Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Mar 1999

Vol. 502 No. 2

Electricity Regulation Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. B. Smith

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Electricity Regulation Bill and the establishment of the new commission for electricity regulation. This is far-sighted and courageous legislation because it opens the field of electricity generation and distribution to competition for the first time in over 70 years. At the same time, it will ensure protection for the public, those involved in electricity generation and distribution, consumers and the environment.

Ireland owes its development, often its survival, to electricity. Last Christmas the inhabitants of many areas in the north-west and the midlands were given a reminder of what life without electricity is like. We knew that ESB staff were working to rectify the situation and that power would be restored. For most people it meant annoyance and discomfort, but it was also a reminder of what it feels like to be powerless.

The provision of electricity has given people power to take greater control of their lives. To farmers, the arrival of electricity made possible the introduction of mechanisation for tasks such as milking. It also meant that electrical appliances could make life easier and more enjoyable whether a person was engaged in food preparation or watching television. The arrival of electricity also made life more secure.

Today's world has become increasingly dependent on electricity. The spread of ultra rapid telecommunications and other forms of data exchange would be unthinkable without electricity. Computers are an integral part of every office and, increasingly, of every home, where they are no longer playthings but are used for a wide spectrum of communications requirements which range from surfing the Internet to writing letters.

Electricity bills are a major item in everyone's budget. Energy bills account for an even greater proportion of industrial and business costs. Electricity production and consumption is an accepted yardstick of the vitality of a country's economy and it is hardly surprising that in recent years the electricity sector has grown by 6 per cent annually. It is my hope that this sector will continue to grow at its current rate because this will reflect our continued economic buoyancy. We have a duty to ensure that energy is generated and distributed as efficiently as possible and that the consumer, whether a business or a private household, is able to avail of electricity at less expensive rates. We must also be in a position to provide for the continued increase in consumption, with an equivalent increase in electricity production. It is for this reason the Bill opens the electricity sector to competition, removes the Electricity Supply Board's monopoly on power production and distribution and gives the new commission responsibility for sanctioning the construction of power generating plants.

None of this implies any criticism of the ESB or any diminution of the praise and gratitude we owe that organisation and its staff for their contribution to the development of our nation. It was through the ESB that Ireland, a country relatively poor in natural and mineral resources, was able to transform its abundant water supplies and peat bogs into power and, ultimately, into greater prosperity. It was the ESB that supervised and organised the rural electricity scheme, replacing flickering oil lamps with light bulbs that provided illumination at the turn of a switch. The rural electrification scheme was a major act of public service to the Irish people because it represented a commitment on the part of the ESB to supply power and its benefits to everyone in Ireland, regardless of where they lived and irrespective of the costs of installation and continued supply. That commitment as been maintained by the ESB to this day.

The ESB has enjoyed a monopoly on the generation of electricity since 1927. This was justified in the past because no private power generator had the resources to generate and supply electricity cheaply to the entire nation. Not only was this justified, it was also necessary because it was part of the process of building this nation. We have benefited as a result. However, the world is changing.

The answers of the past cannot supply solutions to the problems and demands of the present or ensure our continued progress in the future. The political borders dividing countries into self-contained economic entities have been rendered increasingly meaningless, particularly with the advent of the Single European Market. Many countries in Europe relied in the past on one supplier for the provision of power, but the benefits of competition have seen a gradual transformation towards a near total liberalisation of the sector in some countries. We must ensure that Irish consumers do not pay higher charges for electricity than their European neighbours. It is vital that commercial and industrial users should not be placed at a disadvantage because of higher energy costs in this country.

The opening of Ireland's electricity sector should not be viewed with fear because it goes hand in hand with similar liberalisation elsewhere in Europe. The ESB will remain the most significant player in the Irish electricity sector for many years to come. The legislation heralds the beginning of a new chapter in its history. Other electricity production companies are free to enter our market and introduce their expertise. However, the ESB, as a result of the expertise and talent at its disposal, is not only able but capable of doing this throughout Europe. It will also be possible for Irish companies to compete with the ESB in Ireland. Some of these may operate on a smaller scale than the ESB and serve a more limited geographical area. The resultant lower overheads and costs they incur could be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. We should not lose sight of those small-scale producers of electricity who are already generating electricity and feeding it into the national grid. The liberalisation of the electricity sector has the potential of benefiting these small-scale producers.

There may be those who are afraid that liberalisation of the electricity sector will not lead to cheaper electricity nor to a power supply that is either regular or consistent. The Bill and the powers granted to the Minister and the commission will ensure the public interest is maintained and well served. Everyone and every region that wants and needs electricity should be able to acquire it at a reasonable rate. The power to maintain this situation has been given to the commission. It would be unjust and, ultimately, self-defeating if users in some parts of the country found themselves paying higher energy and electricity charges because of greater costs in maintaining supply, especially in outlying or thinly populated areas. That would militate against rural development and the necessary rural regeneration needed in many parts of the country.

The commission will take care of environmental issues related to the energy sector to ensure liberalisation does not lead to environmental damage or the construction of plants generating electricity in a dangerous manner. It will also safeguard the use of indigenous sources of power, especially peat, as opposed to imports.

The Bill has many strengths. It is permeated throughout by pragmatism. It introduces liberalisation in the electricity sector, not because of some trendy ideology but through a desire to provide electricity as cheaply and efficiently as possible. At the same time it does not establish cheapness and efficiency as sacred idols but makes adequate provision that the benefits of greater competition will be spread evenly. It will oversee change of a far-reaching nature while making sure no one has anything to fear. Our future depends on efficiently produced sources of power. The Bill gives the people the power to shape their future.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this pragmatic, innovative and important Bill which will contribute enormously to our economic development.

Mr. Perry

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill having had the opportunity last night to speak on the historic British-Irish Agreement Bill which provides for the establishment of cross-Border bodies. Within the European Union cross-border trading is becom ing increasingly important. New energy producers are emerging in the liberalised marketplace. There are benefits in this for the entire island, where the energy market is relatively small, in terms of increased co-operation.

There is a need to develop a joint strategic energy policy for the entire island with the aim of developing a co-operative approach to the development of the electricity and natural gas infrastructure to ensure efficiency, maximise the opportunities for cross-Border energy trading and promote competition to the benefit of the consumer; to develop a seamless energy infrastructure to facilitate energy trading and ensure security of supply; to evaluate on an ongoing basis the need for electricity and gas interconnectors on the island and between the island and the United Kingdom – according to a recent newspaper article it will be 50 years before the State obtains any revenue in respect of the gas find off the west coast as the Minister has no say in where the company involved will be located; and to promote best practice in energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources.

