Vol. 333 No. 7
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10,000,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1982, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Energy, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain loans, subsidies, grants and grants-in-aid.
Could I ask a question? I do not wish to open a debate because we agreed to give it to the Minister on the nod. The Minister mentioned certain subsidies. I should like clarification on that point.
As the Deputy is no doubt aware, this is a financial accounting contingency. The urgency was explained by the Taoiseach. As the Deputy knows from his own experience, the sale of the premises of the Irish Refining Company at Whitegate must be finalised tomorrow. For that reason the money must be made available. The Deputy will have ample opportunity, as promised, to discuss this matter after the Easter recess.
My understanding is that the £10 million is required for the capital purchase of the premises and for the improvement of the buildings and installations. I did not understand that this £10 million was part of a subsidy arrangement. I understood it was to operate purely as a capital purchase and to improve and refurbish the requipment. I am at a loss to know where the subsidy comes in under this heading.
There is no question of a subsidy. I am merely repeating the normal form of words for the introduction of a Vote. This is the form of words used in these circumstances. As the Deputy knows, the money is for the purchase of the refinery which was finalised on 12 March by my colleague the Minister for Industry and Energy who could not be here this morning, its refurbishing and its continuance until it goes into production some months from now. That is the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate for £10 million. The reference to the subsidies is the normal terminology used in the introduction of such Estimates, no more and no less.
We have agreed to give the Minister the Supplementary Estimate on the nod. I want to put it on record that the previous Government, of which I was a junior Minister with responsibility in this area, decided to purchase the Whitegate Refinery primarily because of the strategic value of the refinery in the context of our energy needs. We did so after we received reports from consultants and experts within the field of energy. The decision of the refining company to close the refinery last spring or early summer was unfortunate in the context of overall energy policy. They did it for ulterior motives and for motives not necessarily beneficial to Ireland.
After a deep examination of the problems and the advantages and disadvantages — and we should realise there are disadvantages in regard to the operations of the refinery — the previous Government decided, on balance, to purchase the refinery and up-date it. I will leave the question of the long-term development of the refinery until we get an opportunity to debate the issue. The decision was correct. It was taken by the previous Government under Deputy Garret FitzGerald and with the support of the then Minister for Industry and Energy, Deputy O'Leary. One cannot ignore——
The Deputy should mention a Cork man.
Give us some recognition.
We cannot ignore the role played by the then Minister, Deputy P. Barry and other Deputies from the Cork region on the then Government side of the House.
I thought he would never say it.
And the then Opposition.
The previous Government were very enthusiastic about the acquisition of the refinery and the protection of the employment of the workers there. I am sure the present Minister for Industry and Energy will take very good care of this refinery which was purchased by the previous Government.
May I have the details of the subheads of the Supplementary Estimate for £10 million? There is a reference to the operating, overhaul and refurbishing costs and also the purchase of shares. May I have confirmation from the Minister that this grant-in-aid will be repayable?
Yes, it will be repayable. When the necessary legislation has gone through, the grant-in-aid will be repayable by the INPC. This is a new subhead in the Industry and Energy Vote which provides £10 million to meet the £5.9 million purchase price plus the cost of the continuing in existence of the refinery over the coming months and the carrying out of the refurbishing programme to get the refinery back into production at the earliest possible opportunity.
May I have the details? We have £5.9 million and then we have £4.1 million.
As I said, in regard to the purchase price — this is the one that is absolutely firm at present; the Deputy will understand that the others cannot be as clearcut — the approximate figures are £2.8 million and £1.2 million, £2,8 million for the refurbishing and £1.2 million for the continuing introduction over the coming months. As the Deputy will appreciate, those are the approximate figures in addition to the £5.9 million purchase price which must be finalised.
Without annoying the Minister, my final question to him——
The Deputy never annoys the Minister.
I note it is £2.8 million for refurbishing. The Minister mentioned £1.2 million for production costs. Is that a State operational subsidy and for how many months does that apply? Does that apply from the month of May to December or for what period?
It applies from tomorrow, from the purchase date, when the refinery becomes——
The refinery is not working.
