Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their contributions and particularly for their constructive input into the debate and I welcome the general support that I have heard for the Bill. I look forward to early consideration of the Bill on Committee Stage.

I wish to correct what I believe is a genuine misapprehension on the part of Senator Daly regarding the Bill. It is not about transposing an EU directive from 2011. What the Bill does is to give in some cases further effect to certain regulations, but it does not bring those regulations or any directive into Irish law because they are already in Irish law. We are therefore extending their application in some cases because of the requirements that have arisen in the years intervening. The situation is not at all that there was something that we could have done in 2011, 2012 or 2013 that we left to the last minute. I do not know where that misapprehension arose. I am not trying to say that there have not been delays for good or other reasons in bringing forward legislation, whether by this or previous governments. I take Senator Daly's general point about those matters and the importance of bringing forward legislation quickly and in a timely way but this is not an example of a situation where a government has delayed transposing an EU directive in the manner which he perhaps genuinely thought that it was.

Regarding the regulatory impact assessment, I can tell the Senator that one has been carried out regarding this legislation and was published on the website of my Department last year. Senator Keane made some reference to the issue of climate change generally, our approach to it and what we need to do. A very important piece of legislation was passed, as Senator Keane referenced, at the end of 2015 relating to the policy and legislative approach to the adverse impact of climate change and the need for a low-carbon response across public policy, particularly in the area of energy, but in other areas as well. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly brought through both Houses that very important legislation, which will drive at a high, legislative level all of our efforts.

The Government published a White Paper on energy, which I produced, at the end of last year also, and that will be a big driver for our policy response in the energy sector. We are doing a lot. We have put in place many instruments and measures in respect of the response to climate change. Whereas climate change is never very far away from energy policy, I agree that it is lurking there all the time in terms of what we need to do and what responses we need to have in our energy policy. This is not climate change legislation. It contains specific provisions and the Senators will find elsewhere the more general policy response to climate change which I believe is taking place. We need to understand that climate change is taking place. I will return to the issue of wind energy but it is important we understand that if we do not take one approach then we need to take some other approach because climate change is a very real threat and a very real challenge for all of us.

I respectfully disagree with Senator Daly and Senator Kelly on their point in respect of the SEAI. I thank Senator Keane for her references to the SEAI, the value of the organisation, the work that it does and the information that it disseminates through its website and otherwise. It is a very important and progressive agency that reaches out to the public and makes information available to individuals, communities and business. It is very extremely important that it should do so. It is at the centre of our work of transforming our energy sector and I believe it has proven itself to be an enormously important body.

There is a relatively small change in the Bill to remove the unique provision whereby the longest serving members have to retire each year. It is hard to see the value of such a provision. There is something arbitrary about a situation where every year, three members of the authority are being lost, so no matter what one's perspective on energy policy or what the Government should be doing in that regard, it does not seem to make much sense to shuffle out three individuals every summer and replace them with three more.

I take Senator Daly's point regarding the importance of turnover and new people coming into organisations, not just the SEAI, but all organisations, public bodies and State agencies. He is right.There are provisions in legislation to allow appointments to be made at different stages in the cycle. I am thinking of some other bodies under my remit, for example, RTE. In those cases, people are appointed for up to five years, so it is open to a Minister, as I have done in some cases, not to appoint all the new people for five years but appoint some of them for three years, allowing the next Minister to have some new appointments after three years and then they or their replacements can be appointed for five years thereby staggering the appointments. That is probably good policy.

However, the provisions of the Act at the moment are quite arbitrary. There needs to be continuity in these organisations. It is not fair and I completely reject Senator Kelly's suggestion that the SEAI is in some way biased or there is cronyism at work or whatever phrase he used. There is no basis for that. The organisation has acted absolutely independently in accordance with its statutory remit. It is not fair to level that kind of unspecified criticism at the organisation or at any of its members.

We are bringing the SEAI appointment process into line with other State agencies. Sometime during the course of last year, the Government appointed a new chair and a considerable number of the members of the SEAI were replaced last year under the new PAS system. There were multiple applications under the PAS system and a list of suitably qualified persons, who had applied, was forwarded to me, as Minister. From that list, I forwarded proposals to Government for nomination for appointment to the board of the SEAI. The PAS system is working well, and it worked very well in the appointments to the SEAI in recent months and taking that approach will serve us very well in the period ahead.

I maintain my view, respectfully, that we should make the change we propose. Of course, there is a maximum of ten years, which is certainly appropriate. Two terms of five years is realistically enough for any individual to serve on any public body or State agency and that is what we propose to apply here.

Senator Reilly asked about the North-South issue. The obvious obstacle to her proposal for some sort of North-South regulatory institution is that we have two separate jurisdictions. Although there is quite a lot in common and we share the island together, we still have two separate jurisdictions. It is not really possible along the lines the Senator is suggesting in some sense to merge the planning process or regime, North and South, into one unified planning code. I say respectfully that I do not think that would be possible.

Having said that, there is a very strong case for the closest possible North-South co-operation, particularly in an area such as energy policy. We have it in terms of the all-island electricity single market. It is unique in Europe to have a cross-jurisdictional electricity market on the island of Ireland. It is a very valuable development economically and it is one we should nurture and maintain, which is what we are doing. The regulators, North and South, are working together on the rebooting into this new I-SEM that I mentioned in my earlier speech. It is aligning the all-island electricity market with EU requirements and looking at all the different technical coding systems and so on that are needed to ensure the all-island electricity market in Ireland is aligned with the legal context that we have to deal with in terms of the EU. That work is happening in close collaboration.

I will not comment in any substance on the North-South interconnector. That matter is before An Bord Pleanála and procedures for an oral hearing and so on are matters for the board. It deals with the planning application in accordance with the law and the regulations in place. It would not be for me to express any view on An Bord Pleanála's handling of that matter. It is in the planning application process and we look forward, ultimately, to a decision being made by the board. I reiterate in the strongest possible terms - in fairness to the Senator, she agrees although she has objections to some aspects - the critical importance of the North-South interconnector to the single electricity market and to the wider economic fortunes of the entire island. I am not exaggerating to express that view that the North-South interconnector is of such great importance to us all, North and South.

I believe I have addressed the principal issues Senators raised in their contributions. I again thank the Members for their contributions. This is technical legislation and perhaps not the most entertaining legislation Members have had to consider. I welcome their attention to it and their contributions. I look forward to engaging further on Committee Stage.