International Energy Programme Agreement: Motion.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the agreement establishing an international energy programme.

This agreement is the outcome of intensive international consultations which were initiated following the oil crisis of late 1973 and early 1974. The events of that time, starting with the serious supply crisis and followed later by the fourfold increase in crude oil prices, exposed the vulnerability of many countries whose economies had become over-dependent on a single primary energy source. The effect on Ireland was and continues to be particularly severe. The economic progress which we have achieved in recent years involved a rapid increase in oil consumption and, in the absence of large-scale alternative sources, we became highly dependent on imported oil to meet our energy needs.

There was clearly a need for international co-operation to deal with the consequences of the 1973 crisis and to prepare the way for a more equitable and stable international energy relationship. It was in this context that the Washington Energy Conference took place in February, 1974. This conference, which was convened by the United States and attended by nine member states of the EEC, Canada, Japan and Norway, analysed the international energy situation and its implications. The conference recognised that the solution to the world's energy problems should be sought in consultation with producer countries and other consumers and agreed on specific steps to provide for continuing international co-operation on energy matters.

The principal decisions of the Conference were to agree on a comprehensive action programme for international co-operation on energy and to establish an Energy Co-ordinating Group headed by senior governmental officials to direct and co-ordinate action in this sphere. Negotiations within the group led to the successful conclusion of an agreement on an international energy programme, copies of which were placed in the Dáil Library for the convenience of Deputies on 13th November, 1974.

This agreement involves a charge upon public funds and consequently Dáil approval of its terms is necessary in accordance with Article 29.5.2º of the Constitution before it may become definitively binding on the State. This country's contribution for 1975 to the budget of the agency will be of the order of 0.3 per cent of the total, or £7,000 approximately, to be borne on the Vote of the Department of Foreign Affairs on International Co-operation.

The agreement was signed in Paris on behalf of the Government on 18th November, 1974, subject to Dáil Éireann approving its terms. Other Governments which signed the agreement provisionally were the other members of the European Community with the exception of France as well as Austria, Canada, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States. New Zealand subsequently acceded to the agreement on a similar basis and, in addition, Norway has become an associate member. Thus 18 of the 24 member countries of the OECD are now participating in the work of the International Energy Agency.

The Agreement provides for a governing board, a management committee and various standing groups charged with the examination of particular problems. The Department of Foreign Affairs and my Department, together with the Departments of Finance and Industry and Commerce as appropriate, are responsible for servicing these organs of the Agency. A special feature of an agreement of this type is that the voting system was devised so that certain decisions within the agency may be taken by unanimity or by majority. The voting weights assigned to each country for the purpose of those decisions which the agreement specifies are to be taken by majority are designed to ensure an overall balance between the interests of the various groups of member countries.

18th November, 1974, is the date from which the agreement applies provisionally to the participating countries to the extent that it is not inconsistent with their domestic legislation. Signatory states are required to notify their consent to be bound fully by the agreement by 1st May, 1975. Upon such notification of consent the agreement will enter definitively into force for that state. The duration of the agreement will be for ten years and a general review is to take place after five years. There is provision for any participating country to cease to be a party to the agreement by giving 12 months' notice after it has been in operation for three years.

The agreement establishes a programme whose main features include co-ordinated efforts to develop emergency supply reserves, a scheme for restraining energy demand and sharing oil in a supply crisis, arrangement for gathering information on the international oil market, long-term co-operation aimed at conserving energy and developing alternative energy supplies and the promotion of a co-operative dialogue between oil-producing and oil-consuming countries, including those of the developing world.

The immediate benefit of the programme is the establishment of a scheme for oil sharing in times of crisis. Under the scheme the allocation of oil in a crisis is linked to certain commitments by participants to have emergency plans ready to reduce energy demand by means of restraint measures, and to maintain a certain minimum level of emergency oil reserves. The scheme will be activated whenever the participating countries as a whole or an individual participating country experiences interruptions in its oil supply to the extent of 7 per cent or more. In such event, the country or countries affected must first reduce their own consumption by a specified proportion, as provided for in the agreement, and the other member countries will make up the balance of requirement on the basis of a predetermined formula based on each country's permissible level of consumption and other relevant factors.

It is a pre-condition of the oil-sharing scheme that each participating country must maintain emergency reserves of oil supplies sufficient to sustain consumption for 60 days with no net oil imports. This requirement will be increased in due course to 90 days and the governing board of the IEA will decide in the next few months on the date from which the higher requirement will apply. Apart from the maintenance of reserve stocks, the necessary self-sufficiency in oil can be met by alternative means such as fuel switching capacity and stand-by oil production capacity. The agency is developing a refined method for the determination of such alternatives. There are already requirements on member states of the EEC to maintain minimum oil reserves and I am pursuing with the various interests concerned the arrangements by which these requirements can best be met.

While the emergency oil sharing scheme is the most valuable short term benefit of IEA membership, the agency's programme also provides for various other activities which in the long term will be of great value to participating countries. These include co-operative efforts on conservation of energy, accelerated development of alternative sources of energy, research and development and uranium enrichment. On energy conservation, the agency has adopted a short term objective of reducing oil imports by 2 million barrels a day by the end of 1975. This is a target for the group as a whole and there are at this stage no individual targets for the participating countries. Each country will, however, be expected to make its due contribution to the achievement of the group target, taking account of its own circumstances and possibilities. The measures taken by each country will be subject to review by its fellow members of the agency. As the House is already aware, a conservation programme has been in operation here for some time, involving a publicity programme addressed to the community as a whole and the domestic sector in particular, as well as technical assistance and financial assistance towards the adoption of energy conservation measures in industry. While the current IEA conservation target relates to 1975 only, the agency proposes to adopt further targets for 1976 and future years. In addition, there will be a programme of research and exchange of information on means of conserving energy.

I mentioned also the question of development of alternative sources of energy. It is recognised that in furtherance of the objective of reducing imports of oil, a policy should be developed to promote the accelerated development of alternative sources to oil. The higher oil prices now obtaining have provided an incentive for investment in new energy supplies but there is recognition of the possibility that market forces may not provide an adequate or enduring incentive to ensure sufficient reduction in the dependence on oil. While there may be no immediate signs of a substantial fall in oil prices, one cannot exclude altogether the possibility of such a development in the future. A significant reduction in oil prices might seem prima facie to be a welcome development, in view of the crippling economic effect of the increases that have taken place, but it must be borne in mind that such a reduction could endanger investment in alternative sources and thus frustrate efforts to reduce dependence on imported oil.

