Vol. 394 No. 3
asked the Minister for Energy when a final decision on the provision of an electricity interconnector will be made; and whether he supports the introduction of common carrier rules which would allow sales and purchases of electricity to be sourced through interconnection anywhere in the European grid.
13.
asked the Minister for Energy the plans the Government have to reopen the North-South electricity interconnector; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
14.
asked the Minister for Energy if he will make a statement on the proposed electricity interconnector between Britain and Ireland; the likely cost of such a project; when it will be in operation; and whether there might be any conflict between this project, which will enable Ireland to obtain nuclear generated electricity, and the Irish Government's campaign to close Sellafield.
25.
asked the Minister for Energy when a final decision on whether to provide Ireland with an electricity interconnector will be made; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 13, 14 and 25 together.
The report of the working group on interconnection in 1988 concluded that an electricity link with the UK appeared to be economically viable and merited consideration of proceeding with pre-contract phase discussions and studies. Detailed discussions and studies have not yet commenced but it is expected that these would take about one to two years to complete at which stage it would be possible to make a definite decision on whether to proceed with the link. The group estimated that the total capital cost of the interconnector would be approximately £160 million, in 1985 prices, and that there would be a six year lead time to complete the link.
The report also concluded that there was a strong economic case for restoration of the link to Northern Ireland but that there were other difficulties involved in this regard. Continuous attacks and threats by subversives have frustrated efforts to restore the line.
The report centred on the technical and economic feasibility of electricity interconnection but other aspects, including the source of the electricity, would have to be considered before any final decision is made.
Regarding common carrier rules for electricity, at this stage the Commission is only referring to transit rights between European electricity utilities as opposed to common carriage which would give users the choice of supplier. The possibility of agreement on this proposal enhances Ireland's interest in interconnection and in the economic feasibility of such a proposal. At the most recent Energy Council in October, I accepted the general approach of the Commission's proposal as being an appropriate one and in our best interests.
I want to ask the Minister two supplementaries. If an electricity interconnector is going to be the next major provision of capacity for the ESB would the Minister not agree that two years before he is in a position to say whether a decision can be made and six years lead time is too long to meet the rising demands for electricity? With regard to transit would the Minister say how he believes transit rules and ultimately a common carrier, which the EC would like to see, will affect the ESB who are sustaining peat burning stations at costs which are not competitive with European electricity?
With regard to the lead time I have given the Deputy the estimate made by the committee who reported on the matter. However, I have no doubt that if at any stage the Government consider this to be a matter of any great urgency it is possible that the lead time could be reduced somewhat. As the Deputy is aware there is a difficulty with Britain because of their recent proposal to privatise electricity. Because of what has happened there it is not possible for our side to advance discussions with the British authorities very far until we find out which authority we will be dealing with on that side. This is adding some slight delay to this matter.
The question of common carriage is not on the agenda at EC level. I believe this is unlikely to be achieved. I expect that the most which will be achieved through the Council, Commission and Parliament are rights of transit between utilities. That seems to be as far as that proposal will be advanced in the present circumstances.
In the discussions which took place at the time the committee reported on the meetings which took place with the British authorities it was, of course, envisaged that there would be a sharing of the costs between the British authorities and ourselves and that it would not be oneway traffic: electricity could be shed at peak times and there would be an opportunity for the Irish to sell electricity to the British system and vice versa whenever it suited either authority. Following extensive research carried out by the officials who did the work it was deemed that there were opportunities for both sides and that, as well as having the possibility of cheaper electricity being made available to us, which would avoid the necessity of spending large amounts of capital in the construction of new power stations, it would also enable us to have access to possibly cheaper electricity at times and would give us the opportunity of selling back electricity at times when we are off peak and the other side were on peak.
May I——
Order, please, I have to say that the time available for dealing with Priority Questions is now exhausted. I will hear a brief supplementary from the Deputy and perhaps a brief reply from the Minister.
Would the Minister not agree that if the ESB have to shop around Europe for cheap electricity and purchase cheap, subsidised French nuclear power it will mean a dramatic change in their mode of operation as they are presently constituted?
I should like to remind the Deputy that at this stage there is not an inter-connector. The lead-in time will be fairly long. This is a matter which will not cause us much concern in the immediate future. The questions being raised by the Deputy concern long term policy matters. They have not been addressed in regard to this proposal.
We will deal now with other questions.
Question No. 13 in my name was dealt with by the Minister in conjunction with a Priority Question and as we have now moved into time for ordinary questions. I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister.
The House has dealt with Priority Questions. The Deputy will appreciate that supplementary questions during priority time are confined to Members who tabled them.
The Chair allowed 20 minutes for Priority Questions again today. That is a totally unfair way to apply the rules.
We have reached the time for ordinary questions and my Question, No. 13, is an ordinary question.
I cannot facilitate the Deputy.
But the Chair can apply the rules.
We are now outside of the time allotted for Priority Questions.
That may be so but having disposed of Priority Questions I am proceeding to deal with other questions. I am calling Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy Spring.
The Minister took my Question No. 13 in conjunction with a Priority Question——
I must ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
This is not the way we operated before.
The Chair is conforming to the rules governing Priority Questions and the Deputy must appreciate that fact.
The Chair should check the rules again. We are more than five minutes into the time allotted for ordinary questions. I allowed the Minister to proceed to answer my question with a Priority Question on the basis that as we were five minutes into the time allotted for ordinary questions I would be allowed put a supplementary question to the Minister. The Chair took five minutes from the time allotted for ordinary questions and that broke all the rules.
I did not take five minutes beyond the time.
On a point of order, I have been monitoring the amount of time being allowed by the Chair for Priority Questions in the last five or six sessions and it has varied from 20 minutes to 22 minutes. That is totally unfair to Members who have ordinary questions on the Order Paper.
The Chair does his best in regard to these matters.
The Chair should apply the rules fairly.
When I need Deputy Allen's advice as to how to govern the proceedings of the House I will ask for it. In the meantime, the Chair does his best in regard to Priority Questions and admonishes Deputies to facilitate him in dealing with them within the prescribed time. On occasions we may slip over the time but no matter what the Chair does he is faulted.
It does not work the other way.
