Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 May 1984

Vol. 350 No. 9

State Guarantees Act, 1954 (Amendment of Schedule) Order, 1984: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—

State Guarantees Act, 1954 (Amendment of Schedule) Order, 1984

a copy of which Order in draft has been laid before the House.

The resolution arises from the arrangement recently concluded with the Dublin Gas Company and their bankers on the distribution of natural gas in the Dublin area.

There are four sources of finance for the project. One of these involves the provision by the principal contractor for the first phase of the conversion plan of a supplier credit facility of £10 million to Dublin Gas at a market rate of interest. Repayments of one quarter of the total amount outstanding will be made on 31 December 1989, one quarter on 31 December 1990 and the balance on 31 December 1991. The contractor has agreed to provide this facility only on the basis that it will be secured by a guarantee of the Minister for Finance, to whom the Dublin Gas Company will issue a debenture over their assets. It is to this facility that the proposed order refers. All of the elements of the project financing package are interdependent. It is, therefore, essential that the Dáil approves the resolution before it.

In addition to the supplier's credit of £10 million the company intend to raise £54 million by means of bank loans and a further £10 million by the issue of loan stocks, some of which it will be possible to convert, at a future date, into equity. The agreement with the company does not involve the State in the giving of guarantees for any part of these funds.

The State will also be providing, through Bord Gáis Éireann, a loan facility of £17 million, £5 million of which has already been drawn down and £12 million for drawdown in July 1984. The terms provide for interest on the £17 million facility to be rolled up and repaid one half on 31 December 1988 and one half on 31 December 1989. The loan is to be repaid in the period up to 31 December 1991.

In addition, BGÉ will provide a standby facility of £6 million. This will be matched on a pound for pound basis by the banks and will only be drawn down in the event of the debt profile agreed with the banks being exceeded for reasons other than capital costs arising from the conversion and development programmes. Where the excess arises as a result of overruns on these programmes it has been agreed that BGE would advance additional credit on gas sales to offset it. This will not commit BGÉ to anything more than they are committed to already to put into the project. For example, the BGÉ contribution in this regard can never exceed their existing total commitment to the project.

Anything contributed by BGÉ will be clawed back as soon as the overrun is corrected or the debt falls back within the projected level. I would stress these are contingency measures and that strict arrangements for monitoring and controlling the project expenditure will be in place. Both the £17 million loan and BGÉ standby facilities will be secured, but this security will initially be subordinated to the secured bank loans, the loan stocks and the existing debenture stocks of the company which are secured by virtue of statute. When the bank debt has been reduced to £26 million, the State loans will rank pari passu for security purposes with all other facilities.

The supply agreement between BGÉ and Dublin Gas provides that, in order to expedite the introduction of natural gas to existing consumers of gas in the Dublin area, the price payable for natural gas under the agreement will be rebated by an amount expected to be approximately £42 million. This is to meet the cost of converting consumers to direct usage of natural gas. Any conversion costs, apart from labour costs and a limited amount of other Dublin Gas internal costs, in excess of that amount will be funded by a conversion loan provided by BGÉ.

In addition, in order to facilitate the introduction of natural gas to new consumers of gas in the parts of Dublin which are not currently serviced by the company, the price will be rebated by a further amount expected to be approximately £28 million. As part of the agreement on these rebates Dublin Gas have agreed to pay a surcharge of £5 million to BGÉ in 1991.

It is obvious from what I have already said that the State is making a substantial financial commitment to the Dublin natural gas project. The bulk of the money is being provided by way of rebates off the price of future gas sales and the remainder by way of loans. The State will also incur a £10 million contingent liability in respect of the guarantee order now being sought. The benefits of this approach are twofold. Firstly, the impact of this enormous and costly infrastructural project on the Exchequer is minimised and, secondly, it provides a neat method of ensuring the maximum incentive for the Dublin Gas Company to go out and sell gas so that they can earn the rebates.

The provision of a supply of natural gas for Dublin is the most significant infrastructural development undertaken in this country for decades. It is a fundamental first step in the implementation of the Government's strategy for the orderly, efficient and profitable development of Kinsale gas. The cornerstone of this strategy is the capture for natural gas of as many as possible of the premium markets. Overall the manufacturing sector will also benefit from the arrangements made with Dublin Gas as natural gas will also be available to industry.

