Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

It shows how phoney the Green Party is that it demands consensus in regard to difficult decisions but in the case of other policy issues, it just wants to slag people off. It is very disappointing.

I thank Deputy McManus and the Labour Party for bringing forward this important motion, which we support. I propose to address three issues. First, I will refer to the truth about energy prices, which the Minister did not do. Second, I will address the motion before us and, third, I will address ways in which we can reduce energy prices. I am interested in the Minister's considered view on these matters rather than nonsensical contributions.

The Minister's claim that energy prices in this State are 3% lower than the European Union average is incorrect. The chairman of the Commission for Energy Regulation presented the relevant statistics at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources some weeks ago, a meeting which the Minister did not attend. The data he presented clearly show that since the Minister assumed office, domestic energy prices in total have increased by 6%. When I asked the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Ó Cuív, what his Department has done in terms of studying these matters, that Department, through Forfás, indicated that the most recent statistics show that average energy prices for high users in Ireland are 5% higher than the average for the euro area. For SMEs, the most recent data show the gap is 15%. The situation has improved in this regard but remains unsatisfactory. All these figures are from the Forfás report.

Data from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland show that business electricity prices range from 97% of the eurozone average for very small users - those using less than 20 MW - to figures of 112%, 111%, 102%, 104% or 103% higher for categories above that. These figures do not take into account the most recent increase. In the case of domestic users, for those who use the least - less than 1,000 kilowatt hours - the price is 58% higher than for the eurozone average; 12% higher for the next group; 7% higher for the next; and for the next group - DD, which is the most common - prices are 98% higher. Again, these figures do not include the increase in the PSO levy.

These are the statistics from the Minister's own Department, but he just makes up whatever he wants to believe because he is basically a fantasist. It is time the Government came clean and admitted to what everybody, including EUROSTAT, Forfás, the SEAI, the National Competitiveness Council, and every single business and consumer organisation in the country, knows - that Irish energy prices are higher than elsewhere in Europe. One can argue about the degree to which they are higher and the different ways of calculating costs, but there is no escaping the reality that, in the main, they are higher. The dogs on the street know it. The Minister's own Department and agencies know it. He should stop pretending and be honest about it. It was not the case in the past but it is certainly the case now that energy prices in Ireland are higher. That means there is something wrong with the policies we are putting forward.

I strongly support the motion before us. Deputy McManus is absolutely right in pushing for a fuel poverty strategy, which the Government promised to publish but did not. I have not read the Labour Party Bill on fuel poverty and energy conservation but I intend to do so. On the question of rebranding the CER, I have a mixed view. I would like to see where the European law stands on that because there are differing views on it and I have not yet received an independent opinion. However, I have spoken to the ESB and Bord Gáis about it. While the ESB did not initially want to proceed with rebranding, it is now happy enough to go along with it at a cost, it predicts, of between €5 million and €8 million. This is money it would have spent anyway in re-advertising and trying to gain back some of the market share it has lost. For the ESB, rebranding the customer supply business is mostly about changing paper and advertising, which is why it estimates its costs will be much lower than those of Bord Gáis. I am not sure whether it is a case that ESB is talking it down and Bord Gáis is talking it up. We must ascertain what the European law is in this regard. If it must be done, then it must be done.

I strongly endorse the position put forward by Deputy McManus in regard to the national retrofit programme both for public buildings and other forms of housing. It is a no brainer. We are all committed to reducing carbon emissions, and the retrofit and energy efficiency measures make perfect sense. They are the most cost-effective measures and they definitely work. We should be prioritising them rather than more expensive proposals, some of which have been put forward by the Minister in regard to certain refits. Certainly we should not proceed in regard to onshore wind.

My only criticism of the motion is that while it addresses many of the consequences of high energy prices in terms of how they impact on individuals and families, it does not address the underlying issue of how we can bring them down. There are ways to do so. For example, we can open more of the market to competition. There is no reason that the dual fuel market, where one has Airtricity and Bord Gáis both supplying gas and electricity, cannot be opened up to competition immediately. Why can the Minister not tell us for certain that the Government will open the domestic market to competition?

We currently fund our capital expenditure through transmission charges. In other words, we put money on people's energy bills to fund capital investment. An alternative system is that set out in the NewERA model where we would sell some of our non-essential semi-State assets and use that money to re-invest in the energy system, to pay for smart meters, establish a smart grid, build 1,000 MW of plant and have onshore wind power clustered in the right locations and connected cheaply to the grid. All this could be done without any need for high transmission charges that drive up costs and without any need for subsidies. That is the difference under Fine Gael's NewERA model. We want to use State investment, not high prices and high subsidies, to drive the industry. The Minister is using the old fashioned model which facilitated the property bubble. He is repeating all the mistakes of the property boom.

Another issue to look at is reducing capacity payments. This year alone generators will receive €551 million just for being there, even if they produce no power. We must consider whether it is necessary at a time when we now have surplus generating capacity to pay power generators more than €500 million per year even if they never turn on the power station.

In regard to the PSO, I am sorry that the Minister who is so keen on consensus and likes to pretend to be interested in the consensual green model is so keen to blackguard and misrepresent the policies of others. The peat aspect of the PSO levy should be reviewed and phased out over time. That is the position Deputy Coveney advocated in the past and we have not departed from that. Obviously, if that is done one must reinvest in the midlands and ensure there is not a net loss of jobs. There are different ways of doing that.

I am very enthusiastic about onshore wind energy. Even though the subsidy increases prices, it is necessary to drive investment in the industry. In time, as gas prices rise, it will make energy cheaper. It does not do so now but it will in future.

See this speech in context