Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 1974

Vol. 271 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Energy Crisis: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Barrett on 13th March, 1974:

That Dáil Éireann deplores the handling of the energy crisis and calls on the Government to inform the House of its future policy on energy.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute the following:—

"approves of the handling of the energy crisis and urges the Government to develop its future energy policy in the light of the experience gained."

—(Minister for Transport and Power).

Mr. Brennan

This motion was intended to extract more definite information with regard to future prospects of oil supplies and prices from the responsible Minister. I was disappointed at the Minister's attitude when the motion was being debated. He took the view that he took a chance, when he did not ration and things worked out right. If the Minister took a chance by not introducing rationing, he must have known that it was unnecessary. With hindsight, people are aware and astonished at the outcome of the oil and fuel crisis.

I have discussed this situation with people in my constituency and elsewhere. I am asked questions which I am unable to answer. This tends to show more and more why we should have a discussion on the energy crisis. Deputy Barrett said at the outset that nobody is trying to score political points off anybody, least of all the Minister. The country feels that something happened about which they got inadequate information. Nobody is certain what the future trend will be. It does not make people more content to read a report which appeared in the daily newspapers on the 15th March in connection with the long-term oil pact which the oil companies hope to hammer out with the oil-producing countries. They will buy oil from those oil-producing countries if they get a long-term contract and a reduction in prices.

At the start of this alleged crisis we were told that energy would be such a serious problem in the future that people would be buying donkeys for transport. It was said that we would have no fuel or energy. We read of the possibilities of getting oil in the Rockies and offshore. Speculation was being made as to when it might be available because soon we would have no oil. Now the oil-producing countries are seeking to get long-term contracts and assurances that the multi-national companies will buy oil from them and they are even prepared to reduce the price.

People with central heating in their homes asked me to explain why, when they got an oil delivery around Christmas, they were told that that was all they would get until February. The price at that time was about 8p. In January the companies then said they could give more oil but they would not get in more until about April. The price was then 14p. In March they were told that they could get all they wanted but the price was 28p. The price was rising and the supply was more plentiful. It is only natural that these people should ask what was happening. Was there a shortage? Who conspired with whom to create this shortage? The release of controls which permitted prices to rise with little or no notice seemed to solve the problem in the end. As I said last week, we had reached a stage where we were told that we would be very lucky if we got oil at any price. That was the attitude adopted.

The Minister took refuge in the fact that he did not introduce rationing. He said to me across the floor that it was lucky that there was a change of Government because obviously I would have introduced rationing. I thought that the sensible and logical thing to do when a crisis occurred was that certain people who purchased oil for essential production in the past should be entitled, even at the expense of those with private vehicles, to get their supplies of energy in order to keep the wheels of industry turning and so that essential output which is indispensable to the economy would be available. The only way to do that was to issue a book of coupons to each person and say that every unit is worth so much. Then, he is sure of getting that much when he pulls in at a garage. He will not have to get up at 6 o'clock in the morning and queue until 11 a.m. in the hope that he will get 50p worth of petrol. This was the situation. Did the Minister know that he was taking a chance and that the situation would become easier? Had he any knowledge that there was price fixing behind the scene? What is the position with regard to the meeting of the co-ordinating groups? The object of this group was to frame western policy for an eventual meeting with oil-producing nation. The West hopes to keep supplies up and prices down now while the Arabs want long-term guarantees that the West will buy their oil at stable prices in later years and the compromise was being prepared on that basis.

This is a problem which is not confined solely to Ireland. It is a problem about which we have little information. We are in the hands of a clique who will do what they like with prices and supplies. Can the Minister give us any hope as to what the future holds with regard to this vital problem?

Mr. B. Desmond

Deputy Barrett, in proposing this motion, read a plausible speech from his copious script writers. But however well presented, it seems to me that there was little of real content in his contribution. Deputy Brennan, in seconding this motion, fell into a drain in the old bog road last Wednesday and only emerged briefly tonight.

Deputy Barrett proposed that the Government should impose a new form of price control on oil and that the Government should depart radically from the recommendations of the National Prices Commission. However, it should be noted that Deputy Barrett offered no real alternative mechanism whatsoever of price surveillence and sanction. Now that we have the asset of those copious Fianna Fáil scriptwriters, I would challenge Deputy Barrett to spell out in detail his party's alternative system to the current seven day notice system of general price parity between the Republic and the outer UK zone. That should be his responsibility since he put down the motion.

I would remind the Fianna Fáil spokesmen in this debate that the National Prices Commission, a widely representative and expert body, made six clearcut recommendations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the question of price control on petroleum products in the context of a deteriorating world oil situation. The Minister, without any delay, accepted those recommendations and informed the companies on 5th December, 1973. In their report to the Minister last November the NPC also pointed out that the normal price control procedure was far too slow to deal with this kind of rapidly changing world price situation. They recommended that it should be replaced temporarily by more flexible arrangements. The Government acted immediately and in an entirely responsible manner and the staff of the Department of Transport and Power reacted in a rational and careful manner. In this motion the Fianna Fáil Party have not got any better system to offer. They have no fairer system to offer and no more effective price control mechanism to offer to the House. That is the reality of the situation.

