International Energy Programme Agreement: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Agreement establishing an International Energy Programme.

—(Minister for Transport and Power.)

Mr. Moore

Speaking on the last day I put forward some of our objections on this side of the House to this proposed agreement. Since that time there have been added reasons for looking at this matter again. This document is dated "3rd November, 1974, Brussels", and since then we have seen quite a lot of changes in the supply and demand of oil and gases. There is one basic weakness and that is that I do not believe the Government have proceeded in the right way to set up proper machinery for the handling of (a) imported oils and gases or (b) oils and gases found on our own territory.

This failing is not confined to this country alone. Indeed, much bigger countries have shown that they have not perfected their organisations to handle this very important facet of our whole economic life. Our Government have failed also to set up State machinery or a State Department which would guarantee to the utmost extent possible that our whole approach to the development of natural gases and oils would be done in the best possible manner. I do not think we have the organisation here to do this and we shall pay for this very, very dearly in the future unless the Government decide to go about the matter in a different and a more expert way, because we are on the threshold of tremendous changes in the whole field of vital supplies of gas and oil for this country. I note that this agreement includes 17 countries including very, very powerful countries like the United States and Japan along with others who are not quite so powerful. In fact some of them are about our own size but by now most of these countries are taking this whole matter very seriously indeed. They are not just rushing into this agreement. I do not know what their final attitude will be on it, whether it is at variance with the House of Parliament in the various countries, but from past experience we know that some of these countries are noted for the way in which they perfect their organisation and the whole attitude in their own interests. Nobody would blame them for looking after their own interests, but we in Ireland might well look carefully, before we enter into this agreement, at the home scene, and see what we can do to become good members of some international body which will have as its prime object some kind of equity in the distribution and the development of natural resources.

Tomorrow morning if we were to be told that there was plenty of natural gas and oil on the east coast, apart from the Celtic Sea, if it came further north as far as Dublin, I wonder how we would go about it, because in my opinion we have not got the organisation which is capable of fully developing or finding these resources. In saying that I am quite conscious that we have not got the finance or the personnel to go out and search for oil and gas. Therefore, we have to come to some agreement by perhaps joining multi-nationals so that they will do the work of finding these resources and having done that and having entered into an agreement with them, we can then decide to develop these resources in our interests and on a world-wide level.

Is the Minister confident that we could handle this great problem? If he is not satisfied would he take steps to build up this organisation? To my mind this should be given top priority as regards any Government reorganisation. I feel we are on the brink of a great breakthrough. If the oil and gas is there in sufficient quantities our whole economy will be changed. We could become a fairly affluent country. If because of our own negligence we had to forego some of nature's gifts in the form of gas and oil because we did not take the trouble to recruit extra personnel, to allocate special moneys for planning, we entered into an agreement with six other countries because they will do the job for us, this is a mistake. We have to develop our own resources. Since this was first given to us things have changed rapidly. I feel the Government are not monitoring sufficiently the developments in the finding of gas or oil. I am convinced that when they do find it it is not being put to the best use. I am sure the Minister has acted on the best advice he could get as to how natural gas should be used for conversion into electricity or should NET be given an allocation. It has been pointed out to the Minister that this is a very wasteful way. There are other ways of using natural gas which would give a far better return. To convert into electricity only a 40 per cent return is obtained. To convert into gas 80 per cent return is obtained. The Minister may well say that we have to cut down our oil imports. Therefore he says to the ESB: You take this oil and cut down your oil imports. At the other end of the scale you are paying for it because a return of more than 40 per cent is not possible.

The Minister should have looked at all our resources, whether turf, coal, hydro schemes or tidal waters. He should have a director of fuel resources who would have special powers to enable him to pin-point certain things, such as examining the use of tidal waters or ascertaining if our coal resources can be used. It was said some years ago that it was uneconomic to use our mines. At the time that statement could have been justified. It could be said that we could buy coal outside much cheaper; that coal here costs too much to mine. Those days are gone. Our economy is now depending on these resources.

