Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

For all of 2008, consumers and businesses in Ireland paid an extra 10% on top of their electricity bills, which amounts to between €200 million and €300 million. They did not even know they were paying it because they assumed that the price hike came from an increase in oil prices.

This is unacceptable because energy-generating companies do not have to pay anything for the purchase of carbon credits for the emissions they produce. After 2012, that will change, as they will have to pay for the cost of producing every tonne of carbon. They will have to charge the consumer for that cost at that stage. These companies are obtaining free allocations of carbon but consumers are obliged to pay the full cost in that regard. This adds a significant amount — approximately 10% — to people's electricity bills.

The Minister must either remove the cost of carbon from electricity, thereby immediately reducing people's bills by 10% — that is to say nothing of the price reduction that should be forthcoming in the aftermath of the fall in the price of oil — or recoup that money directly from energy generators and decide how best to spend it in the context of improving competitiveness, supporting people who are suffering as a result of the increase in the cost of energy or whatever. It is not acceptable, however, to leave that money in the pockets of those who run energy generating companies. Those companies are quietly creaming funds off the top while businesses are paying far too much in energy costs.

The Government amendment is not that dissimilar to Fine Gael's motion. We are somewhat more specific and ambitious in the context of what we want. It is a pity the Government did not at least attempt to try to achieve agreement in respect of the motion.

I understand the concern which gave rise to the Labour Party's amendment to the motion. There is a genuine policy difference between that party and mine in respect of the matter in question, but this does not really have anything to do with electricity prices. We will consider amending our motion in that regard and perhaps we could then have a debate on who should own the transmission assets at a later date. This would allow both parties to concentrate on the original motion, which relates to energy prices.

See this speech in context