Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and wish him well with the legislation. I am probably the only Member of either House who has a problem with it. Having said that, nothing I have to say reflects in any way on the excellent people who operate EirGrid, whom I have met. My problem with the Bill has nothing to do with them as I hold them in the highest of regard. They are diligent, decent people who are good at their work. That is not the issue nor is it a reflection on the Minister.

I am looking down the line at what will happens afterwards, as I am required to do as a legislator. I do not trust the unknown people who in 20 years' time will be in charge of what the Minister is now in charge of. My problem with this Bill is that we are bundling up and neatly packaging something which can be sold off the next time a Government has a problem. That will happen and people will regret it.

I saw the Minister nodding in agreement with Senator Jim Walsh on the question of carbon savings. I do not believe the Senator is correct in that regard. It will not be a carbon saving and there will be no gain because it is within Europe and I do not believe it will count. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that issue in his response.

I have seen the development of the ESB over the years. I have been a major supporter and at times a great critic of it. What saddens me about this debate is that I am looking at a company, a management and a workforce which have been extraordinarily flexible. The workforce has been reduced from 14,000 people less than 20 years ago to fewer than 8,000. It did that in the interests of efficiency and of delivering.

It is not that long ago since this was one of the cheapest electricity markets in Europe. Some time after 2002 I argued that the price of electricity was being artificially forced up to invite in Senator Jim Walsh's friends in the private sector and to make it competitive for them. I still have grave doubts about how it works. I do not trust the private sector in this area and believe it will bury us.

I have no problem with the concept of a grid or the authority we are giving to EirGrid. However, I would like to see EirGrid as part of an integrated system within the ESB. The problem with discussing this is that the debate has not moved on. What we are doing today is as important as the construction of the Ardnacrusha power station in the 1920s. However, one would have great difficulty convincing the people of that.

The Minister and I know that generation is no longer the name of the game. We could stop generating as soon as we have this set up. The real issue is that EirGrid will buy and sell. Of course, it is open to the private sector, and so it should be. If the private sector can produce as cheaply as the ESB, then it will be in the marketplace but so far, it has failed to do that and that is why it has not exactly been rushing into it. It is quite extraordinary in that sense why people are missing that point.

There are three aspects to this, namely, generation, the national grid and the network. The network is what I call the bit that brings the power from the grid to houses. In any other country where this has been done, it has created a problem. I said to the Minister last year before he was appointed that in New Zealand, where they did exactly this, the grid company refused to pay the costs of connection to the network in the capital city of Wellington which was left without power, on and off, for approximately six weeks. That happened in the past ten years as a direct result of the privatisation of the grid. I know the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is not privatising the national grid, but his actions would allow it to be privatised very easily in future and there is no strategic reason for this. I am not approaching this from any "ism" or philosophy. There can be no strategic reason for letting go the reins on EirGrid. I know the Minister's position and I agree on this point.

This is a significant problem. Throughout Europe, there is a significant concentration of power in the generation and transmission sectors. The big player, effectively, is Electricité de France, EDF. It is buying companies throughout England and the UK and is looking at options here. The company was mentioned in the House several times recently and it is examining developments in north County Louth and so on. There is nobody scrutinising this.

A classic example of this lack of scrutiny is that the people of counties Cavan, Monaghan and north County Meath are concerned about the high tension cable planned for the area. I will return to this topic later. I guarantee that the Deputies and Senators from north County Dublin and north County Wicklow still have not woken up to the fact that similar high tension cables are planned to come across the Irish Sea and will come ashore in north County Dublin and north County Wicklow. There will be a new variation of thought on this matter and I believe it is worth examining.

I do not understand some of the technicalities and I would like to know more. I understand the power in these cables will come across under the sea as direct current, DC, and that it must be changed to alternating current, AC. I previously investigated the possibility of putting underground the remainder of the cable as DC and this requires a substation — I suppose it is called an inverter — to change the current from DC to AC. The substation needs to be very large and many would need to be constructed. In the meantime I have discovered the option of high tension light, which is a lighter version requiring a smaller conversion or inverter substation. I would like this option examined for the people of Cavan-Monaghan and north County Meath.

