Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Jun 2000

Vol. 520 No. 3

Gas (Amendment) Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. U. Burke

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. At long last a western gas link is being provided. The significance of such a link to the west must be highlighted if it is to benefit fully from potential development. In a recent parliamentary question I raised the need for additional sources of energy in the west. There are few alternatives. We are very dependent on outside energy supplies. There were a number of very small turf-burning stations along the west coast, including Screeb in Connemara and Miltown Malbay in County Clare. While they served their purpose in utilising natural resources available locally and in providing employment, in time they proved uneconomic. The position is far more serious however in the midlands, particularly in Offaly. Is it being said that the life of these stations is coming to an end given that it is more economic to use gas to generate power? This would result in serious problems in the structure of employment leading to displacement. What does the future hold for the employees concerned? What role will they play in meeting our overall energy requirements? During the years the development of Derrynafada bog was a political football in north east Galway. It was raised as an issue prior to every election. It was akin to the draining of the Shannon. It is now accepted that it will not be developed for the production of electricity, as intended.

Few areas throughout the country are suitable for the development of wind farms as an alternative to the traditional methods of generating electricity. It is obvious that such a farm would amount to a physical intrusion on the landscape of Connemara which would be regarded as an ideal location and in which, as Deputy Higgins is aware, there are some small developments. One area in particular – Sliabh Aughty stretching from Loughrea to Gort, the Clare border and Woodford – has been pinpointed as ideal and is being trawled for available sites. Wind farms offer an alternative source of income to small farmers who find it practically impossible to make a reasonable living from their farms. If small farmers can come together in a spirit of co-operation and make land available progress will be made. It will be necessary however to bring in outside capital and expertise. I have witnessed Danish, Dutch and German companies trawling east Galway for available sites.

There is an unwillingness on the part of the ESB to allow wind farms free or reasonable access to the main grid to distribute the energy they produce. The ESB is erecting unnecessary barriers. Why will it not co-operate? If energy can be produced economically in east Galway, will it site one station in the region to which the rest can be linked rather than have a network of transmission cables going hither and thither across the landscape? There is a need for co-ordination to ensure wind farms do not connect to separate lines running to Gort, Moneypoint and adjacent towns. If that were to happen it would be an unnecessary scar on the landscape. It is time the ESB was asked to provide a central point which should be planned well in advance to enable the applications which are rapidly coming on stream to be planned efficiently and effectively to ensure the landscape will not be scarred in the way the atmosphere has been polluted. With proper planning small farmers in particular who do not have an alternative source of income will have an opportunity to exploit the potential of wind farms to their great advantage.

Coillte has been very amenable to most requests for access to its property which is under afforestation. It has adopted a positive approach to the many demands made on it. As a consequence small patches of land ideally suited to the generation of wind power have been released. Towns such as Ballinasloe, Loughrea and Gort have suffered severely from a lack of industry over the past 25 years, and not one IDA assisted job has been created in Ballinasloe in the past 27 years. That is an appalling record. Following battles with IDA, Galway, and Enterprise Ireland there is now a wonderful industrial park in the town. However, three months ago the House debated the closure of AT Cross, the flagship industry in Ballinasloe, and only minor operations are now taking place at the plant. This was a severe loss of a traditional flagship industry.

Other industries located in Ballinasloe are providing employment and we are thankful for that. However, this is an opportunity to attract industry, in spite of the IDA's localised attention to Galway. Galway city is like a honey pot – everything goes to Galway and the IDA does not think beyond that location. This is an opportunity to distribute industry to areas such as Ballinasloe, Loughrea, Gort, Athenry, Tuam or wherever, provided there is a willingness to utilise it to the full. I hope the Minister of State will make it clear to the IDA and Enterprise Ireland that this welcome facility will provide an opportunity which they must utilise to the full. These agencies must co-operate and think beyond Galway city and its environs.

Is it the intention to locate a power station somewhere in County Galway as a result of this new gas link? Gas is an efficient source of electricity and there is a shortfall of electricity supply in the west. I hope a power station will be located in the west, which lost Scriven in Connemara, which was a minor contributor, and we are seeking an alternative facility.