The governing board of the IEA has therefore agreed in principle on a policy concept designed to encourage and safeguard investment in alternative sources of energy. Subject to further studies, it is contemplated that this would include the establishment of a common minimum price level below which they would not allow imported oil to be sold within their economies. The level of such a price would be worked out through further analysis of the cost of developing energy sources other than oil. It is envisaged that the level of any such price would probably be significantly lower than existing prices but higher than prices obtaining before October, 1973. The agreement in principle that has been adopted on this question represents a broad policy commitment; the means by which each country would proceed would be left largely to the discretion of the administration concerned.

Parallel with these arrangements, it is proposed to establish a framework for financial and technological co-operation between countries interested in joint projects for the development of higher cost energy forms. Similar arrangements are being developed for co-operation in energy research and development.

The successful implementation of the various elements of the International Energy Programme requires close co-operation with the oil industry. For this purpose the IEA is developing a comprehensive international information system and a permanent framework for consultation with the oil companies. This will be designed to ensure greater transparency of the oil market and of the activities of the oil companies. It proposes the establishment of a data system on the activities of oil companies both international and national and will gather information relating to corporate structures, financial structures, production rates, costs and other associated matters.

I should like to say a few words now about the role of the European Community within the agency. The Government have been particularly anxious to promote Community solidarity on international energy policy. Deputies will be aware that France did not participate in the work of the Energy Co-ordinating Group and has not indicated a willingness to become a party to the agreement nor to join the agency at this stage. The agreement explicitly provides that it shall be open for accession by the European Communities and that it shall not in any way impede the further implementation of the treaties establishing the European Communities. The Commission, which since December participates in all meetings of the agency, has stated that provided Community member states when implementing the programme take account of the Community's rules on the free movement of goods and the common commercial policy the accession by member states to the agreement would assist the development of Community energy policy. And at its meeting on 20th January, 1975, the Council agreed that Community member states would seek a common position on the important problems under discussion within the agency. I am glad to be able to state that this procedure has operated satisfactorily during the period of the Irish Presidency.

During the negotiations which led to the agreement the participating countries agreed that international co-operation to deal effectively with world energy problems requires the promotion of a co-operative dialogue between oil producing countries and oil consuming countries, including those of the developing world. In this regard, the agreement is not envisaged as a device or an attempt to co-ordinate an economic strategy directed against the legitimate interests of others; on the contrary, we see the work being carried out by the agency as a first step towards wider co-operation between the participating countries and the oil producers having regard also to the interests of those developing countries whose economies have been profoundly and particularly affected by the energy problem.

As Deputies will be aware, discussions were held during the past fortnight between producers, consumers and developing countries to prepare an agenda and procedures for a producer/ consumer conference on substantive issues to be convened at an appropriate time in the future. At these discussions, which were held in Paris on the invitation of the French President, the interests of consumer countries were represented by the European Community, Japan and the US. There were four oil producing countries—Algeria, Iran, Saudia Arabia and Venezuela— and three developing countries—Brazil, India and Zaire. The UN, OECD and IEA were represented in an observer capacity. The Community has been represented at the preparatory meeting by a delegation consisting of the member states and the Commission. The Community delegation was headed by a representative of the Irish Presidency and a representative of the Commission who together expressed the Community view point throughout. This first round of talks has, unfortunately, failed to produce full agreement on all aspects of the agenda but I have no doubt that there will be continuing efforts to establish a basis for the resumption of a constructive dialogue between producer, consumer and developing countries.

I have endeavoured to give the House a general review of the main objectives and activities of the International Energy Agency since the signing of the agreement on an international energy programme last November. In fact, significant progress has been made in a relatively short space of time on such matters as the emergency oil-sharing scheme, the general policy for long-term co-operation and the framework for consultation and co-operation with the oil companies. As a country which is greatly dependent on imported sources of energy, Ireland, by being party to the agreement, can reduce very substantially the risk of damage to its rate of economic growth and social progress through future restrictions of oil supplies or other crises in the energy sphere.

The oil-consuming industrial nations who are parties to the agreement have undertaken to develop long-term energy policies and, above all, to promote co-operative relations with oil-producing countries and other consuming countries. This offers hope that the reality of economic interdependence will be recognised by all countries and that concrete steps may be taken to reach an equitable solution to one of the world's major economic problems at the present time.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Barrett

Since the oil crisis in October, 1973, it was only right that every effort should have been made at national and international level to solve this problem so vital to the economic life of oil-importing countries. We have had a number of debates on this problem in an effort to find some solution. The first step to deal with this on-going crisis should be taken at home. On examining how effective our efforts have been in dealing with this problem it is regrettable to find that little effective action was taken. At the time of the crisis it was admitted by the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we were completely in the hands of the multi-national oil companies. This is the situation in which we still find ourselves, and it is not a very pleasant one. Our economy is virtually controlled by these multi-nationals who are pretty ruthless. We should take steps to get from under the umbrella of these multi-national concerns. There is no evidence of effective action having been taken in this regard and we are as subject to the whims of the boards of these companies as we were in October, 1973. It is unfortunate that we are now hit by an oil crisis due to a strike. We hope it will be of short duration.

The multi-national concerns still control our oil supplies with the exception of the ESB who have an agreement with Russia for their supply. I cannot see anything in this agreement which will release us from this control by these oil companies. We should recognise that oil supplies are not scarce; what affects us is the control of the supplies and their cost. We should have been attacking these two sectors in the last 18 months. At the time of the 1973 oil crisis we were only refining 50 per cent of our total oil requirements, which left us completely dependent on the oil companies for the other 50 per cent of products we required. We are still in the same position. One way in which we could have some control over our oil supplies would be by being self-sufficient in refining capacity.

It takes approximately three years from the time work commences on an oil refinery until it becomes operational. We have lost 18 months and we are still no nearer to being self-sufficient in refining capacity than we were in October, 1973. This is an undeniable fact. There were at least three proposals then for the construction of oil refineries but they have not progressed further. If we had an oil refinery, and assuming the position will not improve we could buy our own crude oil at less than we have been paying the multi-national companies. It is possible to do this. We pointed out on a previous occasion in this House that this was the way to go about reducing the £200 million oil bill. Even if we were to start construction of an oil refinery immediately we are still three years behind.

