I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 15, to delete "€6,000,000,000" and substitute "€4,000,000,000".
I regret that it is not possible to have the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, here, but I welcome and have always enjoyed discussions with the Minister of State, Deputy Browne.
I had hoped that the Minister would be here because the substance of my amendment, as I discussed on Second Stage, is that it is inappropriate for us to allow very large scale borrowing in this manner. By anyone's standard, the €6,000,000,000 loan facility we are seeking to give the company is a large amount. It is inappropriate for the State, which is the owner of the company and ultimately responsible for the lending, to allocate that without setting out in clear terms what exactly our strategic vision is for the development of the company.
The Minister of State may know that we had the chief executive of the ESB and a number of his fellow directors before the joint Oireachtas committee last week and had a very interesting exchange of opinions. That to a certain extent provided me with some sense of where the company wants to go. To summarise, their policy seemed to me to indicate that they would maintain a dominant position in the Irish market. In essence, the electricity generation business in Ireland would remain as it is. There would be a small number of new entrants but the ESB would maintain what is in effect a dominant, monopoly position in the market. It would also develop overseas as part of its main development strategy.
The chief executive gave examples of the ESB's recent building of a plant in Bilbao and another one in the UK. He stated that the company strategy for the next few years would be a quite significant investment of up to €150 million per year in similar facilities overseas as part of an expansion programme in which the ESB is effectively competing in a European-wide market with other European energy companies.
That may well be the strategy of the company, but I have no sense of whether that is actually the approved Government strategy or whether it is necessarily the best or correct strategy for this country or for electricity consumers, who have seen a 23% increase in prices in recent years in this current arrangement. I have a sense that what we are left with, in effect, a monopoly position and very little competition, will see energy prices rise significantly further.
From an environmental perspective, there is no sense whatsoever that the company has any intention of developing new, cleaner low emissions generation facilities. Thus, given that the ESB has a domination position, the electricity market will continue to be characterised by large fossil fuel burning plants, which suits the current company. From a purely business point of view, there is no sense that the status quo is necessarily the correct development. I have serious questions about what is the Government strategy for the ESB and I have serious qualms about allocating quite significant lending ability before we set out exactly the strategy for the development of the company. On that basis, rather than just flatly rejecting the Bill, I decided to table an amendment which would allow the company increase lending to €4 billion, which would more than adequately cover any investment it might need to make in the network. Obviously it will be a State-owned facility and will remain so. Nobody could object to that.
The amendment would allow for the company to invest in those important new assets but would impose a limit, which might bring the Government to book in terms of stating its view on the strategy and development of ESB. That is a sensible measure. The €4 billion, in the context of any figures I have seen, will give the company significant room to manoeuvre for the next number of years. However, it will show, that we need to be clear on what it is doing and what is its future strategy and, under the Minister and this Government, that is far from certain. The Bill's intent is to allow for the necessary investment but to restrict any investment the Government might not approve or view as part of the ESB's long-term strategy.