We are worried now about the destruction of the environment when we see our beaches littered with rubbish. Some countries are generating electricity from the rubbish they burn. This is no startling new invention.

I remember that in my own area we had an electricity station which was using the rubbish from the streets in order to generate electricity. That was the old Pembroke Urban District Council power station at Ringsend. It is now owned by the ESB. They do not use rubbish now to produce electricity: we import oil or use the very scarce natural gas to do it. We could produce energy from our rubbish: it was done in Dublin 30 or 40 years ago and it worked reasonably well at a time when engineers had not got the expertise in this field that they have now. Our streets would be kept cleaner by removing all the rubbish from them and by destroying it in an incinerator which could generate the steam to generate electricity. The records of what they turned out are there for the Minister to see. The ESB have all these records. With the scarcity of energy fuels we may well have to use this type of fuel to fire generating stations. I do not see anything wrong with that. We are saving oil and gas and by destroying this refuse we are generating electricity.

I feel we have been rather cavalier in our attitude to the use of oil. The Minister some time ago levied 28p on petrol. He explained to the House that we were the only nation in Europe which had not done this type of thing. It was a rather brutal method of making us cut back on our use of oil and petrol. Had the Government looked at this properly they would have seen that a selective system of rationing industry—which was prepared but not put into practice— would be carried out.

By his action he may have made us cut back on our use of oil and gas but he also cost many people their jobs. Industries were hit by this increase in the cost of oil and petrol and they cut back in turn by sacking people. The Government have not tackled this whole problem of energy and fuel conservation very wisely.

When we are drawing gas from Kinsale we must realise that we will interfere with the balance of nature on the sea bed there. We will do some damage. The oil which has lain there for a million years and has suddenly been taken out must upset the balance of nature. Have we thought of what to do to counteract that? It may be said that other countries have had this problem: what have they done to solve it?

Other countries are paying the penalty today for the mistakes they made when they began to reap the benefits of their mineral wealth. We can learn from their mistakes and ensure that we do not fall into the same traps. I would suggest to the Minister that he set up this committee. No doubt the men studying this whole question of mineral exploration are competent but we must ensure that there is an adequate number of people involved and that these are of the highest calibre possible. With the prospect of oil and gas resources our whole approach to life is changing. We are entering a new era. However, every step possible must be taken to ensure that this wealth from sea and land will not result in the despoiling of the sea and the countryside. The temptation is great for the Government to grab some of this oil or gas as soon as they possibly can. It is understandable that they should have that attitude but it would be very very wrong indeed if we are to play any part whatever in the despoilation of the environment so as to enrich ourselves with these resources. Partly because of a shortage of essential materials many of our people are unemployed but we have now an opportunity of planning for the future.

I do not know to what extent the Government examined this whole agreement with the companies concerned before deciding that we should enter into it. Perhaps they are having second thoughts on it now. The discussion began in November last. Since then things have been changing and soon we may see the oil rigs in the sea around us but have we built up a structure here which can control the exploration of these resources? Have we studied the best use to which they can be put? I shudder at the thought of any of the oil or gas being wasted. Whatever stocks are there are not inexhaustible and future generations would condemn us were we to squander these resources. Therefore in this serious business of exploration and development the onus rests with the Government to take every possible step to ensure that we do not waste any of the oil or gas. It is all right entering into these national agreements but once a shortage comes the 90-days' supply that we must maintain can be used very quickly. Once oil becomes scarce one has no guarantee that a country like ours would be given any great consideration.