Our refining capacity will be of great importance if, as we hope, oil is found in large quantities off our south coast. Without our own refining facilities we will have to export our oil to have it refined and then have it reimported. This is a ludicrous situation. Even if we did not find any oil off our coast, by having our full oil refining capacity we could buy our crude oil and have it refined. This would get over the distribution problem. There are refineries on the Continent not working to full capacity and it would be possible to initiate this action without having our own refinery in an effort to reduce our oil bills. I believe it would be possible, and I would be prepared to produce figures to prove the point, to cut 20 per cent off the £200 million oil bill. First, if we bought it at market value and not at what the multi-nationals say it costs them. The tankers, a vital consideration to oil supplies, are plentiful and can be chartered at a reasonable figure. One company got into serious difficulties because of over-investment in tankers. There is no problem about chartering tankers at good rates. There is no reason why we should not make the necessary arrangements to refine oil on the continent and distribute here. I am not thinking merely of petrol which is only a percentage of our total oil needs. I am thinking of fuel oil and all the other oils so necessary to industry for generating power and so on. We could reduce such bills by up to 20 per cent if we adapted a business-like approach to the whole matter. In the meantime, we should have our own refining capacity under construction. If we were lucky enough to find sufficient quantities we would find ourselves in a fairly healthy position with complete control of our energy.

With regard to this agreement, it was only to be expected that the oil-consuming nations could come together and try and hammer out some form of agreement or action that would help alleviate the problems affecting them. Naturally, we would expect that EEC countries would be united on this. With regard to the participating countries, the first thing we ask ourselves is: why France is not involved. They are showing no interest in it. Obviously, they cannot see any future for them in participation in an agreement like this. Norway, being an associate member, is not a full member of this agency. Neither do they see any future in involving themselves fully in such an agreement. Countries which are taking part—apart from the other EEC countries—are all totally dependent on imported oil with the exception of Britain, whose position will be improving because of the North Sea, and the USA. The USA imports 20 per cent of its oil needs and produces 80 per cent. In an emergency, it is well known that the USA could produce 100 per cent of its requirements. I suppose it is good business to be saving your own and using up Arab or somebody else's oil. Of course we know who controls the oil industry in America. By any stretch of the imagination it is not the Government. It is the multi-national oil companies and they also exercise complete power over it. We have this country which will be the major influence in this agreement among nations totally dependent on imports of oil, like ourselves and Japan and the other nations involved. According to our reading of this agreement, they are going to be completely influenced by the multi-national oil companies that manipulated the oil crisis—as we have said often over the past 18 months—for their own gain and did so quite blatantly and were allowed to get away with it by our Government, in matters such as stock profits to the extent of millions of pounds which should never have been permitted. They always did and are still getting away with it.

They are included in this agency. They will continue to influence the whole oil business as far as we and other nations are concerned under this international agreement. In our opinion, participation in this group will achieve nothing in ensuring that our power supplies will be available at an acceptable or any kind of reasonable cost. This agreement will place too many burdens on present consumers who will remain, if you like, hostages under its structure. If we could see clearly the real implications arising from participation in this agreement, we believe the Government would not have given a moment's thought to participation. Even at this late hour we suggest that the closest further examination should be given to the consequences of associating ourselves with the undertakings involved in this agreement.

During the past 18 months we have become fully aware of the importance of energy for our economy. We have had different Government Ministers admitting themselves to be powerless with regard to supply and in so far as the control of price was concerned. Then we found ourselves linked with the outer UK zone since 12th December, 1973. We all know what this has meant for us. It has meant that, at seven days' notice, these multi-national oil companies were able to impose any price increases they wished which they did not even have to justify, leaving the consumer public powerless. Multi-nationals go on publishing and bragging about their huge profits. One company brags about 175 million stock profits in the past year. We form part of these stock profits and we permit that to happen. Attaching ourselves to the outer UK zone has been a disaster since December, 1973, and it seems as if it will continue.

The outrageous price increases which have been permitted under this outer UK zone and the profits of the multi-nationals, published profits, are proof of this. We are still in the same position. We are still 50 per cent behind being self-sufficient in refining capacity or in any immediate plans to ensure that we become self-sufficient. But we are still tied to the outer UK zone and the whims of the multi-national oil companies, being subject to any price increases they feel like imposing, at seven days' notice, as has obtained since last year's oil crisis.

We should examine the cost, in detail, of each part of a refined barrel of crude oil. We should tackle the problem at its very root, when we would see that our overall oil-product prices could possibly be reduced by 20 per cent but which is not happening. In our opinion the proposal before us today—instead of making us part of the outer UK zone will make us part of the outer zone USA, substitute USA for UK. As a result of this agreement that is the way we will be situated. We all know that would not be very acceptable and should not be accepted by us.

Some of the technicalities of this agreement should be examined. The technicalities of the voting strengths, in the agreement, constitute a very serious matter and are something about which the Government must have been unaware when they agreed to this last September, November or whenever it occurred. Under the voting arrangements in the agreement. Under this voting arrangement, under the agreement, it is possible for the United States, Canada and we will say Holland to control the whole policy and majority decisions of this international agency. They have sufficient votes in excess of 40 per cent to exercise complete control of the agency and what happens within this agency. There is no need for me to give any reasons as to why they should not be in that position. Canada whose economy and geography are closely connected with the USA, will be allied in outlook. They are both involved in the oil business. I mention Holland, the Netherlands, as a third one because that is the base, of course, of the multi-national Dutch Shell. These are the three countries where the multi-national outlets are based and controlled.

We find ourselves under the voting arrangements of this agreement completely at the mercy of these three countries. So what is the use in setting up a voting arrangement that only puts us further and further into the grip of the multi-national oil companies through their respective countries of origin and the head offices from which they are controlled? This is exactly what the voting arrangements under this agreement will do. In our opinion we have nothing to gain of any consequence.

There are a few things we would praise and which are praiseworthy, which my colleague, Deputy O'Kennedy, will be dealing with. The overall picture is that we have nothing to gain but we have a lot to lose.

The cost of entry is another thing. The Minister mentioned something like £7,000. It would appear that that is the cost of entry. That is not the cost of entry, of course, if you look at the agreement. We have to build up our storage facilities to 60 days and, in due course, they will have to be built up to 90 days. We had questions and debates about this matter before and it was agreed by Government Ministers at one time that, if we were to build up our storage to the 60 days required under the Ministerial order it would cost us £35 million between the cost of the storage tanks, which as far as I remember was £12 million, and the wherewithal to fill the storage tanks which was to be £23 million.

There is no sign of these tanks appearing anywhere, and no definite financial arrangements with regard to the cost. As far as I know, the companies were not prepared to bear this cost. They had the audacity to expect the consumers to be saddled with this cost. That is a bill of £35 million to start with to bring us to the 60 days, and it is possible, if we were to build ourselves up to the 90 days, that it would be nearer £100 million to furnish the cost of this storage clause and to fulfil it. It would be wrong to assume that £7,000 would be our total contribution. It would not. It would be far in excess of that if we were to comply with the Articles of this agreement with regard to the storage which these countries should have. If we are to do this I do not know how the consumers can be extra careful with regard to paying for these storage facilities. We are just putting ourselves further into the grip of these major oil companies.

