asked the Minister for Energy the present extent and cost of work carried out on Phase 4 of Moneypoint; and the date on which he agreed to this work.

I have been informed by the ESB that the only work which has been carried out in relation to a possible fourth unit of 300 MW at Moneypoint is for certain services at the site which are essential for Units 1, 2 and 3 but which could also cater for four units. These are the jetty for ship to shore coal transfer, coal stores, cooling water units, site development, reservoir and underground works. This work was done to avoid precluding Moneypoint 4 if a decision is taken in the future that it should be built. In 1978 when approval was sought for units 1 and 2, the board made it clear that this general work would be carried out to avoid undue interference with the operation of these units at a later stage. No objection was raised to this proposal.

In regard to the cost of work already carried out which could be attributed to Phase 4, if it is built, the board has said that it is not possible to provide such a break-down.

Does the Minister know that the foundations have been laid for Phase 4? Obviously the foundations for Phase 4 have nothing to do with Phases 1,2 or 3 and are in a completely different category, for example, to the building of a jetty. In those circumstances could the Minister give the cost of the work that has been done to date specifically on phase four?

As I said in my reply, the board have not provided me with a breakdown of the cost of the work done in relation to Phase 4. In regard to the foundations, I said site development work has taken place in relation to a possible Phase 4.

Would the Minister not consider it worth his while to ensure the board provided him with a breakdown of these figures?

Not only would I consider it worthwhile that they provide me with the figures but it is my intention to visit the site within the next two or three weeks and see for myself.

Would the Minister not consider it good engineering practice to have the foundations of Phase 4 built so that when there is room for future expansion, the plant would not be interfered with?

As no objection was raised to the proposal in 1978 that certain works be carried out at Moneypoint, I take it the work was carried out, and I am not in a position to comment whether it was good engineering practice or otherwise; but in the context of the overall development, if certain work could be carried out simultaneously with the work for Phases 1, 2 and 3, it would be in their interests to do so.

In view of the Minister's statement in the House yesterday to the effect that the ESB were requested, approximately 12 months ago, to cease work on Phase 3 of Moneypoint, can we take it that the Government's attitude to Phase 4 is at least as strong and that no further money should be spent on Phase 4?

The works I have outlined are the only works which have been carried out in relation to Phase 4. No direction has been given to the ESB in relation to Phase 4. The Government undertook a review of Phase 3 during the last 12 months. That review is almost completed and will be going before the Government in the very near future. At Question Time yesterday some commentators seemed to take from my reply to Deputy Enright that a direction to cancel Moneypoint 3 was given from the Government. No direction was given to the ESB. Therefore, the ESB have not been acting in contravention of any Government direction. They were informed of the review taking place and, as Deputy O'Malley is aware, in the course of the review of capital programmes this is a normal function in Government, and that review is about to be completed.

Is the Minister saying that what he said in this House yesterday is incorrect?

Deputy Enright asked if a direction had been given. It was not my intention to mislead the House or to inform Deputy Enright incorrectly, but my reply which was meant to say that the ESB had been informed and had had consultations with my Department in relation to the review, was taken by some commentators to mean that the ESB had ignored a Government directive. No Government directive was given to the ESB to halt progress on Moneypoint. They were alerted to the fact that the Government were reviewing the position and the costing of Moneypoint 3.