Active co-operation between the regulators in Northern Ireland and the Republic should be promoted to achieve a more competitive energy market on the island. There was never a better time to do this following the removal of the threat of violence. The EU directive on the internal energy market should be implemented to ensure consumers, particularly in the six Northern and six Southern Border counties, gain maximum benefit from the liberalisation of the sector. There is a need for a common strategy in this regard.

It is encouraging that some of the Republic's largest customers, those who use more than four gigawatts of power, will be able to choose their own supplier early in the year 2000 under a new innovative Bill presented by the Minister. This represents 28 per cent of the market and will rise to 32 per cent by 2003.

The Bill has been introduced on the back of an EU directive. This means companies such as Northern Ireland Electricity can target the ESB's top 300 customers and supply them with cheaper electricity. Competition is the lifeblood of trade. While it has served the country extraordinarily well, the ESB has been a monopoly since its foundation. Its charges – up to 12p per unit in certain cases – account for a huge part of business costs which can be considerable. This means that hotels, restaurants, supermarkets, factories and so on are massively subsidising domestic consumers. If they are to survive and remain competitive, charges must be levelled out.

The Bill goes some way to protect the ESB and thus place it at a competitive advantage in the market by allowing the independent regulator to impose public service obligations on electricity providers. As it operates older plants and has to support social objectives such as operating turf powered plants, any charges incurred in liberalising the market are certain to be passed on to con sumers. The introduction of competition, however, should help to keep prices down. The day of the State protecting monopolies is over. I am delighted the request for a 3 per cent increase has been turned down given that the rate of inflation is running close to zero.

There is also a need for greater clarity on the proposed levies and the public service obligations. It would be a big mistake for the ESB to recoup the loss of many of its large corporate customers, should that arise, by increasing domestic charges. The Government must ensure that domestic consumers will not have to bear the brunt of cheaper electricity to the corporate and commercial sector through a rebalancing of tariffs. Competition in the trade should help to address difficulties that may arise in this area.

Another Bill next year will deal with how the new liberalised market will operate. Following that the Government will address the future of the electricity market for domestic users. This will be the start of what will be major changes in the coming years.

The building of a new power plant by the ESB cannot be until the new regulator is in place. Competition will bring big changes and there will be a need for rationalisation in the company. Regrettably, there may be job losses because some employees are on huge salaries, although it must be said they have all done excellent work. Business is devoid of sentiment. Profitability is everything and the days of cushioning staff are over. In the accountancy terms of timber, surface and water, the timber will surface when the changes are implemented.

It is important that the new commission is fully accountable. It will be required to submit accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to report to a joint committee of the Oireachtas. Other controls include an appeals mechanism and the application of the Freedom of Information Act.

The new commission will have wide ranging powers, including the power the grant licences to the ESB and other providers to build and operate generating stations. The Minister has allowed capital allowance write-offs on wind farms, subject to EU approval.

Mrs. O'Rourke

When I was travelling from Sligo I saw the wind farms.

Mr. Perry

They are in the mountain regions around Lough Arrow. Two major wind farms are planned for Cairnhill, Lough Arrow. It is proposed to build up to 14 turbines despite huge objections. It is one of the most scenic areas in the country, close to the megalithic tombs, which are older than the pyramids.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Are these in addition to the ones that are already there?

Mr. Perry

Yes. One planning application at Cairnhill has been successfully blocked at Geevagh. Had it been successful it would have been seen from Roscommon and would have broken the mountain skyline. A renowned photographer, Mike Bunn, has created an artist's impression of what may happen. It is disturbing that up to 20 turbines could break the skyline. It has serious implications for remote areas.

I ask the Minister to undertake a study of these wind farms. They are driven by considerable capital write-offs and many applications are being processed by a holding company using different names. That is regrettable.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Where exactly are the farms I saw while travelling from Sligo?

Mr. Perry

They are located in Arigna. These farms have not been the success in the US that was expected of them years ago. They are noisy and many have been switched off after 20 years. Nor do they create many jobs. Given that locations are being chosen in mountain ranges in the most scenic parts of the country, there must be careful planning. Many applicants believe they are entitled to establish farms in these areas.

Mrs. O'Rourke

They must get planning permission.

Mr. Perry

That is correct, however, local authorities tend to be driven by Government directives. If these farms are seen as an alternative source of energy supply by the Government they are obliged to comply with directives from the Minister's Department. Perhaps the Minister would consult the county planners to ensure that local authorities will have the autonomy to decide based on the applications lodged.

The Bill provides that the ESB will be required to prepare a statement setting out connection, transmission and distribution charges. These charges can be very high to those building their own homes in remote areas. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has given the go ahead for high density house building. However, if a son or daughter in a family wishes to build a house he or she can be charged £4,000 to £5,000 to be connected. The ESB must take the long view: it will acquire a customer for generations and this consideration should be used to subsidise connection costs.

The built-in costs arising from planning, electricity connection, etc., act as a huge disincentive to site developments in remote areas. Families should be encouraged to buy sites for their children who may then develop them, even if this means commuting from long distances. It would encourage people to settle in the peripheral regions. Big retailers cherry-pick sites where there are high housing densities. The ESB tends to take the same approach. People should not be penalised for living far from the centre, but that is happening at present.

According to the Department, a net additional Exchequer cost will not arise from these proposals as the new commission is to be fully financed by the industry. It is important that the industry finance its development. It is involved in a huge business which will undergo rapid expansion, given that up to 400,000 new houses are expected to be built in the coming years. It must be a hugely profitable business. By announcing these changes, the Minister has given it the authority to make money. It is important that it is accountable and that the Minister is appointing a new controller.

As the native resources of turf and water are exploited to the full, we will need to use alternatives, such as gas, oil and coal. The Minister should consider the use of gas. The liberalisation of the electricity market in any country in the past ten years has involved breaking up generating and retailing monopolies. As new generators enter the production market, new retail groups can buy electricity at wholesale prices. Allowing new entrants into the market will make it more competitive. It will take huge investment to encourage major players from outside the country to break into the market and that will not happen overnight.

The Minister has appointed Mr. Reeves as the first State regulator.

Mrs. O'Rourke

There is already a regulator in Telecom Éireann. This is the second State regulator but the first in electricity.

Mr. Perry

His task will be to ensure that European Union requirements are met. His appointment also means the ESB will no longer be the sole provider of electricity, a position it has enjoyed since 1927. That is a huge change in something which goes back to the foundation of the State. One of his functions will be to issue permits for the generation and supply of electricity. As these changes have attracted interest from a number of overseas companies, he must ensure there is a level playing field for new entrants to the market. It is good that he is independent because this could be a difficult job.

For the past decade volume has been growing at 5 per cent each year and new generating capacity will be required in the near future. Among those believed to be interested in building power stations here are Northern Ireland Electricity and Marathon.

I am delighted to have had the opportunity to speak on this issue. I was delighted to see the Minister in Sligo last weekend and I look forward to many future visits.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Sligo and Athlone will soon be two cities.