Regarding oil profit allegations made by Deputy Barrett, he suggested that the companies deliberately exploited the changing circumstances of oil stocks and the recent price increases to the extent of anything between £5 million and £7 million "extra profit". I am afraid that his evidence, to say the least of it, was rather sketchy and simplistic. It sounds plausible enough but, on the basis of the facts known to the Department of Transport and Power, to the Government, and to the NPC, his suggestion is widely at variance with the facts. I suggest to him and to his industrious scriptwriters that you cannot simply hang the Irish subsidiaries of the multi-national oil companies by trotting out a few rather well-chosen quotations from Time magazine, such as we had here last week. It is a rather bigger issue than that, with respect to the Fianna Fáil spokesmen.

I have no doubt that the National Prices Commission and the Departments of Transport and Power and Industry and Commerce did in the past, and will in the future, bear in mind the stocks situation and the pricing structures of all the oil companies in any future revision of oil prices, or notification by them, or any future changes in the system of price sanctions. I would remind the House that the Government are not necessarily tied forever to the current price notification system. The present arrangement is subject to a quarterly review recommended by the NPC of the system as a whole. At any time the Government may seek comprehensive data from the domestic companies.

Therefore, Deputy Barrett's allegation that the oil companies made £15 to £20 per ton profit on 300,000 tons alleged February stocks is wrong in terms of the actual level of stocks at that point in time and wrong in what I regard as its superficial analysis of the whole question of advance oil contracts, oil production, oil distribution, transportation and refining here. With respect to the Fianna Fáil think-tank it is a little more difficult than that. If I may coin a phrase, Deputy Barrett was "oil streaking" on this occasion for narrow party political propaganda. In so doing he exposed their lack of knowledge of the hard facts of the situation.

Having put the domestic situation in what I regard as a reasonable perspective, I do not think any politician on any side of the House should be ignorant of the fact—we would be remiss if we did not express our concern—that on a worldwide scale the multi-nationals enjoyed a very rich period in 1973. For example, the giant Royal Dutch-Shell Group announced an increase in profits in 1973 of 159 per cent. The Exxon (Esso) Company announced an increase in profits of 59 per cent in 1973. The profits of Texaco went up by 45 per cent in the same period and Mobil and Union announced increased profits of 47 per cent and 48 per cent respectively.

I have no doubt that in the context of these profits made in 1973 the Exchequer taxation experts throughout the world, and in particular in western Europe, and the national price control mechanisms in the various countries, and the Arab oil producing countries, have taken sharp notice of these increases. I am quite sure our Ministers are more than well aware of them as well. Because of these massive increases at international level it does not necessarily follow that Time magazine quotations apply automatically to the oil industry.

With regard to the UK situation and its relevance to Ireland I would point out to the Opposition that the Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are in an integrated oil market with Britain. Fianna Fáil had very little to say about that in the past two or three decades. About half of our oil comes from British refineries in the form of refined products and the balance in the form of crude which is supplied to the Whitegate refinery by the three major companies who own it. It is this factor of an integrated market which enabled the Minister for Industry and Commerce to allow oil prices to follow outer-zoned prices of the UK. Price increases in the UK are not permissible until they have been authorised by their Prices Commission who require evidence of payment of the increased crude oil prices before allowing any extra charge to be made. I gather that there is also a period of prior notification involved. I certainly intend to press my inquiry with the Labour Ministers in the relevant Departments over there to find out how they intend to approach that kind of development.

Regarding the situation in the past few days we in this House should welcome the decisions of the Organisation of the Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries to end their oil supply embargo against the United States and to freeze prices at present levels for the next three months. I am sure the Opposition will agree that this development will provide the Government with a welcome opportunity to press ahead with the evolution of an energy policy and, if necessary, to undertake a further review of the pricing structure of the industry and the question of the future of the industry as a whole.

Deputy Barrett also proposed that storage and refining facilities should be extended. I accept that point. I do not think it is particularly novel. It is rather the conventional wisdom arising out of the prices situation and the situation over the past 12 months. It is now generally accepted that that is an urgent need. Deputy Barrett made two other proposals: that Ireland should do a direct deal with the Arab oil producing countries and that we should tempt the Arab nations to invest in refineries in the Republic. I found this strange coming from the repository of republicanism in Clare. This proposal was put forward to us last Wednesday without any elaboration. One finds it strange coming from a front bench spokesman of a political party who fostered assiduously the role of the multi-nationals in Ireland. They are now proposing that we should do a complete about-turn. Deputy Brennan trumpeted Fianna Fáil support for the free public enterprise system. Now we are to start chasing the Arabs and have a joint venture with them. While they may have validity in the long term, I can only assume that these proposals in the immediate short term are what one might call a propaganda exercise by the Fianna Fáil spokesmen and script-writers.

I should like to put three questions to them. What relevance have these proposals to the immediate short-term oil needs of this country in 1973-74 and 1975 up to the early 1980s? How do they propose to prevent the multi-national companies now supplying Ireland from taking unilateral action against us in the event of the Minister making unilateral arrangements with the producer nations? How does the Fianna Fáil Party propose to ensure that the Arab nations and the producing countries will give us a more favourable contract deal than is available from multi-nationals?

Many people are going around the world with gilt-edge invitations to introduce Ministers for Transport and Power to the various sheikdoms of Africa or of the Arab nations on magnificent commissions and brokerage fees. With due respect to Fianna Fáil, I do not think we are going to send our Minister for Transport and Power off on that kind of general exercise. For that reason I do not think Fianna Fáil are too serious in that regard.

