Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their very interesting contributions, most of which I will not have an opportunity to respond to in the time available. However, my officials and I have taken careful note of everything that has been said and I hope to continue our engagement on these important issues.
This Government's commitment to rural Ireland is manifest in a number of ways, notably in the national broadband plan. The notion that we have turned our backs on rural areas is without foundation, given the action we are taking and the policies we are pursuing to address the digital divide, about which many Senators spoke. There is no question that this divide places rural areas at a disadvantage and Senators have given an account of how this occurs in respect of businesses, families, children, schools and across the board in terms of cultural life. The Government is addressing this issue.
The impact of the economic collapse on the revenue of the State has been clear, as have been its consequences for public expenditure. However, the adverse impact of the collapse on investment in infrastructure is not often discussed. This issue needs to be addressed and the Government is beginning to do so, as is evident in the area of housing. We must also consider the broader area of making the necessary investment in energy infrastructure and meeting future broadband requirements. The Government is making good a substantial deficit that was caused in no small part by the economic collapse the country experienced.
Senator Brennan asked whether our policy on broadband is ambitious. It is both ambitious and achievable, provided we take a realistic approach and are honest and clear with people as to our intentions. We intend to ensure every home and business has equal access to quality broadband, irrespective of location. Speakers referred to business, social and cultural needs but this is also a question of equity. President Obama has effectively placed access to broadband on the level of a human right. Even two years ago, no one would have spoken about access to broadband as a right or human right but in many ways, the issue has migrated into becoming a human right.
The broadband programme is ambitious. In that regard, I respectfully disagree with Senator Daly's view that the broadband map lacks ambition. The map provides a measure of the requirements and challenges facing us. That such large parts of the country, especially in the west, are shown in amber demonstrates that rural towns and villages are areas to which the private sector is simply not prepared to go because delivering the broadband people in rural areas need and people in the cities enjoy is not profitable. That is the measure of the challenge. The plan does not lack ambition. On the contrary, as a number of speakers pointed out, the Government's role is to ensure State intervention takes place to fill the gap left by the inability or unwillingness of the private sector to deliver broadband in areas where it would not make a substantial profit. There is no lack of ambition in that regard.
To respond to Senator Naughten's request, we will provide regular reports on timelines and what has been achieved. I have undertaken to make available a monthly progress report. Rather than reporting back every three or four months, we will indicate at the end of each month what has been achieved what will be done in the following month. I hope we will go to tender for contractors to build out a network that will serve approximately 30% of the homes and premises in the country by the end of 2015. While the blue areas on the map appear to be relatively small in terms of territory because they are clustered around cities and towns, they are equivalent to 70% of all premises nationwide. The remaining 30% will be addressed by way of State intervention.
Highly demanding and exacting rules apply to state aid. States cannot decide of their own volition to provide a service that the private sector is prepared to provide. While some of us may find that strange or objectionable, it is the legal position in the world in which we live and we must abide by the rules. We will take people through each stage, month by month, in the course of the year and the broadband programme will be delivered.
I thank all speakers for their contributions on post offices. I will not single out any of the many ideas that Senators had on types of services post offices could provide in future. The Government has provided a realistic yet committed and ambitious response in establishing a post office business development group headed by Mr. Bobby Kerr to examine any and all ideas that Members, business people and others may have on what services post offices could provide. Let us place these ideas in the mix and have them addressed by the group.
Senator Quinn reminded us that he was the chairman of An Post in the mid-1980s. The Senator made a very interesting contribution which highlighted a certain issue - I would not describe it as a conflict - that needs to be addressed. All of us are in favour of many of the ideas and developments that arise in areas such as broadband, for example, the proposal to have a State e-mail. Arguably, however, at least according to one view, many of these ideas pull against the survival of the post office network. This requires us to be all the more innovative in terms of the types of activities we want post offices to carry out. The role of the post offices as a social resource in the community is a critical aspect of what we need to address.
I agree with many of the comments on the importance of energy policy, the first issue I addressed in my earlier contribution. It is critical important that all of us are involved in determining what should be the basis of future energy policy. Senator Landy suggested that people view energy infrastructure as something that is imposed on the community.

I want us to get away from that. We cannot get full 100% agreement from everybody on everything. One of the challenges of public life and making public policy is that we should have a negotiated set of policies and way to deliver important public policy projects. It is no good if people feel like victims of a policy in an area as critical as energy. As communities and a broader society, we will all need energy in the future. We will need a sufficient supply of energy, especially from renewable sources in accordance with the very exacting targets we have for 2020 and the emerging targets for 2030. We will have to ensure that the policy positions we put in place and the mix of energy sources we use comply with those targets. We must do it in a way that allows people to feel that they have had a contribution. We are living with the legacy of a failure fully and properly to consult with and engage with communities. Senator Kelly said that it was all very well and I understood him to mean that while consultation is all very well, when people do not want these structures no amount of consultation will address that. That would be a pity because we cannot introduce any change in our energy policy without that kind of engagement.

I was asked about nuclear and other forms of energy. Senator Mulcahy and I have discussed some of the issues he raised. I do not have time to go back into it, but I appreciate greatly his commitment and knowledge in this context and hope to talk to him again about the matters he raised. Regarding the questions about nuclear power, I note that what happened over Christmas was that I did an interview as Ministers often do with a newspaper in relation to the White Paper and what the energy mix for the future ought to be. It was on exactly the issues we are talking about now. We spoke about biomass, solar, onshore and offshore wind, and nuclear. We went through a long list of all the sources and the journalist asked me if that included nuclear. I make no criticism of him or the newspaper on this occasion. I said that to have any comprehensive assessment of energy and of energy needs for the future of any country at the moment, one cannot start by taking one of those sources off the table. In that regard, it does include that. A comprehensive assessment of our energy needs for the future in the context of the White Paper, which I hope everybody in the room will join me in discussing as it emerges between now and the summer, must include all of those sources. Of course, it is an understatement to say that there has been a concern about safety in respect of nuclear. It is manifestly the case that there have been catastrophic events even in recent history that give one cause not just for concern but for very serious concern on safety matters. The fact about nuclear is that it is capable of being safe as we have seen on the evidence from a number of countries. Let us have an adult and mature debate on all of these questions.

I must note that I do not have a role in setting energy prices or in intervening in relation to them. As a Minister and a citizen, however, I share the interest of Members of the House and citizens generally of ensuring that where there is a reduction in the cost of the inputs into the production of energy, there should be some reduction in the price to the consumer. People have that reasonable expectation. I do not have a role in directing that. We have a liberalised market. It is a regime we have had in place for quite a number of years and in fact the regulator does not set prices anymore; in gas since early in 2014, or in electricity since 2011. I have had the opportunity to meet with all of the suppliers in the last week and I welcome the reductions. Perhaps, some might say they are modest, but reductions have been in put in place in recent days in residential energy prices. I would like to see more of that as would everybody in the Chamber.