I hope towns in the west will be linked to the gas mains for domestic supplies. However, the provision of domestic supplies to urban areas will involve significant disruption. I welcome the fact that water and sewerage facilities in many of these urban towns are at last being upgraded, and within the next five to ten years most towns in Galway will have upgraded water, sewerage and gas facilities. This work will involve the excavation of streets for these three services, apart from the current work involving telecommunications links. I hope that when these links are being planned they will be notified to local authorities so that some degree of co-ordination and co-operation can take place. It is feasible that all these services could be installed at the same time. If, for example, water and sewerage work is being done in Loughrea immediately, can we not make provision for linking the town to the new gas supply, even if it will not happen until some point in the future? This would avoid the re-excavation of roads.

People travelling to the west this holiday weekend will see the traffic jams in towns such as Loughrea which do not have a bypass. We are discussing the cost factors and delays involved in energy and related topics. The NRA informed me today that the Loughrea bypass has been on hold for 15 years. This means we had 15 years to plan the bypass and I respectfully suggest to the Mini ster of State that we plan ahead for domestic supplies of gas to such towns. This would avoid the hideous repetition of digging up roads.

If we are to reap the benefits of this major and welcome gas link to the west there must be co-operation. This project involves laying a pipeline from A to B but it is not good enough to leave it at that. We have to indicate the potential of this development for the various centres along the line. In addition to domestic supplies, we have to indicate what volume of gas will be available for the generation of electricity, if that is the intention, what volume will be available for industry and what industries will be allowed to open.

The west is not a suitable location for the development of a chemical industry, which is classified as a dirty industry. However, we need to know in advance the volume of gas available to respective interest groups so we can utilise the supply to the best advantage of this area which has been neglected for so long. I do not say this in a political sense but there has been emigration from this region and rural areas have been decimated. If the availability of some of this resource is known in advance, people will be able to see a future for themselves in the region and plan ahead. When this link comes to fruition, I hope it will be planned and people will know there is a resource which can be utilised and is readily available to all who need it, whether for industrial development or electricity generation.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is understandable that contributors to this debate are concentrating on the legacy of development neglect which prevails in their areas and the prospects which might arise from the delivery of a new energy source. I understand what they are saying in terms of the relationship of an energy source to infrastructure and the capacity for development. However, that is preliminary to the specific intention of this legislation. I will add another preliminary by saying it is regrettable that the discovery of significant reserves of gas off the west coast and the manner in which the licences were allocated were to the unnecessary exclusion of employment opportunities for Irish workers. It may not be too late to amend some of the second phase of these exclusions, but it casts a shadow over the promotion of this discovery. There is no point in my putting it differently. The social and political circumstances in which allocations were made and the employment regimes, were laid down and the consequences are the talk of the west. We must move on from that.

I want to deal with fundamental flaws in the legislation. Sections 4 and 5, in particular, effectively enhance the role of the regulator. The Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise has a reputation in this House for listening to argument and responding generously. I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that characteristic is not shared by the Minister.

She would be well advised to read the seminal paper on regulation and regulators delivered by the then Attorney General, Mr. David Byrne, to the Law Society of University College Dublin. Mr. Byrne, now a member of the European Commission, addressed a most complex issue in a wide-ranging way. He examined the law and the jurisprudence that lies behind the role of the regulator in the United States and in several European countries. Without having his paper in front of me, but clearly remembering its significance, perhaps one of its most important points is that the role of the regulator cannot be defined as subverting the role of the legislator. While the legislator, the Minister of the day, hands an envelope of policy decisions to the regulator, Commission Byrne's conclusion is that one could not give the regulator an unspecified remit on regulation. Immense difficulties would arise if there are departures from such an interpretation of the relationship between the Minister and the regulator.

I will go a little further and say it is an abuse of the legal base to argue that one can give an open-ended interpretative power to the regulator. When replying, I challenge the Minister of State or the Minister, should she want to return to defend her ideological position, to show where in the European interpretation of the role of the regulator there has been such an open-ended interpretation.

It is interesting to contemplate what is at stake and the appalling shambles to which it could give rise. Effectively, section 4 excludes the ESB from being a customer for gas for the generation of energy. Apart from anything else, this mixes two separate pieces of legislation in an unsatisfactory manner. An existing regime is laid down for the liberalisation of the electricity market and regulation of this sector but, somewhat in breach of the directive from which much of this legislation is derived, the Minister appears to want to take the position of a company in one part of the energy market and use it as a lever for the exclusion of another part of the energy market. To put it bluntly, it is an abuse of the legal regime. In any event, it will be tested should this legislation get through and, if it does, I hope sections 4 and 5 will be amended.

