By agreement and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, speakers shall be called in Private Members' Time this evening as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.05 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 7.05 p.m. to 7.35 p.m. a Government speaker, 7.35 to 7.45 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 7.45 p.m. to 7.55 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 7.55 p.m. to 8.05 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 8.05 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. a Government speaker and 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Dublin Gas Company: Motion (Resumed).
Is that agreed?
No, it is not. I formally object once again to the fact that we have been excluded from the order of speaking here on the Private Members' business.
The following motion was moved by Deputy V. Brady on Tuesday, 8 April 1986:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to make immediate arrangements for Bord Gáis Éireann to take over the Dublin Gas Company in order to resolve the present crisis; to protect the substantial State investment and interests in the company and to ensure the future supply of natural gas to the Dublin area at reasonable prices.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
1. To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"Notes that the Government intends to bring to a conclusion as soon as possible its consideration of the problems facing the Dublin Gas Company with a view to finding a solution for these problems, including the alternative of a State take over of the Company if this is deemed to be the most appropriate means; and that the Government's objective is to protect the substantial State investment and interests in the Company and to ensure the future supply of natural gas to the Dublin area at reasonable prices.".
—(Minister for Energy).
Acting Chairman
Deputy Briscoe has five minutes.
The Government have slipped badly in relation to Dublin Gas. The losers because of the lack of action by the Government will be the consumers. Since the taxes were not paid, since An Bord Gáis were not paid and since the banks have stopped payment since last August, why has the Minister not acted before now? Is the Minister aware that a creditor could step in tommorrow and get a High Court injunction to take over the running of the Dublin Gas Company? Does the Minister realise that every consumer then would be cut off? Does the Minister intend to step in and follow the advice of Deputy Albert Reynolds that Bord Gáis Éireann take over in the interim pending the setting up of an official board of management? It is important that the Minister ease the worries of many people in relation to the Gas Company.
I will not dwell on the inefficiency of the Gas Company, which is very evident. Every Deputy knows about the complaints in relation to conversions where people have to wait for sometimes three or four months to get a cooker part replaced. Last week a colleague told me of a case where a person who had been converted to gas had had a problem. A red van pulled up to the door with personnel to fix the cooker, but that personnel could not connect the central heating, which would be done when a white van arrived. The white van did not arrive and the man had to spend the whole weekend without any gas supply. The Minister may smile, but this is a fact. There have been many complaints and people have been told that they will have to wait as long as eight weeks for full connection. The system is totally inefficient.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has a minute.
Are the Government embarrassed that friends of theirs are in top management in the Gas Company and is this why the Minister has delayed?
I have no friends there at all.
That is not my information. Is the Minister waiting for some creditor to step in and cut off the supply of gas to consumers? Why will the Minister not allow An Bord Gáis to take Dublin Gas over in the interim pending the setting up of an efficient management team to take over the running? Gas consumers are entitled to any reductions in the cost of their fuel. It is incumbent on this House to make certain that any fall in the price of fuel is passed on to all consumers.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy's time is up.
The Government will have to acknowledge that, while they are making considerable gains because of the lower prices of oil coming into the country, they may have to pay a little bit more in the long run to subsidise the people who have converted to natural gas. That is very important.
My only surprise that the financial position of the Dublin Gas Company is being debated in the Dáil relates to the time span from when the Government made available in various forms £126 million of taxpayers' money until the signs of financial difficulty, which appears to have been last August. Fianna Fáil have put down a motion calling for Bord Gáis Éireann to take over the Dublin Gas Company. It was ironic to hear that well-known far left Socialist, Deputy Albert Reynolds, trying to speak with conviction here last night. It was amusing, because I was in a position not too long ago to know precisely the deal that Fianna Fáil had made with Dublin Gas. This present deplorable deal, hard though it is to imagine, is in some respects better.
The story being put across by the Dublin Gas Company is that their difficulties arose because of the sharp decrease in the price of oil. I and any rational person would accept that that has added to their difficulty, but it is not the basic difficulty in Dublin Gas. If one looks back to when they first sought more money over and above the £126 million they already had made available to them by way of a reduction in the price of their gas supply from Bord Gáis Éireann, that was last August and the banks became concerned long before the drop in world oil prices. Their story is just not credible.
It is unbelievable that these difficulties could have arisen in such a short time span. The Government have a responsibility to look closely into that time span aspect of it.
When we consider the financing of Dublin Gas and the money that was made available we find that the financial institutions concerned ensured that they would not be at any loss. As Deputy Reynolds pointed out last night, the very strange financial arrangement entered into with the financial institutions benefited them considerably so that not only would they not suffer any loss but would make a considerable amount of money on the deal. In other words, the financial institutions could have a good bet but with the taxpayer's money.
I should like a straight answer to the question as to what financial risk the directors of Dublin Gas, either individually or collectively, are exposed to in this whole disgraceful business. However, we do not have to pose any question regarding the taxpayers whose money financed this disaster without their being consulted or without any accountability to them by Dublin Gas either through this House or otherwise as to how the company mismanaged the huge amount of money involved. To refer to a time before the Government made this made decision, we recall the very high profile public battle within Dublin Gas for places on the board, for control of the company. When Mr. Kinsella was storming Dublin Gas neither he nor the people associated with him were doing that for a company that could have been bought lock, stock and barrel for £1.5 million. This is the company to which the Government gave £126 million of taxpayers' money. In the Irish Independent of Monday last one read that the price of the shares of Dublin Gas was 45p. The capitalised sum was £1.5 million. We are told now that the company and the fat cats who got their hands on Dublin Gas have come back to the Government to ask for more taxpayers' money in the form of a reduction in the price of their gas supply. I have seen figures relating to a minimum reduction of 20 per cent. In money terms that probably represent more than the Gas Company are worth in their entirely.