Mr. Perry

I am particularly pleased the north west has been targeted as an area for future growth.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Everyone is fighting about it.

Mr. Killeen

It is becoming more difficult to compete with city people from various parts of country. I welcome the development which is an indication of progress on another front.

This Bill represents a momentous and exciting development and provides a challenge, which is what people tend to focus on. Just as the introduction of electricity revolutionised life in Ireland and throughout the world, this Bill offers a similar opportunity for progress. The ESB is well placed to benefit from rather than lose out on this development.

County Clare has a long association with ESB generation as the first power station, Ardnacrusha, was sited in the county. It was in a position to provide three times the requirements of that era. That highlights the fact that people were prepared to think ahead and to accept a challenge. Demand soon outstripped the level of power it could generate and, subsequently, a small power station was built at Milltown Malbay. It was demolished ten years ago when it became obsolete. Most people forget it even existed although it contributed greatly to the local economy. However, it contributed little to the national grid in terms of electricity. Moneypoint generating station in County Clare is the biggest in the country. I pay tribute to all those who have worked at various levels of the ESB over the years.

The rural electrification scheme, which began in 1945, was a difficult and costly development. Strong arguments were made against it on the basis of the return on investment. During her Second Stage speech the Minister referred to the first use of electric light in Ireland in Princes Street in Dublin in 1880. I did not realise electricity was available in Ireland in any form at that time.

The Bill provides for the setting up of a regulator. The regulator has an extraordinarily wide remit, most of which is currently held by the ESB. We are entering a more liberal market and implementing an EU directive. I have criticised the effects of EU directives on many occasions, but I welcome the effects of the liberalisation of the electricity market arising from this directive.

Deputy Perry mentioned that the regulator's costs will be paid by the industry. We welcome that as no one wants to place extra burdens on the State. There is a belief that he who pays the piper calls the tune. However, there are provisions in this Bill to ensure that does not happen. I also welcome the fact the regulator has been named and is preparing for a huge job in terms of his responsibilities.

One interesting development in the area of electricity generation is wind farms. There was a discussion on the radio recently about a proposal to erect a wind generating system near the Kish bank. I was extremely surprised at the capacity such a wind farm would have in terms of contributing to the national or international grid. There is strong environmental argument in favour of wind farms. However, there is a substantial level of opposition to them in the areas in which they are proposed, including my own county. I hope the provisions in this Bill will allow the regulator to clarify the issues raised about wind farms. They seem to have enormous potential but such is the level of objection to them, it is unlikely they will contribute any appreciable percentage to the national electricity requirements in the short-term.

The ESB has an excellent record in international consultancy work and is in competition with other people in the area of communications. It would be difficult for it to argue against competition when it is already competing with someone else.

Mrs. O'Rourke

In another area.

Mr. Killeen

The quality of the ESB's work has made it sustainable.

The Minister also referred to the role of the Department of Finance in the early days. As one would expect, it was not enthusiastic about spending money in this area. We are entitled on occasion to query its objections to spending money on projects which are beneficial in the long term.

The Minister set out an exciting options list which included strategic alliances, further employee shareholdings, public share offerings, public private partnerships, disposal of the company or a combination of these. I am delighted her approach is one of common sense and pragmatism. Where these criteria are used to assess a development, it is invariably successful and I congratulate the Minister for taking that approach. I hate to see ideological considerations overcome common sense. That has happened on occasion when pressure was applied to push people in a certain direction. That is not the case on this occasion and I am glad.

It is important that the needs of remote areas are looked after. The provisions regarding the regulator will ensure that happens. However, we will have to be vigilant. Every Member who represents less accessible areas will have encountered constituents who had difficulties getting three phase electricity into their areas, difficulties in terms of cost and, sometimes, in the availability of the service. The ESB is doing a great deal of work at present upgrading lines and so forth. That is important work and it should continue. Deregulation should not put remote areas further down the list of priorities.

We have already gone part of the way on this route in electricity generation given the announcement that IVO of Finland will provide the new generating station. It is in the national interest to have as many options as possible for the supply of electricity to industry, homes and services.

I welcome the provision for the establishment of an appeals panel. I am not sure what the panel's work will include but, given previous experience, I am confident matters will arise which will have to be put to appeal. Section 46 provides for powers of compulsory purchase to be transferred from the ESB to the regulator. I did not know the ESB had such powers. There might be concern about the regulator having these powers in case they could be used to force developments on communities which do not want them. The legislation and the powers of the regulator would be defective if an appeals panel were not provided for. The existence of the panel and the other mechanisms provided for in the legislation are welcome.

The legislation covers a broad area and addresses the requirement under the European directive, whose objectives are supported by the general public, to have a more open electricity market.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Ós rud é gur Cláiríneach ó dhúchas mé ba mhaith liom aontú leis an Teachta Killeen nuair a rinne sé tagairt don tionchar a bhí ag Contae an Chláir ar chumhacht leictreachais a chur ar fáil don tír ar fad. Ba mhaith liom freisin comhghairdeachas a ghabháil leis an rialtas fadó a chuir Ard na Croise ar siúl. Rinne siad obair an-mhaith ar fad.

Deputy Killeen mentioned Miltown Malbay power station. In my youth I heard stories of how the station bought turf by weight. A person had to be guaranteed that a water hose was available for dry turf going to Miltown Malbay. I often ponder the simplicity of the managerial skills that existed then and how they could not devise a system which would reward good, dry turf. It is unbelievable that these practices were tolerated.

This Bill is introduced on foot of an EU directive. One wonders what would have happened this country if it had not joined the European Union. Every legislative measure appears to originate from a directive from the Union with which we must comply. According to the notes I received about this Bill, 28 per cent of the market must be available for competition. The note further states that 28 per cent of consumers use more than four gigawatts of electricity. The Minister has the power to lower the thresholds. However, if one is starting off with only 28 per cent using the quantity that competition can be allowed for, does it mean that if they do not get all the consumers to switch they are at nothing? Is that setting the standard too high? Only 28 per cent are using the quantity that can switch—

Mrs. O'Rourke

That will come in under the first opening.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): If most of them do not switch, it probably would not pay.

Mrs. O'Rourke

They will switch. That is how competition works. Then they will want a larger percentage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can ask these questions on Committee Stage. This is the Second Stage reading.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister is like the parish priest long ago – she has the power. She can lower the thresholds with regard to the number of people who can switch.

The ESB will set the standard charges for using the lines. That is something to which the regulator should pay close attention. The charge put on the use of the lines could make it uneconomical for competitors. I hope there is a way of dealing with that.

I do not wish to see any more lines being put up around the country, but if there is overloading, new lines will be necessary. There is a great deal of controversy at present about communications masts for mobile telephones. Some think they carry all kinds of danger for people's health. However, there are monstrous ESB pylons throughout the country and they are far more dangerous to health than the little antennae that might be located at a police station. I hope no more lines are put up except in isolated areas.