With regard to the social implications of this, we are on the verge of facing fairly regular energy shortages, perhaps within 12 months. Two or three steps could have been taken to alleviate or avert the current crisis. The Electricity Supply Board could have been given permission to proceed with the construction of its other energy source at Ringsend and to remove the obstacles towards it securing a supply for it. Also, an additional gas connector could have been secured. Those points were developed by Deputy Stagg.

I want to concentrate on what I consider an unusual interpretation of the European law on this matter, a complete misconstruction of the directive and the danger of handing over legislative power in an unspecified manner to the regu lator. The role of the regulator is interesting, even in relation to section 4. The regulator is allowed to have a market opinion, but the Bill does not specify how that opinion is to be achieved. Deputy Burke's point on this was interesting. In a narrow, distorted, twisted version of energy competition, the Electricity Supply Board is being excluded as a player. It is being excluded on a basis covered in section 4. I want to be as accurate as I can on this in view of the proliferate abuse of the European directive in the Minister's case. Section 4 deals with supplementary provisions to be included in regulations with respect to method of selection. The explanatory memorandum states:

Section 4 contains supplementary provisions to be included in the regulations relating to the selection procedure. Additional provisions in relation to precedence include alterations in ranking to preclude the selection of an applicant where, in the opinion of the Commission, the selection of that applicant would adversely affect the promotion of competition in the electricity market.

If one checks the European directive from which that is derived, one will learn this is supposed to be for the benefit of the consumer. Therefore, one must literally blackguard the ESB so as to give an unfair competitive advantage to a small number of non-State or semi-State suppliers. The manner in which the ESB, which transformed the face of Ireland, is treated in this legislation is outrageous.

There is another interesting side to this. To take the points made by my colleague from east Galway, Deputy Burke, it relates to the provision of infrastructure in general. Another regulator has a function in telecommunications. Having regard to the impact of regulation in that market, if one interpreted competition in a purely narrow market sense, irrespective of its social consequences, one would have what one will get in relation to the west. I hope Deputy Burke adverted to that. Taking Telecom Éireann out of the equation has meant, in many cases, that the new competition in telephonic services is coming in where the market can support it. The fibre optic lines are going to where the money is. In the same way as in this legislation, a fundamental shift is taking place. If one were to take the ESB out of the equation, on the basis that its position in the electricity market disqualifies it from being supplied with gas for the purposes of electricity generation, it would be done without taking cognisance of the consequences of energy shortages.

It is irresponsible and is ideologically driven because the ESB must be hammered. At the other side one has to look at who one is left with in relation to the people to be supplied with gas. Has the Minister any indication that there will be universality of provision rather than selective provision? Universality giving way to selective provision is already happening. A whole range of areas in the west are excluded from fibre optic coverage because of a selective rather than a universal interpretation. It is dishonest and unfair to say these considerations do not apply. They do apply and were mentioned during the debate on the competition regime and how it would be introduced in Ireland. It was mentioned in the House and guarantees were given by Government in relation to universality of provision.

The Minister in her flippant approach to the House, which has deteriorated almost every week in the past few years to a point where it is farcical, simply will not answer the question. Where does she stand on Commissioner Byrne's paper, delivered in UCD to the Law Society when he was Attorney General, in relation to the responsibility of the Minister of the day to give a clear set of policy decisions to the regulator? That is the role of the regulator in Europe and in America. What is the role of the regulator here? There is no legislation that gives as loose an interpretation of the role and functions of the regulator as this ridiculous section 4. How would such legislation going through this House ever be made accountable? The explanatory memorandum states, "Additional provisions. preclude the selection of an applicant where, in the opinion of the Commission, the selection of that applicant would adversely affect the promotion of competition in the electricity market." How are we to evaluate that? The Minister from the land of nod will say, "It is not our business, I am washing my hands of it." She cannot wash her hands of responsibility in relation to the adequacy of energy supply and the right of suppliers to be treated equally. I am not finished with that matter.

It is interesting that the Department, which changes its title so often, has recognised, as I believe the Minister of State has, there will be an electricity generation capacity shortage as early as the end of next year. What this legislation does not take account of is that the Irish electricity market has already been opened to competition and that there are a number of electricity generation projects to service the liberalised section of the Irish electricity market. I am not in favour of a single player or of any quasi monopolistic abuse. I have the greatest sympathy for all the Green energy producers who are anxious to be treated fairly. They have the right to benefit from the role of the regulator to ensure they get a fair regime. It is well that we are actually behind. It is welcome. There is no point in recrimination, that is not my business and I am not interested in recrimination. We are probably late entrants into the field of alternative energy supply in both wind and wave energy. I am interested in all these alternative sources being treated fairly and in a way in which there can never be an abuse of a monopolistic position.

