Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

My colleague, Deputy Seymour Crawford, should have been first to speak. I am grateful to him for allowing me to speak first because I must travel to another region later this evening.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. As the Minister knows, we soldiered together in a common cause on these and similar issues in the past four years or so, certainly in the past two and a half years. I am glad some of the thinking process that was put in place at that time is coming to fruition and that we are moving in this direction.

It is very important from the perspective of the most important people of all — the consumers — that the interconnector is in place. It should be available and accessible so that in the event that we wish to sell some of our product, we can do so, and if we wish to purchase product from other jurisdictions, for valid reasons, we can do that also. This is part of the reinforcement of both the European grid and the national grid, which is very important.

The proposal in the legislation is that the grid will remain with EirGrid and in its control, unless the Minister gives permission otherwise. The present Minister is unlikely to give such permission, but one never knows. We cannot think too far into the future, other than to say that, from past experience, it is very important that the State would hold firm control over a development of this nature, whether it be the North-South or east-west interconnector, but particularly the North-South interconnector as it is likely to happen first.

The east-west interconnector is hovering somewhere. There was originally provision for an interconnector to be developed by public private partnership or joint enterprise. I do not know how quickly it is progressing but it needs to be accelerated. If this country wants to maintain its economic expansion and development to the same extent as before, to which we should aspire, we must have access to a reliable and extensive power grid.

As noted by other speakers, in building up the various alternatives of electricity generation, we will be able to offload or sell product at will provided we have interconnectors available. We cannot store or bottle electricity yet, although I am sure that will happen in due course. However, in the absence of that technology, it is essential we have an interconnector to develop our electricity industry. It is essential to recognise that it should be used as a means of developing the extent and role of our electricity industry, not as a means of copping out or importing energy of all descriptions. It must be to facilitate both directions because our alternative energy in the entire area could be threatened in terms of development and expansion if we relied too much on the imported product. I have made that point to the Minister previously in committee and it must be borne in mind in the future.

I am aware the Minister has set up a high powered committee to study the question of underground versus over-ground cables, which is a thorny issue. I have repeatedly put down questions in this House over the years to try to determine the degrees of cancer county by county and by region. That would give us some indication of what we are dealing with in terms of absolute proof. We can speculate about it. The Minister is aware we had the debate in the committee on the issue of electromagnetic waves and the serious damage involved. We have had proof and counter-proof, contradiction and counter contradiction until we were almost blue in the face. Groups of experts from both sides confused each other, and in the process thereof confused us, as to whether one or either was the right opinion. That major argument will continue until we get proof positive and that can only be done by way of statistics and those statistics can be gleaned only by using the kind of information I have suggested. The Department of Health and Children could do it or even the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, if it so wished. We can then highlight authoritatively the areas throughout the country that show a prevalence of cancer cases of one kind or another. It is not rocket science. We should just get the proof.

The visual impact of over-ground pylons is another issue because they can cause problems in tourist sensitive areas. We had that debate previously in committee also and it is difficult to argue against putting cables underground in a tourism sensitive area with lovely vistas. Erecting pylons along the skyline does not sell tourism. The option, therefore, is to opt for underground cables.

In the argument for going underground the case has been made that it is done in Holland but Holland has a vastly different terrain. The subterranean formations in the Netherlands are vastly different from the subterranean formations in Kerry, Donegal and such places.

Another issue that arises is distance. There is a huge difference between the journey across the Netherlands and the journey from Cashel to Burtonport, for instance, or somewhere like that. A fair amount of undergrounding would be involved in that and the substantial cost factor arises but it must be examined for two reasons, namely the visual impact and the possible health hazard. We should either make up our minds about it or stop talking about it. If expert groups and committees eventually come up with a conclusion the Ministers do not like they can abandon, adjourn or strangle the committee, so to speak. This is likely to become an issue that will not go away unless the issues are addressed. It could have a major effect on the development of the electricity industry in terms of transmission here and I ask the Minister to give some consideration to that.

I want to mention briefly the importance of the development of wind and wave energy and all that goes with it. There will always be environmental side effects. Objections will and have been made to the windmills or turbines on hill tops. We cannot please everybody all the time but in the event of a serious problem arising, the Minister and future Ministers must determine what we are likely to be faced with 20 or 25 years from now and decide which is the lesser of two evils. Do we want to be able to provide a service and how can we provide it or run the risk of there being insufficient power to meet the requirements of the grid? That will be the crunch factor. The Minister knows that as he is very conversant with it. The defining issue will be how to determine the full extent of the requirement in 20 or 25 years time, recognise the means of transmission and what must be done to deliver that to the public, and the need to ensure we have security or continuity of supply as the case may be. Those three factors are crucial because it will be important to be able to tell the consumer now that in 20 or 25 years they can rely on continuity of supply, a competitively priced supply and that their kettle will boil in the morning when they want to make a cup of tea or coffee. Nothing will concentrate the mind more than absence of energy in that case.