Another factor under this agreement is that over 60 per cent of our requirements come as refined products from Russia and from the refineries in the United Kingdom. There seem to be no details within this agreement to cover our reserves. There is no mention of our having any storage capacity in those countries from which we get our oil. The priorities of the United States of America, at whose initiative this committee came into being, are totally different from our needs, as we well know. Our Government have already, in the past 12 months or six months, established new links in some parts of the Arab world through accredited ambassadors. What are really needed are agreements between the consumer countries and the producing countries but not, we suggest, by establishing a big buying bloc such as this which will be dominated by the United States who could be self-sufficient from the point of view of energy, if they so desired. Norway and France have seen the implications involved and are not participating as we are. France is not interested in participation at all.

We look forward to the day when we will be producers of oil. We hope that is not in the too far distant future. Then we should follow the example of Norway and France in not participating or in getting out of this agreement. We could examine the case again under the OECD if the occasion required it. Association with this group where the predominant view is likely to be dictated by USA thinking on these matters which, in connection with energy, has shown itself to be contradictory in the past is not in our strategic or economic interest.

How can the Government seriously expect to support a policy which provides for keeping the price of crude oil at a particular level? This agreement was not very long in being when the Americans started the next exercise to put a floor price under crude oil. We were all crying about the cost of crude oil, and this was the next thing attempted by the Americans. Surely it could not be in our interests in the short-term or the long-term to ensure a definite minimum floor price for crude oil just because the USA felt like it in order to guarantee the further profits and the future profits of these multi-national oil companies which we know are such highly profitable concerns. Like other countries we were screaming for lower prices for the past year and a half. This action about floor prices means that we are being asked by the USA and the countries involved in this agreement to plead for lower prices, but not too low—there has to be a certain minimum.

I remember the Minister for Industry and Commerce in December, 1973, telling the House that every element in our day-to-day living was affected by the cost of oil. Every sector of our economy had some element of energy input and we were reminded of this and we know it to be true. The collapse of the recent Assembly in Paris is a definite indication of how fraught with danger the concept of groupings can be. They did not get very far. They could not even agree on an agenda and, instead of wasting time on this kind of carry on we should be out doing our own thing, trying to get to the base of the problem by reducing this £200 million which our economy can ill afford to bear now or in the future.

There is no case, in our opinion, for belonging to a group which seeks to preserve this floor price. It is not in our interest, and we fail to see how it could be in our interest. If we should be fortunate enough to become self-sufficient through our own discoveries off our south coast then the quickest and greatest overall benefits can accrue to our economy by utilising the oil for our own energy purposes to meet our industrial and agricultural requirements. If we in the future can use this advantage then we can see no limit to the economic development of our country and our economy with all the resulting benefits to every man, woman and child. We look forward to this but we see no future for our country or our economy in being involved in this agreement.

As I said at the outset, this agreement is putting us further into the grip of these multi-national oil companies. What they have been doing in the past year-and-a-half should have been ample proof that they were not people with whom we should allow ourselves to be involved and influenced by and this is all this agreement will do. The voting arrangements are all wrong. They are completely in their favour. The consultation arrangements seem to be wrong. Whom do they consult with? The multi-national oil companies? Who have we been consulting over the last year-and-a-half at the very height of the crisis? The multi-national oil companies? These are the people we have been consulting and these are the people who will be offering advice to this agency. What good has their advice been to us? They are not the people from whom to get advice. We should not tie ourselves up in an international situation where not alone will they be in control of the agency but they will go on being the only people offering advice.

There is one striking aspect to this agreement; there is no way in which one can extract the real profits of the multi-national oil companies. There is no way by which our Exchequer can get any further taxation than we have been getting, which has been negligible down through the years. There is no way of getting at them in this respect. They are still completely covered to go on manipulating the world oil situation for their own devastating profit, as they have been doing down through the years. They will go on causing further price increases under the seven-day notice system, as they have been doing here to our consumers, and they will now be supported by this international sharing agreement in doing that. If anything, they will be in a more influential position than they were in a year-and-a-half ago as a result of this agreement.

We should be making arrangements and agreement with the oil-producing countries in the Gulf. We have set up new embassies or established diplomatic arrangements with countries in that part of the world. Two of the countries with which we have done this are Israel and Egypt. Those two countries have no oil to offer us. We should be down in the Gulf establishing a proper business relationship with the people who have the oil in large quantity and we should be doing a deal there instead of setting up an international sharing arrangement with countries like Japan which has nothing to share. Like ourselves they are over 90 per cent dependent on oil. We are going to share oil supplies with a country that has no oil. That is only one of the countries with no oil involved in this agreement. My colleagues will have something further to say about these diplomatic arrangements. We should have started these in the oil-producing countries where we could consolidate our position with regard to supplies until such time as we might be able to come up with our own supplies.

If the Government insist on this proposal we want to put it on the record of this House that Fianna Fáil, given the opportunity, will resign from the grouping in its present form, with its stated objectives and under its present domination by the multi-nationals. As we can see from the agreement, this will mean a year's notice. We want to go on record now as having expressed that approach.

Mr. E. Collins

I listened with interest to the leading speaker for Fianna Fáil and I was interested to note that the Fianna Fáil Party will resign from the agreement. I was also interested to note Deputy Barrett's interest in the multi-nationals. I gathered from his speech—I do not know whether I am right or wrong— that he would either (a) nationalise the present oil companies operating in the country or (b) set up a State organisation whose policy would be to undercut the existing oil distributing companies in Ireland. Either approach is very interesting.

Mr. Barrett

I said nothing about nationalisation.

Mr. E. Collins

That is the problem. Listening to Deputy Barrett's speech, in so far as he was adamant about the millions of pounds which the oil companies are earning from Ireland and decrying the dominance of multi-nationals in the country, he never said anything about nationalisation, nor indeed did he say what he would put in the place of these multi-national organisations.

Mr. Barrett

I did. The Deputy was not listening. He was not here.

Mr. E. Collins

I was listening in my room.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Collins, without interruption now.

Mr. E. Collins

Interruptions will not put me off. The fact is that the Deputy made no reference whatsoever to an alternative approach. They will resign from the agency. The multi-nationals are making huge profits. It is not fair and it is not right. There were no constructive alternatives——

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy was not listening.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Barrett must allow Deputy Collins to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. E. Collins

I am well aware of the existence of multi-nationals. I have read Anthony Sampson's book, The Secret History of ITT and I certainly believe our Government should be very watchful in regard to the prices we have to pay for crude and also the prices at which these crudes are distributed. The question arises as to how best we can get this information as to the price the companies are charging and the profits distributors are getting. The only way we can get this is by being a party to international agreements and by having our Government participating in conferences and discussions. The arrangements under the present agreement seem very flexible as far as the institutionalisation of the agreement is concerned. I would like to point out that under article 49 we have a number of organs, a governing board, a management committee and various standing committees on the emergency question, the oil market, long term co-operation and a group on relations with producer and other consumer countries.

