any person engaged in generation, transmission, distribution, storage and/or supply of electricity from renewable sources or energy efficiency/demandside management services, provided that—

(i) such undertaking is wholly or partially controlled by the local community where such undertaking’s activities take place, and

(ii) such undertaking’s governing statutes—

(I) aim to benefit the local community where such undertaking’s activities take place, and

(II) provide for open participation and shared decision making rights to all members of the undertaking.".".

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 28, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:"(a) in subsection (3) by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph (c):

"(c) environmental matters, including climate change and environmental sustainability, in the person’s capacity as a representative of the commercial or not-for-profit sector or otherwise, as the case may be;",".

This amendment deals with an issue raised by Deputy Bríd Smith on Committee Stage. Following the discussion on Committee Stage, I asked my officials to consider the original amendment tabled by Deputy Bríd Smith and to discuss an appropriate alternative with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel that might address the Deputy's position. I understand that my officials have also discussed this matter with representatives from the Deputy's office to clarify her requirements. On foot of the discussions last week and in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, I am proposing an alternative amendment to that tabled by Deputy Bríd Smith, but to reflect the issues raised by her.

I am conscious of the need for the appropriate representation from the environmental sector on the board of bodies such as the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI. I do not believe that positions on State boards should be ringfenced for any specific sector. Consequently, I do not propose to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Bríd Smith. As the Deputy will be aware, new arrangements for the appointments to State boards were introduced in 2014. These will be put on a statutory footing later this year. These arrangements strengthen the appointments process and ensure that individuals with necessary skills for the efficient and effective running of State boards are appointed following an open and transparent process. The appointments process is run independently by the Public Appointments Service and it is open to any individual to register his or her interest on www.stateboards.ie.

A number of State boards come within the remit of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I actively encourage people to register their interest with www.stateboards.ie, particularly women. The vast majority of the applications that have come across my desk so far have been from men. I would encourage women to register their interest on www.stateboards.ie. It would also be nice to see a few people from the countryside and not only from the city of Dublin on State boards. If Deputies know of people who have expertise and want to get involved in State boards, please encourage them to register with www.stateboards.ie.

Having reviewed the existing legislation in relation to the appointment of the board of SEAI, the provisions around the environmental competence can and should be strengthened. Accordingly, I am proposing an amendment to section 10(3)(c) of the Sustainable Energy Act 2002 to include reference to climate change and environmental sustainability and to clearly state that appointees may represent non-for-profit or commercial interests. I hope that this addresses Deputy Bríd Smith's concerns. In addition, I advise the Deputy that arrangements are in hand for the filling of the existing vacancies on the board of SEAI. An information booklet setting out the required skills and details pertaining to the appointments has been drafted. I have instructed my officials to ensure that appropriate reference to the environmental competencies being discussed here today is included in that specification. I also ask that the Deputy advise any individuals or organisations who may have an interest in participating in the board of SEAI or any State body to register their interest on www.stateboards.ie.

I am accepting the principle of Deputy Bríd Smith's amendment, in respect of which I have brought forward the revised wording. I am also committing to ensuring that the deficit as outlined by the Deputy will be incorporated into the new appointments, based on the applications that are submitted. I can only make a decision based on the applications received. I ask Deputy Bríd Smith to encourage as many people as possible in this sector to put their names forward.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will do that. The Minister did not explain why he is opposed to a reserved appointment on the SEAI board.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we are required to conclude the debate on this Bill in 23 minutes, I will allow Deputy Eamon Ryan to come in at this stage.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. I am concerned when places on boards are reserved for particular sectors or people. I accept the principle of Deputy Bríd Smith's proposal but if we are not careful we could up with a board that is representative of people from the labour pillar or the business pillar and such people representing their pillars rather than being free-thinking. Every person on the board of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland should have an expertise on climate. What we are talking about is the complete transformation of our energy system within three decades. For this reason, we do not want accountants, lawyers or sociologists, etc., on the board of the SEAI. We want all members of that board to have a profound understanding of and commitment to the issue of climate change because that is what shapes energy policy. I am simply flagging that it is important that all those appointed to the SEAI board are completely focused if we are to make this transition because the scale of it is beyond compare in terms of what we have to do.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the point made by Deputy Ryan. The difficulty I have with Deputy Bríd Smith's amendment is that I do not believe we should pigeonhole appointments to specific State boards. We need flexibility. As Deputy Ryan said, why should we be limited to one specific appointment? In other words, should the Minister tick the box and appoint only one particular person even if there are three competent people he or she believes would add to the capacity of the board? I do not think the Minister's hands should be tied. We should not be pigeonholing people into various categories on boards. I agree in principle with Deputy Bríd Smith's proposal and I am prepared to facilitate it. I hope the Deputy will accept my amendment.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