The Government wish to maximise sales of natural gas in the kind of markets which will give the highest return to the Exchequer, have the greatest possible impact on the balance of payments by substituting for the more costly of the imported fuels, and which will use our limited supplies of gas in the most efficient way possible. Basically what we are talking about are the domestic market, commercial heating and cooking and certain industrial processes.

The largest concentration of such premium markets is in the Dublin area, so it was obvious that our first task would be the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Cork to Dublin. It is a matter of record that Bord Gáis Éireann, the State body which carried out this work, did so in a manner which would be the envy of many a private undertaking. The pipeline was completed ahead of schedule and comfortably within an extremely demanding budget. I would go so far as to say that the building of the pipeline was one of the most successful ventures carried out to date by the State and I would like to pay tribute here to Bord Gáis Éireann, their employees and contractors, and all involved.

It is worth mentioning that over 70 per cent of the contracts awarded went to Irish industry. This is particularly satisfying when one considers that it was not possible to obtain the pipeline itself in Ireland. It is the Government's firm intention that this policy of maximising the participation of Irish industry will be vigorously pursued in relation to all contracts for the Dublin project and, indeed, all other natural gas transmission and distribution projects throughout the country.

Having constructed the pipeline, the Government were then faced with a decision as to the best means of distributing the gas when it arrives in Dublin. I should say here that it was decided at a very early stage that gas would be made available to the ESB for use in their Poolbeg and North Wall generating stations. By using the gas in Dublin the ESB were able to eliminate significant transmission losses and make other efficiencies. The savings from this alone justified the economics of the pipeline. But the long-term aim was to give the Dublin consumer the benefits of natural gas at a competitive price.

In coming to their decision on the arrangements for the distribution of the gas the Government were conscious of the existence of the Dublin Gas Company, which had an extensive gas mains systems already in place. The Government concluded that it would be possible to negotiate an agreement with the company which would be satisfactory from the point of view of return to the State for its investment and retention by the State of an appropriate level of control over both the distribution project itself and the level of profits which will accrue to private shareholders from the sale of this valuable and limited national resource. The Government decided, therefore, that the existing Dublin Gas Company should be the vehicle for the distribution of natural gas in the Dublin area but that the State would substantially participate in both the profits and the running of the undertaking.

An agreement was negotiated with Dublin Gas on this basis which provided for the financial package which I have already outlined, including the guarantee of the supplier credit arrangement. The House is now being asked to approve in draft the order to give effect to the guarantee. In return for its quite substantial investment, the State is to receive 56 per cent of the profits of the company, plus an additional 50 per cent of any profits over and above a certain level. When, after a number of years the bank loans have been repaid, the State will in fact be receiving between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of the profits of the company, taking taxation into account.

There is a provision in the agreement which entitles the State to guaranteed dividends of £20 million by December, 1992. The effect of this is that the State will receive, with some minor exceptions, priority over other shareholders in the matter of payment of dividends until this figure has been achieved. In addition the State in the form of Bord Gáis Éireann will also be paid for the gas itself.

Under the agreement, one-third of the voting directors of the company, including the chairman for the first two years, have been appointed by the State. The Government have also appointed a senior management official to Dublin Gas to oversee the conversion and development projects and to oversee the company's health generally. The State is also actively involved in the Conversion and Development Monitoring Committees which are being established to give advance warning of any possible serious overruns on expenditure and will enable measures to be taken in good time to rectify such situations. The State also has a number of legislative controls over the company. For example its Memorandum and Articles and any amendments to this are subject to the approval of the Minister for Energy.

It has always been a feature of discussions with the Dublin Gas Company that a supply of natural gas was contingent on their implementing a number of measures to radically improve its operations which were up until recently riddled with inefficiencies and restrictive practices. To give credit where credit is due, the company and its workforce have made significant strides in this area and are now, in the view of the Government, a fit vehicle for the safe and efficient distribution of natural gas.

Up to now the company have simply substituted natural gas for their naphtha feedstock and continued to reform town gas. They are at present embarking on a major conversion programme largely funded by the State under the system of rebates which I have already described. Direct use of natural gas is more efficient. It means that gas delivered to homes in Dublin will be non-toxic. To that extent it is a safer gas. It will enable the consumer to have the benefit of cheaper, more modern and more efficient gas burning appliances. Natural gas has twice the energy content of town gas. Conversion will, therefore, at a stroke, double the capacity of the existing Dublin Gas network and will make it possible for new mains, providing gas to areas not presently served, to be constructed more cheaply.