The fact of the matter is, and we may as well face it, that in this small country of ours the only way we can find out this information is by benefiting from the experience of others. The only way we can benefit from the experience of others is by going to international meetings of the sort envisaged in this agreement and coming back with as much information as we can possibly gather.

The isolationist policy, as suggested by Fianna Fáil, is an absolutely negative one, I do not care what anyone on the far side says, it has overtones of "let us nationalise the whole lot of them." I reject an isolationist approach to the problem and I am definitely in favour of the international approach.

I know we are very active in our participation within the EEC on a joint policy, an EEC group policy, in relation to the energy crisis and future energy needs. Indeed I read with great interest the Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 4/74 entitled "Toward a New Energy Policy" strategy for the European Community, introduced by the Commission of the European Communities. That was a very enlightening document, very easy to read, and dealt with a problem which we all admit in this House did not have very much national importance for this country up to the Autumn of 1973. The Suez War crisis, was very short term and this crisis is medium term. I will not say it has long-term implications for this country but it certainly has medium term implications. It is only by participating in the international forum that we can see what is going on, we can see our way forward better and we can best use the information that is available.

The energy crisis has been and will be for some time to come a very interesting test for the European Economic Community. It will be a test on its will and on its wishes to be a strong, virile forward looking group of countries knit together by common problems. I was disappointed to note that the French Government decided not to participate in this. I believe, from what I heard speaking to other people on the Continent, that the French were wrong and that the common approach which is being adopted by the EEC, is more beneficial to the European countries as a bloc. The bilateral agreement entered into by France was something that we should note because the French Government, as far as I am concerned, are to be condemned in so far as part of the bilateral agreement entered into for the supply of oil was the supply by France of armaments. That is an unfortunate approach to the subject.

I do not think that the supply of arms to Middle East countries is to be welcomed, especially in view of the Middle East conflict which is of an on-going nature. England also has some type of bilateral agreement which involves the supply of arms to the Middle East countries. I am against any such bilateral agreements. The significance of what I am saying is that if we or any country entered into a bilateral agreement with Arab nations it would obviously, by and large, involve the supply of arms from the European countries to the Arab nations. This is a policy which I am against and indeed I am sure it is a policy which the whole House is against.

The question of the Middle East is not directly related to what I am speaking about, but the House should note that bilateral agreements will inevitably be weaker than agreements concluded by such a large monopoly as the European Economic Community if and when they can come to a common approach on the policy. Certainly by being a member of this programme we will be more powerful than if we were on our own. I reject the isolationist approach to the problem as suggested by the Fianna Fáil spokesmen.

I note in the Minister's speech that this is a ten-year agreement. The question arises as to how long term is the oil crisis. There are two developments which indicate to me that the question of ten years is a faint indication of the length of time this crisis will really affect us. The development of alternative sources of energy is now, because of the high price of oil, to the fore in nearly all countries. The document which I referred to, "Toward a New Energy Policy", gives great strength to the development of nuclear facilities in Europe. This is now more viable because of the cost of oil.

The development of the use of solid fuel must give an increased lease of life to the coalmines in England and in Germany. The development of natural gas is now of great interest to us. The great finds of oil and gas in the North Sea and indeed off our coast are something which should be noted and something to which we should allocate money ensuring that these oil and gas finds are developed as soon as possible, that the finds are harnessed and that the supply of oil and gas comes into our country as soon as possible. Obviously these must be at a lower price, then, than the oil from the Middle East, and it is a question which must be examined by the Minister. It has been said in the English papers that the prices of oil and gas from the North Sea finds have not been finalised.

I am pleased to note that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will announce very shortly the terms for the development of our own finds. I hope that the negotiations in connection with this are satisfactory all round. We must satisfy the people who are involved in exploration which costs millions of pounds which the Irish Government could not finance. They must be given attractive returns for the capital invested to ensure that they stay and develop these resources. It is up to us then to control the prices and development.

When I speak of controlling the development we should ensure that these oil rigs and refining plant are located in Ireland to ensure maximum employment and maximum value. I am glad to see that a group is studying the problem of oil rigs and the most beneficial place to site them. We have not got many site with sufficient depth of water or facilities to establish these oil rigs.

The Government's approach to the problem is an intelligent one and they should send our experts to see the most unfortunate developments in Scotland which resulted from the uncontrolled development of oil rigs in the north of that country. This development ruined the countryside and has led to many social inequalities, lack of housing, and lack of facilities. We should tackle the problem before rather than after the event. We should be able to allocate sites for an oil rig building firm and refineries and the Government should provide houses and other facilities required by the community such as roads, hospitals and schools.

This is an intelligent and constructive approach to a problem which will have long-term significance for us. The use of gas has cropped up and I was interested to read in the document I mentioned of the optimum economic use of natural gas. That document stated that the use of natural gas in new thermal power stations should be made subject to arrangements requiring prior authorisation in order to keep fuel for applications where it is used to better advantage. It went on to state that likewise its consumption in existing stations should be progressively reduced.

This is an interesting statement which was obviously prepared by experts. It indicates that the reservation of gas for use in power stations may not be the best and most optimum use to which the gas can be put. I should like to see some other statements for or against that, but time is on our side in so far as it is going to take time to develop these gas and oil finds. The Government can sit back for a while, introduce a proper policy on State participation and a proper structure for royalties. The Government can also produce a report on the proper siting of oil rig firms, the service industries involved with the oil finds, and ensure they are placed to the best advantage for the Irish people and that the maximum employment is got from the development.

I would say ten years is a fair time to get the oil and gas finds on tap and, indeed, with the policy being pursued by the oil consuming countries which is geared in the short term towards a reduction in oil consumption, the oil companies are not in as strong a position as they were two years ago. I read in some magazines that they are worried about the surplus of oil that is piling up in tankers and on site in Arab countries. I do not think they can continue to dictate to us as they did in the last few years. They were wrong to dictate to us and they used the oil price weapon as a bargain stick in relation to the Middle East conflict which was remote from us. We have suffered but I do not think we will for too long.

Ten years is a fair figure to put on it. I am not happy with the Fianna Fáil prophesies of doom. Their prophesies are negative and unconstructive and I do not believe our people will fall for them. Policies enshrined in the agreement are intelligent, constructive, and are of a nature that this Government should participate in. The opposition who are going to vote against this agreement are sticking their heads in the sand.

The Minister said:

The Agreement establishes a programme whose main features include co-ordinated efforts to develop emergency supply reserves.