People here have found to their cost that although they had made contracts for supply of oils in peace times under normal conditions they did not last very long when these became scarce. Therefore, I say to the Minister that before we begin operating this agreement the Minister should have a through examination carried out of all our resources to see what can we use apart from oil or gas, which are so very valuable. We must spare our resources as much as possible. When I was at school we were taught that there were no minerals under our soil. In recent years we have found that this is not so. While we look forward to the future with confidence we also have fears for the future. The Government have failed in their duty to build up a section of the Government to deal solely with the development of these and other resources. This criticism I make of the Government may be well justified because some other countries have admitted that they failed to plan properly, that they became so excited at the thought of having natural gas or oil, they went almost berserk in their rather brutal assault on these resources. They will pay in the future for their mistakes because nature will never allow a wastage of resources without hitting back in some way. We may find that in 20 or 30 years' time whoever is standing here discussing our energy problems may well look back and say that it was in this decade we found natural gas, that we got oil from our seas but that we missed a great chance of benefiting the country because we did not take the time to study how these resources should be used. We must have higher ambitions. From our natural oil resources we may get enough petrol for our car but much more can be done with oil. The Government can achieve a twofold purpose if, even at this late hour, they study what can be done to develop our existing resources and to develop the potential of our mineral resources. They can make us almost self-sufficient. They can provide employment by utilising our own resources. As has been suggested, the refuse from our streets can be used to generate electricity and therefore this would result in a reduction of oil imports. We should be able to dispose of refuse by turning it into the production of electricity.

I would suggest to the Minister that he ask this committee to examine this possibility. Experiments were carried out at Ringsend many years ago with the generation of electricity from refuse. The point was made that it was uneconomic, but it is not uneconomic. Many people today are finding out that the use of electricity is uneconomic for the pursestrings and they cannot afford it.

I suggest to the Minister that he can do a very good job in the development of our resources, but his own Department must prepare the ground for the building up of a proper organisation for the development of energy and ensure that the resources will not be wasted.

Mr. Wilson

This motion set out that Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Agreement establishing an International Energy Programme. My purpose is, in association with Deputy Barrett, our spokesman, and the other Fianna Fáil Deputies who spoke on it, to try to persuade Dáil Éirann and the Government not to endorse Irish participation in the International Energy Programme. We think that the Government are being arrogant in forcing this agreement through the Dáil with their majority of votes. We think the whole attitude of the Government has been wrong, that they took this position because they did not see, from the beginning, the implications of this agreement and the agency and all that goes with it.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose pigeon, so to speak, this was, did not treat the matter seriously in the Dáil. He made a very brief contribution and, in a kind of throwaway line, said that its effectiveness could be judged by the possibility that it would never be needed. Uncharacteristically, I might say, because normally he is a man of some courtesy, the Minister for Transport and Power on another occasion attacked Deputies Barrett, O'Malley and others and accused them of being ignorant and not having read the agreement. I have a feeling that the raw nerve was exposed by the spotlight which the Fianna Fáil speaker put upon this agreement, the dangers contained in it and its implications for the future.

The whole idea seems to have been that we weighed in with people because of what happened when oil prices were raised, with resulting panic in the industrial western countries and the developing countries as well. The Minister at the meeting of the agency in Paris said that one of the effects of the policies being pursued in joining the agency and subscribing to this agreement would be that greater control over the economic destinies of the countries concerned would be achieved. In fact, this statement shows that the Minister either does not see the implications or does not choose to reveal to the public what the implications of this agreement are.

Deputies from this side have teased out this whole problem very carefully and have pointed out the dangers to the Government. The Minister promised to throw light on the subject in his speech. All we have had so far is obfuscation, and we hope that this light will come.

We do not think that a cynical approach to the contributions from this side of the House is the proper attitude to adopt. We do not think that in the past 18 months or more the Government have had a viable fuel and energy policy and this is illustrated by the attitude which the Minister and the Government have adopted with regard to this International Energy Programme Agency and all that it involves.

It was quite clear, earlier on, that the large oil companies were playing a very profitable game for themselves. This was highlighted in the debate by Deputy Barrett. Deputy Barrett went on to make positive and practical suggestions as to how we could counteract this problem and work for our own particular benefit. The present time, as Deputy Moore said, is one which is full of hope for the country. We are on the verge, we hope, of an achievement which may set the country on a very prosperous road in the near future. That being so, it becomes all the more important that every step we take in relation to energy should be taken carefully, with due thought and consideration. The oil exploration has got under way and gas has been discovered. This puts an obligation on the Government to be extremely careful on what they do. We do not think they are going the right way about handling the situation at present.