It is incredible to move from a regime that regulates the production of electricity to one that threatens the disposal of gas. There is no basis for removing a player, no matter what is said, and taking the best dressed candidate that comes along but it cannot be X. I ask the Minister to stop in her tracks before adopting this approach. Why is the Minister trying it? It is because of this incredible ideological opposition to anything associated with the State or semi-State companies. My second job was with the Electricity Supply Board. I am a grade A clerk, retired and earned £6.14s. 2d per week in 1962 but I do not derive any pension benefit from it. I joined as a clerk when the last stages of rural electrification were being completed. Electricity was supplied by the ESB to places where no market ideologue would even be got to slow down their car. That is the reality. It was a fine organisation. In this I include those who worked at installing it and bringing it to inaccessible and remote places and also those who built up a fine tradition. What is wrong with it now is that there must be other market players. I accept that my view is a minority one.

A majority was in favour of Maastricht. It would appear there are Governments that are willing to abuse Maastricht, and I would describe this as an abuse of Maastricht. It the Minister would stop giggling, it would be interesting to hear her reply. We have to create a kind of virtual Minister now. When she does reply she might like to answer the questions I have asked in respect of the directive – I refer to the gas directive 98/30/EC. An article of the gas directive clearly states: "Member states shall take the necessary measures to ensure that gas fired generators are designated as eligible customers." That is as clear as day. How can the Minister in interpreting that language exclude an ESB-Statoil partnership? On what basis can it be said it is not an eligible customer? This status, under article 16 of the gas directive, permits the eligible customer the right of access to the gas transmission system the member state concerned to enter into a supply contract with gas undertakings inside or outside the territory.

What a great pity it is that a Minister from a party that once liked to associate itself with the great semi-State transformations and the inclusion of people as citizens into the right to consume energy would bring in something that is illegal, inappropriate, an abuse of text and give rights to a regulator that are born of the lazy actions of the Minister. I challenge her yet again, as in all her other areas, to define the role of the regulator and to stop running away from the House. If the legislation is passed in this form she will not have to account for anything in relation to energy supply in this House. That is a disgrace.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I thank Members for their worthy contributions. I should say to Deputy Higgins that I have been delegated responsibility for the gas industry and for this Bill which I am endeavouring to bring through the House. I am happy to take responsibility for any merits or demerits and I hope I will be able to address the questions raised by colleagues, including Deputy Higgins, in the course of my reply.

In bringing forward the Bill I am seeking to address four different issues, two of which require immediate attention. The first and most pressing is to provide for a scheme to allocate scarce capacity in the natural gas network. The purpose of this scheme is twofold. First, given that prospective power producers are seeking access to more capacity than is available in the system at the moment, it will ensure that the available capacity is allocated in a fair and transparent manner. Second, power producers need certainty in relation to gas capacity in order to seek finance for proposed projects. In allocating capacity in the gas network to the power producers which are selected under the scheme provided for in the Bill, it will enable them to proceed with their projects which will ensure that additional electricity generating capacity will be available in the State in the next couple of years to meet forecast increases in demand for electricity.

I emphasise that there is absolutely no threat of disruption to existing gas customers. There is sufficient capacity in the system to meet forecast gas demand until 2004. Neither is it the case that BGE will be constrained in connecting and supplying new customers. Sufficient capacity to fuel approximately 800 megawatts of electricity generating capacity is available in the gas network. I have decided that this will be reserved specifically for the purpose of fuelling new power plants to meet the expected increase in demand for electricity in the next couple of years. There is a set of converging circumstances which has resulted in there being limited capacity available in the natural gas network in the short term. Demand for natural gas has been increasing at a greater rate than expected. So too has demand for electricity and this is directly related to the unprecedented levels of economic growth that we have experienced in recent years and which it is hoped will continue well into the coming years.

The gas interconnector with Scotland is nearing full capacity some ten years sooner than had been anticipated owing to the greater than expected growth rate. In addition, the demand for natural gas is being boosted further by the opening of the electricity market. BGE has received applications for network capacity that would be sufficient to fuel 4,000 watts of electricity generating capacity. The vast majority of new power plants being constructed around the world are gas-fired plants. The development of combined cycle gas technology which provides the most efficient form of generation means that natural gas is now the preferred fuel for power generation.