It seems the conditions required for installing high tension cable in the North are different from here. In the North the distance between private residences and the cable is a certain number of metres whereas, the last time I checked, the required distance here was less, but I am open to correction on this matter. At least, we should not worsen the situation.

I saw people on the 9 o'clock news holding up fluorescent tubes which began lighting up underneath the high tension cable. Any normal person would think it is significant that the tubes are being lit in these circumstances and that there must be implications for him or her. Such a reaction is normal and this issue does not affect me directly. This matter is worth examining. We should put underground any such cables within an agreed distance from private dwellings or from any conurbations or villages and so on. This guarantee should be given and factored into the costing.

I discovered a similar situation recently in the south of France where there are two huge lines under construction between France and Spain over the Pyrenees. The Minister will be delighted as a member of the Green Party to know these huge pylons are being constructed straight over the beautiful mountains up one side and down the other, with nobody being listened to along the way. There has been significant opposition to this by the group, Non À la très haute tension, THT. The mayors of all towns in the affected areas by the Pyrenees are opposed to this. The last time I checked I saw an announcement stating EDF, which is the company involved, is conceding a degree of underground cabling. I wish to know if this is the case because if it is, it undermines some of the arguments that EirGrid and the Minister have been offered to date which make the case that this is the method of choice throughout Europe. We need to be reassured about developments. What we should have is an integrated system, where the generation, transmission grid and the network are all part of one body and that one of these cannot be packaged and let float off.

Irish people do not realise that nearly 2% of power here is nuclear-generated at present. There are people discussing the merits of "Yes" and "No" in the nuclear debate. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, has asked previously for a debate on the nuclear issue and I have no objection to this. However, people should recognise the developments that have been made in the area of nuclear fusion as opposed to fission and the possible options for generating power in the future in a safer way to now.

At present, EDF has been supported by its Government in devious ways and in ways not clearly recognisable. They have done what our Government could not do under European legislation. EDF now owns the two main connections from Russia through to western Europe and extending down to the Iberian peninsula. It is buying and selling power every day at trough rates in eastern Europe and selling it at peak rates in western Europe, because with the two or three hour delay, this is how it works. I do not know whether other members of the House are aware that the price of electricity changes with every hour of the day. EirGrid will buy and sell power hourly, not daily, weekly or monthly. It needs extra power available at various times.

I wish to hear more about the elements of storage. I understand EirGrid will also have responsibility for Turlough Hill power station, which I welcome. The station in Turlough Hill pumps up water during trough times when demand is low. Instead of selling the power to houses it is used to pump water and when it is needed, the water flows down running the turbines and more electricity is created. There is approximately an 80% return on power generated. In other words, for the amount of electricity used to pump up the water, we can sell approximately 80% afterward, so there is a 20% loss. I do not know why more has not been done in the area of hydrogen storage which provides a 100% return and I believe more could be done with storage.

The roll-out of smart metering and the support for micro-generation is not happening quickly enough. I do not understand the reason it is possible to get a grant for installing solar panels but not for a micro-generator or a wind generator. We should examine these options and they should be connected to the national grid. I agree with the comments of Senator Jim Walsh in this regard. Those generating power should be able to supply the grid whether it comes from solar panels, wind generation or other sources. There is much to be done.

It is not the elements in this Bill which concern me but what could be done with our work. This could be a very nasty piece of work allowing for the loss of control of our electricity supply. It does not matter how much power is generated if its flow cannot be controlled. One could own 24 Ardnacrusha-type power stations but if a privatised EirGrid in the future indicated it did not want power from those sources on a given day because it was buying power from EDF in Berlin or Russia or somewhere else, then they are of no use and I do not think people recognise this. This is the reason I want the system integrated so that if we are generating power, we can use it. Senator Walsh may not be aware that the market could be opened to the private sector, but this does not mean the power would be bought. Our sources of power might be connected but there will not be any sale if the EirGrid of the future decides it wants to buy from EDF or from Spain. There has been no debate on this matter. I have not met one person in either of the Houses of the Oireachtas who understands that simple point. Such people think power generation is important, but it is utterly unimportant. When this Bill is enacted we could close down every source of power generation in the country and we would not even notice. I am concerned we are setting up something which would allow this as a possibility in the future.