What are we doing? We are being asked to join an organisation which, in effect, is controlled by the United States. Dr. Kissinger and President Ford have been over in Europe to show their concern. It is a type of OECD. A major European Economic Community member opted out. Why? France has for a long time been pursuing a quasi-independent energy policy and France opted out because France is suspicious that it is not her interests which will be pursued in the International Energy Agency. They have a nuclear policy of their own. They were accused of pursuing this policy for narrow patriotic reasons at the time and, again, people are suspicious of them in this regard.

I do not think it should be a matter of criticism for France or any country to pursue its own interests in such a vital field. Admittedly, their first go-it-alone energy policy, with regard to atomic energy, collapsed in 1968. They had to go back to purchase enriched uranium from the country they suspected might try to control their energy policy. They had this gas graphite reactor technology fairly well advanced at that time but, on purely economic grounds, it collapsed. I know there is supposed to be a reaction against production of nuclear energy for any purpose, civil or military or otherwise, in France at the moment but it would be interesting to speculate as to whether they may go back to the gas graphite technology again. The only reason it collapsed before was that it was too expensive to produce energy in that way at that time because oil was so cheap. They may go back to it now. I do not know. The gas graphite reactors formed natural uranium at that time and this was available in France and in the franc zone. I am using this as an illustration that we are advocating our own views on this. We are advocating our own policies. We do not want to be drawn in with the times, to be drawn in with people whose aims may not be our aims. What serves them may not serve us. We are asking the Government to take cognisance of this.

The United States and Canada are very strong countries. I am not indulging in what Seán O'Faoláin once called auto anti-Americanism, which is a tendency among some people, both thoughtless people and people who have their own particular ideological axe to grind, in doing this. You must be practical. You are dealing with large companies, powerful companies, whose only interest is profits. If there is a way for dealing with this situation, it is the duty of the Government to deal with it in such a way that we ourselves will benefit. We are not really worried about other strong economies in this particular agency. If one is to read the discriminating journals on the matter of energy even in the last week one can see that the real puzzle in this international energy agency is what does America want, what does America think, how can that be modified by others who wish to modify it et cetera? American policy is changing. In the very beginning they had one policy. Recently the policy is to up the price of oil. The President has imposed $2 per barrel import duty on oil. He is going to decontrol prices. This is the policy now. That is the one that suits the United States as of now. What I am saying is that our policy should be geared and formulated in such a way that it will suit us.

The political aspect of this is very important. We are a small country. The Minister for Foreign Affairs claims that we have a good reputation as honest brokers in places that are important now from the point of view of oil. There is the danger that we will be identified with a power bloc because economics in this matter and policies are all mixed. There is no easy way in which they can be separated. We cannot keep the economics of energy in one box and political policies in another. If you belong to an agency in which there is a country which says: "If we are running short of fuel we may go to war", some of the odium that comes from a statement like that will rub off on everybody that belongs to that agency. There can be no doubt about it.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been making flights into Egypt and the Middle East recently and the hat he was wearing was that of the European Economic Community. Possibly when he is relieved of the duties, which are heavy duties, that are imposed on him by that office he may be able to fly out there and test his own theory that we are acceptable in the area as honest brokers, as people without an imperial past, who suffered from imperialism, as people who will be listened to, and use that kind of situation to the economic advantage of this country. But it will be more difficult for him if he is identified with people who have different axes to grind, however justifiable the grinding of that axe may be with regard to the individual interest of the countries concerned.

It has been suggested that the Minister had some kind of insight when in the Middle East he forecast that there would not be any increase in crude oil prices. The Shah of Persia would have accompanied him on tour around the Middle East and if he had listened to him he would have probably heard him say that by next autumn there will be a further increase in Middle East oil prices, and the Shah of Persia has been moving around, interestingly enough, in South America as well.

