Vol. 384 No. 7
asked the Minister for Energy if he has had any negotiations with the British authorities regarding proposals to (a) restore the electricity distribution link to Northern Ireland and (b) install a high voltage electricity interconnector to the United Kingdom mainland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
41.
asked the Minister for Energy the reason he has (a) deferred consideration of a gas interconnector for a further three years and (b) sanctioned preparation of plans for an electricity connector with the United Kingdom instead of cheaper sources.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 and 41 together.
The report of the Working Group on Interconnection which I received in June 1988 concluded, based on detailed assessment of future supply and demand that a decision on gas imports is not required until 1991 or 1992 and recommended that the matter be reviewed in detail in three years' time. I have accepted this recommendation. Monitoring of the existing systems capability to meet demand is ongoing and I am keeping a close eye on this. The agreement which I have just signed with Marathon has its own special relevance in this regard.
I have not sanctioned preparation of plans for an electricity interconnector with the United Kingdom and I have not had any recent discussions with the British authorities regarding interconnection with either the UK mainland or Northern Ireland. The working group concluded that the link with the UK appears to be economically viable and merits consideration of proceeding with pre-contract phase discussions and studies sometime next year. It felt that the most attractive available option would be a 600 megawatt high voltage DC cable to the UK. It also concluded that there is a strong economic case for restoration of the link to Northern Ireland but there are other difficulties involved in this regard. Continuous attacks and threats by subversives have frustrated efforts to repair the line since it first went out of action in 1975.
Why did the Minister take the decision to explore next year the possibility of an interconnector with the UK when it is quite clear that they do not have the cheapest source of electricity available for export in Europe?
The study commissioned by the Minister in 1987 and which reported this year bears out the fact that the most economic consideration is the interconnector to the UK. Some people have asked why we will not have an interconnector to France but all the indications are that energy would be considerably dearer from that source. On balance, the report seemed to come down very heavily in favour of the UK interconnector. However, it is too early to indicate the final decision and there is no necessity to take a final decision because it will be a considerable time before these additional energy resources will be required. We will have ample time to examine it in a very detailed and comprehensive way.
Before this possibility of further exploration goes ahead, will the Minister have discussions with the French authorities who, I understand, have electricity available for export and would be likely to offer it at a very favourable price?
I do not rule out the possibility of discussions of that kind but the indications from the French sources are not as favourable in regard to price as the Deputy seems to believe.
The Minister has accepted that it would be economically beneficial to restore the electricity interconnector with the North. Has he any plans to look at that matter again and try to get the interconnector link re-established? The reason this has not been done up to now seems to be because of security difficulties. Will the Minister consider raising this matter at the Anglo-Irish Conference to see if the security aspect could be sorted out? In relation to the UK interconnector, given that there is a very long lead-in time in relation to the provision of any such interconnector, will he further agree that now is the time to negotiate and to do advance planning instead of leaving it until we require it?
I hope that my answer to Deputy Bruton's question did not indicate that we were not doing anything about this matter. It is a question of having sufficient time to examine the different aspects of this whole proposal so that a final decision can be based on all the solid information available. There is no question of deferring it and waiting until the last minute. I accept that there is a long lead-in time — perhaps five or six years — and in the interests of ensuring a successful outcome we must continue to examine the matter and bring it to finality as soon as possible. It is a shame that it has not been possible, for security reasons, to put into effect on a permanent basis an asset which has so much to offer in terms of supplying electricity to Northern Ireland. I will do anything I can to bring this matter forward. We must bear in mind that the initial effort was frustrated by subversive action but we can never accept that position as final. We cannot afford to allow that to develop but, at the same time, any action taken to restore the interconnector with Northern Ireland will have to take a number of factors into account.
The IRA are pretty skilled in public relations, they can always think up a good excuse, no matter how horrible the atrocity they commit. Has the Minister any idea of why the IRA have constantly blown up the electricity interconnector between this State and Northern Ireland? It is against the interests of the ordinary man in the street and as the IRA are as good at pretending they represent the ordinary person, they and their political representatives, Sinn Féin, should be asked to explain why they have constantly disrupted this connection. The Minister said he will do everything in his power to see that matters return to normality. Will he contact their official political organ, Sinn Féin, to see if they can give a guarantee that any future connection will not be disrupted?
I do not have any helpful remarks in connection with Deputy Deasy's question. It is extremely difficult to find any sound reasoning for the actions of the IRA in relation to this and so many other matters. There are no answers to the slaughter of innocent people or to the dislocation of a service of that kind which is aimed at helping the community. To find answers in those areas has defeated the best abilities of Members and others. We can only hope that common sense will ultimately prevail. To a degree that we can support——
Have they ever given a reason?
Not that I know of.
In relation to the Minister's decision to defer the gas connector for three years, it is not the case that if we want to see exploration in our waters, the key barrier at the moment is that we have no ability to export gas? Will he agree that a decision in principle about an interconnector for gas would unlock many of our exploration interests?
If the Deputy's question refers to an interconnector in Northern Ireland——
I am talking about gas.
It has nothing to do with Northern Ireland.
No, it refers to Question No. 41.
In the examination carried out with regard to the possibility of a gas interconnector, all the balance of evidence came down in favour of the ESB interconnector. There is little evidence at this time to support a development in the gas area, certainly in the immediate future. I do not want to convey to the House an impression that this will receive immediate or active consideration, on the basis of the best evidence available to me.
Is it not the case that the European Commission is actively pressing to link Ireland to the European grid? Is it not also the case that we cannot hope to develop our off-shore gas resources if we do not have the capacity to supply more than the limited Irish market?
As I have said, it is too early to go down that road.
The Minister has put off for three years even consideration of the decision in principle. I accept it may be too early to invest but I think the Minister is making an error in putting off for three years further consideration of the issue.
If any evidence should emerge in the meantime which would indicate that an earlier decision would be favourable, we are not confined to sticking with those proposals but there is certainly nothing on the horizon to indicate the possibility of that change.