The ESB should have competition. For a person looking for three phase electricity where two poles are required to bring it to his home, the charges are unbelievable. Competition is the lifeblood of trade and it will probably be good for the ESB to take a more realistic view of these charges. I understand there are strikes in the ESB at present; somebody told me we might not have power tonight. It is a pity strikes are taking place because of the arrival of competition.

The staff in the ESB must be looked after but that does not mean they cannot modernise and prepare for competition. There should be more sanity about this matter. Whoever carries out the negotiations should discuss the issue fully and facilitate the introduction of fair competition without putting existing stations at a disadvantage. Some generating stations use coal, which is expensive, while new stations can use gas. The advantage of setting up a new plant is that one can have the best facilities available but that is a problem which the ESB must confront and overcome.

There was a complete reassessment of the number of staff in the ESB after which it was decided to get rid of some workers. However, those permanent workers have been replaced by temporary workers. I understand there are now more than 1,000 temporary workers, some of whom have been working for up to three years for the ESB. They are skillful workers but I am worried that some of them will not get the opportunity for further training. They cannot participate in the adult training schemes because they are temporary workers. The Minister, being a caring person, should examine this issue. Workers should not be used as a form of cheap labour and, if they have learned practical skills, they should not be prevented from getting official training courses. I ask the Minister to examine that.

The appointment of an office holder, which is temporary until this Bill is enacted, will be a major help in that he will be able to make decisions. The office holder, who is a one man leader, can employ his own staff. He will be freer and more independent in the way he can deal with the problems that arise.

I welcome competition in the ESB and I hope it will be good for the country. The production staff have worked long hours in the past, often beyond the call of duty. They have often worked for days on end when we have had storms and snow. We cannot forget their contribution and a balance must be struck to ensure they can have a fair crack of the whip.

Mr. Durkan

I welcome this legislation. In doing so, I am not criticising the service provided by the ESB. Through membership of the European Union we have learned the advantages to be gained from aggressive competition without its being predatory. We have seen this particularly in other services and there is much more of that to come. We must try to ensure we are at least as competitive as other member states and that our consumers gain the benefit of such competition.

There was a great deal of speculation about the location of a power station in recent years, which has given rise to the need for this type of legislation. I refer to the one in the midlands. It was referred to as a moveable feast because the proposal for its location moved back and forth across county boundaries, but it was finally decided. Often by the time all the regulations governing planning permissions and other regulations have been dealt with, events have caught up to the extent that one might wonder in a few years' time what all the fuss was about.It is generally recognised and accepted that the need for a fast and efficient electricity generation service for consumers is greater and more acute than it ever was before. Domestic and industrial consumers expect the service to be delivered in an efficient and focused manner. They cannot await developments over a period of time. I hope they will continue to have an efficient delivery of this service.

The ESB has a proud record in this area over many years which should not go unacknowledged. It provided an efficient service when it did not face competition. It merely had to respond to the needs of its consumers. Its function will become much more focused because it will now have to respond to the needs of its consumers in a competitive environment. This will improve the service provided by the ESB to an even greater extent than it considers. There are probably many within the ESB who will have concerns about the current proposals. I hope these proposals will do what is intended by delivering a more efficient and rapid service to the public.

At a later stage the Minister may indicate how the commission will operate. An agency similar to the Commission for Electricity Regulation exists in the telecommunications sector and in a series of other sectors. Almost every function in the public service will be overseen by a regulator of some description. I hope this commission will not be another amorphous body that the Oireachtas cannot find accountable to it. The regulator is accountable to the Minister.

Mrs. O'Rourke

He is accountable to the Oireachtas.

Mr. Durkan

He is accountable to the Minister for Public Enterprise, the Comptroller and Auditor General and a Joint Oireachtas Committee.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes.

Mr. Durkan

I hope the Minister recognises that. I intend to ensure that function is exercised at regular intervals. Public representatives find it irritating to ask a question in this House to be told it is not the responsibility of the Minister. I, and I am sure all other Members, have a strong view on this subject. I hope Ministers also have a strong view. The Bill states categorically who is responsible for this area. This comes within the remit of the Minister. We expect and require answers to questions. There is a growing culture in some Departments that the way to answer a question is to give the least possible information. I am not suggesting this is the position in any one Department, but that has been known to happen. There are those of us who spend our time drafting questions and those who spend their time wondering how little information can be given by way of reply. That is not the way Parliament, accountability, or transparency is supposed to work. Rather than somebody trying to ensure that a question should not, cannot or will not answered, a concerted effort should be made to ensure public representatives are given adequate answers. That will have two effects. It will reassure the public and protect the Minister. The worst possible scenario is when someone decides a question should not be answered and a technical means is found to deflect it by saying the Minister has no official responsibility for the subject matter of the question. That reply is regularly given and it is a worrying development. It is not in anybody's interest to allow that to happen in this instance. I hope we recognise that a new commission has been set up which is accountable to the Minister who in turn is accountable to the House. Those of us who have been in the House a long time and those who have not been here as long should be able to find sufficient ways and means of couching questions in an orderly fashion.

I do not want to stir up the thorny issue of the provision of services. The public have become more conscious in recent times of the impact of electric pylons and cables and the transmission of services by installation stations, switching stations and so on. Many people believe that if permission was sought for the provision of the services we now enjoy, it would not be forthcoming because so many objections would be made. We live in an objection conscious society. There may be valid reasons for objections in certain circumstances. I hope that consideration will be given to the appropriate location of switching stations or pylons, having due regard within reason for the environment and the aesthetics of the area in question. I accept it is not always possible to do that. However, it should be possible to circumnavigate the more garish and outrageous transgressions in this area. Those of us who live in rural Ireland will know of cases where the ESB or some other body got planning permission for a development in a sensitive area that would not been granted for a simple dwelling house. The local people ask questions about such decisions. I am not suggesting planning permissions are given because of undue influence or coercion. I accept that it is not the case. They have been given because of the establishment of the ESB as the electricity generating and supply authority some 50 or 60 years ago.

The culture that evolved from that recognised that the service must be provided and that the ways and means proposed by the proposer are acceptable. That is not always the case. I hope any new installations arising from this legislation will have due regard for the sensitivities of the area and will recognise that public utility services requirements should be in accordance with regulations and no more obtrusive than any of the other facilities and services provided by others in the area.

Competition opens up new avenues for those entering the market and the Electricity Supply Board, which is currently in the market. The ESB has shown over the years that it is able to compete in local and international markets. Its experience of those areas will enable it, in whatever form it may be constituted, to take on the challenges this legislation will present.

