John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the energy question for a few minutes in this Second Stage debate. I support the Bill and acknowledge, as others on both sides of the House have mentioned, that energy prices and fuel costs in general comprise one of the biggest issues facing citizens of the country and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Many previous speakers have outlined the increases that have taken place in the past few months but it is quite clear that the outlook and projections for the next six months are similarly on an upward trajectory.

I support the measure in the Bill to reduce the cost of electricity for individuals and families right across the country, I hope it or a similar measure can be used in future to ensure something like the particular spike we are experiencing now is not all transferred on to the backs of families and citizens right across the country. However, in my time in public life, we have not really in Ireland had an honest and open debate about energy policy. I disagree with many of the points made by Deputies Paul Murphy and Richard Boyd Barrett but they have certainly put forward their perspectives with their usual eloquence and energy. I do not necessarily or particularly agree with Deputy Cowen that privatisation of the ESB is the right option to consider at this point but at least he put forward his position. Everything in the current climate must be discussed. The Opposition failed in any of its criticism of Deputy Cowen to outline options. Those Members attacked the ESB and other energy providers about the cost at which they provide energy but they do not really provide any alternatives. Too often in this House and other chambers across the country, politicians of all stripes but particularly of the left and far left have portrayed an idea that there are easy options for energy.

What do I mean by that? Currently in Ireland the Corrib gas field, for example, provides 40% of our gas needs but there was a considerable amount of opposition to its development within this Chamber, with no ready alternative being proposed. I question and criticise the decision of the Government to close the peat generation plants, not because peat generation should be sustained indefinitely but because that closure was effected in advance of securing an alternative. I am not trying to portray an image that microgeneration will solve all our energy needs but there were commitments given both in the programme for Government and when the Government was formed on targets for connections and people seeing rebates when supplying into the grid rather than taking energy out of it. I know the Minister, Deputy Ryan, is talking about reaching those now but it is about a year after the original projection. If we are to bring the public with us on what needs to be done in terms of energy projection, small wins like those for microgeneration and other alternatives must be secured. I welcome the fact it is happening now but it should have happened much sooner.

All of this matter flows into the area of planning policy. Virtually every roof in the country should have a solar panel, if at all possible. My part of the country in the south east has a nickname for having more sunshine than most other parts of the country. If a business or private dwelling is installing a flush solar panel on a roof, it should not have to go through the full rigorous planning process. I welcome the initiatives of the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, and his colleagues on the review of planning legislation. Again, it is another method of ensuring we can bring the public with us.

6 o’clock

We also have to realise, as I mentioned earlier, that while 40% of our gas comes from the Corrib field, we are on the end of the European gas pipeline. Issues and factors that are far beyond our control, issues that are now current in eastern Europe, will have an impact on energy into the future.

Every public representative has the right to oppose, object and express their view on development, whether it is in the energy field or any other. However, it is completely false to present to the public that there are soft options in terms of energy supply, because there are not. One of the things that particularly bothered me was the letter from the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to An Bord Pleanála recently with regard to the liquefied natural gas, LNG, plant in Kerry. It is accepted by many experts in the field of energy, as well as in climate, that LNG is going to be a transitional fuel for many years to come. We have already outlawed fracking in this country. I voted for that, accept it and agree with it. However, in respect of LNG that is produced from other sources, thereby enabling us to refine it here, distribute it and not be dependent on our neighbour in the United Kingdom and giving us a level of energy security we do not have, it is wrong for a national Minister to get himself involved in an individual planning application. I know he has strong views and by all means he should express them. However, when it comes to an individual application by a private business, it is not presenting the full picture to the general public. I agree, shockingly, with Deputy Boyd Barrett and others in respect of VAT and excise and factors that are within the control of the Government in terms of easing the cost of energy and fuel. I have never been a particular supporter of nuclear energy, perhaps because I grew up near enough to Carnsore and it was always a topical issue. We have never had a proper reasoned debate about whether it is something that could be a sustainable form of energy in Ireland in the future that should be considered and a rational debate had upon on it. I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I support the aims of this Bill. I hope it can be used in the future to provide similar relief for families across country.

See this speech in context