asked the Minister for Energy if he is satisfied with the arrangements being made to monitor the acid rain emissions from Moneypoint and if he considers that an independent monitoring system should be considered in view of the public fears in this regard.

The arrangements being made by the ESB to monitor emissions from Moneypoint are quite extensive, are in accordance with the planning permission for the station and are in line with standard international practice. Clare County Council operate a separate independent network to monitor air quality in the county. The ESB will furnish detailed comprehensive data from their monitoring operations to the appropriate authorities.

I am satisfied with these arrangements.

Will the Minister confirm that if the ESB were to carry out the terms of the recent directive of the EC the cost would be between £300 million and £400 million which would represent an increase in electricity charges of the order of 20 per cent? Will the Minister comment on the fact that there is considerable unease in regard to the potential damage that may be done? There is a general unease and concern about the prospect of the destruction of our environment as a result of the emissions from Moneypoint. Is it reasonable to expect the general public to believe and have full confidence in the monitoring service of the ESB? In other words, are we asking them to be judge and jury over their own actions? Should there not be an independent monitoring system to relieve the concern which exists among the general public?

On the first part of the question, on which I thought the Ceann Comhairle might protect me as being a separate question——

I was dealing with something else, I must say.

You are an environmentalist at heart.

My attention was legitimately distracted by another urgent matter.

Welcome back, a Cheann Comhairle.

It will do no harm to bring your attention back.

The cost of scrubbers would involve quite large sums of money, perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds. They are not envisaged and not necessary. In relation to the general public, I can understand their concern and share that concern, as I assume would all Members of this House. I shall list the 14 monitoring stations: Ballyline, the Burren, County Clare; Cahercon, Kildysart, County Clare; Knock, County Clare; Kilrush, County Clare; Labasheeda, County Clare; Knockerra, County Clare; Kilkee, County Clare; the station perimeter, Slieve Bloom, Capard; Tarbert, County Kerry; Ballylongford, County Kerry; Mount Trenchard, near Foynes, County Limerick; Moyvane, County Kerry; Glin, County Limerick and others throughout the country.

An adequate monitoring system will be in situ from day one and the information will be provided. I can assure the Deputy, and I have said so publicly already, that no information will be held back from the public in the interests of the public good. It is in all our interests that the information as to the emission levels from the station at Moneypoint will be made available, obviously in the interests of public health. At this point I am satisfied, from the restrictions on planning permission and from the ESB's own network of monitoring stations aligned to Clare County Countil's, that we will be in a position to monitor the emission on an hourly basis. I should also point out something of which the general public seem not to be aware, the fact that emissions from existing oil fired stations for the same electrical output as Moneypoint would be about 50 per cent higher than the emissions of sulpur dioxide from the new units at Moneypoint.

Could the Minister indicate what, if any, independent studies have been made of the potential emissions from the Moneypoint station, in view of the claims and counter claims being made by different bodies? Could he indicate what monitoring services exist on the east coast, which would appear to be the area most likely to suffer if any area is to suffer, from the alleged contamination by sulphur dioxide?

Two major independent studies of the environmental impact of Moneypoint were carried out; first, an ecological impact assessment by An Foras Forbartha and, secondly, an environmental impact study in relation to the consequences for agriculture, by An Foras Talúntais. Both of these studies include analyses of the sulphur dioxide fall-out from the station and the results of both studies indicate that no problem will be caused by the fall-out. With regard to the second part of the question, I do not have an indication of the monitoring stations on the east coast, but I shall also supply that information to the Deputy.

Is the Minister aware that in countries such as the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Germany and other European countries, where there have been coal burning generating stations, serious environmental problems have arisen? It is obvious that a similar problem will arise here. I gathered from the Minister's reply that there was only one monitoring station in the midlands and I do not think there was any further east; some further stations are necessary. Would the Minister not have a separate independent body, as distinct from the ESB, monitoring the emissions in view of public concern and the experience in other countries? We are going to have a problem here and it should be tackled immediately, rather than later when the damage is done.