However, one must always react on the basis that an Opposition acts in good faith. On the assumption that there may be some long-term attractions for Ireland having an alternative deal outside that of the multi-national oil companies' role, I suggest to the Minister that he examine the proposal in the context of a White Paper. Let us tease it out there. I am suggesting that the Minister consider a White Paper on the future oil needs of the country.

Mr. Brennan

The Deputy used to advocate nationalisation. Has his social conscience changed? Those were the days.

Mr. B. Desmond

As regards the future, the Government are undertaking a comprehensive——

Mr. Brennan

Multi-nationals are "loverly" people now.

Mr. B. Desmond

——and on-going review of energy policy in the light of our experience in the present crisis. The oil industry is a worldwide one and even if we were to discover substantial quantities of oil in our own waters it still would not isolate us from the fact that it is still an international, multi-national and worldwide industry. Development policy must take account of and proceed in conformity with development on the international level and in conformity with developments at EEC level. I should like to remind Fianna Fáil that we are in the EEC.

Mr. Brennan

In spite of all the Deputy did.

Mr. B. Desmond

Development must take place in a context of developments at OECD level. We cannot get out of it and start off chasing the Arab nations on a kind of unilateral third country deal. We have got to bear that in mind.

Mr. Brennan

The Deputy could renegotiate with Mr. Callaghan.

Mr. B. Desmond

In the context of future policy there is another matter which we should bear in mind. There will still be in the years ahead a tightness of supply and high cost will continue. Although they have a Labour Government in power in Britain, the Government have now sanctioned, in relation to the National Coal Board, a 48 per cent increase in the price of coal to industry in Britain. Therefore, there will be a very high energy cost situation over the next few years and it will be necessary to maintain and intensify measures to avoid waste and reduce consumption of energy in the years ahead.

Hand in hand with the measures of conservation such as improved insulation measures we must, of course, consider ways and means of restraining demand. We must also accelerate development of resources of energy other than imported oil. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is currently considering measures in relation to offshore exploration for oil and gas. We on the Government side are also pleased to note that with the new price of oil Bord na Móna now envisage that it will be economic to undertake substantial further bog development and that they have agreed, in principle, with the ESB on joint plans for bog development and the provision of additional peat-burning generating capacity. Bord na Móna also envisage a new briquette factory. Needless to remark the tremendous capital cost of these projects will be subject to the greatest scrutiny and intensive cost benefit analysis by the respective Ministers. A further aspect of the oil supply situation which we have to consider is the provision of adequate refining capacity to meet our own needs in times of crisis.

Another factor which we have to bear in mind is the final decision of the promoters of the APCO, Whiddy Island Oil Refinery, project. Their decision is due within the next two weeks, if it has not been already been conveyed to the IDA. I am hopeful that in the event of this company deciding to go ahead with their plans they will carry their due share of stocks as required by the EEC directive. All the foregoing are matters which will require considerable thought and research and, in general, must proceed in concert with the work of the various international agencies and groupings concerned. One factor which we have to bear in mind is that there could be a complete change in the whole situation if tomorrow morning we discovered substantial oil deposits in our coastal waters in quantities adequate for our needs. There would be a whole new ball game in relation to the energy situation then.

Regarding oil storage and stocks and their relationship to national reserves, I urge the Minister to introduce new legislation setting out the minimum reserves which should be held and must be held by the oil companies. Such legislation, naturally, would have to conform with the 1968 EEC directive and should, of course, follow consultation with the oil companies directly concerned particularly in respect to the cost of storage et cetera and there are major implications in that regard. The need for more storage falls into a more critical perspective when one bears in mind the continued 10 per cent annual increase in the level of oil consumption which means a relative decline in the level in the total storage area available each year. It is my view that the Government should consider a new Bill to deal effectively with this situation.

To go back to the original problem of energy policy, we have to bear in mind the current manner in which energy requirements are met and the fact that there will not be any dramatic change in the next half decade. At the moment energy requirements of the economy are met 9 per cent from coal, 69 per cent from oil, 10 per cent from sod turf, 7 per cent from milled peat and 5 per cent from hydro-electricity. I suggest to the House that this is a multimillion pound capital investment of infrastructure already in the country and we are not going to dramatically change that in two or three years. To change these ratios will be a very difficult and costly programme but, nevertheless, we have to go ahead and reduce our dependence on imported oil as quickly as possible and develop other sources of energy.

It is with that in mind that I suggest the Minister should consider setting in train the publication of a White Paper on the future energy policy of the nation.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That is what we are asking for.

Mr. B. Desmond

In this White Paper we should examine the feasibility of setting up—and this is where the socialist breaks out—a State-sponsored oil and gas body, if necessary under a joint venture arrangement, for the offshore exploitation and onshore production of the discoveries off the Irish coast and continental shelf. That kind of development is something which the Minister should consider because if there are major discoveries off the Irish continental shelf, then we have a completely new situation. This is something we have got to plan ahead for at Government level and I have no doubt this is exercising the Government's mind.

The White Paper should also consider the programme for nuclear energy. Here we are talking in the context of the 1980s. The ESB is committed to a nuclear energy programme in the early 1980s and this future development is now of major national importance. It should be processed rapidly in the months ahead. Inevitably it would have to appear in the form of a Government White Paper.