The importance of this project both in the Dublin area and the country as a whole can not be under-estimated. It will result in greatly improved use from the point of view of efficiency of our natural gas resource, in significantly increased revenue to the Exchequer and in a substantial beneficial effect on the balance of payments, estimated to be in excess of £25 million in 1984 alone. It has ensured the future of more than 1,000 jobs in the Dublin Gas Company which otherwise would have been lost. The conversion and development programmes will directly result in the creation of more than 700 jobs for their duration. The spin-off benefits to industry of the conversion and development programmes will be enormous and will certainly lead to the creation of many new jobs. It will improve our strategic position in the vital area of security of our energy supplies. The huge expansion in the market for natural gas will provide just the kind of incentive needed for exploration off our coasts.

In short we are on the threshold of a new energy era in Ireland. We have taken the first steps towards making a reasonably priced and secure indigenous fuel available in houses and businesses throughout the country. The draft order which I have placed before you for approval is an essential first step in this process.

I should like to clarify the position in relation to the motion. I understand that there is no order of the House to complete the motion by 11 p.m. but I presume the Minister with all the delays that have occurred in the implementation of the agreement would like to have it completed tonight. Is that the case?

I trust my colleagues will facilitate me?

I wonder if Deputy Mac Giolla wishes to contribute?

Has Deputy Mac Giolla any indication of how long?

Has the motion to be completed by 11 o'clock?

I am prepared to facilitate the Minister.

The order of the House is that business will be interrupted at 11 p.m. to take the Adjournment Debate. If this debate is not concluded it will be carried over.

Would five minutes suffice for Mr. Mac Giolla?

Is there any possibility that the Chair could arrange that we carry on until we conclude this?

I am afraid not. An order was made that we would sit not later than 11.30 p.m. and that business should be interrupted at 11 p.m. According to Standing Orders if that is to be departed from a motion would have to be moved at a certain time which is now long past.

We are in the hands of the Chair.

I am in the hands of Standing Orders. If the House wishes to facilitate the Minister the House should conclude the debate before 11 o'clock.

I will conclude before 11 p.m. but I cannot say what Deputy Mac Giolla may do. There is a lot to be said on the motion but we will have an opportunity in the Estimates of saying many of the things I would like to say tonight. For that reason I do not propose to deprive the Minister of getting this through tonight, if that is possible. I looked at the order in the Library this afternoon and noticed that it is a short and specific one. I should like the Minister to bear in mind a number of points I wish to raise in regard to this. Does the Tánaiste intend to revoke the order in 1992 when the purpose for which the order was laid before the House will have expired? The order is before the House for a specific reason, to allow the State guarantee to be passed on on contractors' credits.

I am familiar with this part of the agreement because, as the Minister will appreciate, I was a party to the negotiation of the agreement. I spent a long time with Department officials, and others, in trying to get agreement on it. The risk to the State is minimised by the fact that it is going to be repaid 25 per cent in 1989, 25 per cent in 1990 and 50 per cent in 1991. Before the 50 per cent is due in 1991, £5 million will be coming back under the supply agreement to BGÉ. The risk is minimal except that it is subordinated after the existing loans and debentures that are in the company stop. It is a new form of finance that was introduced into this complex agreement, one with which I was involved in and I approve of.

I regret to have to say that I must take the same stand tonight as I have done on many occasions, to point to the mishandling of announcements from the Government which is becoming a regular feature. The Minister need not frown because I have not found him guilty yet and I do not suppose I will find him guilty. I must point the finger direct at the Taoiseach and the former Minister for Energy, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister's former colleague who resigned, we were told, as a result of this agreement being completed at Government level. I did not believe that statement for one moment because since that date Deputy Cluskey has not availed of the opportunity of coming to the House — I challenged him in the corridors on many occasions — to debate whether the agreement was better or worse than the one I had negotiated when in the Department of Energy. I believe that Deputy Cluskey wanted to get out to get a soft seat in Europe and he used this agreement as an excuse.

