asked the Minister for Energy the present extent and cost of work carried out on Phase 4 of Moneypoint; and the date on which he agreed to this work.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Moneypoint (Clare) Electricity Generating Station.
5.
I have been informed by the ESB that the only work which has been carried out in relation to a possible fourth unit of 300 MW at Moneypoint is for certain services at the site which are essential for Units 1, 2 and 3 but which could also cater for four units. These are the jetty for ship to shore coal transfer, coal stores, cooling water units, site development, reservoir and underground works. This work was done to avoid precluding Moneypoint 4 if a decision is taken in the future that it should be built. In 1978 when approval was sought for units 1 and 2, the board made it clear that this general work would be carried out to avoid undue interference with the operation of these units at a later stage. No objection was raised to this proposal.
In regard to the cost of work already carried out which could be attributed to Phase 4, if it is built, the board has said that it is not possible to provide such a break-down.
Does the Minister know that the foundations have been laid for Phase 4? Obviously the foundations for Phase 4 have nothing to do with Phases 1,2 or 3 and are in a completely different category, for example, to the building of a jetty. In those circumstances could the Minister give the cost of the work that has been done to date specifically on phase four?
As I said in my reply, the board have not provided me with a breakdown of the cost of the work done in relation to Phase 4. In regard to the foundations, I said site development work has taken place in relation to a possible Phase 4.
Would the Minister not consider it worth his while to ensure the board provided him with a breakdown of these figures?
Not only would I consider it worthwhile that they provide me with the figures but it is my intention to visit the site within the next two or three weeks and see for myself.
Would the Minister not consider it good engineering practice to have the foundations of Phase 4 built so that when there is room for future expansion, the plant would not be interfered with?
As no objection was raised to the proposal in 1978 that certain works be carried out at Moneypoint, I take it the work was carried out, and I am not in a position to comment whether it was good engineering practice or otherwise; but in the context of the overall development, if certain work could be carried out simultaneously with the work for Phases 1, 2 and 3, it would be in their interests to do so.
In view of the Minister's statement in the House yesterday to the effect that the ESB were requested, approximately 12 months ago, to cease work on Phase 3 of Moneypoint, can we take it that the Government's attitude to Phase 4 is at least as strong and that no further money should be spent on Phase 4?
The works I have outlined are the only works which have been carried out in relation to Phase 4. No direction has been given to the ESB in relation to Phase 4. The Government undertook a review of Phase 3 during the last 12 months. That review is almost completed and will be going before the Government in the very near future. At Question Time yesterday some commentators seemed to take from my reply to Deputy Enright that a direction to cancel Moneypoint 3 was given from the Government. No direction was given to the ESB. Therefore, the ESB have not been acting in contravention of any Government direction. They were informed of the review taking place and, as Deputy O'Malley is aware, in the course of the review of capital programmes this is a normal function in Government, and that review is about to be completed.
Is the Minister saying that what he said in this House yesterday is incorrect?
Deputy Enright asked if a direction had been given. It was not my intention to mislead the House or to inform Deputy Enright incorrectly, but my reply which was meant to say that the ESB had been informed and had had consultations with my Department in relation to the review, was taken by some commentators to mean that the ESB had ignored a Government directive. No Government directive was given to the ESB to halt progress on Moneypoint. They were alerted to the fact that the Government were reviewing the position and the costing of Moneypoint 3.
Would the Minister agree that in the national interest Phase 3 should be completed? Perhaps at this point the Opposition spokesman on energy might clarify the position in relation to Fianna Fáil policy on this matter.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is answering questions.
At the moment most Members of this House are aware that in relation to the planning of the Moneypoint station certain predictions were made about growth in demand for electricity. That growth rate has not been achieved but the advice we are receiving is that the completion of Moneypoint 3 is in the national interest.
The Minister must be aware that these grandiose schemes — Phase 3 has been completed and Phase 4 is contemplated — can only be brought to a logical conclusion by causing massive unemployment in the midlands. In view of the fact that the information he gave yesterday that a direction had been issued to the ESB is incorrect, does he not think it high time that the Government gave a direction in this matter? It is no great benefit to know the views of the Opposition; we are anxious to know the action the present Government intend taking in this matter.
I take it the Deputy is referring to Moneypoint 3?
I am talking about the closure of peat factories all over the country, but particularly in the midlands.
That is a separate question.
The ESB sought the consent of the Government in the seventies and got the consent to go ahead with the Moneypoint project and this Government have not interfered with those decisions.
Is the Minister aware that when the consent of the Government was sought and obtained in 1978 the growth rate in electricity demand was 12 per cent per annum and remained at that level for two or three years, and that the capacity in the country would have to be doubled within seven years? Is the Minister aware that the whole situation changed drastically from 1980 onwards and that the ESB have refused consistently to face up to the economic facts staring them in the face and have continued to pour vast sums of money into the third phase of Moneypoint——
The Deputy may not make a speech.
——when it is perfectly obvious that the overcapacity will be very considerable and that the price——
I cannot allow a long speech.
——will be the closure of 14 other stations in whole or in part, mainly turf burning stations in the midlands and the west?
The midlands will stay open.
Question No. 6.
My question is not being answered. This is very significant.
I am aware of most of the suggestions and implications in the Deputy's statement.
And the truth of a lot of it.