Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

——that recognises the Parliament's integrity. We should not waste time debating something that is illegal and to which the Government has repeatedly displayed its opposition simply to let the Minister off the hook. If he wants a debate, he is in a position to set the conditions and the context. It is self-serving for him to reply to my parliamentary question that he wants a debate, but that "the Government fully intends to maintain the statutory prohibition on nuclear generation in Ireland". Let us see consistency. It is worth noting that in terms of future policies on power generation, we have a prohibition on nuclear power. It is for the Government to propose removing the prohibition if we are to consider the option seriously. I oppose the option, but it is a matter for debate, which is not what the Minister wants. It is also worth noting that we are already using electricity from nuclear power supplied through the interconnector between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain. More will be supplied via the interconnector under discussion in the context of the Bill.

The all-Ireland grid study has provided a clear strategy based on maximising renewables and wind in particular. These natural resources are free, but significant investment is required to harness them. The study states: "These additional costs will need to be recovered within the price of electricity charged to end users." The estimated figure is approximately €650 million and €1 billion for the island as a whole. It is clear that the customer will pay. We must remember that in terms of electricity bills, the customer is already paying more than the European average.

Recently, the ESB launched its strategic framework to 2020, the cost of which will be €22 billion, €4 billion on renewables, €6.5 billion on smart metering and other structures and a €11 billion investment in networks. The customer will foot the bill. It is clear that the intention is to use the customer indefinitely as some kind of cash cow. In reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister stated: "All investments in electricity transmission and distribution networks are funded through use-of-system charges approved by the Commission for Energy Regulation". This over-reliance on the consumer is a matter of some concern and it is important that a full economic analysis is carried out to ensure that it is sustainable as well as fair to depend solely on the consumer to fund such ambitious plans.

This Bill provides for EirGrid to construct, own and run an interconnector and to borrow up to €750 million. Elements of the Bill are straightforward and I do not foresee a problem in that regard. It is worth noting that the transformation in the energy market has been successful in the sense that we have been able to ensure public control over key facilities while opening the market up simultaneously. There is a lesson to be learned here.

Yesterday when we debated the Estimates for the Department, the Minister stated that a token amount had been inserted into the budget in case it proved more advantageous for the Government to raise the loan rather than for EirGrid to do so. It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify why such an approach is being adopted in this case as it seems to be unprecedented in terms of Government assistance for energy infrastructure. Exploring what is occurring would be of interest. The norm has been for the customer to pay and the State to benefit. The dividend paid to the State, for example, by the ESB is considerable — approximately €80 million, I cannot remember the figure — and it goes directly into the maw of the Department of Finance. It would make more sense to permit the ESB to plough this funding into its own development.

This is not the Bill that was promised. In the briefing given to the Minister upon taking office, the EirGrid Bill was an immediate priority issue, but it was a Bill to transfer ownership of transmission assets from the ESB to EirGrid. Priority drafting of the Bill was promised, but it has stalled nine months on. To break up the ESB in the way proposed has serious implications and the Labour Party is not convinced that any break-up of the ESB or the transfer of its core grid and generation assets makes sense. It is likely that the proposal to remove the transmission system from the ESB is unnecessary for competition and threatens the long-term national interest and energy security of the people. The introduction of the all-Ireland single electricity market and the entry of new providers have altered the dominant role of the ESB.

With further proposals for divestment and site sharing in the White Paper, the ESB is set to become a mainly network company with some key strategic generation assets. The Government's proposal to transfer assets to EirGrid opens up the possibility of the emasculation of the ESB as a player here and internationally and, while not the Minister's intention, could lead to the future privatisation of the ESB with all the dangers of externally controlled generation in a small isolated market.

The Minister should consider the change of heart that has been taking place at EU level. There is no longer a conviction that competition is best served by dismantling state power companies and selling them off. France, Germany and six other EU countries have argued that the Commission's proposals to unbundle vertically integrated energy firms will not achieve their desired effect in terms of more grid investments and lower energy prices. Obliging energy-producing firms to give up their transmission assets is "not compatible with constitutional law and with the free movement of capital", according to the letter to the Commission signed by France, Germany and others, which argues that "no correlation can be found between the implementation of [ownership unbundling] and the levels of prices and investments which are actually determined by many other factors".

See this speech in context