The Deputy obviously is not as familiar with the situation as is another Deputy in the House. Let me explain the position to him. It is not in production but of course the staff are retained there and have been retained there——
I am aware of that.
—— over this period of non-production. Therefore, the Deputy will appreciate that there are some costs that will have to be taken into consideration between now and when it does go into full production. The Deputy asked for an estimate of how long it would take. Three or four months probably when it will go back into production and when a certain amount of the refurbishing has been completed. As the Deputy will appreciate, that is the approximate estimated expenditure during that period.
That £1.2 million.
Approximately £1.2 million.
While welcoming the Supplementary Estimate for the purchase of this very important project. might I ask the Minister what is the position regarding the land adjoining the refinery at Whitegate? Has the State purchased the land or was it disposed of previously by the oil company?
I understand that some of the land has already been disposed of but that sufficient land remains for any future development required for the refinery.
I thank the Deputy for his assistance. The position is that some of the land has been disposed of by the other shareholders but substantial land still remains and is certainly adequate for any extension. But the land to which the Deputy refers — I appreciate it is in the Deputy's constituency and that probably he is more familiar with the details — the land that was in course of sale is not part of this transaction.
I would not mind pursuing that point raised by Deputy Sherlock. In the context of the long-term policy regarding stocks of oil the Minister should look at the land immediately adjacent to the refinery with the long-term view that, in the event that we decided to establish reserves of oil held on Irish soil, there may be the possibility of establishing a tank field there which would be of benefit to the refinery and to the country.
The Deputy will have ample opportunity of discussing this, as promised. The only point I would make to the Deputy is that to be fair to the Members of the House and the Business of the House today, obviously if we are putting this through, on the nod as it were, this morning, this nod has already taken some time. There is the discussion that has to take place and there is the important piece of legislation that is before the House today and about which all sides are concerned.
I want to say finally to the Deputy — he made the point about the purchase by the previous Government — as a party in and out of Government our policy on the Irish Refining Company was made abundantly clear at all stages. I have no doubt that all Cork Deputies of all persuasion, on all sides of this House, were in favour of that refinery continuing in existence in the interests of employment in the area, which of course is of some concern to all of us, but also because of the strategic value and importance of having a refining capacity within our shores.
Agreed.
As another Cork Deputy, I welcome the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of purchasing Whitegate in order to retain employment there and to ensure that we have a refining capacity on our shores. I compliment every Deputy whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Independent, SFWP, who encouraged and helped in every way to ensure that this situation would come about. I am pleased also that the Minister, a Cork Deputy, introduced this Supplementary Estimate, to put, as it were, the icing on the cake.
A very expensive icing.
Is the Deputy objecting to the employment of the workers at the refinery?
I object to people not telling the truth about the cost.
Is the Deputy objecting to the money being spent?
I am sorry. The Deputy has made an allegation there.
On a point of order, was that picked up on the record of the House?
The Deputy must withdraw that statement.
I made no allegation at all.
The Deputy said the Minister was not telling the truth. That is not in order——
I did not say that.
The Deputy did.
Oh, yes.
I did not, a Cheann Comhairle——
On a point of order may I enquire whether that very loud reply from Deputy B. Desmond was picked up on the record of the House and, if so, might it be withdrawn?
I am sorry, Deputy Desmond, you will have to withdraw that statement.
I will be quite specific about what I said. I said I object to people not telling the truth about the whole cost. That is a political comment and is entirely within the order of the House. That is precisely what I said and you may check the record.
Deputy, there was an imputation there that the Minister was not telling the truth and, as such, if the Deputy would withdraw it, it would be better.
I repeat the comment I made, a Cheann Comhairle. I said in relation to this whole question — it is on the record of the House — that I object to people not telling the whole truth about the cost of the icing on the cake, which was a reference back to my colleague——
Deputy Raphael Burke on a point of order.
—— and there is nothing objectionable about that.
There certainly is and we are going to pursue this. I will not have the Deputy making imputations. I can tell him that, if he wants some of them, I will let him have some from his own performance, snide remarks——
The Minister for the Environment on a point of order——
On a point of order, I take the Deputy's assurance that there was no suggestion of imputation——
None whatsoever.