I did not notice much whining on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party regarding the system of oil allocation. I use that term with circumspection because I am afraid they simply cannot make any allegations against the tremendous work done by the Minister and his staff during the past six months in that area.

Mr. Brennan

In what way?

Mr. B. Desmond

The Deputy should not make a special plea on behalf of the fishing industry. The Government's scheme of allocations of oil products was based on percentages used in the preceding corresponding period and was designed to secure the most equitable diversion of supplies available, to secure administrative simplicity and to secure full cover of essential areas of usage. It has worked out very satisfactorily in that allocations have been kept in reasonable balance with supplies coming forward and there has been relatively little run down of stocks.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has a little over five minutes left to conclude. I wish he is allowed do that without interruption.

Mr. B. Desmond

It was also designed to ensure that essential users and particular areas of usage in this country were fully covered and to the chagrin of the Fianna Fáil Party it worked reasonably satisfactorily. Allocations were kept at a reasonable balance with supplies coming forward. There was relatively little running down of stocks in this country. On the Government's side we can say that a job was reasonably well done. A very great deal of work was done in this area by the Department of Transport and Power.

All the indications are that the amount of oil reaching our shores during the next six or eight months will require some continuation of restrictive measures. Deputies may be assured that if orders have to be made they will be made by the Minister and will be drafted on the most generous levels possible, without any hysteria. The House can be assured that, if necessary, the Government will intensify the campaign for economy in the use of oil and petrol products. The public will also have to appreciate that in the less essential uses of domestic central heating, of swimming pools, leisure motoring, display advertising and other such areas, which could be hit first, considerable savings must be made. I would also point out that there are other essential usages where a great deal of economy could be made. The ESB, for example, currently use half of the total supply of fuel oil in this country.

I represent a constituency which has the highest percentage of motor cars in the State. Many electors do not seem as yet to fully appreciate that there are 646,000 mechanically propelled vehicles in the Republic, including 476,000 private cars. This is an area where a great conservation of fuel could occur. With respect to Deputy Brennan, even if we did all that, such vehicles only consume about 15 per cent of the total oil in the State and it certainly cannot be diverted, as Deputy Brennan advocated, to industrial production.

There are a number of points I wish to make. It is a simple fact, which Deputy Brennan and the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition cannot deny, that the Government and the responsible Minister succeeded, despite considerable difficulties, in ensuring that oil supplies were available to the maximum possible extent for industry, agriculture, the essential public services and the citizens at large who had to do with some reduction in consumption. The Government will continue to do this in the national interest.

As the Minister pointed out, the Government fully mitigated the worst possible effects of this crisis which could have occurred on employment. We maintained remarkable stability, continuity and buoyancy of employment in this State during the crisis period. Fianna Fáil cannot deny these facts.

Finally, I feel that the House should record our appreciation to my colleague in Government, the Minister for Transport and Power and the staff of his Department for their strenuous efforts during the past six months to overcome the very serious problems arising from the oil crisis. I do not think that the campaign of manipulation of oil stock figures, the campaign of wild exaggeration on the part of Deputy Barrett and the sudden departure of Fianna Fáil from associating with the multi-national oil companies, has done their party any good. When Fianna Fáil were in power Fianna Fáil Ministers were wined and dined by Gulf Oil at Whiddy Island. They travelled there on a liner. They have suddenly discovered that the multi-nationals of this country are the villains of the piece. In Government it is not as simple as that and the Fianna Fáil Party have done themselves no great good by tabling this motion and flogging publicity scripts by their script writers over the past few months. They are confused and the international situation has been confused by them. The Government are not confused and are not overcome by the arguments put forward by the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Brennan

I am waiting for an answer to my question. What did the Minister do about the oil crisis?

Mr. B. Desmond

If Deputy Gene Fitzgerald gives way, I will deal with that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must call on Deputy Gene Fitzgerald. Deputy Brennan ought not to use his colleague's time in this regard.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Before Deputy Desmond finished I expected to see a pulpit appearing beneath him and a halo around his head. His contribution amazed and amused me. He launched into a defence of the multi-national oil companies. On the one hand he says they control the supplies of oil to this country and on the other, he says that the Government succeeded in making oil available during the crisis period. Let Deputy Desmond explain to me how one group can do one thing and another group can do the other thing. There must be a happy medium.

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate. I deplore the handling of the energy crisis by the Government. I ask for information on the future plans of the Government in order to allay the fears and restore the confidence of the people who have suffered in a crisis situation. We have a new Minister for Transport and Power whom we cannot completely blame for the situation. We can certainly blame the Government for mishandling the situation during the months from October to now. I am sorry the Minister must be the target of the deserved criticism being levelled at the Government. I want to take a few points from the contribution of Deputy Desmond.

Deputy Desmond was not aware of the amendment to the motion put down by our party. He spent most of his time condemning the speakers from this side of the House on the contributions they made. He did not know a lot about the oil crisis or of the difficulties encountered by people during the crisis period. He mentioned that no proof could be afforded of the profits made by the multi-national companies as a result of the price increase allowed at the beginning of the year. I challenge the Deputy to stand up here and state categorically that no profits were made by these multi-national oil companies as a result of the price increase which was paid for by the ordinary people of Ireland. During this crisis no information with confidence behind it was available to industry or to the people generally. Certainly the highlights of this period were confusion, chaos, lack of decisive leadership, inconsistent information, erratic reports. People lost confidence, they did not know whether industry would suffer, whether jobs would suffer. This was the serious aspect of all this.