That is interesting. The present 60-day reserve requirement will be increased to 90 days. I do not know what our capacity is at present but we should have a 90 day reserve. The Minister added:

... a scheme for restraining energy demand and sharing oil in a supply crisis.

This, again, is a rational approach to what is a practical problem. It is generally recognised that we are inefficient in our use of oil and our use of energy and that we should economise. However, yesterday I heard irresponsible statements from the Opposition which I found difficult to understand. Arrangements for gathering information on the international oil market is a sound proposition which must be of benefit to any policy-maker in any country. The question of nuclear energy which was given prominence in the booklet I referred to is of interest. That booklet states that in view of these restrictions, it appears reasonable for the community to set targets for the next few years. On the supply side nuclear facilities would be increased and could cover half the production of electricity from the middle of the next decade. That is a starting statement and one which I would like an elaboration on. If it is possible at lower prices than our existing electricity the economy benefits from it.

The question of a nuclear power station is under consideration under the aegis of the Electricity Supply Board. There are objections to the siting of the plant in Wexford. I do not know if the objections are valid or not but surely there is enough expertise, especially in America and in England, to ensure the safety of such a plant. We should not delay too long in deciding where we are going to put the plant. The matter should be cleared as soon as possible and a decision taken on it. Before decisions are taken on it the public are entitled to a full explanation concerning the benefit of establishing such a plant in ensuring that electricity which would flow from it would be cheaper than the present cost. We should make more progress than we are making at present. I do not know at what stage it is envisaged establishing a nuclear plant in Ireland. Certainly if we have not got one by 1985, on the assumption that such a plant would be viable we will be dragging our heels unnecessarily in a vital area affecting the country.

In ten years' time we will not be affected by the Arab-Israeli conflict. We will have more control over our own destiny in relation to energy supply and consumption. It raises a substantial issue for the Government in so far as that the whole policy of pricing of newly-found oil and gas resources must come to the fore. It is essential that we have a public discussion concerning the pricing policy which the Government will adopt with the exploration companies; we must be careful not to adopt a a price which would discourage them. We must be careful also not to adopt a price which would make the whole project unnecessary and undesirable from the Irish Government's point of view, if the resulting price structure were less advantageous for us than the present one imposed by the Arabs. I do not know what steps the Government are taking in relation to the price structure, but perhaps there could be more public discussion of it, based on English experience which is relatively new and which is I think, still the subject of House of Commons legislation.

I should like to quote from page 17 of this Bulletin of the European Communities which refers to the problems I have just been discussing:

If the Community is to clear the way towards implementing its policy it must state its position unequivocally as regards prices and indirect taxation in this field. Thus one of the cornerstones to be erected appears to be a price policy which offers conditions for the adequate long-term profitability of investments which are designed to attain the objective set. Such a policy would have to provide, where necessary, for incentives to speed up investments which would not otherwise be made or for measures of a fiscal nature to ensure among other things that energy sources with a low initial cost do not receive an undue financial benefit. In addition, the size of investments in question will necessarily lead firms to call on the international capital market, and it is thus important that the Community should facilitate their obtaining such finance.

That is the kernel of the problem quite clearly stated. It will take quite an amount of expertise. This is a problem which has hit us suddenly. The Minister must carry out an examination, in depth, of the new complex problem we call the energy crisis. He is backed up by an efficient Department. But he should also have the right to call on as much expertise as possible and should have a cabinet of experts under him—who may or may not be full-time—but who will help him to formulate sound policies. This is not the usual method under present Government structures here. Usually a Minister is advised by senior officials of his Department. Rarely, unless there is a public inquiry or something similar, does one find outsiders influencing State policies.

We are in a different era; our commitment to Europe should force upon us a change in the method of decision-making. Our excellent Civil Service should be augmented by a Minister having the right to establish a cabinet under his aegis to advise him on any matter on which he seeks it. The cabinet should be of his choice, be expert in nature, and be sufficiently empowered to get whatever information he may require. We have an obligation to modernise our style of Government in order to make it more flexible. Nobody would deny that there is a need for more flexibility because of the major problems which can arise suddenly resulting from our entry into Europe.

It would be wrong for us to pursue a policy of isolation proposed by Fianna Fáil. It is a negative policy which would not benefit this country. We are aware of the existence of the multi-nationals. We are a small but sound nation, sound in its approach to many problems. We have the will and ability to control these multi-nationals. Control of the activities of the multi-nationals is essential to any developing country. They have financial resources and expertise which we, as a small nation, do not possess. The problem in a nutshell is that we cannot control them. We should be flexible enough to control them and I am satisfied that we can do so. The policy of isolation proposed by Fianna Fáil is negative, one with which I do not agree and at which I am surprised. I should be very grateful if a Fianna Fáil speaker would suggest an alternative in the event of our choking the multi-nationals, or in the event of us nationalising them, which has been implicit in their speeches here today. They are all very interesting questions. But I am afraid the policies required should be more forward-looking, more international in perspective and require that we, as a nation, be amongest nations with a similar outlook in seeking a solution to the problem which would not result in a crisis, or which would minimise any crisis that might arise. Membership of this programme is a sound policy and one which would benefit this nation.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

For 18 months or more we have lived with the energy problem; almost anything that has happened in Irish society since then has been blamed on the energy problem that arose then. We have this present recession which is affecting our country and we are gliding through it absolutely rudderless, like a rudderless boat, going in no positive direction. Every time a Government Minister or Government spokesman stands up to explain any difficulties that are being experienced by the people of the country, somewhere along the line the energy crisis is introduced as an excuse.

We have listened to this for so long that we would expect at this stage that positive steps would have been taken to investigate and to explore the possibilities of some type of independent line of action. I was interested to hear the last speaker cite the case, and support the case, of the multi-national oil companies. I was surprised that that speaker, being a member of a Coalition Government which boasts of having a socialist wing, pleaded the cause of the multi-national oil companies and how we should accept them as a fact of life. This certainly was interesting coming from the Government of which he happens to be a member. If we start with reference to these companies and say that, unfortunately, we are to a large extent dependent on them and their activities, that does not mean, as Deputy Collins seemed to point out, that we should continue to accept that situation.

In fact, every effort by all of us as a combined body of this House and by the people in this country should be directed at finding ways and means to give these people less control over our economy, less control over our industrial development. I believe these people have made immense profits, from which country we are not sure, and if these are the companies Deputy Collins and his Government like to support, where these outlandish profits are made in some oil somewhere— some of it may be in our own soil— then Deputy Collins and his Government are welcome to support and to continue to support the multi-national oil companies.

Mr. E. Collins

Obviously the Deputy did not listen to me.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The record will show the Deputy what he said in the House this morning.