I hope this legislation will be effective and ask the Minister to remember that the Oireachtas is the place to which Ministers are accountable. It is advisable to ensure that the maximum amount of information will be made available to the House about commissions or other subsidiary bodies set up under this legislation, or anticipated in similar areas in the provision of utility services in which the public have an interest. Once bodies become autonomous it can be difficult to make them accountable.

Mr. N. Ahern

I know this legislation and I do not welcome it as warmly as some other people. I come from a background of 20 years in a semi-State body and the euphoria with which people welcome what they see as the great new world of competition always makes me slightly nervous. I am a supporter of semi-State bodies, ESB or otherwise. Private enterprise could have moved into many of them at a much earlier stage but chose not to and now they are coming along when they see that semi-State bodies are strong and have developed their businesses and done marvellous work.

In any walk of life people can abuse a monopoly. It is the job of public representatives to see that there is no abuse of monopolies. Monopolies can be much worse if they are private. Public monopolies have machinery to make them accountable. Deputy Durkan wants his bread buttered on both sides. He wants this great new world of competition but still expects the Minister to be able to answer every detailed question about the ESB.

This Bill is phase one. Phase two will come when the ESB is made into a PLC. The Minister may be able to answer questions in five or ten years' time about the regulator but not about every pylon and ESB shop. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Other speakers have cherry picked, the same as those private interests which now want to generate electricity.

It is not all good news. I accept that competition can be valuable in certain circumstances. The ESB has always been open to competition, if not from other electricity suppliers then from suppliers of other forms of energy, such as gas.

I hope we will not have a private monopoly in 15 years' time. I have seen that in other businesses which were privatised. After a few years the big and powerful buy out the smaller share owner and soon there is a private monopoly. We have seen in the tribunals how private businesses cause trouble.

I am nervous about the way in which people here welcome this absolutely. Competition in the private world means exactly that. It is the survival of the fittest, it is not all good news. Competition and the pursuit of profit mean that certain practices will go by the wayside. Life will not go on the way it was. Deputy Ring thought that competition would mean he would get his electricity connection cheaper in Bangor Erris. I do not think the private bodies will be rushing off to supply electricity in west Mayo. That is not the way they operate.

I accept this is being done under an EU directive. I would like to think that much of this is a 25 year fad and member states will cop on to themselves without making any major errors along the way.

This is about competition, but is that competition fair? Is there a level playing field? Private bodies will generate electricity which they may sell to the national grid or, in time, supply directly to big consumers. That is unfair. Fair competition means a level playing field, it does not mean that you find out the biggest ten consumers of electricity in Ireland and start building generating plant next door to them, leaving ESB to look after rural Ireland. That is nonsensical.

Concerns have already been expressed that some of the regulations may not apply to electricity imported from abroad. I hope the Minister will appease the ESB's concerns on that. If we opt for maximum profit, who will stop much of our power being generated externally? I am sure the Minister could prevent this happening by introd ucing legislation. However, we have seen other examples of where the States starts off with its golden share, but five years down the line, some of it is sold and then five years later, the full golden share is sold. This happened in shipping; we had Irish Shipping, B&I and other shipping companies and we sold them all. We then reached a stage when we could not even export our cattle. I am not from a farming background so I am not well up on how the matter now stands but at one stage, we could not even export our cattle on roll-on, roll-off trucks because we sold our shipping companies and none of them were owned by the State. Yet, 20 years previously we had a couple of companies and we could control what was done. However, the shipping companies were deemed to be old-fashioned and, as there was no third world war on the horizon, we did not need them. It was decided that private enterprise could do things better, and 15 or 20 years later we were not calling the shots.

I hope the Minister and the regulator, will ensure that, as years go by, a private company does not introduce cheap nuclear generated electricity. Can anyone assure me this cannot and will not happen? It may be provided for in this legislation. However, the emphasis changes over the years. The Minister said this legislation is only the first of three legislative proposals. I see this as only the first round. Obviously there is a long way to go. How can we guarantee these things will not happen?

I am beginning to wonder has life left me behind. From my background in semi-State bodies, I watched ten years ago when other political parties made huge capital from semi-State bodies being privatised or becoming involved in a joint venture. There has been a sea change in this thinking, more at political level and "Chief Buck Cat" trade union level. I do not know if this has trickled down to the concerned worker. I know workers' concern has been allayed by the fact they will now get shares and I welcome and support that. However, in many respects, the willingness of people to jump from their previously held positions just because money, shares or directorships are on offer, has surprised many people who saw them as committed, genuine, semi-State workers. If one holds a principle dear, one should not be seen to be too willing to jump ship and chase a few pounds. However, I am glad workers who have built up these companies will profit from them and I hope this will help to secure their employment in the future.

The ESB is concerned that some of the legislation will not cover electricity manufactured abroad. I am concerned about private companies manufacturing electricity; a planning application has been made for one close to my constituency, in Finglas. I am concerned they will concentrate on supplying the big users in the short term and that competition will be at that level, rather than that of the consumer in Bangor Erris or Midleton. This has also happened in other areas such as telecommunications, where tariffs are rebalanced in the name of competition, to make our industrialists more competitive, as compared with Japan or elsewhere. However, does this mean the household consumer will have to pay more in the short-term? I am concerned about the way this will be handled over a long period. Our industry must compete with other European states and the rest of the world.

However, I hope everything works out the way we want it to work out and that all of these matters have been carefully planned. We cannot help our industry to be more competitive if the private consumer ends up being thrown to the wolves under the guise of technical jargon such as the rebalancing of tariffs. This basically means the private consumer becomes the sacrificial lamb to provide industry with power so it can sell its products abroad.

There are other problems. The company involved in the new station at Finglas will have the most hi-tech generators available. I am not suggesting that ESB equipment is old-fashioned but the ESB has always had a public service obligation, although I do not know whether it was always enshrined in writing. The generation of power by the ESB over the years was initially based on our natural resources, water, turf etc. Its plants have become more competitive and efficient in recent years. I am sure that Cement Roadstone or whoever has the plant in Finglas will have state of the art equipment which will allow it to produce electricity at a much cheaper rate. I hope this is regulated and that it does not mean the slightly old-fashioned, less efficient and less modern generating plants around the country are closed down.

Mr. Sargent

That is exactly what it means.

Mr. N. Ahern

I know.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Deputy Sargent is the new Minister.

Mr. N. Ahern

I am asking that it does not happen next week or next month. Some Deputies have welcomed this legislation as good news; they see all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. It is a mix—

Mrs. O'Rourke

Most of life is.

Mr. N. Ahern

—and it must be implemented in a balanced way. We must be aware of the good work done by the ESB, such as the way its manufactures electricity from turf. I would like to think that at least in the short term, the ESB will not be thrown to the wolves. If it is, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment needs to establish a task force to get new jobs and industry into the parts of the country which will be in trouble. There is a price to pay for all of this. Semi-State companies are under the control of the Minister and many have complained in the past about the delay in decision making by var ious Ministers. In the bright new world, the leading executives in these semi-State bodies, now to be plcs or whatever, will be happy as the decision making process will be much quicker.