It was noticeable that the Minister's contribution to the debate lacked conviction. No new facts were given to the House, no new information was conveyed to the public at large regarding the crisis during the period from October onwards or no indication was given to the House what the Government consider they should do in the event of a recurrence or that we would be ready to take certain steps and be organised with storage facilities et cetera. His contribution was a rather roundabout and confused history of the crisis. This was already known to the people. No new points were made and no reasons were given for the extra confusion that was created.

Even at this late stage of the debate I would ask the Minister to get the remaining Government speaker to answer specifically—something he or Deputy Desmond did not do—the points raised by Deputy Barrett, to contradict them and to state why they are being contradicted and why they are not correct.

Mr. B. Desmond

Which points?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I challenge Deputy Desmond—I said this while he was out of the House—to stand up here and say that no profit was made by the multi-national oil companies. If £100 or £1,000 or £1 million was made by the multi-national companies that he has so ably and eloquently defended at the expense of the ordinary people of Ireland then I say: "Shame on the Government that allowed such a situation to happen".

The Minister's amendment reads:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute the following:—

"approves of the handling of the energy crisis and urges the Government to develop its future energy policy in the light of the experience gained."

The Minister said that he does not think it is in the interests of the House or in the interests of the nation to say what the plans are at the moment. I am surprised at this coming from the Minister. We have heard much about open government. Here is a situation that is striking at the very kernel, at the soul of our economy and about which people who want to expand industry and to create new industry are concerned. Every opportunity should be availed of to tell the people what plans are in hand. I agree with the Minister that many of those plans cannot be brought to fruition for a long period. That is understandable. I hope the remaining Government speaker will be able to tell us something about future plans.

The Minister did not contradict Deputy Barrett's contribution. There is an old saying that silence means consent. I hope that is not true in this case but it appears that the Minister agrees that profits were made by multi-national oil companies. On 21st February the Minister in reply to a supplementary question from Deputy Barrett said:

I think the best advice I could give the Deputy is that if the multi-nationals are making those profits they will show up in their balance sheets at the end of this year and we can all have a go at them then.

I would ask the Minister to explain to me how we can look at the profit figures of multi-national oil companies and see what profits they made in this country as distinct from other countries. The Minister admitted that one company in particular is not a profit-making company here but merely a distribution company. I cannot see how we can examine those figures and discover what profits were made in this country. I should like the Minister to explain to us whether it is possible to do this.

The one big complaint I have is the source of information and how this information was made available. We are only too well aware of the importance of the oil supply to all sectors of our community—industry, agriculture, the private sector. Oil probably constitutes 70 per cent or more of our energy. I understood the Minister to say that the first knowledge of the forthcoming crisis was brought to his notice in July. What steps were taken then to secure information? Surely it is deplorable that the oil companies were the main sources of information. I do not deny that the oil companies were au fait with the situation and could be used but I think there should have been a technically qualified body specially commissioned by the Minister, possibly the National Science Council, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards or some other learned body with the necessary expertise. They should have been given the function of feeding information to the Minister and his Department. One thinks at times that consulting with the oil companies was, in effect, going to court with the devil in hell. It is no secret that oil companies manipulate their profits from country to country. They maximise their profits in the country of greatest advantage to them and minimise them in the country of least advantage. I think the Minister admits that this is so, although originally he was indignant at the suggestion when Deputy Barrett first mentioned it.

The Minister in his contribution said that the information regarding the refinery in Bantry was conveyed to him via newspaper reports. Surely the IDA knew that and the Department of Industry and Commerce knew it. Surely there should have been a body overlapping both Departments. At this stage of the energy crisis it is inconceivable that these Departments are still working separately on this situation. One would think that not only would there be a body co-ordinating both Departments but that there would be daily liaison between specific sections in both Departments not only to provide for the immediate future but to make long-term plans. Both Ministers, and particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his contribution to a debate on the Adjournment on 12th February, referred to Fianna Fáil Deputies and particularly Deputy Barrett as thumping the National Prices Commission. This is utter nonsense. The Minister was using the NPC as a scapegoat, laying blame on their shoulders and undeservedly so. He was responsible for thumping the NPC. From what source was information made available to the NPC before this decision was taken by them? We have been told that the information was coming from the oil companies, the EEC and OECD reports and meetings and also from Britain. This is where we fell down in our handling of the energy crisis—in not having correct information of an independent nature available to us under the Department's control.

Confusion still exists and I would ask the Minister to explain this paragraph from Business Week of 23rd February regarding oil:

Open market prices for crude oil are dropping sharply. In Kuwait where foreign bidders were paying $16 a barrel one month ago some are reportedly offering $9 a barrel. In Saudi Arabia where the posted price is nearly $11 a barrel the actual price has fallen $8.50. This is close to what the giant oil companies are paying on their long term contracts. In fact, crude oil is in temporary surplus.

