Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

My party certainly welcomes some of the objectives outlined in this Bill. In particular, we support the aim, as outlined in section 3, to promote the development of an all-Ireland energy market. However, we also believe that such an objective will be best served by developing such a market under a company that is in public ownership and for the public good.

On this side of the Border that entity is obviously the ESB and we will strongly resist any attempt to privatise this company. Our position stems not from purely ideological reasons but because we believe that the ESB has served its function well and that the original aspirations and reasons for establishing a publicly, rather than a privately, owned company still stand.

It is vital that such an important area as the provision of energy supplies should be under national control. That is why we have major difficulties with what appears to be the thrust of the recently announced European Commission policy of promoting an EU energy market, with national operators forced into competition with transnational corporations. It is one of the reasons we will question the provision in section 3(1) for an all-Ireland energy market to involve operators from outside the country.

Regarding the provision in section 4 for the Commission on Energy Regulation to monitor the regulation of private electrical contractors in the industry, we have no problem with the general intent of the proposal and recognise the need for strict supervision of a sector that has such serious implications for people's safety. This has been recognised by the industry itself, which has established the register of electrical contractors in Ireland, RECI. This body, with more than 2,000 members, has built up considerable credibility. Probably most private users of electrical services would employ a member of RECI. It is important, therefore, that RECI is involved in any proposal to change the system of regulation and that its views are taken into account. Likewise, trade unions whose members are employed in the sector must be given a say in how working and safety conditions are observed within the industry.

With regard to the policy aspects of the proposed Commission for Energy Regulation, I note that these will continue to be made by the Minister and that the commission will be obliged to implement whatever decisions are made. It would be a good idea, however, in light of the growing debate on future energy needs for the commission to include experts from the relevant areas who would have a more direct input into the policy debate. The need for such a wide-ranging debate, which would be able to influence policy at departmental level, is indicated by recent EU announcements on the future structure of the European energy market and by the recently published Forfás report on the future availability of oil and the implications it will have for the provision of energy supplies in this country. The report raises a number of issues, all of which have implications for the future of the energy market in the general aspects referred to by the Bill.

The media picked up almost exclusively on the proposal that nuclear energy might have to be considered as a possible alternative on the basis of the peak oil theory which the authors believe will curtail future supplies of oil. I do not believe that nuclear energy is necessary and the major issues regarding safety which surround it have not been adequately addressed.

See this speech in context