Mr. E. Collins

That is not true and the Deputy knows it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Deputy Bruton was not here. He is not in a position to say. He may be speaking for himself. I am not saying he is speaking for the Government but he is obviously one of the people who is associated with the socialist group in the Government and I am sure they would be most interested to hear his view on the multi-national oil companies.

Mr. Bruton

Have we heard the Deputy's views yet?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If you cease interrupting you will hear them. I will go further and say I probably have a bit more experience in my years in industry of dealing with these companies than any of the three Members facing me. These multi-national companies or their associate companies within this country have adopted a dictatorial attitude to Irish industry and Irish business.

Mr. E. Collins

That was because of the weak Government then in power.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

They still continue to do it. I am sorry the Minister is not here to hear me express these sentiments but he would tell us of the problems he has experienced. It happens in the Deputy's constituency, in fact, with the petrol retailers' association, with the business people in his city and county. He will find that from time to time they have been affected by the ring operated by the multi-national oil companies.

What is being suggested to us is that we should form an association with a group of countries, all consumer countries, for the purpose of having a common energy policy for a period of ten years. I cannot see any advantages to be gained, and certainly none were spelled out by the Minister this morning, nor by Deputy Collins in his continued references to the document he had before him. I can see no advantage from an industrial economy point of view, no steps being taken through which we would have more readily available to us a cheaper oil product that would possibly create more jobs, that would create a new confidence in industry and in factory floor employment. With the unemployment figures as they are, with the potential employment figures being rather serious looking, it is understandable that confidence at that level is dropping and dropping rapidly. For that reason the Government of the day have a responsibility and the Minister has a responsibility to act positively and not negatively and not look at consumer countries who, basically, have nothing to offer us because they do not produce the product we need so badly. Deputy Barrett spelled out suggestions this morning.

Mr. E. Collins

He spelled out no suggestions.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

He made positive suggestions on how approaches should be made towards the people on the side of the fence who are supplying the product and are producing it. I do not agree with the last speaker's sentiments either when he said that independence in a situation like this is not a good thing. If I thought independence——

Mr. E. Collins

The word I used was "isolation".

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I beg the Deputy's pardon. I accept that. If I thought that isolation was to our benefit in a situation like this, and that we stood to gain something from an isolation approach in some of these oil producing countries, and if as a result of that approach, our industrial economy began to see a revival, then I would be all for that isolation.

There is the valid point that this consumer group is inspired by America. It seems strange to me, in many ways, that a country like America should be the inspiration and the guide in getting this group organised. I would have grave doubts as to whether America intended this to be for America's benefit or for the benefit of those who are now becoming her allies in that agreement.

I wonder if all the Government Members, particularly the Members of the vacant Labour Party benches, are aware that this country which they have for so long dubbed as the imperialist capitalistic society is now guiding the destiny of our Minister for Transport and Power. Are those so-called socialistic Labour Party members aware that they are now supporting an agreement which we maintain does nothing for the benefit of the economy of this country? I hope it has been spelled out to them. I look forward to seeing what side they will take when a division is called for in this House.

Talking about our own resources or our possible resources the previous speaker said time is on our side. I am sorry I must disagree with the speaker on that point. I would say that time is running out, and running out fast. We on this side of the House are concerned that no positive statement has been made—although promised, and still being promised, and we wonder for how long more it will be promised—by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the conditions to be attached to the announcements he will make regarding the expected and hoped for finds off our south coast.

Mr. E. Collins

He is trying to unravel the mess you made.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzgerald, without interruption.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The previous speaker is, in fact, so unfamiliar with the situation that he want on to waffle about certain aspects of it and read from the document he had with him without any reference to the facts of the situation. He asked for dialogue. I agree with him on this point; dialogue is important, as he suggested, on the pricing structure. I believe that the Department of Transport and Power, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Cork County Council, Cork Corporation, Cork Harbour Board and possibly the adjacent local authorities should be well informed about the situation. People must be guided. You have inquiries as to what is happening, what is the potential, what kind of job opportunities will there be, what steps are AnCO taking to train and provide the necessary labour force, the necessary expertise and the necessary technological knowledge required in this development work in offshore gas and oil. This, we sincerely hope, as I am sure the Minister does, will be the greatest injection this country could get in the not too distant future. Let us hope that the people who say there are substantial finds there are right. Let us also hope that the Department will stop this dragging of feet and communicate with the people concerned.

I am not at all too happy with the situation at the moment. You have a delegation from a Department going to Aberdeen to see what is happening there. You have delegations from local authorities going to see what is happening there. They are all going in their own different ways without enough contact between people in this major potential development. Dialogue should be going on with officials in all the areas I have mentioned, keeping a very close eye on what is happening, what will be happening and what the correct steps are to give our economy the greatest advantage. The Department officials would have been far better employed in this over the past 18 months than directing their attention to an agreement with people in the same predicament as ourselves, guided by America and encouraged by America to join this association.

Still on the offshore development situation, the uncertainty as to what is happening there must be an indictment on any serious views the present Government have on the energy situation. Deputy Barrett, our spokesman on Transport and Power, went to pains this morning to point out where he saw savings, where he saw improvements on the existing situation. Among them was, of course, pressing ahead rapidly with developments off our south coast. What is the position? Would it not be great news for all of us if we were told tomorrow that a huge find had been made there, or even next week or the week after—so good a find that steps would be taken immediately to make the find productive at the earliest possible opportunity? Should the supply be so big we might, instead of being an importing country, as we are now, find ourselves an exporting country. What then would be our position under this agreement? People may say the possibility is remote but the possibility is always there. Let us hope it will be more than a possibility.

Offshore development in our energy situation is to be desired. Plans have to be made but there is indecision, inactivity and lack of direction on the part of the Government. That was evidenced very clearly within the last two days. What appeared to me to be an unprecedented step was taken by a body set up to encourage investment in industry. I refer, of course, to the Industrial Development Authority. It was strange to see this body adopting the new role of appealing against a planning permission awarded by Cork County Council to a firm which intended building oil rigs on Bere Island, a firm which, I believe, intended going ahead with rig development, at no cost to the State, and intended providing houses for many of the employees involved in it. This development related to the energy production off our south coast, the building of oil rigs for the oil fields. An appeal has been lodged by that body against this development. This, in my opinion, is an indication of the lack of Government direction in this important field of development.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving away from the motion before the House.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If I might point out this is all part of the development of energy. These oil rigs are being designed for the south coast.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a motion to approve the terms of an agreement.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The agreement is establishing an international energy programme and surely, if I want to say that I do not agree with this, I am entitled to say where I think the Government should be directing their attentions at the present time to help to solve the energy problem.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving into specific objections in regard to a particular matter.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Yes, but the reason I referred to it was because I know there are people—for example, Councillor Sheehan, who is well known to the Minister—who have put a great deal of work into attracting this French company.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would seem to be away from what is before the House at the moment. This could be raised some other time.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I believe it is associated with the development of our energy resources.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair allowed the Deputy to mention it, but the Deputy should confine himself now to the agreement.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I accept, but I take it I am entitled to refer to the development of our energy resources.