I would like if the Minister for Transport and Power could convince me or convince this side of the House that through membership of this agency, through subscribing to this agreement, we can gain an advantage for ourselves and that this advantage will offset the suspicion that we will draw on ourselves through our association with groups that are economically much stronger than us, some of them self-sufficient practically in oil.

Last autumn I spent a considerable time discussing the oil situation, in particular that aspect of the energy problem, with members of the Federal Parliament of Canada, and Canada is a member of the Agency. The Canadians, I was told by these men, are self-sufficient in fact in oil. They export oil all right from the western part of Canada to the United States but that at that time was simply because the transport of oil from the western part of Canada to the eastern part was more expensive, and would make the oil more expensive than importing it from the eastern part of the country concerned. I am not in any way denigrating Canada but this is the bed fellow in this agency that we are dealing with. If they washed it out of the sands of Athabaska, there is more oil in the sand than would do this country for a thousand years. I am trying to make the point that if you are in an agency you must see that you will profit by membership of it.

Deputy Barrett has been urging continually that we increase our refining capacity. This would, of course, also imply greater storage. I cannot see why the Minister and the Government have not already taken steps in this regard. We may have to increase storage perforce through belonging to this agency, or we may have to get somebody else to store for us.

During the last war we were depending totally on Mincing Lane for our tea—and the Minister may know something about this. Seán Lemass was very anegry that when the pressure went on, the self-interest of another country which then had control, saw to it that we got damn all tea at that time. Afterwards, he refused to have any dealings with them and said that he made a gentleman's agreement but he would only make a gentleman's agreement with gentlemen. When the hard economic facts, profit and loss, a country's need and industry's need, are uppermost, then a particular country will serve itself. For that reason, this side of the House has urged on the Government to get a programme for extra refining under way.

I am informed by Deputy Barrett that 2½ million tons are refined in Whitegate, 1½ million tons in Belfast, and that there is leeway for about five million tons more for the country altogether, that is, about nine million tons altogether. This is a Government who have five Labour Ministers, and here is a suggestion that would give more independence to this country with regard to oil and all the development that comes with oil, the provision of energy for heating, lighting, industry and development. It would give more independence, more employment on the ground, more chance of downstream development and petro-chemical industries. Above all, it would leave the country in a position that it could stand on its own in times of crisis. Finally, if our oil comes on flow, we will have the capacity to refine it and to develop our own industries.

Strangely enough, it has been said that one of the reasons we cannot increase our refining capacity is that we might have to export. What is wrong with that? The Minister for Finance is shouting at us that we must export or starve. What is wrong with exporting? I cannot see it. I am not being simplistic; if we have something to export, why can we not export? In the meantime, Deputy Barrett has pointed out, time and time again, that we can buy the crude oil much cheaper than it is being bought at the moment for our own refinery. I am saying "in the meantime", before we have our own oil, as we all hope we shall have in the not-too-distant future.

We are not asking the Government to set up a Government refinery but to set up a refinery about which they will have information and where they will know the costings. At present this is not true, even of the refinery we have. The refinery at Cork, apparently, never becomes the owner of the crude oil which it refines itself. It only acts as an agent. This is the way the international thimbleriggery goes on. It acts as an agent for different shareholders. There is no control over the cost of the crude oil, and the refined products are then distributed by the Irish-based subsidiaries of the foreign-owned companies, again on an agency basis. If we had our own refinery the Government would know exactly at each stage what were the costings.

Everybody realises that when the first meeting was held in Paris, Dr. Kissinger tried to bulldoze his own way through and would have nothing to do with the raw material producing countries. He then had to change his attitude somewhat at the next meeting. He now sees that some modus vivendi will have to be worked out because the OPEC will not have it any other way. If he develops an antagonism to the whole idea among the OPEC countries he is damaging this agency and he is damaging us as a member of the agency. This is the thesis that I have been pushing all the time.