8 o’clock

Given that I would not win a vote on the matter, I will accept the Minister's amendment. However, I do not agree with him or with Deputy Eamon Ryan. Positive discrimination is where one checks the balance where it needs to be redressed. I honestly believe that the bodies which advocate in respect of climate change issues are too weak on environmental issues. This is why we need to reserve places or a place - I am not talking about the entire board - for somebody whose sole raison d'êtrerelates to environmental issues rather than whether they are making enough money or representing a section of industry. It would be worth it. I disagree with the Minister and Deputy Eamon Ryan. However, given that they will win in any event, I will accept what the Minister says and I will encourage people to apply.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy accepting the Minister's explanation?

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put the Minister's goodwill to the test and encourage loads of people to apply. We will see whether we get one on the board.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 28, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

"(11) The Minister shall reserve a place on the board of the SEAI for a member of the Environmental Pillar, to be appointed by the Minister with reference to all appropriate bodies and agencies.".".

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 31, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(c) The Agency shall publish or commission a report on the impact of the bio fuels levy on—

(i) indigenous production of sustainable biofuels,

(ii) its impact on reducing the overall usage of fossil fuels in road transport, and

(iii) its impact on the food and land needs of the developing world.".".

This amendment seeks to compel the National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, to commission or compile a report on the impact of the scheme on the indigenous biofuels sector. The impact of the scheme could be quite different from its intention when, as is the case here, it relies on the market and competitiveness to ensure results. By imposing a levy that requires more biofuels to be used by road transport operators, we see an increase in such use. It is true that we now use more biofuels but there are unintended consequences of market reliance that are having a negative impact on many indigenous small-scale producers of biofuels. The market decided that importing the bulk of our requirements under the scheme was the most efficient way of doing it. A multiplicity of countries can be involved in the production of imported biofuels. For example, 94% of sugar cane used as a feedstock in the manufacture of bioethanol comes from Brazil while 100% of biodiesel produced from spent bleached earth comes from Malaysia. Are we saying that it is sustainable or the best environmental policy to import biofuels from these countries or even to import biodiesel produced by using US corn or wheat?

While it seems this policy is successful in light of the increase in the amount of biofuels being used, we do not see an overall reduction in the use of petrol or diesel. Our overall consumption increases in step with the increase in biofuels under this scheme. We need to reduce our consumption of all forms of fossil fuels and look to a truly sustainable source of renewable energy. Far from helping us achieve this goal, the market prevents us from achieving it. An economic system based on competition, the drive for profits and accumulation for the sake of it will never be environmentally friendly or reduce the overall levels of raw materials and energy we use.

Our amendment is simple. We understand the Minister's concern about the burden on NORA of compiling such reports. However, regardless of whether it is done indirectly or directly by NORA, it is important that we see how this scheme impacts on the two areas to which I refer in order that we can gauge the effectiveness or otherwise of our policies and see their consequences and whether they are delivering the goal of sustainability and combating climate change.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept this amendment. I assume the Deputy is referring to the biofuels obligation scheme rather than the biofuel levy that is payable to obligated parties. As indicated on Committee Stage, I appreciate the Deputy's concerns about the need to review the possible impacts of the biofuels obligation scheme on indigenous producers and also in respect of the growth in the use of biofuels and the food needs of developing countries. However, it would not be appropriate to hardwire into primary legislation measures that can be catered for in a more flexible administrative manner and that would be more appropriate to other bodies. Under the existing legislation, namely, section 31(2) of the National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007, there is provision for the chief executive of NORA to account to the Oireachtas for the performance of the functions of the agency. Therefore, as I said on Committee Stage, a more user-friendly and immediate approach to address the Deputy's concerns would be for the Oireachtas committee to request the agency to brief it on its functions and its administration of the biofuels obligation scheme, including the issues raised by the Deputy.