Deputy Collins referred to how the natural gas found there should be used. This is an aspect that should be examined in minute detail. Whether or not the supply should be funnelled into the Electricity Supply Board is very doubtful and it is something that should be examined very closely. Our control of supply and our control of price is non-existent. If we are to achieve any result from energy resources surely we must direct our attention to where they are produced. I have already said that we should press ahead with our finds off our coast, co-operating in any way we can with the companies involved, getting as much State participation and involvement as we can and above all to protect the employment and the employment interests of our people and ensure that jobs are retained for them.

The next thing we have to look at, in the short-term I hope, is the prices we are paying to outside producing countries. Deputy Barrett spelled out clearly the fields in which we could save costs. The points he made on the refining situation were very valid. The increase in our refining capacity is a welcome development. The extension of our refinery at Whitegate is something that, not alone in the short-term will provide employment in the area, but will in the long-term, at least, give us control over our own refining to a larger extent than exists at present. He also suggested to the Minister ways and means by which spare capacity refining is available even in a temporary way. I believe the Department have not adequately studied all the alternatives in this situation. I also believe that when a motion like this is put before the House and the agreement placed in the Library that more information about the different areas which were examined and why some were rejected, should be given. I do not think it is enough for any Minister or any Government, in a field so vital to our economy, just to bring in an agreement and place it in the Library. This agreement is for the most part technical. The Minister just spelt out the reasons he believes we should go ahead with this agreement. On an occasion like this the alternatives should also be placed before the House.

I know there are members of the Government parties who will have grave reservations about this agreement. I am sure some of the Labour Party Members are very anxious to read why this line of action was selected above other lines of action. I would like to know what other fields the Departments explored. Did they explore the fields suggested by Deputy Barrett? One is inclined to suspect they did not. This is a general observation I have about Minister of the Government and their European commitment. While we agree with the European situation in its context one expects a little more leadership from Ireland. Our Ministers are too inclined to adopt the role of just tagging along and being led by somebody else. When Fianna Fáil return to power this is something we will have changed.

It was not explained this morning why France has not and will not sign this agreement. What are they doing about supplies? They are obviously going their own way. They are adopting the isolationists' policy that Deputy Collins criticised. The French people must believe that they are doing the right thing, the correct step from their economy's point of view. How closely have we examined the steps France is taking? Can we prove or can we give figures to substantiate that the steps France is taking are not the correct ones and that the steps we are taking in this agreement are the right ones? I do not believe we can substantiate that because our voting strength in that group of nations has already been referred to by Deputy Barrett as being insignificant.

It is perhaps hard to visualise Japan and Ireland in such a situation, one common denominator, one common interest, both oil consuming nations. That is not enough. There must be something greater. I believe that the steps pointed out this morning by Deputy Barrett are very sensible. I would like to hear the Minister or some spokesman outline how many of his Department officials visited the oil producing countries, where they went in those countries, whom they met, what discussions they had, did they move down to the oil fields, was there a smokescreen presented to them that prevented them from seeing the exact situation, what knowledge have they of how France is handling its supplies? All these are relevant points which should be laid before the House.

Deputy Barrett also referred to the fact that a figure of £7,000 was mentioned here this morning. I am surprised at the Minister, whom I believe to be a gentleman, adopting that kind of role that is typical of his colleagues, of understating a cost factor by such a huge amount. Obviously £7,000 is an insignificant part of the cost for us in this agreement. Naturally we welcome the increase in storage. Again it is regrettable that we are not aware that any positive steps have been taken to increase this storage which was called for by our spokesman on Transport and Power, Deputy Barrett, 18 months ago in this House. At that time he appealed for this storage.

Finally, I want to say that we are, in a big way at present, dependent on the multi-national oil companies. Our efforts should be directed at getting away as far as possible from that situation, not becoming one of a bigger conglomorate and involving ourselves more deeply with this group. We know only too well the way their Irush companies have, in a dictatorial way, kicked around Irish Industry, the retail trade and so on, from time to time. We know only too well the ring that was formed by these people within the country, the huge profits they have made, the profits they made during the oil crisis at the expense of the ordinary working people, the farming people and business people of Ireland and of other countries. Deputy Barrett outlined in detail the steps that we intend to take on this. Our approach would be a positive one. It would be directed at going out and doing a good deal for this country with a business-like approach, with a bit on initiative and with the one thing that is lacking, a bit of guts.

Mr. O'Brien

I, too, welcome this motion. It is important that consuming nations come together and work as a group because the producing nations have indeed formulated such a policy. We have heard criticism from the Opposition that we are not doing enough to cope with our energy problems. This agreement is a constructive approach by all the nations that are concerned to come together to ensure that if one country is in trouble they will receive help and oil. We are dependent on oil and our whole economy is bound up in oil. We have seen that in the last couple of years. We are probably the most dependent country in western Europe on that type of energy. It is in our best interest to see that we are involved with other countries because we are for our own interest.

I am surprised to see the Opposition adopting a negative role now, a role of isolation, and of possibly doing nothing. If that is their contribution, so be it. We are in Government, we have got to produce the goods and ensure that there is a flow of oil coming in. One does not know when there would be an eruption of hostilities in producing countries which might leave us again in an isolated position. We have got to protect our interests as far as we can in such a situation.

Deputy Barrett said the £7,000 referred to by the Minister was not a correct figure in regard to storage tanks and what goes into them. The last speaker said Deputy Barrett called for this 18 months ago. In my view it is necessary that we have proper storage and oil in the tanks. I do not think we can put it as a charge against this particular motion. Whether we were debating this motion or entering into this agreement with other nations we would still have to provide a better storage capacity than we have.

I would like to see, as a positive step within a grouping like this, that as we have oil potential off our coasts the Government would have as large a stake in it as possible. This is important. If countries who signed the agreement are interested in having a good supply of oil they may look at this country with a view to investing money as a group in explorations for oil. If we had this in the agreement it would be a more positive approach. The other is purely talking about getting supplies from producing countries but as we are a potential producer we should invest as a Government and, through some international monetary fund set up by the countries who signed this agreement, carry out this development. That would be a step in the right direction.

We have heard much about multi-nationals from the Opposition and I got the impression that we were discussing a Bill on controlling multi-nationals. When Fianna Fáil were in Government they showed no concern about taking on multi-nationals or doing anything about them.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 17 Apr 1975

International Energy Programme Agreement: Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Apr 1975