However, this also means that Deputy Durkan will be unable to ask the Minister to explain on a daily basis what was bought and why. Once one bows to the gods of profit and privatisation, it is a whole new world. The Minister will not be in a position to answer for many of the actions of the individual companies involved. I hope the prevailing position now will last for a long time and in five or ten years time the regulator will not be thrown to the wolves as well.

The Minister and her Department are in touch with the ESB, and I hope the fears and concerns of its staff are allayed. I am hopeful, if not confident, that the ESB will be able to compete with any new private bodies. Other semi-State companies that have faced competition have, by and large, done very well and are at least hanging in there.

I would like this to be done fairly; it is not being done fairly by my standards as it allows the private companies to target the big users of electricity, but they should be told to look after west Cork, west Mayo and other less glamorous parts of the market. They should not just cherrypick the best business, as that is not competition. They will just feed off that part of the market and leave the ESB to look after the customers scattered around the country. That is not sensible.

I am sure the Minister will tell me that these things are guaranteed and tied down, and I hope she is correct. However, I am slightly sceptical because, over time, a lot of things we hoped would not happen occurred anyway. The Minister should tell us how these public service obligations will be paid for. Will there be a subsidy for the public service obligations the ESB must carry out, or will it be up to each individual Minister to fight the battle? I would like to think that if we want the ESB to look after its public service obligations, a source of revenue for that purpose should be clearly earmarked for many years ahead.

Mr. Bradford

I wish to share my time with Deputy Sargent. I welcome the Bill. I do not claim to be an expert on the legislation, but having listened to Deputies Browne, Durkan and Noel Ahern, I have heard both sides of the story. From a wider political perspective people have been worried about the death of the old Labour Party, but while Deputy Noel Ahern is in the House many of the views of that party will be expressed strongly from the Fianna Fáil benches. The more some things change the more they stay the same.

Politically, we are going down the same road with our economic planning and development as Britain and the United States did ten or 15 years ago. That seems to be the way with most of these matters; what occurred in Britain in the 1980s appears to be under way in Ireland in the 1990s. Some of that is good and some bad, but it has to be conceded that deregulation and competition have worked well here in the past few years. The airline, telecommunications and health care industries were referred to, and generally the consumer has benefited. There were difficulties, and there must have been doubts among the staff of former State companies that had been so strongly protected by Governments. However, the consumer must be king. The consumer has benefited from cheaper air fares, a better range of telephone services and now a choice of health care policies. I hope the consumer also benefits from this legislation.

The Minister made the valid point that electricity consumption is growing by approximately 6 per cent per annum and that it is likely to continue growing. In the era of the Celtic tiger we can expect a rise in consumption, but is that necessarily a good thing? The rise in demand for energy as a sign of a growing economy is one side of the equation, but there is also a tremendous waste of resources in the country. We should be more conscious of environmental issues. We should ask ourselves about the consumption rate of electricity in Ireland rather than boasting proudly that consumption will rise significantly in coming years. Our policy should be to ensure that this resource is carefully managed and monitored and used sparingly, as all resources should be. Notwithstanding that, however, it is likely that there will be an increase in supply and that there will be significant room in the market for new companies.

I have no great difficulty with the ideological concept of free trade for electricity, and I am sure the majority of Irish people feel the same. I therefore welcome the legislation, particularly the creation of a commission for the regulation of electricity. I note the appointment of Mr. Tom Reeves from the Minister's Department as commissioner, and obviously he has all our best wishes in a difficult job. The commissioner will have responsibility for taking account of protection of the environment. Knowing my constituency, the Minister will know the matter I am about to raise.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do. I got the Deputy's letter.

Mr. Bradford

The Minister visited the constituency of Cork East recently and is now more aware than ever of the situation regarding the proposed erection of a major pylon project from Raffeen to Aghada. Politically, I do not always believe in dancing to the beat of the loudest drum, but the Minister will agree that there is an unprecedented level of opposition to the ESB's plan to develop that power line. A Cork County Council meeting last Monday discussed using a section 30 motion to reverse a planning decision, which is very rare. I am a member of Cork County Council, and it has been hugely responsible in planning matters throughout the years. In my 14 or 15 years as a councillor we have used section 4 motions once or twice. The fact that councillors are considering the introduction of a section 30 motion to deal with the ESB proposal shows the strength of feeling on the issue. I know from the Minister's responses to me, to parliamentary questions and to correspondence from the area that she has no direct control over ESB decisions and that she can only speak to ESB management. However, the Minister must ask ESB management to look long and hard at an alternative power supply.

I noted with great interest a new plan for electricity generation which is a joint venture between the ESB and another group, particularly the fact that the power will be supplied underwater through cables. We are being told in east Cork that the underwater cable option is not practical, but if it can be used off the coast we must return to the ESB and insist that this is a viable option to the Aghada-Raffeen project. I am not trying to respond to scare tactics or loud protests, but as the Minister has ultimate responsibility for electricity supply, she should be extremely concerned by events in the east Cork area.

One would have to be extremely concerned about events in east Cork. I have never seen so many concerned people willing to go to such lengths, legal and otherwise, to stop this project. As politicians we should not have to respond to the biggest protest group or the loudest chant. However, there are occasions when we have to take on board the concerns expressed by constituents. At this late stage I appeal to the Minister to speak with ESB management. We are not asking anyone to climb down from previously held high moral ground, accept mistakes, reverse policy etc. We are simply asking, in light of the changing circumstances and opposition to a project which will not go away, and which may verge on civil disobedience, that ESB management adopt a mature attitude to the underwater cable option which is a viable alternative. We can argue about the costs. Given that there is an alternative, it should be used. That is one issue that affects my constituency and one which the regulator will have to look at because he will have many such proposals and projects before him for consideration.

On the question of competition, the Minister's Department, with aid from the EU, put in place a scheme where small suppliers of alternative sources of electricity were assisted in developing projects.

Mrs. O'Rourke

AER.

Mr. Bradford

I do not know if those projects were successful. I recall one or two projects in my constituency were considered. Small players were assisted and some may have come to fruition. I hope, as a result of this legislation, that scale of operation will not disappear and that we will cater not only for large firms supplying the market but that there will still be room for the smaller player who may have a local project linked to a tourism or amenity project. I hope that scheme remains in place.

I welcome the legislation and have no ideological difficulty with it. I am sure the commission for electricity regulation will take on board the necessity for competition. I hope the concerns expressed by Deputy Noel Ahern will be listened to, that we will not throw out the baby with the bathwater and that in recognition of the work done by the ESB in the past it can be assured of a major role in the supply of energy in the Ireland of the next millennium.