There was an old football supporter in Cavan who had a very telling phrase: he advised against picking a very young man for a football team. He might be good but a bit young and immature. He always said "It is not a good thing for a gossoon to hang up his trousers among men's clothes". That is what we are doing, if we join this type of agency. It is ridiculous for anyone to claim that the interests of Ireland can be identical with the interests of large countries who are almost self-sufficient in oil and energy or who have oil or enriched uranium to sell. It is ridiculous to think that our interests would necessarily correspond. I am not indulging in what an Irish writer called "auto anti-Americanism". On the contrary, they have never really got credit for what they did for Europe. After the war, 3 per cent of their GNP was spent in trying to set up Europe again. I am simply saying that in matters such as this where there are large multi-national companies—I do not want to identify the companies as all American because they are not—you must be in a position to watch their proceedings and be in a position to be as independent of them as possible. This side of the House is advocating that.

The Minister, in his opening statement, talked about a co-operative dialogue between oil consuming countries and oil producing countries, and he referred also to the importance of bringing in the developing countries in this dialogue. These are sentiments of which we approve, but the Minister himself could see from that first meeting in Paris how difficult it was to get that idea across to the more powerful members of the agency. At the second meeting there was a slight a very slight, change. The idea of setting up a commission, and so forth, was partially accepted, but it is as well to reflect that the OPEC countries have the whip hand and a very strong whip hand at that and if they decide that there must be—using the term that is being used now—indexation, a linking of raw material prices and oil prices et cetera, if they pursue that with enough skill and enough will-power it will have to be conceded to them.

This country should, in view of its own economic history, apart from political history altogether, think favourably on the OPEC countries and on the developing countries in this regard because one of the most moving reasons for me personally and for many others supporting the idea of a European Economic Community was that no longer would this country be a food-producing country for which it would be paid the bare minimum by industrially developed countries. This is an analogy. It is a parallel case. If we are forced by members of this agency to line up with people who will fight very hard before they will allow indexation, before they will allow the link-up of raw materials for industry or food for consumption, I think we will not be true to ourselves or true to our own political or economic history.

When the Minister in his opening speech was recommending acceptance of the agreement, he referred to the idea of developing alternative sources of energy and said that this would be part of this agency's business. This is highly desirable but France has, as I said already, for its own reasons decided to join and France has launched a very good programme of development of alternative sources of energy. There have been recent articles pointing out that they are investing in the development of geothermal energy, solar energy and other sources of energy, such as wind and water, and even the use of waste for the production of energy. If this particular aspect of energy activities can be dealt with by a country like France without joining the agency there could not be any very compelling reason for us to join.

In a country such as ours, where there are limited resources available for research and development we, and we are entitled to do so, can take advantage of the result of research and development in other countries and we should hope that, even outside this agency, the results of research and development for alternative sources of energy in every country, apart from those within the agency, will be available to us.

The original idea of the Americans, the major partner in this international energy agency, was to try and frighten the OPEC countries, to try and frighten the Arabs. They had a definite policy that if you were tough enough with them—a kind of 19th-century type of Palmerston attitude, bring in the gunboat attitude—you would break them down or they would quarrel among themselves and in this way some kind of economic advantage would accrue to the west or to the agency, which is OECD plus. I do not think the Arabs will wear that kind of thing any longer.

We should get back to the suggestion made over the months by Deputy Barrett on this side of the House that the Government should start now planning extra refining capacity. Admittedly, it is an expensive operation. If the Government cannot get the money for remedial teachers it is a bit ridiculous, I suppose, to be talking about providing money for the development of a refinery now. But I am not saying that the Government should necessarily do it; the Government should encourage it, and encourage it in such a way that the Government will know what is going on in the oil business at every stage from the crude oil to the finished product or products.

There are one or two other points I should like to make. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his contribution at column 1997 of volume 279 of the Official Report, said:

What has not emerged at all from the Opposition speeches is that the agreement is designed to cope with the situation than can arise if there is either a general boycott and reduction in supplies or a discriminatory boycott against particular countries because producer countries dislike their politics or dislike what they conceive to be their politics or their views. I would have thought the need for that was evident.

