Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I thank the Members who have contributed. Senator Keane said it was time we had a full debate on energy and it seems to me that she did not make a bad stab at it on this occasion. As Senator Bradford said, the debate ranged far and wide and some important issues have been raised.

If there is an issue that causes me to wake up in the middle of the night, it is the issue raised by Senator Crown and taken up by other Senators, namely, energy security. We live in a society where it is taken for granted that there is light when we turn on the switch and heating when we turn on another switch. As Senator Quinn said, we live in a volatile global environment where geopolitical events determine whether we have a reliable and secure energy supply in a country that is an importer of fossil fuels. Apart from Senator Crown's interesting question about peak oil, there is also a question about energy security.

I do not have difficulty with Senator Bradford's framing of the answer and I would not be averse to a discussion on nuclear energy. I have no difficulty with that formation but the first thing we can do about energy supply is to reduce consumption, consistent with good health considerations and an improvement in the balance of payments. We are wasteful of energy and the thrust of the contributions of several Senators and of the Bill has been to the effect that there is not enough emphasis on energy efficiency and what can be done. I suspect that, if like Mr. de Valera, I was to look into my heart and see what the Irish people are thinking on the nuclear question, I would draw the conclusion that with that little lubrication of hypocrisy for which we are pretty good, now that we have an interconnector with Britain we do not really mind if the energy is generated by nuclear power on the other side of the Irish Sea. As long as we can import it, it is all right.

As Senator Keane said, I intend to produce a new White Paper on energy policy during the course of this year. The International Energy Agency has examined the efficiency, competitiveness and so on of our energy provision here, and its report will be available soon. There is a necessity for us to review the situation. Many Senators have touched on the real reasons we would do that.

Senator Clune referred to a report from the Academy of Engineers. I have read it and met the authors. They would admit they are writing as engineers rather than public policymakers. There has been a steep step down in economic activity but whether that is an argument for slowing up on investment in improving the grid and so on is doubtful. It takes so long, as Senator Brennan said, to roll out new grid and so on in this country that it can take up to a decade. We are in an economic hole at the moment but in ten years' time we will be very glad that we maintained the investment.

Senator Ó Clochartaigh referred to the provision of 110 kV in Connemara and quite properly referred to the fact that our capacity to take up renewables and exploit the area along the west coast is greatly constrained by the weakness of the grid. A number of colleagues, including Senators Darragh O'Brien, Brennan and others, referred to community resistance which is a growing phenomenon. It is not unique to Ireland but we have a fair measure of it.

For example, we need the North-South interconnector for a number of reasons. There has been very considerable community resistance. We have gone out of our way to bring in three Scandinavian experts to produce a report on the question of underground versus overground and so on. The report has gone down well and people have accepted that it is a genuinely independent, accessible, authoritative and quality report. The process is taking place in the Oireachtas. The chairman of the relevant committee will take hearings and submissions to deal with the issue.

I am not in favour of taking a foot off the pedal in terms of investment in energy infrastructure. It has to continue. Senator Clune is right to introduce the report and it is something that will have to be taken into account in the debate. The question of energy security, as Senator Crown said, is very much the big issue.

We are doing well on renewables. My advice is that we can meet our renewable target from onshore capacity. Three weeks ago I got state aid approval in Brussels for REFIT 2, the feed-in tariff or subsidy for onshore wind development. Some six weeks previously, I got approval for biomass, to which Senator Quinn referred. I am aware of a number of interesting combined heat and power projects that were dependent on REFIT coming through.

I brought a memorandum to Cabinet recommending against seeking state aid clearance for offshore REFIT. I did that for a couple of reasons. We can meet our targets from onshore. Offshore is immensely expensive and is putting a huge additional cost on consumers and large energy users on the PSO. In the current climate it cannot be justified.

In terms of Senator Crown's wider thesis, we are making progress. Senator Quinn is right. I have no idea where this is going because we do not know enough about it yet. There is no doubt that shale gas has dramatically changed the picture in the United States. It has not been a uniformly happy picture for which there are reasons. A number of Senators asked me to respond specifically to that issue in the context of the EPA report on hydraulic fracturing. I asked the EPA to do that report last November. So far I have heard it will have completed the report very soon but it is by no means the answer. The question is far more complex and it will be looking for more money. In fairness, the US EPA report, which is due this December, has taken four years to put together. This is a very complex issue.

Meanwhile, the protests abound to the effect that I am responsible for dreadful crimes against humanity on fracking. The fact that we cannot find any fracking on the island does not seem to have any impact on the protesters. I accept they are, in many cases, genuinely concerned about what they have read and what has been presented in, what seems to me, a fairly partial way. We need more scientific evidence before we can draw a conclusion on that. I have no idea why people want to railroad me into a decision before the scientific evidence is available.

It is odd that everybody in this House knows that when Senator Crown raises a question of how we will ensure energy security in the future and the domestic contributions we can make all cause the most extraordinary protests. We may or may not strike oil off the coast. We have not had a very good record over the past 40 years. We have only had three strikes and one field in development. Compared with Norway that is chicken feed. However, the debate goes on about the daft comparison with Norway.

Norway has a strike rate of one in four and if one drills an empty well 78% of the cost is refunded. The unique geology of Norway confers on it the extraordinary wealth that we know about. I can bring in a tax regime of 90% on offshore prospecting with no difficulty but there will not be any prospecting. There is little point in believing that the country is surrounded by oil rather than water if we do not find it. There is great difficulty in persuading people of the merit of that.

Senator Mooney told us about the little old lady who is burning CDs in order to stay warm. He is sceptical about whether the story is true.

It is true there is a problem of energy poverty and according to the CSO figures I have seen, it has increased since the height of the boom, which is scarcely surprising either. Senator Mooney is right, however, to be sceptical of some of the stories one reads about. Yesterday's edition of The Irish Times recorded a doctor, speaking on behalf of what is called the health intelligence unit of the HSE, as saying at a conference in Dublin that people will die as a result of the reduction in the fuel allowance. Perhaps the doctor did not quite say that but that is what she was reported as saying in every headline in the news on RTE and in The Irish Times. I opened that conference yesterday morning and I did not hear what she actually said but it is highly irresponsible of a member of the medical profession to make such a statement. It is an easy "to go" statement that people may die. People could possibly die as a result of rising energy costs. I cannot stand here and say it would never happen with a combination of that, a very bad winter and substandard accommodation. I can stand here and say, however, that no one is going to die as a result of the fuel allowance being paid for six months instead of 32 weeks. It is that kind of shroud waving that-----