I heard what Deputy Stagg said about possible over-reliance on gas. I am very aware of this. I assure him that security of energy supply is at the top of my agenda. Neither my Department nor I have been ignoring the question of the provision of additional gas infrastructure. My Department and BGE have undertaken a major study, the Gas 2025 study on future natural gas infrastructu ral requirements. While the study concluded that the optimal solutions to satisfy future requirement would be to construct a second natural gas interconnector with the UK parallel to the existing Scotland-Ireland interconnector, the subsequent economic assessment of the future gas supply options recommended by the Gas 2025 study proposed that we should await the outcome of the exploration of the Corrib gas field off the west coast before deciding on future gas supply infrastructure. This was a prudent recommendation which I readily accepted. In doing so I recognised that it was not an open-ended decision. New gas capacity will be required, and I will make a decision on this one way or the other in sufficient time to ensure that there will be no shortage of capacity.

Deputy Kitt raised the question of a gas pipeline to the west. I received two different applications for pipelines that would bring gas to or from the west – other Deputies from that area also raised that issue. One is from BGE which has applied for consent to construct a pipeline from Dublin to Galway and onwards to Limerick. That would, in effect, complete a national ring main linking in with the existing grid. Enterprise Oil, one of the companies in the consortium involved in the exploration of the Corrib field off the west coast, has also notified me of its intention to build a pipeline from the west to link into the existing BGE network. Enterprise Oil is considering a number of possible pipeline routings.

An important consideration is that under the provisions of the EU gas directive, competition is being introduced into the natural gas industry right across Europe, and the industry is expected to develop into a very competitive industry. In recognition of this, the National Development Plan 2000-2006 states that in relation to the provision of natural gas infrastructure the market should be able to cater for the investment needs of the sector. There is no provision in the plan for the funding of natural gas pipelines. In authorising pipelines, I can attach conditions relating to environmental efficiency and safety criteria. I have no function in determining the proposed route of a pipeline to be built by either BGE or private developers. Decisions concerning the construction of pipelines and routes are made by the players themselves on the basis of commercial considerations.

The position regarding the development of the Corrib field will be much more clear later this year. The Corrib partners, Enterprise Oil, Statoil and Marathon, have indicated that they will make a decision later this year on whether to proceed with the commercial development of the field. If the field is to be developed commercially, this would postpone the need for a second interconnector. I am not prepared to impose unnecessary costs on gas consumers by giving approval to BGE to proceed with the construction of a second interconnector at this stage if it will not be required for a number of years. Before the end of this year, I will make a decision on additional gas infrastructure that will ensure that additional capacity is available when it is required.

The question of the ESB's participation in the scheme was raised by Deputies Yates, Stagg and Higgins. The ESB, as well as any other party, can apply for network capacity under the scheme. I am cognisant of the ESB's dominance in the electricity industry at present. I also recognise that the EU competition rules must be adhered to. The Attorney General has advised me on aspects of this Bill, including the possible impact of the allocation scheme on the development of competition in the electricity industry. In particular, he advised that in allocating capacity to prospective power producers, the Commission for Electricity Regulation should have regard to competition criteria in selecting winners under the scheme. This is also the strong view of the EU Competition Directorate. In the context of the opening of the electricity market, this is not an unusual precaution.

Mr. Stagg

Will the Minister clarify a point? Does that mean that the ESB can apply but will not get a supply?

Mr. Jacob

It means certainly that the ESB can apply, as can any other party.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Attorney General is wrong.

Mr. Jacob

It would be unwise of us to attempt to prejudge the outcome of the selection scheme.

Mr. Stagg

It would not be his first time to be wrong either.

Mr. Jacob

Regarding combined heat and power which was also raised by Deputies, it certainly is not the intention to require smallscale CHP projects to participate in the allocation. I recognise that to do so would have the effect of curtailing the development of CHP and I am particularly enamoured that technology. I will be proposing an amendment to deal with this matter.

I refute suggestions that the Commission for Electricity Regulation was influential in relation to the policy aspects underpinning the Bill. This is not the case. The commission is an independent office and its role and responsibilities in the electricity industry are set out in the Electricity Regulation Act, 1999. The gas capacity allocation functions given to it under this Bill are temporary and are separate from its normal functions.