I appeal to the Minister to look again at the dangerous situation in east Cork. I do not make loud noises simply to gain cheap publicity. I recognise her remit and her lack of direct control but common sense can prevail. I appeal to her to ask the people to sit down together, given that we want a viable and strong electricity supply for Cork city for industry etc. However, it must be done in an environmentally friendly fashion that does not blight the landscape. I apologise for straying a little from the Bill but it is a serious problem in my constituency.

Mr. Sargent

On behalf of the Green Party, An Comhaontas Glas, the energy sector needs community control. If it cannot be organised in a regional fashion, national control is necessary. The Bill is not one we can endorse as a desirable turn of events for the energy sector. Internationally there is a legal and a moral obligation, in the interests of future generations, to reduce drastically our emissions of greenhouse inducing gases. Scientists working on the intergovernmental panel on climate change have agreed that a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse inducing gases is needed over a certain period. In the case of Ireland, we are getting away with increasing our CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. This Bill does not face up to the problem facing Ireland. It turns its back on the problem to a large extent, apart from its provisions on renewable energy development. The mechanisms for energy conservation are not clearly laid out and have not been thought through.

Deputy Ahern referred to national needs of employment and customer service, both of which will be seriously compromised by a rush to privatisation. That is an issue about which we will all hear much in our constituencies.

I wish to focus on the ESB, how it has managed to do its job and what it is expected to do in the future. As a national monopoly the ESB has set itself targets to curtail demand for electricity, but those targets have been breached. People explain that by referring to the Celtic tiger. Internationally the best economies have managed to decouple the parallel growth in economic development with growth in energy consumption. The more backward economies still depend on a parallel growth in energy with a growth in economic activity. There is nothing to be proud of in saying the demand for energy is rising as econ omic activity continues to develop. It is an admission that we have not faced up to the need to decouple energy consumption with economic activity. That is a challenge that faces this and all future Governments.

In the area of housing and industrial development, there is a demand which will push up energy consumption even if we try to curtail it. The water crisis is an indication that we do not have the infrastructure for water conservation to avoid supply being cut off. We have yet to put in place proper energy conservation measures to curtail the growth in energy demand. For example, energy audits on buildings are not required and various measures to conserve energy are not in place. We have much work to do. This Bill puts the onus on the private sector to do what the public sector has failed to do. I do not have faith in a policy which is framed in that way.

The Bill marks an alarming leap into the darkness and obscurity of market forces. It is a very optimistic Bill if it expects market forces to act in the common good. It would be an unusual state of affairs if market forces were to act in the common good because, generally, they follow sectoral interests. There are many associated with the Bill who would try to claim the high moral ground. It is amazing to hear how a term like "alternative energy" can be grasped by people involved in the nuclear industry, for instance, who proclaim that they are extremely friendly to the environment because they do not emit carbon dioxide. That is their mantra and they stick to it. They try to claim the tag of alternative energy. The gas industry is now trying to claim that because it has lower CO2 emissions than oil it deserves to be considered as an alternative energy.

Many sectoral interests are trying to use the Bill to their advantage. The combined heat and power sectors have a greater claim to the alternative energy tag, but the technology involved still utilises fossil fuel. The definition on page 5 of the Bill is extremely narrow and allows quite a wasteful application of CHP technology. It needs to be strengthened That is one issue that will be coming forward in amendments to the Bill.

Before Committee Stage, the Government should carefully consider what is being unleashed here. It should pull back and ensure there is a national energy conservation strategy in place – one that is binding and not simply a wish list of aspirations. There is currently a rush from different private interests to get a foothold in the deregulated market. In light of that, there is clearly a need for a national strategy on energy conservation and generating capacity so that the number of new power stations built is controlled after the deregulation of the industry. In that way, CO2 emissions will be reduced in accordance with Ireland's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, renewable energy sources will reach their full potential and the practice of using energy inefficiently in all sectors will be brought to an end.

That is quite a challenge but unless we grasp it we will face huge local and national problems as very large players in the energy sector come into Ireland and try to undercut each other by producing electricity more cheaply and on a larger scale than the last applicant. There is little incentive for energy conservation in that scenario.

Deputy Ahern mentioned an application before Fingal County Council. Like him, I have received representations on the issue of a CRH 600 megawatt station at Huntstown. It is alarming to hear from local residents about the effects in an agricultural area, as they would understand it, when they hear about this proposal and what it will mean. For instance, they compare the proposed height of the chimney stacks with stations such as the one at Ringsend. It seems that on account of its proximity to Dublin Airport those stacks are to be half the height of the ones at Ringsend. That compromise is understandable from an aviation safety point of view, but it is unacceptable from the point of view of good planning and having regard to the needs of people living in the area. It seems there is a general lack of consideration being given both to national energy needs and to the needs of people who will be most closely affected by the type of proposal that will arise as a result of deregulation.

Already we have a huge intrinsic problem in the planning process in relation to developments such as the one I mentioned and to other large developments, because the process adjudicates on good planning practice but does not have any role in monitoring the pollution effects of a plant. That is a matter for the Environmental Protection Agency. On the one hand we have a plan on paper which the local planning authority will decide upon, and if it gives permission the Environmental Protection Agency will be faced with making a decision whether or not to allow it to proceed as proposed. The latter scenario is bizarre because millions of pounds could be invested in a large building which could become a white elephant if the EPA decides at that point not to give it the go ahead.

The Bill shows up a further problem in the planning process in relation to large developments such as the proposed generating station. It does not indicate any great future for those employed in the energy sector. I understand from the environmental impact statement and the literature that large-scale operations, such as the CRH development I mentioned, are due to create about 30 jobs over 15 hectares. It does not seem that this will placate local communities which expect some return from such a huge imposition in their area.

A large pylon network will be involved in such a power station. The impact of that on a local community is the subject of intense debate and controversy. There seems to be a policy to ride roughshod over local communities, but in whose interest? It seems as if the people generating the electricity will be the ones who will benefit, but the national interest should take precedence over the private interests of those individuals.

The literature I received in relation to the CRH plant indicates that people have many worries about such a large proposal. These include everything from noise, electro-magnetic radiation, dust, inability to curtail greenhouse gases in the deregulated market, landscaping and visual amenities, the material assets of the area and general safety concerns. Who would want to buy a house beside a generating station? I could go into all these aspects in considerable detail because I have received copious amounts of information on them. Suffice it to say, however, that the Minister will have to think about what is being unleashed here and whether there will be sufficient motivation, obligation and conditions attached to the operators of the electricity market if deregulation is agreed, as proposed in the Bill.

The potential for energy conservation, in the domestic, transport, commercial and industrial sectors, is not being harnessed, although we talk about it and have an energy awareness week. We also have an energy centre which is awaiting legislation but is not a priority, by all accounts, compared to this legislation. That centre is being asked to take all that responsibility on energy conservation and implement it as national policy. That is laughable considering the pressures for increased capacity which the private sector will impose.

