Seán Kyne (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this debate initiated by Senator Keogan. It is thought-provoking and there is great detail in the text of the motion. There is enough material contained within it for three or four different motions, but the motion is certainly worthy of debate anyway. The Government has proposed an amendment to the motion that also highlights several other important and concerning points in this context, including that we import more than 70% of the energy we use. This compares to the EU figure of 60%. That in itself is rather high, considering the present situation and the uncertainty of energy imports. I refer to the impact, so far, of the illegal invasion of Ukraine and possible future implications. Oil and gas energy sources represent about 80% of Ireland’s primary energy requirement, while renewable energy sources currently account for 13% of that requirement. Self-evidently, all political parties have been advocating for that percentage of renewable energy sources to increase over time.

I always feel people say they are in favour of an increased use of renewable energy sources, but that the situation may be different when it comes down to applications that are made to locate such facilities in communities, whether for an onshore facility or an offshore installation. We have not had many of the latter projects initiated yet, but I hear rumblings already in areas about that aspect. Equally, I heard concerns expressed on local radio recently regarding a biomethane plant. We do not have solar farms here, but concerns were expressed on the "Countryfile" programme in a UK context regarding the type of land being used there for solar farms. These are genuine issues that exercise people when applications are made. This aspect should not be treated lightly, because it is going to become more common and prevalent. There is always a reason to be found regarding why something should not be done, why there should not be change, why the landscape should not change, why a risk should not be taken or why other locations would be better. This is a real concern and an aspect we must tackle. We must get real regarding the delivery of these renewable energy sources. I am not so sure about the use of nuclear energy. I am not qualified to speak on this topic. Several of my constituents have advocated for us to at least have a debate on this technology. I refer to small modular nuclear reactors. I am told they are the size of shipping containers, or something like that, and that they can be used in different locations. Again, I am not qualified to speak on this matter. Everything is worthy of debate, but the Government has decided there will be no change in the policy in this area.

Regarding the Government’s plans, I agree with the stance that the carbon tax is not the cause of the current energy price inflation. This is important. The issue has been conflated with the increase in wholesale oil prices because of uncertainty and the war. Obviously, we have listened. There is a high level of tax on the use of fuel, but those tax revenues are used to provide a range of public services in every constituency. This is also important. Therefore, the Government, if it was so minded, could reduce the level of tax on fuel. It would then, however, have to make up those lost revenues somewhere else to enable delivery of the same level of services as are currently provided.

Turning to the issue of turf, this subject has also raised concerns lately. Again, I agree with considering a ban on smoky coal. This was explored in the past, but such a measure was not implemented for reasons that are clear. The principal reason was that there was no easy or clear process regarding how it could be done. The current Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is examining how smoky coal can be banned and how the sale of turf, or "sod peat" as they say in certain areas, can be looked at. The current proposals, however, which we have not seen written down, but that have been in the ether and in the mix, are causing concern. We thank the Minister for meeting us as a parliamentary party in this regard. There may be many untruths and mistruths regarding the proposals. I have tried to clarify the position as best I can, based not on having information in front of me but from what I know of this proposal.

However, concerns have been expressed about plans to limit sales on a population basis in the context of not having the requisite data on who exactly is burning turf, their age profile, their economic ability to consider alternatives and what those alternatives are. In regard to telling people burning turf now that they cannot burn it from 1 September 2022, what are the alternatives for people? One is to burn coal, which may not be suitable in other areas. Therefore, we must examine targeting people in that situation with retrofit schemes. A targeted scheme was established in 2012 for a specific cohort of people with lung and bronchitis issues. Therefore, options exist in respect of limiting the impact stemming from this proposal by providing alternatives for those who currently burn turf. I refer to providing deep retrofitting and all those kinds of measures. It will take time to do that, however, and I urge caution regarding whatever plans are being put in place. We must ensure they are fair and enforceable.