That, in fact, is an admission of our thesis on this side of the House. What he is concerned with is a boycott on other powers. I use the word "powers" deliberately because it is a question of power politics. He is concerned with other powers. There have been colonial powers in the past in Europe or other places. That might be, because of their political involvement in the Middle East, regarded as hostile by the Arabs. We have nothing to gain from association with such powers. We have everything to gain by using whatever unique position we have if we have it—and the Minister for Foreign Affairs says we have—to our own advantage.

The Sunday Times of 1st June, 1975 states:

More temporate doubts centred round Kissinger's failure to make clear how, if at all, the three commissions——

These three commissions are to deal with the whole idea of the developing countries, the OPEC countries, raw materials, indexation and so on.

——were supposed to interact with each other, or what relation their work would have to the eventual Energy Conference which, in one form or another, remains the goal of all the participants. Garret FitzGerald, the Irish Foreign Minister, expressed considerable scepticism that the proposals were sufficient to get real negotiations off the ground. President Giscard revealed on Friday that he had told President Gerald Ford at the NATO Summit in Brussels: "There is no question of treating the three subjects in a parallel but totally separate fashion, there must be a global discussion on all of them".

I do not know what the genesis of Dr. FitzGerald's scepticism was. I hope that it started off due to the line taken by Deputy Barrett and the speakers from this side of the House, the doubts that were expressed here about the wisdom of the whole idea, about the danger of antagonising the OPEC countries by associating with other groups, which for political or economic reasons may have incurred either the distrust or the hostility of the Arab countries. I hope that Dr. FitzGerald was learning from the attitude that was taken by this side of the House.

My basic thesis is that we have nothing as a country to gain from being in this agency. In fact, we have all to lose and I pointed out the reasons why. I pointed out positively what Deputy Barrett has been pointing out since the crisis arose in the beginning, that there is a positive policy we can pursue. We are urging the Minister to take cognisance of what we are saying, that he realise how important it is to have refining capacity for the reasons I gave. The trade unions, I hope will weigh in behind our policy and push the lethargic and phlegmatic Labour Members of this Government into making sure that we have our own refinery to cope with the rest of our needs, get us out of the outer zone syndrome so that when our own oil comes on flow we will have the capacity to refine it. When we have this particular refinery, unlike the one we have now, we will have more information about the costings of oil production and the other ancillary industries. We will be able even to export oil in the future and thus enrich our own economy.

Mr. P. Barry

I found the Deputy's contribution interesting but I do not agree with most of it.

Mr. Power

My purpose contributing to the debate is not to fill in time but to endeavour to show the Minister that we are sincere in our belief. We feel the Government have made a mistake in asking us to be a party to this International Energy Programme Agreement. I read the Minister's speech twice and it is simply words. It is pickled with clichés, contains no ideas that would convince me that it would be wise to enter into this agreement. To my mind it is a monument to departmental thinking. I often wonder why we spell the word "departmental" as Dept. in the abbreviated form and leave out the "mental". I can see "mental" was left out in this case because this denotes an attitude that whoever was responsible— the Minister must bear the brunt of the responsibility—has applied themselves to this problem with a very closed mind. I can see no sign of a breath of fresh air in this. It is the product of this gregarious instinct that herds us in along with other people. We feel we must do what the majority of other people do.

The agreement is another indication that this is a Government of reaction, rather than a Government of initiative. They appear to react to every crisis rather than to take any action that would allow us to be the masters of our own destiny in any way. We are all aware that oil is a big factor in our economy and that an increase in oil has had a detrimental effect on our economy. Much of our progress over the last number of years is dependent on the price of oil, but what have we done to counteract what has happened with regard to oil recently? The Minister in his brief mentioned that international co-operation was necessary. I am in harmony with him there, I am positive that there must be co-operation between the oil producing and consuming countries.