In another paragraph it says that a number of independents who bid as much as $22 a barrel for crude oil during the height of the oil panic reportedly are neglecting to pick up their purchases and are paying cash penalties rather than pay the high prices. Oil producers such as Kuwait and Libya are so concerned that prices will weaken further they are considering production set-backs. Yet, two weeks later, on 6th March we read in The Irish Times where one of the chief executives of an internal oil company here stated that we could expect another price rise in May. This is the type of confusion in the public mind. I now understand we have this guaranteed price for three months with no increase. The Government Information Service should be regularly fed with correct information to put before industry and explain the problems. Industry, agriculture, the householder and the car-owner all deserve this information.

The Minister also said there was a saving of jobs. Quite right, but I hope he did not expect that the Opposition would throw him bouquets for that. I am surprised and disappointed that the Minister did not thank the very many people in industry and in other spheres who worked so hard to protect jobs and not only conserved petrol and oil but went on their knees to the oil companies. This problem occurred particularly in the period up to December: when a company's quota was about to run out the oil company had the final say on whether an extra quota would be made available. At that time the Department was not in a position to push the oil company. The industrialist concerned had to beg for more. This is how jobs were protected and the people know this well. The Government deserve no kudos for preserving jobs in that period; it was the people involved in industry who worked so diligently by sparing on one hand and by begging from the oil companies on the other.

The Minister also said that the confusion was confined to Dublin. He cannot have been serious in that. We know only too well of the confusion and the queuing in the Cork area in the weeks immediately before Christmas. I need not produce evidence of overnight queuing in addition to the long queues by day. I agree that many greedy people aggravated the situation but those who suffered most were the ordinary workers who had no time to queue and either had to abandon their cars or leave them at home and use other transport. When the people who could do without petrol were able to get it, the ordinary worker was unable to get it because of the clash between his work time and the opening hours at filling stations.

Another group affected were the small fleet owners, such as the man who had a delivery service with three, four or five vans. If he had five he was probably lucky to get four-fifth capacity out of his vans and in most cases it was three-fifths. The remaining capacity was used in vans flitting from filling station to filling station to get 50 pence worth of petrol here and £1 worth there to keep the business going because, first, he did not have a regular supplier and, secondly, did not have his own oil tank. This type of people suffered very seriously in that period. There is no point in Deputy Desmond, who is probably unfamiliar with the problems of the situation, making statements here that cannot be substantiated.

Again, I emphasise that information was the kernel of the trouble here. In addition to the oil companies we had information from the EEC and OECD. We also met the corresponding Minister in England who, of course, only had information supplied to him also. These are useful sources of information but in situations like this we can depend on the help of other people but we must also maintain our independence. It would be quite wrong for this country to put the interests of our Common Market partners above our own industrial and economic needs. These must at all times get priority.

We hoped to hear of plans for the future. Deputy Desmond mentioned the APCO refinery and the notification to IDA. Surely it is imperative that at this stage we have a body working in close liaison between the Departments of Transport and Power and Industry and Commerce handling the future of industry here. What are our plans? What about our oil supplies on the south coast? I omitted to mention earlier that I understood more oil was shipped from Whitegate refinery to Cork in the three months from October to December than in the corresponding period in the previous year or in the previous three months. I should like to know if this was so and if it is so, why was there a shortage?

Returning to the subject of the future and the importance of developing our own resources or, at least, controlling at this stage their development, in a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce a few weeks ago I asked what information was available to him on finds of natural gas and oil supplies off our coasts. He answered in the affirmative regarding natural gas. He said some had been found but he had no information regarding the oil situation.

I am sure the Minister is aware that rumours are rife in Cork regarding the oil finds. Can the Minister tell us what qualified, technical, on-the-spot information he has regarding the drilling operations now proceeding under licence off the south coast? It is imperative that the information available to the Minister is first-hand. It is also important that when the information is of a technical nature the best expertise is available. Qualified people are available in the country and there are many of our people in other countries who would be willing to return home and work for the Government. The Government have an important part to play.

I am sure that, like me, the Minister wants to see Cork developing, to become an oil distributing centre. I know he would like the finds off the south coast to be economic. At this stage it is important that the correct information is available to the Government and that they do not depend on second hand information supplied by people operating under licence.

The APCO refinery has been mentioned during the debate. I should like to express disappointment that there is no provision for home market supplies. Deputy Barrett has mentioned storage and I think Deputy Desmond agreed with him on that point. Every effort should be made by the Government to ensure that increased storage is available. I understood the Minister to say that this refinery would not produce the finished refined product, that it would be partly refined. I do not think this changes the position. A certain percentage of the total storage would be of advantage to us during times of crisis.

The objective of this exercise is that we become more independent, or at least as near to independence as is possible, of the international racketeering and of the multi-national oil companies that Deputy Desmond defended so stoutly on behalf of the Labour Party. That was certainly an amazing change of attitude.

Deputy Desmond said he was surprised at the somersault of Fianna Fáil. Our party have always been the practical people. There were mistakes made in handling the recent crisis. Let us learn from them and make our plans for the future. We must also tell the people we are formulating plans and inform them of our proposals. Let the Government be an open one and keep us informed of what is happening. These matters should not be kept completely secret. I cannot see what would be lost if people were told of the Government's plans. If they do this the sensible, sound and constructive Opposition will give the Minister what help he needs. If they are informed of what is happening they will help all the more.