On Committee Stage, I also referred to the report that NORA produces each year about how the biofuels obligation scheme is implemented. The latest report for 2015 can be downloaded from NORA's website. I also provided the Deputy with a copy of the report on Committee Stage. It contains detailed information on how the scheme works and outlines in great detail how the sustainability of biofuel supported under the scheme is verified. It also provides a detailed breakdown of the types of biofuels that have been placed on the market, the feedstocks from which these biofuels are produced and the origin of those biofuels.

It should also be noted that the main function of NORA is to arrange the holding of national strategic oil stocks as determined annually by the Minister. Its other function is to administer the biofuels obligation scheme on behalf of the Department. NORA is a small, stand-alone agency that is involved in activities funded by levies imposed on the disposal of oil products and biofuels. I am, therefore, not convinced that NORA would have the capacity or capability - or be the right body - to undertake or commission such a study.

In 2013, the European Commission produced a 177-page report on the impact of biofuel production on developing countries that is in the public domain. This EU report states that it took into account more than 150 previous studies from various sources, including those produced by international organisations, governmental organisations, academia, the private sector and NGOs. The range of impacts that were investigated during the compilation of this report include those of an economic nature, including those on food prices, the land tenure system, investor strategies and business models. The environmental impacts assessed include those relating to land degradation, de-afforestation, water resource management, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions and other land use changes. The social impacts that were considered include land and food rights, gender and technology transfer. This EU report goes a long way towards addressing the valid concerns raised by the Deputy. Therefore, I ask her to withdraw this amendment. I will furnish her with a copy of the report to which I refer. If she feels this needs to be revised or updated or that it is missing something, I have no difficulty in taking it up with the European Commission on her behalf and on behalf of the committee and this House.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am quite sure the EU has resources that are far greater than ours in terms of carrying out this kind of research and producing reports of this nature. Can our officials, scientists or NORA extrapolate what will be the impact on Ireland from the evidence contained in the EU report or how it can influence or direct our policy decisions or changes we need to make? Rather than just having the report, can we apply it to our specific targets and ambitions?

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have any difficulty with what the Deputy is saying. The appropriate way to do that is to bring representatives from NORA before the committee and ask whether it can extrapolate from the report's findings and whether it requires further information if that is available. I agree with the Deputy and think there is huge merit in what she is saying. I fully support the issues she has raised. I have already raised this matter in the context of other importers of products from outside the EU.

We should explore it through NORA first and then we can see where we will go from there.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Smith accept that as an explanation?

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept the explanation and withdraw the amendment.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for their support in the amendments that were agreed to. I hope this is a start of a long legislative career for the Minister, getting ever more progressive as we go.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone in the House for their assistance in facilitating the passage of this legislation and every single member of the committee for their assistance in drafting amendments. This was rushed and I thank them for their patience. I thank my officials who spent long hours during the night drafting amendments and engaging with the committee. It is my intention to use the same model in any other legislation that comes forward but not in such a rushed manner. I hope we can have very constructive engaging debates at committee and come back with amendments on Report Stage. I thank each of the members who tabled amendments. There was a lot of thought and effort put into the amendments that were tabled on Committee Stage and Report Stage. The principle behind those amendments merits consideration. It is my intention to reflect some of them through the legislation and some through other measures.

Deputy Ryan is in a relatively unique position. Perhaps the Acting Chairman could clarify it for me. It is very rare that an Opposition amendment has been accepted by Government. I congratulate Deputy Ryan on his historic achievement.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill, which is considered to be a Dáil Bill in accordance with Article 22.2 of the Constitution, will be sent to the Seanad.