asked the Minister for Industry and Energy the present position regarding the erection of a crow coal power station by the ESB at Arigna, County Roscommon.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Proposed Arigna Power Station.
1.
The 45 MW power station to be built by the Electricity Supply Board at Arigna, County Roscommon, to burn local low grade crow coal was approved on 4 March 1982.
Since March 1982 the economic case for the project, which was never particularly convincing, has deteriorated further. At the same time the ESB's financial position has also deteriorated. In these circumstances the project was reassessed by the ESB in the context of a full re-appraisal of the board's entire capital programme and the conclusion reached was that there is no economic justification for proceeding with the project at the present time. I am currently examining this situation and also the alternative options for support of employment in the area.
An alternative proposal has been put forward by the ESB which would divert the crow coal to Moneypoint and in some measure help the maintenance of employment in mining in the area. This alternative proposal is being evaluated at present in my Department. Clearly, on such an important issue, a full study of all the factors must be carried out in consultation with the ESB. When this study has been completed a final decision on the matter will be made, taking into account all the elements to the project.
Is the Minister aware of the repercussions for employment in the Arigna valley area if this project does not proceed? His predecessor in that Department, Deputy Michael O'Leary, former leader of the Labour Party and now a member of Fine Gael, made the decision in favour of the project. I ask the Government to ensure that this project goes ahead and is not dropped like all the other projects for the west of Ireland.
The immediately previous Minister for Industry and Energy was the Minister who had discussions with the ESB in relation to their decision not to proceed with the project at that time. The alternative proposition which has been put forward is being evaluated by the ESB and my Department at present. Obviously, full consideration will be given to all the factors involved.
Can the Government give a guarantee that the jobs of the Arigna miners will be maintained at all costs? It is absolutely imperative for the future of north Roscommon and the Arigna valley that the Arigna project go ahead and that the miners' jobs are guaranteed. Otherwise, this whole region will be wiped out.
The Minister mentioned that I had discussions with the ESB in relation to this matter.
A question, please, Deputy.
I am getting to it. We have to have a lead in.
I would ask the Deputies to please cut out the preambles and get down to business.
Sometimes there has to be a lead into a question. In fact, I would not be asking a question at all if the Minister had not brought me into the matter. If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that I had discussions with the ESB in relation to this project. If that is in the Minister's brief, it is incorrect. I had no discussions with the ESB. I asked for a report from the ESB in relation to this matter.
That is not a question, Deputy.
I want the Minister to confirm or deny that I had discussions with the ESB. I do not like that type of half-baked statement across the House.
That is a question, now.
That is a question. Would the Minister please answer that first? I have two very short, simple questions to ask after that.
In September 1982 the chief executive of the ESB met the Minister of the time, Deputy Reynolds, and said that the board, in the light of its adverse financial position, were re-evaluating the Arigna project. A letter dated 3 November 1982 confirms this. According to the board, the position is that for the past two years there has been no real growth in demand for electricity.
This means that the board's existing plant, together with the plant already under construction, will be sufficient to meet the electricity needs of the country up to the end of the eighties. As is clear from the annual report of the ESB for the year ended 21 March of last year, the board's total installed generating capacity at that date was 3,287 MW, now 3,660, whereas the peak demand was only 1,999. The board, therefore, have sufficient generating capacity in excess of peak demand. Bearing this fact in mind, together with the difficult state of the national economy and the fact that the new station at Arigna would cost in the region of £80 million at present prices, the ESB suggested that there is no justification for proceeding with the construction of an additional 45MW capacity plant at Arigna which is not needed at present. They are, however, investigating, as I said in my initial reply, the possibility of using crow coal mixed with imported coal in the new station being constructed at Moneypoint, in County Clare.
In connection with Deputy Leyden's questions, he will probably recall that the ESB in January last wrote to the Roscommon County Council in connection with this matter. In the course of their letter the board said:
At present we are negotiating a contract with the management of Arigna Collieries Limited for the supply of crow coal for a period of 20 years from 1986 onwards. You can take it that we have a commitment to conclude such a contract, which will ensure the continuity of coalmining in the Arigna area until beyond the turn of the century.
I have two short supplementaries. Would the Minister firstly confirm or deny that I made any decision on the future prospects of that project? The meeting he referred to with the chief executive was about other matters, at which this matter was mentioned. I asked for a full report on it. Secondly, are the ESB satisfied that the technology for the use of crow coal on such an extensive scale in Moneypoint has been proven and if the officials in his Department agree with that? Thirdly, have the interdepartmental committee on the capital programme of the ESB yet reported back and, if so, with what results?
In reply to the first question, as to what the Deputy's mind was at the time when he was Minister, I am not in a position to say.
I asked had I changed the decision which my predecessor, Deputy O'Leary, had made.
And which Deputy O'Leary's predecessor made.
Deputy Colley is back.
My understanding is that the intention of the ESB to postpone the project at Arigna was taken during the period when Deputy Reynolds was Minister.
That is the Minister's understanding. I have asked if I changed the decision made by my predecessor. I would like an answer. The Minister has not answered that question. He should not waffle on about it.
The answer is no.
Please let the Minister answer the question.
He is not answering the question. If he were, there would be no trouble about it.
The Deputy has put a number of supplementaries and I am calling the next question.
In reply to the Deputy's third question, that is not a matter arising directly in connection with this question. If the Deputy wants me to get a specific answer for him——
It was the Minister who mentioned my name in his first reply.
On a point of order, is there any reason why the Minister for Industry and Energy and the Minister of State are not present in this House to answer the questions which I put?
Deputy Leyden will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
There is a good reason why those two people are not in the House.