That does not arise.

I should like to quote what the Taoiseach said in the course of the debate, on the Adjournment of the Dáil, as reported in Volume 346 of the Official Report of 15 December 1983:

In the case of the Dublin Gas negotiations, the Minister's efforts have redressed the imbalance of a grossly inequitable agreement proposed and, indeed, virtually entered into...

In the course of an interview in The Sunday Tribune on 11 December 1983 the Minister, Deputy Bruton said he was not happy with the deal negotiated by Fianna Fáil and renegotiated the deal which would now give 78 to 80 per cent of the profit of Dublin Gas to the company. While he accepted that risks were still substantial they had been reduced.

I will put a few facts on the record to show how deceitful both those presentations were in relation to the agreement that has been finalised properly, and the attempt to con the public by the dissemination of incorrect facts. I challenge the Minister or anyone else to look at the original deal and say if the following facts are not correct. An amount of £23 million in additional loans is going in with interest rolled up to 1988 and £18 million extra in rebates. For this the Government are getting only 6 per cent additional profits as confirmed by the Minister's statement here tonight, not the 78 to 80 per cent as pushed around the headlines of newspapers by Deputy Bruton and others. Of course, the difference is that the income tax being paid by Dublin Gas as corporate tax makes up the difference, but who sought to deceive the public by saying that this new deal will give 78 to 80 per cent? The original deal gave 50 per cent; this one gives 56 per cent plus the corporate tax. For all that additional investment, that additional capital put at risk, we are getting 6 per cent extra profit and 4.9 per cent of the voting shares — not additional equity, voting shares. Compare that with what the private sector are getting for £5 million of their convertible loan stocks which they are investing in the company. That did not exist in my time in the Department. I turned it down prior to that the first time I saw it because the deal was so well put together by the banks that I would have loved to get it had I been a banker, but I had no intention of giving it to them. What did they get for £5 million? That £5 million carries a tag which can give a return on investment of up to 30 per cent, carrying with it convertible rights into 25 per cent equity of Dublin Gas. Therefore, for all the money, rebates and loans going into Dublin Gas on behalf of the State they are getting 25.01 per cent of the equity while the private sector puts in a new addition to the deal negotiated in my time of £5 million convertible loan stocks, getting full value for their money with 30 per cent, and for that they can get 25 per cent equity in the company.

I ask the Minister and this House to take note that not alone is the risk not reduced, it is substantially increased. Not alone are we not getting good value for money, we have given away a deal to the banks. I have heard in conversation that they smiled all the way back to the banks, having produced a deal that they never dreamed they would get. Certainly they never dreamed for one moment that an Irish Minister in an Irish Government would give away his statutory right to the future pricing of gas to the banking institutions. They really have jam on their bread and butter, and it is no wonder they put up those sort of things with the convertible loan stocks. They never dreamed they would get them, they have them now, and the previous Minister and the Taoiseach of the day tried to convince the taxpayers that the deal was substantially increased, substantially more equitable than the one previously negotiated by me. I defy contradiction on those facts. They are there for everybody to read. I ask the Minister to look over them when he gets an opportunity. He is not guilty of these things. I must point the finger at his Taoiseach or his previous Minister. The facts cannot be denied. If that is a better deal then I am a Dutchman. I want to give Deputy Mac Giolla an opportunity to say his few words. I would like to say much more on this but I have given the basic facts. When the Estimate comes in I will have much more to say about this deal and other aspects of natural gas distribution.

Longford's first Dutchman.

Would the Minister give the gas to Limerick, Clonmel and Waterford that they were to get 18 months ago and not have them waiting for it?

Deputy Reynolds has a far better grasp and knowledge of this than I have, and that is why I am sorry that the debate is not going on longer or that we have not more opportunity. I do not really understand this deal, particularly after what Deputy Reynolds has said. It is very important for us to understand whether this is better or worse than what Deputy Reynolds originally negotiated. That has not been answered satisfactorily. Why was Deputy Cluskey so dissatisfied with the agreement and why does the Minister now seem to be so happy with it? I am not sure what the total State investment is now. I would like the Minister to let us know. There is reference to £10 million now guaranteed and to £17 million and rebates of £42 million and £28 million. We are up to about £100 million already and the State still has not control over the board, who, Deputy Reynolds said, for a tiny investment now can get 30 per cent of capital invested in their returns. The Minister says we will get 56 per cent of the profits.