I was disappointed and surprised that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was not present during the debate. On 12th February he took an Adjournment Debate which we thought would be for Transport and Power. It was a question of moving from the right to the left, as Deputy Desmond tried to do. We are disappointed the Minister is not in the House to answer and deny categorically the allegations made regarding profitability in the coal and oil situations.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Enright. He will conclude at 7.15 p.m. at which time I shall call on the mover of the motion to reply.

Mr. Enright

In October or November, 1973, we were faced with a serious situation. We were not aware of the future position regarding oil supplies which form our main source of energy and there was a bad period during the winter which aggravated the situation. I should like to compliment the Ministers for Transport and Power and Industry and Commerce. During the difficult period of uncertainty regarding oil supplies they managed to keep our industries on a full working week and, in fact, there was a slight increase in employment during that time. This was in contrast to the situation in England where there was a three-day working week. The situation regarding our industries compares favourably with what obtained in the previous year.

The Government introduced a speed limit of 50 mph to conserve petrol supplies. Deputy Brennan spoke of petrol rationing. I am sure many Members on the opposite side of the House will agree with me that this would have led to blackmarket practices, racketeering and many other difficulties. Deputy Brennan told us that he saw some fisticuffs one morning at 8 o'clock outside a filling station but, thankfully, such occurrences were rare. Had there been stockpiling of supplies there might have been serious injuries caused to people.

On 30th November, 1973, the Government approved in principle the construction of a nuclear power station costing £100 million. I am glad to see that preliminary planning for the station is proceeding. At the moment there is a joint development project by Bord na Móna and the ESB. It is a £20 million programme, spread over five years, which will bring an additional 40,000 acres of bog into production. It will give employment to approximately 1,500 men and women in Laois-Offaly, parts of Tipperary, Galway and Roscommon—areas that are in need of employment. The people in Laois-Offaly are very pleased about this project.

This proves that the actions taken by the Government were correct. They have satisfied the vast majority of fair-minded people who realise that in a difficult situation the Government took the right steps. The results speak for themselves.

Deputy Barrett and Deputy Fitzgerald dealt with prices. I should like to refer to an article in The Irish Press dated 6th March, 1974, which dealt with premium priced petrol in 12 European countries. In premium petrol Ireland is the cheapest of 12 European countries— Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria and Britain. In heating oil, Ireland is the second cheapest of 12 European countries.

We are very dependent on oil. In the case of the ESB, 24 per cent of the fuel used to produce energy is peat; 10 per cent is produced from hydro-electric and 1 per cent from coal; 65 per cent of our energy is produced from oil. The ESB use up to 1.2 million tonnes of oil annually costing £44 to £45 million a year. The demand for electricity increases by 9 to 9½ per cent per annum. With the likely increase in the cost of production and the increase in the use of electricity, by 1980 the figures will be very, very high indeed; it could be as high as £100 million per annum for oil for the ESB alone. The Government are aware of this and I am confident they will accept in full the joint proposals of the ESB and Bord na Móna. We are too dependent on oil imports. I am sure Deputies opposite are only too well aware that over the last few years we have been cutting down on the use of peat by the ESB. That was a mistake. Fortunately it is now being corrected.

The main proposals are that Bord na Móna and the ESB continue to implement a scheme whereby the same percentage of peat will be supplied and used by the ESB as is being supplied and used at the moment. I hope that the Government will pursue actively the establishment of a nuclear power station. Thirdly, afforestation is most important because, even though timber is bulky, it can be a very important fuel.

Where off-shore oil is concerned, there are considerable quantities of both oil and gas off our coast and these will have to be developed to the full. A White Paper is urgently necessary on our energy resources and off-shore developments. It should be possible to second engineers from both the ESB and Bord na Móna to investigate the possibilities of off-shore oil and gas development.

Mr. Barrett

We tabled this motion to highlight the lack of control the Government appear to have over this situation. We have clearly shown since this debate started the confused approach of the Government—first, the confusion because of the price situation and, secondly, because of the cost of these products which are so essential to us. We all appreciate that an oil crisis can have very serious repercussions on our economy because we are so dependent on oil to keep our economy moving.

We are paying approximately £10 per tonne more than can be accounted for for refined products, taking into consideration the cost of transport, the cost of refining and making allowance for a profit. Taking our total oil needs into consideration, fuel is costing us £50 million more than it need cost us. I am not now picking figures out of the sky, as Deputy Desmond suggested, any more than I did when I spoke about the £6 million to which I shall refer again later. It is all the more worrying when we listen to the Minister telling the House that this debate is taking place too soon, remembering that he also pointed out that the whole business was outside the control of the Government. If anything, this debate is possibly too late. The Minister tells us one refinery in Cork is refining for major distributors and we are merely selling agents for their foreign-owned parent companies. Surely this indicates the need for Government initiative to control the situation.

I accept, as I believe most people do, that the Minister speaks in good faith and gives his opinion on the basis of the information with which he is supplied. I suggest to him that there is urgent need to restructure the oil supply business. Let me give a significant example of what can happen. A year ago the newspapers reported that the B & I had signed a contract for 20 years with a major company for oil supplies. A few weeks ago the B & I increased rates and fares by 15 per cent, stating that fuel costs had increased by 400 per cent. What sort of contract is it that ties a consumer to a supplier for 20 years and permits the supplier to increase prices by 400 per cent? The ESB pays £40 per tonne for oil. The Cork refinery is alleged to be reshipping oil out at approximately £7 per tonne.