When we look at the matter with a detached view we see that the Arabs have produced oil at a certain price, have sold that oil to us but we, in different stages, have added a tax to it that is greater than the price that they got. We are prepared to make a profit taxwise here for that oil. Those oil producing countries are only right to have a rethink about the resources they are selling to us.

This co-operation is badly needed and it is important that we do not polarise the two sections. I agree with Deputy Wilson who said that because we are aligned with the USA, whose attitude—it may have mellowed a little lately but it was not so mellow in the beginning when they waved the stick—did not help us and that it will rub off on us too. The Minister mentioned that it will cost us £7,000, which will be voted to Foreign Affairs, to be members. But Deputy Barrett pointed out that the cost of our entry does not stop at £7,000; to my mind it is like a cover charge that will merely admit us to the club. The other incidental expenses will come later.

I am intrigued with the evasive way the Minister dealt with our voting strength. I should like to quote from the Minister's speech:

The voting weights assigned to each country for the purpose of those decisions which the agreement specifies are to be taken by majority and are designed to ensure an overall balance between the interests of the various groups of member countries.

That is a very euphemistic way of saying that we are going to be the pinkeens as far as this agreement is concerned. We have three votes to the 57 votes the USA have. They have 17 times more votes than we have. We are classed with Luxembourg on the three-vote mark. I note also that the agreement is for ten years. Were we wise, if the statistics of our future as an oil and gas producing country are correct and if the forecasts are any indication of the future of our economy, to enter into an agreement of ten years? I know it will be reviewed after five years— there should be an annual review— and that countries cannot opt out until a period of three years has elapsed and then they must give 12 months notice. So we are tied to it for four years.

We were not wise to accept those conditions viewing our future as it is. The Minister's concern and terms of reference are to do what is best for the people of Ireland. If he pursued that as well as other countries pursue what is good for them I would be happy, but I am afraid that policy has not been pursued. Maybe I am being parochial or national, but that is what the Minister is elected for. The avowed aims of the Ministers are to develop our energy supply and to restrain energy demand, the only words from the Government up to now. There is no evidence to indicate that they have developed the energy supply or restrained our energy demand. The Minister mentions that in recognising the objective of reducing imports of oil, a policy should be developed to promote the accelerated development of alternative sources to oil. One of the obvious and natural alternative resources we have is turf. Some turf was considered uneconomical to produce when the price of oil was low but the increased price of oil must have changed our thinking on this. I can see no evidence in the Government's outlay on capital to help us to produce more turf, to develop our bogs or to enable roads to be built into bogs. The Minister should back up his words by showing what action he took. He should show us that he is sincere.

Great stress is laid on the fact that oil sharing in time of crisis is something we will benefit from. The biggest crisis I remember—I was a schoolboy at the time—was the last war. We should draw on our previous experience in time of crisis and find out who shared with us at that time. The people with whom we were friendly although we did, thanks to Eamon de Valera, maintain a proper neutrality, did not share with us and we were left to ourselves and to our own devices. We found that when economic considerations and other considerations entered into that we had no friends.

I welcome the fact that we are to provide 90 days supply. Deputy Barrett pointed out the storage difficulties attached to this and I hope the Minister does not gloss over the fact that somebody will have to pay for this supply and the facilities for storing it. It sounds foolish that the customer would pay for storage facilities the seller wants to have. The shopkeeper is the man to provide the storage until such time as the customer wants the product and for shopkeeper we could substitute the big oil companies.

The Minister should tell the House what has happened to the conservation programme. We were exhorted on every side to burn energy wisely but has this had any effect? There is plenty of evidence of talk but no action of a helpful nature. I hope that, even though my contribution may be insignificant as far as the Minister is concerned, it proves helpful. In fact, most contributions only warranted the presence of the Minister. Members in the opposite benches appear to have reacted to this with a closed mind. Their mind is made up no matter what helpful suggestions are made by this side of the House. They will not be listened to.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Jun 1975

International Energy Programme Agreement: Motion (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1975