Vol. 397 No. 6
19 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Energy the estimated additional costs to the ESB arising from the absence of an electricity interconnector with Northern Ireland; if the Government have conducted any feasibility study on the possible reinstallation of the interconnector; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
If a North-South electricity interconnector were in place, it is estimated that the annual cost savings to the ESB would be between £1 million and £1.5 million. Similar savings would be achieved by the Northern utility.
The question of its reinstallation is not one of technical or economic feasibility, but is rather a security matter because of the various disruptions caused by subversives and the danger to the safety and health of workers at each attempt to re-establish it.
The early re-establishment of the connection would, no doubt, be valuable in the context of cross-Border economic and development co-operation.
Would the Minister confirm that we are the only State in the EC that does not have an interconnector with a member state and that we are effectively isolated in this regard? Would he not also agree that it is necessary to establish the right of this State and the State in Northern Ireland to have this facility between them and that every effort should be made to ensure that the reconnection is maintained? The argument about safety could be applied to every road and rail link and a range of services between North and South. This has been effectively ignored for many years and the Government should make a decision in principle at least to have this connector re-established at an early date. Finally, could the Minister say what the cost might be of establishing it.
It would cost £1 million to reconnect. The Government have made the decision in principle to re-establish the connection. The Northern authorities have expressed serious concern about the security and safety of their operatives in the event of it being reconnected. It is absolutely disgraceful and totally unacceptable that these men's lives should be put in danger through carrying out this very valuable work for the communities who live on both sides of the Border. There would be a saving on the island of about £3 million annually. It is disgraceful, therefore, that any group would seek to take unto themselves the right to deny that type of economic benefit to the people living on the island.
It is the Government's firm intention, in co-operation with the authorities in the Six Counties, to have the electricity interconnector reconnected as soon as both parties agree that it is safe and practical to do so. It is disgraceful that we have to admit that it is not safe to do so at present. I have asked my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to bring this up at meetings held under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy De Rossa and I am sure they are reflected in the views of every Member of this House. It is a disgrace that this is allowed to continue but the Government cannot operate this on their own; they require the agreement of both parties that the time is right. It would cost £1 million to put it together. If it is to be blown up and people's lives put in danger the following week, that is a serious matter we have to consider before we make the decision to go ahead. I am very anxious to see it connected. I agree with the Deputy that we are probably the only member of the Community which does not have an electricity interconnection or some form of energy interconnection. It is the norm on the Continent; England is connected to the continental electricity system. As President of the Energy Council, I can tell the House that the principal item on the agenda is to establish a régime whereby each member country will have the right to transit electricity to another member's system and to transit gas to another member's pipeline and in that way build an internal energy market by 1992. These are the items being discussed under the Energy Council umbrella.
Our Presidency is seeking to advance this proposal during our term as President to get it adopted or moved closer to a point where the next Presidency could have it adopted. We fully support this policy and are working actively to achieve progress on it. Interconnection of electricity and gas are priorities. We also want to make arrangements for the gas interconnector. It is a shame that we are denied the economic benefit of doing this.
The Minister said it would cost £1 million to restore the interconnector. What is the cost to the electricity board? There was an estimate in 1981 of £4.5 million annually. That would probably be around £8 million now. If there is that much cost to the ESB, which would be cost to the consumers, then £1 million to reconnect it and even another £1 million annually to protect it would be well worth while. Could we have an idea what the actual costs are?
The only figure I can recall is that it would cost about £1 million to reconnect it. If the Deputy wants specific information in regard to any other costs I will be glad to supply them, but I do not have them here.