The first question is, will there ever be profits in the Dublin Gas Company? Have they become suddenly so efficient that they will now be making profits to the extent that we will be able to gain 56 per cent from them? The 56 per cent profits will be at the cost of Bord Gáis Éireann. If they get the gas cheap enough they will be able to make profits, and that is what they will be looking for, so the State will be losing on one hand and gaining some profits on the other hand. I cannot see how the Minister can praise this agreement to the extent that he has praised it. I agree with him entirely on praising BGÉ for the magnificant job they did in building the pipeline and the highly efficient job they did there. However, I cannot see that the Department's investment in this has been done efficiently or that the best job has been done for the State and the State investment in this. I would like the Minister to explain what changes have been made since Deputy Cluskey resigned as Minister, that suddenly the deal has become something which The Labour Party can accept. Deputy Cluskey must be happy enough with what the Minister is doing because he is not opposing the Minister in that, either here tonight or in his continued negotiations with the Dublin Gas Company, which he has rejected totally.

Can the Minister explain how his deal is better than the one Deputy Reynolds pointed out? We have heard about this previously in this House but I have never heard a clear explanation that the ordinary person can understand as to how the Minister's deal now is an improvement on the one Deputy Reynolds made.

I would like to hear it too.

Deputy Reynolds has pointed out matters quite clearly, and I recall that six months ago he said exactly the same as he has said here tonight and it has not been replied to. Has the deal made by the Coalition Government been an improvement on that of the previous Government? It may well be, but I cannot follow it. I cannot see that the Minister has ever replied to the allegations made by Deputy Reynolds or to the great dramatic speeches made by Deputy Cluskey against this agreement. The Minister has never shown us how he has satisfied Deputy Cluskey to the extent that Deputy Cluskey is now not opposing him. Perhaps the Minister in the couple of minutes left will explain that.

I will try to clarify a number of matters as quickly as I can. I confirm to Deputy Reynolds that the order will be revoked by me in 1991.

I thank the Minister.

I want to clarify the point that we had to advance the conversion rebates, which basically are a kind of pre-payment, because of a number of factors. Firstly, we had a later date of start-up because of the fluctuations in Irish Governments over a period of time and because a more extensive survey of applicances and homes had to take place. In addition, there was the serious fall in the price of oil — about 4 dollars per barrel — from mid-July 1983.

The Minister must not try to cod us in relation to the price of oil.

I have tried to clarify to the House before the improvements the Government achieved in relation to this deal as opposed to the deal worked out by Deputy Reynolds. I suspect, though, that the Deputy is trying again to prevent me from putting these comparisons on the record.

I have not been able to find evidence of improvements.

If these interruptions continue the Chair will have no hesitation in moving to the next business.

The main improvements are as follows: the State's voting right improved from 25.01 per cent to 29.9 per cent.

Were they voting rights?

I said "voting rights". Perhaps we could have a little gentlemanly fairplay in the House. This is how the Deputy behaved also on the last occasion on which I tried to put these matters on the record.

We must have order.

There was a new excess profit arrangement providing the State with 50 per cent of all profits in excess of a 7 per cent return on capital employed by way of an increase in the Bord Gáis price of gas to the company which would not be passed to the consumer.

A 7 per cent real return?

Yes, it is an addition which Deputy Reynolds had not the foresight to think of.

(Interruptions.)

Either the Minister be allowed conclude without interruption or we move on to the next business.

Another improvement is the Minister's right to nominate up to one-third of the Dublin Gas Board and to nominate the chairman for the first two years. In addition there is the Minister's right to appoint a senior management official to oversee the conversion and development projects and to ensure from our point of view that the company's health generally is maintained up to a standard that the Government will approve of.

He will do a good job.

I assure the Deputy that this gentleman will do a good job, that he will ensure the project will be successful. I am surprised that Deputy Reynolds would seek to denigrate anything which might do a service to the private sector to which he is so much attached. If he has looked at the price of Dublin Gas shares in the past couple of months he will find that nobody seems to indicate there is a bonanza for the shareholders.

The Minister must conclude now.

I thank the House for facilitating me in putting through this motion so expeditiously this evening.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share