I did not hear the Deputy. In view of public concern, to do what?

In view of public concern over the problem of acid rain which is likely to occur.

What does the Deputy want us to do?

Will he not have an independent body monitoring the situation? Would the Minister consider having scrubbers put into the station in view of this concern?

The first part of the Deputy's long question was in relation to the European experience but, as they say in Kerry, it all depends on volume. We have to take into account that we will have one major coal burning station in County Clare and I must refute the suggestion that the ESB are not going to treat this matter in a thoroughly responsible way, or have not been treating it so. They are a semi-State company of whose record down through the years we can be very proud in connection with what they have done for electricity provision. I am sure they will approach the monitoring of the fall-out from this coal fired station with the same seriousness as they have had on the whole question of electricity supply to the country.

From the examinations that have taken place and the studies, there is no danger to our environment from the volume of sulphur dioxide which will be emitted from the three coal burning units in Moneypoint. That is the position. Also, I believe that the ESB, the county council and likewise my Department, with the monitoring systems that are being set up, will be in a position to confirm for this House, which should allay any public anxiety, the levels of emissions from the coal burning units at Moneypoint. The situation might be somewhat different if it were part of our energy strategy to have ten or 12 of these coal burning stations around the country, but that is not the position.

Would the Minister tell us the Government position in regard to the directive from the European Commission and whether we have sought derogation from the directive in its entirety?

The position basically is that we must take into account the fact that, as the Deputy will be well aware, the air in this country is much cleaner than that in the other European member state countries and also that we account for about 1.1 per cent of all EC emissions to which large plant, including ESB stations contribute approximately 45 per cent. We feel that the imposition here of standard emission limit values and of a uniform percentage reduction would not contribute in a significant way to the solution of the problem of trans-boundary air pollution. In that respect there was a meeting of the Environment Ministers last week and we shall be considering the implications of that at our next meeting in Government.

Is it not a fact that we are at present seeking a derogation from the directive?

I do not think the problem which they have in Europe would be solved in any way if we were to be bound into the general directive.

We have sought actual derogation from the directive as of now.

I said that we have not had a Government meeting since the last meeting of the European Council.

But prior to this meeting we had sought derogation, had we not? The actual position is that we have sought not to be bound by the conditions of the directive.

The discussion has not concluded at the level of the Council of Ministers for the Environment.

I accept that, but we have sought derogation from this directive.

I do not believe that it would add anything to the solution of the European problem.

Could the Minister answer yes or no?

We have not changed position.

We have sought it, but not been granted it.

We have not changed position.

What the Deputy lost in volume, he made up for in time consumption.

Most of the concern that I have heard expressed related to the possible effects on the east coast. People are quite satisfied that, in the immediate area of the station, there will not be any major effects. I simply want the Minister to take some steps to allay the fears that exist, particularly in the Dublin area.

Yes, I said that I would.

I do not go along with most of the scares that are being promoted in connection with it.

I appreciate that. In my last reply to the Deputy I said that I would check on the situation in relation to the east coast and the practicalities of monitoring.

The Minister will be aware that the surveys he mentions were undertaken before the commencement of electricity generation at Moneypoint. Because of the tall stack policy of the ESB it is quite likely that——

This is a speech.

——the stations which the Minister mentioned will be insignificant in any monitoring of the situation. In the event, however, of significant pollution arising from Moneypoint, what plans has the Minister to deal with the situation?

I want to assure the Deputy that there will not be significant pollution from Moneypoint.

There is no evidence to suggest that.

Yes, there is.

It is now 3.30 p.m. and that concludes balloted questions. I am now moving to questions nominated for priority.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the lay-off of workers at a firm in Banagher, County Offaly.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the content of my Private Notice Question which has been ruled out of order.

I will communicate with the Deputy.