Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I am breaking one of my usual rules of objecting to the passage of all Stages of a Bill on the one day because the Minister has explained the position adequately. As Senator Finucane also said, this is a Bill for which we can make that exception.

I must confess that when I first read this short Bill I was taken aback by the huge amounts involved, but the Minister explained the position. Increasing borrowing powers from €2 billion to €6 billion at the stroke of a pen is dramatic. This is probably the largest such increase to be included in any legislation in the history of the State.

Notwithstanding that, I find myself asking whether this enormous figure is enough. The reason the figure is so big is because we have some catching up to do, owing to a failure over the past decade or more to invest in electricity generation. Now that we have belatedly decided to play catch-up, my concern is whether we are doing enough to get back in step with the growth of demand. We should ensure we get this right, once and for all. We have come to expect electricity every time we switch it on. Many of us may recall visits to other countries and always finding a candle beside the bed in the hotel. One then realises not every country has enjoyed the satisfaction and confidence we have had with our electricity system over the years.

My concern is strengthened by recent events in other countries on this front. Within the past couple of years, there have been massive power outrages in several places, most notably in the eastern part of the United States and, closer to home, in Italy, our European partner. In both cases. the economic damage caused by the system failures was enormous and out of all proportion to the length of the disruption. Apart from the direct economic cost, a high price was paid in social and human terms. However, I recall one occasion when we had a power failure and a number of people spoke to me afterwards of its benefits. Instead of sitting at home watching television or listening to the radio, they played chess or draughts or monopoly and even talked again with the family. Sometimes there are disadvantages to an uninterrupted power supply.

As regards the power failures in New York and Italy, I clearly remember that in each of those cases the blame for the system failure was put down to inadequate investment, mainly in the grid system that connects the network of generation plants and brings power down the line to customers. The reason for the inadequate investment was attributed, at least in part, to changes in the regulatory system, which apparently placed too little emphasis on this aspect of electricity supply.

My concern is deepened by the mixed experience we have had in this country as regards the regulation of the electricity industry. In the case of the telecommunications sector, I believe the telecommunications regulator was given the wrong instructions. The brief was to ensure there was fairness between the various competing bodies. My belief at the time was that we were incorrect in that regard. We probably should have said that the objective was to create competition, not just to ensure fairness between the various bodies. I am not sure whether that applies to deregulation in the electricity area. Deregulation undertaken by us on the initiative of the EU was meant to bring about more competition. More pertinently, it was meant to deliver lower prices to customers.

As far as I can see, the deregulated regime for electricity has not yet delivered on either of these points, competition or prices. For most customers, there is still no alternative supplier to the ESB. Meanwhile, the price of electricity to the end user has continued to rise instead of falling, as we had been led to believe it would. This is true particularly in business from whence the knock-on effect of rising costs percolates through the whole economy.

It may well be that in addition to failing to deliver on its promises, deregulation is actually causing other problems that did not exist before, such as the way investment in the grid system is apparently being discouraged in some places. Perhaps the time has come for us to revisit the question of regulating the electricity industry, in the light of our experience to date. However, in saying this, I am not criticising the work of the electricity regulator. I am asking whether deregulation is delivering what we expected of it and, if not, whether there is anything we can do to improve matters. There is no reason whatever that, such arrangements, regardless of whether they originate in Europe, should be considered as cast in stone forever.

Let us examine the service we have come to expect every time we switch on. By and large, the ESB has served the country well for the best part of 80 years. We should ensure that it has all the necessary borrowing powers to carry out its job properly, as this Bill provides, and to ensure that it operates in a regulatory framework that helps rather than hinders its work. If I have a criticism of the ESB, it is that it has been slow over the course of its history to pay enough attention to the potential that exists in alternative methods of power supply. Previous speakers mentioned this aspect.

From the point of view of geography and climate, this country is well placed to exploit the potential of wind power and wave power, but these are both areas in which we have allowed other less favourably situated countries take the lead. Senator Kenneally talked about Denmark, for example, and Italy. In the 1930s we led the world in seeking to generate power from our peat resources. For many years, until economies of scale took over, peat-fired power generation played an important role not only in the economy, but in helping to develop many parts of the country that would otherwise have been devoid of any industrial activity. Those days are largely gone, but they have not been followed by a similar pioneering approach in developing alternative sources of energy production.

I realise that for the foreseeable future the vast majority of electricity generation needs must still be met from oil and coal. Other sources of energy probably will always be in the minority. However, that minority could be an important part of the overall effort. If for no other reason, our obligations under the Kyoto Agreement should encourage us to pull out all the stops in this regard.

I believe the House will support the Bill. Members recognise the need for it and the great work that has been done over the years. However, we recognise too that not enough attention has been paid to alternative sources of energy. I believe the Kyoto Agreement has put the onus on us to do something about that area. We must undertake those obligations with a spirit of enthusiasm. I believe this initiative will give the ESB the opportunity to become more actively involved in that area. We should encourage it to do so. We should also ensure it has the necessary fuel to be able to do so.