I am aware other legislation is promised on the break-up of the ESB. One changes one's mind from time to time about matters of this nature. I was involved in producing a policy on the break-up of the ESB. I was not as specific as the Government at the time, and the Minister will be aware of that, but I supported the concept of sub-dividing the ESB under the various headings. That is welcome provided the customer enjoys the benefit accruing from it in terms of cost, competition, efficiency and quality of service. There is no sense in having competition among a multiplicity of groups responsible if the consumer is left wondering which of them to approach to have their lights turned back on. It is of no consolation to anybody if that consumer is wondering whether it is the grid, the generator or the person in charge of transmission and distribution that is responsible. I ask the Minister, who will make decisions in this area and will have a major influence on it, having spoken to the various interested bodies, to consider that aspect carefully.

The notion that we must do this because of European legislation is nonsense and wrong. It does not work that way. European legislation is part and parcel of what we contribute to, which becomes European legislation, as the Minister knows well.

We had a dreadful experience with Eircom. I am not blaming Eircom but what an appalling journey to come to where we are from where we were. We went from the head of the posse ten years ago in terms of the development of telecommunications in the European pecking order to a position where we are playing catch-up. That is appalling and it came about as a result of bad decisions. I do not say that because I held that view all along. Various parties in the House, including my party, were in favour of the procedure being followed at the time. I was not and was concerned about it. I was subsequently proved to be correct but I am not saying it because of that. I say this because we must learn from our past experiences. There is no point going through hardship and the barbs which come with it unless we take lessons on board and act so it does not happen again.

Somebody suggested, in the context of Aer Lingus, that in changing services from Shannon, the company had a duty to its shareholders. That is correct, as all companies have a duty to shareholders. However, it is not the ultimate and only responsibility, and there is also a duty and responsibility to the consumer, the State and the greater common good. This must be borne in mind at all times and can never be set aside, buried or subsumed by something else. We must recognise that for some unknown reason, we have not come to grips with that concept in this country just yet.

Privatisation is everywhere in the United States, and they seem to have been able to convince everybody about it. It is provided for in legislation that services are divided in order to create competition but there is still a responsibility to provide that service. If that does not happen, or does not occur in the way it was intended to be operated to ensure the customer has continuity and security in service, which is competitive and satisfactory, the service would not start to begin with. We must come to grips with that issue, particularly with regard to State and semi-State bodies proposed for privatisation.

I am not a prisoner of either idea and both have a meaningful role to play. However, companies should operate to the benefit of the consumer. It is nonsense and untrue to say the investor comes first. If an investor is to come first, one should buy a bank or other institution in the money business. When interest rates drop, there is a greater tendency for utility services to be used by the investment sector as if they were banks.

I do not blame them as there is a current example with the oil business. I would love to be a shareholder in that business and have bought shares four, five or six years ago. I would be in the Caribbean now if I had done so, rolling in sunshine, and rightly so because I would have made a huge fortune. Every day oil prices are being talked up. A similar concept for utility services — also an energy business — is something we must watch for very carefully. We must consider that in whatever structure the Minister eventually arrives at with this legislation.

If what I outlined does happen — I know it will not — I will kick up a terrible row if I am still alive at the end of it. Consumers' interests and requirements must be met first, last and always. Those wishing to invest are welcome and we are delighted to assist and encourage such behaviour, which is part and parcel of the process, as long as the customer does not become the victim.

I will refer to a couple of points on wind generation. We have all agreed that such technology in this country must be the means of producing electricity that is most likely to succeed, as there is a never-ending supply of raw material. There is no question that if the wind dies down around our coasts, we could even generate a fair amount of warm air, from time to time, in this House and various other assemblies.

The process must be done sensitively. A far greater proportion of electricity requirements can be met from wind sources, provided we go into locations sensitively. We must utilise modern technology as well. When this type of electricity generation was first mooted, capabilities were less than 25 kV and the concept of a wind farm had not developed. Individual turbines can now produce approximately 5 kV and their output is growing and will continue to do so. We can get accustomed to them.

It is ironic that, as people are worried about cancer being caused by pylons and cables, there may be a similar problem with turbines because of the transmission of electricity and rotation of the blades. They are a source of health concerns for some so the Minister should, to head such concerns off, nail down the best possible independent information. We can discuss such concerns and take them out of the arena.

The future role of EirGrid must be carefully monitored and strong. We must ensure nobody gets a hold of an interconnector east, west, north, south or otherwise which might create a "ransom strip". We have all heard of these from development of lands. Those in possession of such a ransom strip prevent all other development and an interconnector could become the ultimate ransom strip.

The Minister must give long and careful thought to the rest of the ESB structure reappraisal and development. He will need to carefully consider the options and discussions with the unions. People may blame the ESB and unions for various things but it has been a tremendous company that has given tremendous service. It has been reliable and has gone overseas with technology to effectively assist those in need across the water. It is a big operation.

I hope economies of scale, attainable through big companies such as the ESB and others, continue in future. Otherwise the customer will lose.

See this speech in context