Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I have looked closely at the analogy used by the Minister and I agree with the points he has made about the need to do certain things. As regards people in Ireland who are talking about the ESB, I have examined how it worked in other countries. In New Zealand, for example, they broke the electricity company into nine separate sections and it has been a disaster, although they do not admit that. In fact, they had difficulty selling off certain sections of the company and have failed to do so. They also had difficulty in connecting the network to the grid. Consequently, the city of Wellington was left without power for three weeks at one stage because of the mess they made of it. My argument is not at all in support of that particular approach. Neither is my argument that we needed to do something back in 2001, although I resent the fact that - as the Minister will recall - electricity prices went up before they came down. There was a period when Ireland went from having the lowest electricity prices in Europe to being nearly the most expensive.

The Minister is right to say we are back down the list and are now sixth or seventh in the league, so in that regard it is working. It is being unfair to the ESB, however, to have to sit back and think of Ireland for the last nine years without being able to fight back. My argument is that the period was far too long.

I admit that I had not seen the review process provided for in section 25(5), which is governed by subsection (10). I acknowledge that meets my secondary argument in that regard. However, the five-year period seems far too long.

I still consider three years would be appropriate. They could do what they wanted after three years of certainty. The Minister must accept that he contradicted himself in respect of the argument on certainty. He is saying reducing the period to three years would create uncertainty and at the same time it could be reduced to three years. The arguments cancel each other out. It is not that I think we should not interfere, but I said at the beginning that I was not an advocate of the market. Many of the arguments made against our proposals today and last week were based on allowing competition in the market. In this case the market may be used unfairly, but the Minister says this is not the case. I cannot speak with certainty anymore than he can and either of us could turn out to be correct. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There is an internal conflict. The phrase that jumped out at me was, "The price cap shall apply for a period of 5 years", while it is stated in section 25(5) that it can be reviewed. This is a contradiction in favour of what I am seeking. I thought the use of the term "shall" was far too strong, particularly when section 25(5) provided a basis on which the term could be undermined. A period of three years would be more acceptable, although I acknowledge the point made by the Minister that there is a review clause and a requirement to engage in a review process. I would like to know more about the process, but I do not expect the Minister will have the answer to this rhetorical question. I would like to be reassured it would be done in a way that would be fair to all parties and, in particular, An Post.