Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Four years ago would have been the time to introduce this Bill, and over the intervening period we could have developed the industry to the extent to which we now require it to be developed. I notice that one section of the Bill allows for the Minister to take emergency action, as it were. When one gets to the stage of emergency action it is too late. If Ministers and the various agencies do their job, the requirement for emergency, fire-brigade action should not arise. I emphasise that especially in the energy industry. Everyone knows that a major blackout or power failure is an emergency. That is when things start to hop and when everything begins to boil except the kettle. That is when everybody will realise it is too late. It should not come to that juncture.

The flaws are as I have already outlined. The Bill does not provide for the development of the alternative energy sector. It merely refers to energy in general. It does not take account of the fact that in Ireland we have a 90% dependency on imported fossil fuels for energy. Although the legislation could and should address that issue, it does not.

The Bill takes account of the need to give more powers to the Commission for Energy Regulation. I am sure the regulator needs increased powers to supervise the industry. However, the Bill also refers to the fact that in the regulation, there is a necessity to pass on to the consumer the benefits of deregulation. I question what the benefits to the consumer have been. Since deregulation was thought of, the regulator has devoted most effort to suggesting increases in energy prices to the consumer. I do not know how that comes about but the consumer has begun to pay through the nose. The Minister remains coy on this issue, does not want to get involved, and never will want to get involved. The Minister does not want to come to the House and seek permission to raise the price of electricity to the consumer. This will be done by the regulator in the future, as it has already been done over the past three years by the regulator in respect of electricity and gas. The Bill as it stands merely gives legislative effect to the powers the regulator already has, or should have and should have operated, to the benefit of the consumer.

Let us consider other matters to which the Bill does not refer. It only refers in passing to EU energy policy. As we all know, the European Union, like the rest of the world, has taken time out to focus on the issue of energy, or lack of it as the case may be. Suddenly, great emphasis is now being placed throughout Europe and the world on how to allow countries become less dependent on imported oil or other fuels. In the rest of Europe, a different situation prevails. Whether we like it or not, they have access to other energies. They have a much higher level of hydro energy, research and development and work done in developing alternative energy sources throughout Europe and they have nuclear energy. The Bill should have obtained an analysis of the right marriage of fuels to be used in the future energy industry. I emphasise that simply because it is being done in Europe over our heads. We have only two parts of the equation: we have hydro to a limited extent and wind energy to whatever extent we want, depending on the degree to which we can contain it within the grid. We do not have nuclear energy. That is not an option for us. We are out of that part of the equation altogether and we must remain out of it. However, we have to develop some other element that will ensure we can avail of the maximum amount of wind energy and biofuels and at the same time ensure continuity of supply, all of which requires a fair amount of ingenuity.

See this speech in context