However, it has been taken on this side of the House that there is a suggestion of it and, on that basis, I would ask Deputy Desmond to withdraw it.
There is no imputation——
I am saying that it has been taken here that that is——
Would Deputy Desmond withdraw any such statement?
I have made no imputation and——
The Deputy has made an imputation and it is against the Minister but there should be——
Deputy Bernard Allen on a point of order.
On a point of order, I sat in this House for five hours yesterday and an hour today seeking to make a contribution on the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1982. I represent many people affected by this and I am listening to blather here. We have only up to 12 o'clock to discuss this, which means I will not get in. I want to make a contribution and to discuss real issues.
Will the House accept that there was no imputation?
I do not wish to deny Deputy Allen or any other Deputy who wants to discuss any issue in this House. But I will tell Deputy Allen that I will defend my integrity here or anywhere else. All I can say is that I apologise to Deputy Allen if I am taking some of his time, but I would ask him to place the blame for that on the typical snide remark thrown away by Deputy B. Desmond. He is not now prepared to explain this to the House.
May the House take it that there was no imputation?
I certainly do.
I was the only person present in the House this morning who saw the breakdown of the £10 million referred to in this Supplementary Estimate. I am saying to the Minister here that there is a grave question of confidence in relation to the Supplementary Estimate introduced here. In the course of my budget speech I stated that the £10 million was only a fraction of what the refinery is going to cost the State. I mentioned capital figures of £45 million to £70 million. I mentioned operational losses of £20 million. Therefore I am correct in saying, and I wanted to continue on the comment I made, that the whole truth about the cost of this decision of the State to take over an oil refinery and refurbish it — remember the figure — announced by Deputy Reynolds, Minister for Industry and Energy was £5.9 million is not yet stated. We find this morning that it is £10 million. We will find when the Supplementary Estimate in 1983 will come that we are talking about £35 million. In that context as one who has always been preoccupied about supplementary estimates and the spending of taxpayers' money I have no apology to offer to any Deputy for saying that the whole truth about this matter has yet to come out. I stand over that.
Will the Deputy give an assurance that there is no imputation against the Minister.
There is no imputation against the Minister, none whatever.
If it was a more humourous occasion one could say it is the first of April.
On a point of order, the Minister came across to me on the way out of the House. I do not think he has left the House. He said: "I am sorry you did it and you will suffer for it. I want to put on record——
The Deputy may not put on record any private conversation. The Chair heard nothing and any private conversation between the Deputy and any other Member is not on the record of the House. Any private conversation does not concern the business of the House. The Deputy is not in order. We are on Item No. 1. Deputy Desmond is being disorderly.
On a point of order, I suggest that such a reference should be struck from the record of the House as it was not within context. I would request the guidance of the Chair on that.
For the benefit of all Members, any private conversation or a repetition of it by any Member of the House is considered disorderly and I would ask Deputy Desmond to obey the rules of the House.
Would the Chair call on him to withdraw it?
On a point of order, as the Minister passed me leaving the House — I want to put on record and I want to protest strongly — he said to me: "I am sorry you did it. You will suffer for it." I will not be threatened by any Minister leaving the House in that manner and I want to put it on record.
The Deputy is abusing the order of the House and if the Deputy continues to behave in a disorderly manner I shall have to have him removed from the House.
The Minister is still in the House.
Any private conversation between a Deputy and the Minister does not concern the House and the Deputy is abusing the order of the House raising points of order that do not arise. Any attempt by the Deputy to get that kind of conversation on the record is an abuse of order.
Is the Chair then saying by implication that it is in order for a Minister to threaten a Member of the House.
Any private conversation between Members does not concern the House.
It was not private; it was said to me in the House.
That was a private conversation of which the Chair heard nothing and when the Chair does not hear it or any other private conversation it is not the business of the House. It is not part of the debate.
I would ask for the co-operation of Deputy Desmond in ensuring that the business of the House gets through in time.