In tandem with that energy conservation agenda, there is the vast potential of renewable energy in this country. Denmark has managed to develop a community based control system of renewable energy where people living in the area – far from seeing windmills or any of the other means of generation by wind, sun or wave power as something alien, imposed or strange – see it as part of their community. It is controlled by the community and the dividends go back to the community, who have an interest in developing it further and feel a close affinity with it. Here the renewable energy sector lies virtually untapped, apart from the often mentioned wind farm developments. The areas of biomass, solar technology – which does not require as much sunshine as people think – and wave energy have been developed but need to be developed further. Deregulation still keeps them in the halfpenny place and as long as energy conservation is not taken seriously, they will always occupy the smaller percentage of energy demands. If energy conservation was tackled seriously they would obviously be able to fulfil a much larger percentage of our energy needs and consequently we could meet our obligations internationally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We could also ensure local communities are not persecuted by private interests coming into this country to benefit from the profiteering opportunities which the Bill offers. The closure of older plants will result in considerable suffering in the community. When phasing out the older plants at the end of their lifespan we should take account of the needs of communities and update the technologies rather than assign plants to the scrap heap in the interests of private profiteering.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

The Minister for Public Enterprise has not less than 15 minutes.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs. O'Rourke)

Sir, did Deputy Sargent speak twice on Second Stage?

Mr. Sargent

Yes.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That was a great feat. I thought a Member could speak only once on Second Stage. That is a very useful point.

Mr. Sargent

As a small party we have to be everywhere.

Acting Chairman

I assume it was a different Bill.

Mrs. O'Rourke

On the same Bill. The Deputy spoke on different days but he spoke twice on Second Stage. Is this a new procedure?

Acting Chairman

No, it is unusual.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We aim to put up with diversity. This is something I will talk about.

Mr. Sargent

I did not repeat myself. I had another matter to raise.

Mrs. O'Rourke

This opens up Second Stage remarkably. Is there a ruling?

Acting Chairman

This is not normal. Members are not allowed to speak twice on Second Stage.

Mrs. O'Rourke

A taboo has been broken and I presume anyone can speak as often as he or she likes on Second Stage.

If we count Deputy Sargent once, 32 Members spoke on the Bill which indicates a high level of interest in the Electricity Regulation Bill. Many interesting points were raised during the debate. Many Deputies, particularly those from rural areas commented on the longevity of the ESB, a State monopoly set up in 1927. The company was given due credit for its role in rural electrification and what it has achieved down through the years.

With the exception of two or three speakers, Members recognised that competition was now a feature in the provision of utilities and this gave rise to the need for a regulator. I think competition is good. I have noticed in the provision of public service utilities that those who lag behind fall behind and those who compete soar ahead. Although I take Deputy Durkan's point, where would we be without Europe if we were to enter competitive markets? The advent of competition is timely, it will shake up matters and lead to a better service. Fears were expressed about the older stations and their impact on the ESB. A review of the peat stations was carried out some time ago in which the timespan of each station was annotated and we are working to that timeframe. The public service obligations will be obligatory on all who compete in the electricity market.

Almost everyone who spoke addressed the question of alternative energy. It is amazing that everybody is in favour of alternative energy, but many, with the exception of Deputy Sargent, have fears about the size and level of noise that emanates from windfarms, although I know new technology has mitigated the noise. Denmark has managed to achieve a 12 per cent penetration with wind farm technology for the supply of alternative energy. Deputy Sargent stated that in Denmark the wind farms are community based and partly community owned. There is a strong tradition of community involvement in Denmark. Everyone said wind farms were a good idea but also mentioned the distress caused to communities by their configuration, size and location. People have every right to speak in this way because we must take into account the concerns of communities. They are in favour of wind farms but not in their areas. They want them in remote places where no one can see or hear them or know they are there, but such places are becoming scarce. When returning from Sligo on Monday I saw the Arigna wind farm, which is a striking sight against the horizon. There are about ten windmills and even from a great distance one could hear them whirring. I do not find them unsightly but I do not live beside them. That is the difficulty people have – they are in favour of wind farms but not near where they live, and Deputies do not support them if they affect their constituents. I am not surprised by this, we are all affected by what our constituents tell us and I do not castigate Deputies for this, I merely offer it as an observation.

The Bill establishes a regulator and there will be another Bill, which I hope will appear in the autumn, to incorporate the PLC measures and the greater part of the directive. This legislation is necessary because new plans for electricity generation could not go ahead otherwise. There is a regulator in waiting or a putative regulator and once the Bill is passed he will be appointed.

Several Deputies from Cork and from different parties mentioned electricity pylons. Deputy Bradford spoke on it today, and Deputy Sargent also mentioned it in his two contributions.

Mr. Sargent

I had only one time slot.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Nonetheless, he spoke twice. Did Deputy Dukes know one can speak twice on Second Stage?

Mr. Dukes

I admire the Deputy's agility.

Mrs. O'Rourke

So do I.

Acting Chairman: I must advise that it is not to be encouraged.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I should think not, but it happened unnoticed by the Chair.

Mr. Dukes

There are two points of view in the Greens, there has to be balance.

Mrs. O'Rourke

This is a serious matter and last year I met the Deputies and the group to discuss it. I also discussed it with the ESB, which also has difficulties because it is unable to supply power needs. The matter has lasted a considerable time and there are strong feelings about it. I will speak again to the ESB. I have raised it with the board on several occasions and I do not see a way out of the matter. The democratically elected members of Cork County Council granted planning permission to the ESB.

Mr. Bradford

Local authority members do not give planning permission, it is an executive function.

Mr. Stagg

Was it the county manager?

Mrs. O'Rourke

The members have a say, that was the case when I was on the county council. Judging by the minutes of the county council meeting, there was not much fuss at the time, planning permission was granted amicably. The council is now considering a repeat of events in Leitrim, but I do not know what the implications of that would be, perhaps surcharges on individual councillors. The council is debating the matter and I hope a resolution can be found because the issue will not go away.

So many issues were raised that it would be impossible to go through them all, as well as tedious to listen to.

Mr. Dukes

We would listen, we would love to hear the Minister.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am sure Deputies would, they would have no choice but I do not intend to bore them.

Mr. Dukes

It is not the third secret of Fatima.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I have little time left so I cannot go through all the matters. I was here for all of the debate, except when I met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mo Mowlam, MP, and listened to all the speakers, one of them twice.

Mr. Sargent

The Minister is repeating herself.

Mrs. O'Rourke

No, it was the Deputy who did that. I spoke twice as well, at the beginning and end of the debate.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister can speak twice without saying anything.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put.

A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until immediately after the Order of Business on Tuesday, 23 March 1999.