We warned the Minister months ago that increased costs would create problems in centres like Ballymun. Last week the Minister mentioned Ballymun. He said that the floor heating was being kept up. The Minister may believe that all is well where the tenants in Ballymun are concerned. If the Minister gets into his car and calls on Mrs. Patricia Farrell and Mrs. Thomas Lawless, James Connolly Tower, he will find the position is very different from what he thinks it is. According to newspaper reports that particular block has had no heating since last September. The tenants leave the gas on in the kitchen to provide warmth. The children are sent to a community centre for warmth. One of these ladies has actually to sleep with her young children in an effort to keep them warm. This is worth investigating. It may sound parochial but it is indicative of the problems that face us as a result of an oil and energy shortage. We actually helped one company to make a profit of more than £7 million and we are watching another company making £300 million. We are helping these in our own small way. We are contributing towards these massive problems. The retail people feel they are being discriminated against where margins are concerned. It is hard to blame them when they read about the massive profits made at the supply end by these multi-nationalists. One thing is definite, the lessons of the past few months should stimulate the Government and the nation into fresh action in order to get to grips with this problem which may recur.

The Minister mentioned that they were able to keep up employment. The Government should consider a report in today's paper about a proposed refinery in the Pigeon House area which would employ 2,500 to 3,000 people immediately. What consideration are the Government giving to this? This would serve to alleviate our problems and ensure our supplies in a future crisis. Any proposal for an oil refinery will undoubtedly meet with resistance from different sources and vested interests and some of this resistance will be cloaked. There will be resistance from environmentalists. They are necessary and have a duty to perform. This lobby has been most effective in the past, particularly when the emotions of the uninformed were played upon. However difficult it may be to inform the few in question, it may, nevertheless, be worthwhile. The environment includes the right of every man, woman and child to a fair deal and reasonable enjoyment whether it is coming from the use of oil or oil products. They are entitled to live a reasonable life despite these people who are misinforming others and causing serious disruption to any proposals to deal in a permanent way with an oil crisis. The only permanent way to do this is to erect our own refineries and secure the source.

The Minister said that there has been no change in the situation since last March. The situation has changed since the Minister took office. Changes are necessary because of what happened over the past five or six months. Therefore, the Minister should not boast that he did not make any changes.

I mentioned last week the horticultural situation in the eastern part of the country. If anything has been done about this, will the Minister let us know? Has any action been taken to subsidise or help these people? This is their busy season. In former years they got extended credit until they could sell their crops. Now everything is cash on the nail. They have this added disadvantage as well as increased prices. Again, I ask the Minister or his Department to look into their plight. This is being done in England. The British realise that this is a very serious problem.

I mentioned storage as far back as last December. Deputy Desmond inferred that it took no great brains trust to mention this when it was an obvious thing to mention. I asked on repeated occasions what increase had taken place with regard to our storage capacity. If any change has taken place we have not been told. We asked about the present position with regard to the reports of off-shore oil finds. It may be a bit premature for the Minister concerned to make a statement on this. We also asked about natural gas. It is presumed that there is a large quantity of natural gas off our shores. Have the ESB any plans for gaining access to this natural gas or is it intended that commercial interests will develop it? This would lead to cheaper electricity for us.

Bord na Móna are having another look at themselves and this has been mentioned in these debates. We should have a long hard look at their capabilities. I wonder if it is as easy as people seem to believe to develop these bogs to a greater extent? Bord na Móna, who employ many thousands of people, have to look to the long term. They cannot let the bogs run out in an emergency like the present one and jeopardise the thousands of families who are dependent on them. They must look at security of employment for their employees. We may be exaggerating this as a possibility.

I should like to return to the question of the £6 to £7 million. Deputy Desmond inferred that it was an invention of mine. It was not. It was mentioned in this House that 358,000 tons of oil were in stock on 31st December. It was also stated that from January 1st to February 9th Whitegate imported 230,000 tons. It was further stated that there were 250,000 tons of products imported into Dublin during that period. One need not be a mathematician to do these sums.

On the Adjournment Debate on February 12th the Minister for Industry and Commerce took as his source of information the chief executive of Esso and quoted him as gospel. He asked us if we could disbelieve him. No one had any reason to do so. He was referring to a Press report of a few days earlier. When I had made the allegation of £6 million excessive profits on stocks, this gentleman to whom the Minister referred on that occasion said I had been writing with a gold-plated pen; it could not happen. The Minister took this man as his source of information for disproving my allegation. There is a report in The Irish Times of Wednesday, 6th March, 1974, of a press conference where this same executive admitted that they did increase prices of existing stocks.

Mr. Enright

Did he write a reply in the following day's paper?

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy may read letters if he likes. I am talking about the £6 million about which Deputy Desmond was derogatory. On the one hand he said that it could not be right and on the other this man admits it. This is the man whom the Minister for Industry and Commerce took as his source of information. I repeat that it is an undeniable fact that they did attach increased prices to existing supplies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must put the Motion.

Mr. Barrett

It takes five weeks, at a minimum, for any crude oil to arrive in this country from the Gulf.

Question put.

The Committee divid ed: Tá, 62; Níl, 54.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Ahern, Liam.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Lynch, Celia.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Moore, Seán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl: Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.