The commission will act in an independent manner in conducting the allocation scheme and selecting the winners. It will be bound by the provisions in the legislation which I am sure colleagues will appreciate are very detailed. I have every confidence that the commissioner and his staff will conduct this process in a fair, even-handed and professional way. The Bill aims to provide a solution to a short-term problem. My Department has consulted extensively with interested parties on the question of an appropriate mechanism for allocating capacity in the gas network. The scheme provided for in the Bill is a transparent mechanism to select power producers to whom the available capacity in the network will be allocated. It will select those producers who will be capable of bringing additional electricity generating capacity on stream at the earliest possible date.

The second pressing issue the Bill addresses is the right to access and acquire land for the purposes of constructing natural gas pipelines. Anomalies exist in current legislation regarding the construction of pipelines. BGE must obtain my consent to construct a natural gas pipeline while private developers must give previous and reasonable notice to me of their intention to do so. In both cases I can require that the pipelines be built in accordance with certain criteria relating to environmental, safety and efficiency considerations. BGE has power to access and acquire land for the purposes of building a pipeline but private developers do not have such rights.

As I have said, a number of parties are interested in building pipelines both within and to the State. The EU gas directive has been in force since 1998. It requires that all natural gas undertakings be treated on similar terms. Therefore I could not approve any proposal from BGE or a private developer to construct a pipeline in a case where BGE and private developers do not enjoy the same rights. The aim of the Bill is to remove existing anomalies. The Bill will make all pipeline developers, both BGE and private developers, subject to the same consent conditions and extends the rights currently enjoyed by BGE relating to access and acquisition of land to private developers. These rights are subject to the same obligations to pay compensation that apply to BGE.

Deputy Burke raised a number of issues. Perhaps he digressed somewhat from the subject matter of the Bill but if I were wearing his hat I would probably do so too. I will endeavour not to incur the wrath of the Chair but maybe I could digress slightly to address the issues he raised.

Mr. Stagg

Watch yourself.

Mr. Jacob

He spoke of peat stations, particularly those in his area. I am aware that the ESB has a programme on the future of peat stations that will see new and more efficient stations being built. The new IPO plant in Edenderry will be ready later this year. There is a future for peat in the generation of electricity. He also spoke about wind farms. I share his views on their meritorious nature. Deputy Higgins referred to renewables and the meritorious nature of these forms of electricity production. We are endeavouring to facilitate small micro type wind farms, community groups and farming groups. This is being looked at by a special strategy group, which I expect to report to me next month, on how we can deal with the constraints that exist in regard to furthering renewable energy sources, particularly those relating to the production of energy via wind energy. I want to progress that and I am sure the expert group will have proposals on how to overcome the constraints that exist as regards planning, visual impact and other aspects.

Deputy Higgins was concerned about the role of the regulator. The electricity regulator will not act in the capacity of regulator in the context of what is required in the Bill. He will act as an independent agent within the terms of the Bill. He was chosen to carry out the allocation because he is independent and not because he is the electricity regulator.

Mr. Stagg

So the decision cannot be judicially reviewed.

Mr. Jacob

Yes. It is important to remember that we are discussing legislation to deal with a potentially hazardous situation in terms of providing power in this State and the allocation of scarce gas supplies. I am advised that decisions can be judicially reviewed.

Mr. Stagg

Not at all. That is bad advice.

Mr. Jacob

Deputy Daly mentioned emissions from power stations. I recognise what he said. These are subject to stringent standards laid down by the Environmental Protection Agency with which the ESB must comply. I am aware there is ongoing research by the EPA aimed at minimising emissions from power stations.

Deputy Finucane raised the issue of Moneypoint being converted to gas. This is an option I recognised in my Green Paper on Sustainable Energy published last September. It will be addressed in the Government's climate change strategy that will be published by my colleague, Deputy Dempsey, in the near future. I thank Deputy Finucane for his kind comments on my efforts to have Sellafield closed down. I would term that our collective efforts to have an end put to that abomination.

A number of other Deputies including Deputies Ring, Crawford, Perry and Neville made interesting contributions. They were all anxious to see the benefits of natural gas coming to their areas. We all aspire to that. Deputy Browne would like to see the grid extended to Wexford and the south-east.

I mentioned earlier that both the Department and I received a number of comments on the Bill from interested parties. I will consider these very carefully together with the helpful comments made in the House both this week and last week and I will bring forward amendments to deal with shortcomings in the Bill as it stands.

Question put.

A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until immediately after the Order of Business on Wednesday next, 7 June 2000, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day.