Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I welcome the introduction of this motion and congratulate Deputy Coveney on raising it. It is a thoughtful and strategic approach to the issue and highlights a central aspect of the current economic crisis that needs urgent attention. The cost of energy in Ireland must be tackled and the future security of energy must be ensured if we are to ride out the storm.

I was thinking as I was waiting to speak about families and individuals who have heard the news about the inroads the Government is about to make into their family incomes. Many of them will now be trying to figure out how they can meet their household bills. Judging from what the Minister and Minister of State have said, I am not sure they are conscious of how difficult it is, both for employers and householders, to meet those high prices.

There is a pressing case for reform in the regulatory framework on initial pricing. The measures outlined in the motion can and should be taken up by the Government. Currently, we have some of the highest energy costs in Europe. Irish industrial electricity costs are the second highest in the European Union. It is interesting that Irish prices have increased at more than twice the average rate of increase across the European Union.

On account of our dependence on fossil fuels, electricity is particularly exposed to global price rises, and it is very easy to blame external factors. In 2004, it was estimated that domestic controllable costs account for 30% of the difference between our prices and EU prices. This arises from higher generation distribution charges. It is clear that the capacity to reduce costs lies, to a significant extent, here at home, with the Minister, Deputy Ryan, having a direct responsibility in reducing the costs to businesses, employers and householders.

In the economic crisis we are now trying to weather, it is vital that the Minister adopts the priority of the issue of prices and their impact on consumers. For too long, the Government has presided over a regime in which competitiveness has been sacrificed on the altar of competition. I listened to the Minister's contribution, but found it slightly muddled. On the one hand, he said, we must make all these sacrifices in order to have a competitive market, but on the other, we have not reached the point at which we can, in his words, "distort the market" in the interest of the consumer and bring down prices.

Frankly, the undue emphasis on competition means the market has been distorted for quite a while. It has been engineered to attract in operators and the end result is higher prices, which negate the purpose of the exercise. At present, we have a great deal of competition in the electricity market and none in the gas market. However, we still have high prices.

We also have the issue of the change required due to climate change. The cost of carbon allowance is already charged by the Government to consumers. It is worth noting that the Government has not reached its own targets. It has failed abysmally to meet the 3% reduction in carbon emissions in the Government programme. It would make sense on a temporary basis to withdraw the charges or, preferably, to put them into a carbon fund.

For a long time, the Minister has avoided the central issue of price. As far as he was concerned, the cost to businesses and householders was a matter for the regulator and the issue of fuel poverty was something he could ignore. As it turns out this was an untenable position and some type of response has been cobbled together in recognition of the need to reform.

It is not up to the Opposition to drive Government policy. However, it appears that this Private Members' motion has been helpful in serving as a stimulus for this much needed change. I welcome the response from the Government, albeit a modest one, in terms of a fast-track review of prices. This is an obvious recognition and admission that the status quo is not working.

We have seen the price of gas and electricity being fixed in an extremely rigid way over a considerable period of time. The consumer has suffered as has the national interest in terms of our competitiveness. All one has to do is examine the National Competitiveness Council's report on the difficulties which have arisen. We had a 17.5% increase in the price of electricity and a 20% increase in the price of gas. This locked consumers into higher bills during a time of growing economic crisis. As has been pointed out, since then oil prices have plummeted and the price of petrol at the pumps also dropped although it is rising again. However, the bulk of increases people pay for utilities is still in place.

The motion proposes that the Government instruct the regulator towards a price ceiling rather than a fixed price and Deputy Coveney has raised this point on a number of occasions. It would be welcomed by providers as well as consumers and it is coherent and responsive.

Deputy Coveney's motion includes a paragraph relating to the transfer of assets from the ESB to EirGrid and I acknowledge that Deputy Coveney recognised the difficulty I have with this. The Government and Fine Gael have an agreement on this point. I do not believe it is necessary. It would be a diversion. I was interested to hear the chairman of the ESB, Lochlann Quinn, make the point that it was not necessary for this to take place. It would cause a certain amount of difficulties and it would mean the focus of the two organisations would be diverted at a time when their sole focus should be on developing the grid and ensuring the development of renewables is going to plan.

We all think renewables are lovely and we all want to support the Minister but let us not fool ourselves. The track record is not all that great. For example, a year after the €26 million ocean energy programme was announced apparently no grants have been given out. All the private investment to match it has been lost. This is extremely concerning. The system does not operate quickly enough. We have seen wind power develop. We are not in any way advanced but we are making good progress. However, offshore wind requires legislation. When will we see this?

The Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, speak about various schemes with regard to insulation, such as the warmer homes scheme and the energy efficiency scheme. Let me tell them that a long list of people is trying to find out when these grants will be available. With regard to the warmer homes scheme, there is a long waiting list of hundreds of people living in cold substandard housing who cannot access this fund because the system is not flexible or quick enough to respond to their needs. I represent some of them. We all represent people who would like to be able to avail of this scheme but it is not happening.

The national insulation scheme was the subject of discussion on RTE radio this morning. The Government could introduce a national insulation scheme next week based on tax breaks. It would be cost neutral and would unleash funding through savings which people have and which are giving an extremely poor return at present. It would put people back to work and ensure our energy bill is reduced. It would have a major positive impact in terms of the employment of construction workers. However, it is not mentioned. Why is this?

See this speech in context