People here are used to hearing high figures quoted and can relate to them to some extent, but it is very difficult for the ordinary man or woman who is earning a week's wages and trying to pay off a mortgage and to feed, cloth and educate children to relate to such figures. Neither could the many unfortunates who are trying to exist on social welfare payments be expected to relate to a grand figure of the order of £126 million. We might consider more closely what that figure might represent. For instance, it would represent the total budget for approximately six major hospitals without involving the closure of one bed. A sum of £126 million would have allowed the Government to have doubled the relief provided for in the budget in respect of the PAYE catagory leaving an excess of up to £5 million. Alternatively, £126 million would settle overnight the dispute with the teachers leaving change of £16 million or it would have allowed the Government to continue for another seven years that portion of the food subsidies that were removed this year.
We might relate the £126 million also to the corporation of the second largest city in the State who are faced with the prospect of abolition because of a sum of £1.25 million. Last week the Hope hostel, which catered for young boys sleeping rough in this city, had to close its doors, an event that a tiny proportion of that £126 million could have avoided. If we take that figure together with the £120 million that was pledged to AIB when they became unstuck with their commercial gambling in the insurance business, we realise that some very unpleasant and difficult decisions had to be faced and voted on by Deputies in this House. That could have been avoided if that £126 million had been available. Instead the money was put at the disposal of a few private individuals. The taxpayers or the Government neither own nor control the assets of Dublin Gas. Apart from the £126 million, an additional £15 million of taxpayers' money is being used unlawfully by the company for the Revenue Commissioners and for Bord Gáis. Irrespective of political persuasion or so called ideology, could any sane person here make a rational case in political, economic or social terms for the use in that way of that kind of money?
Hundreds of thousands of our people are suffering either by reason of what everyone acknowledges is an unjust tax system or by way of social welfare payments which by no stretch of the imagination are adequate, despite some people here foaming at the mouth in the past month or two about payments to unmarried mothers who are trying to rear their children on a few paltry pounds. Those same people are not foaming at the mouth this evening in regard to the £126 million. Dublin Gas should be taken over by the State for a number of reasons: to ensure that there is full control of the money that has already been put in by the State and other additional moneys, excluding that of the private individuals, to ensure there would be continuity of supply and to ensure that so far as possible employment in Dublin Gas would be safeguarded. The reality is that when the conversion programme, which has been so generously financed by the taxpayer, is over, there will be redundancies. There is an unanswerable case for the taking over of Dublin Gas.
When I resigned from the Cabinet on the issue of Dublin Gas I said that one of the beneficial effects of that was that the Tánaiste and leader of the Labour Party got the Energy portfolio. I said I felt reassured by this development with regard to our natural resources. Nothing has made me change my mind in that respect since. Two weeks ago the Minister spoke about the exploration for oil. He said publicly, courageously and properly, that there was a vicious campaign being carried out against the Government in relation to their policy on oil. He said that this was carried out by individuals and by a section of the media, 35 per cent of the media who were represented by the Independent group. I supported that statement. It reaffirmed my belief that the fact that he was put in charge of the Department of Energy was a very positive development, and not only for the Labour Party. I do not believe that our natural resources are the exclusive prerogative of the Labour Party. They belong to the people of Ireland irrespective of their political, religious or any other beliefs. The Minister is behaving as a proper trustee in safeguarding the natural resources of the Irish people against very powerful, greedy and ruthless groups in our society. That 35 per cent of the media, who had an effect on the people by giving, as the Minister said truths, half truths and distortions, relate to the written media. But some of the same group who were after the natural resources of the Irish people are also after the radio— they want our airways.
Before the last summer recess I spoke on the Local Radio Bill, 1985, on the basis of a Labour Party statement made at a full Parliamentary Labour Party meeting. That statement was issued unanimously. It was not, as some of the media suggested, that it was Cluskey taking a flyer, Cluskey on his own — Cluskey expressing the collective view of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The handing over of our airwaves to the same small group was also a unanimous view. If we look at all of this, whether it is oil, gas, other mineral wealth, airwaves or satellites, it is like going through the list of diplomatic cocktail parties. The same people are involved. Numerically there are very few of them, but boy do they have political clout and influence. They can call the tune with some political parties. It has been made clear to them by the Tánaiste that they will not call the tune with the Labour Party. We will not compromise, not only the rights of our children but those of our children's children to their own natural resources. Fianna Fáil have a motion down and if you were to send it to Our Boys you might get £5 or £10 for it.
It is hard to take seriously the deal which Fianna Fáil made with Dublin Gas. Political opportunism is all that really counts. That was not always so, but unfortunately it is now. Be that as it may, Fianna Fáil have committed themselves here to nationalisation. Last night the Tánaiste said this in his speech in relation to nationalisation: "My view and the view of the Labour Party on issues related to natural gas distribution has been made clear in the past." All the members of the Labour Party in this House want to nationalise Dublin Gas. Fianna Fáil want to nationalise Dublin Gas. I do not know — I have not heard them yet because they have not had an opportunity to get in—but I suspect that the two members of The Workers Party will also want to nationalise Dublin Gas. If the people who are still within the ranks of the Cabinet are anxious to give more taxpayers' money to these private individuals and if they won the day, it would be a distortion of democracy.
The Deputy has five minutes.
I would like to refer in that five minutes to the role of the present Minister for Finance who was the chief pilot of this disastrous arrangement with Dublin Gas. As everybody knows, I resigned. One would read in the newspapers that it had to be pushed around the corridors and lobbied to the ears of receptive journalists: "Cluskey was not happy in Government. He was frustrated for this reason or that reason." I was frustrated because Dublin Gas came to my attention in January 1983. I lived with that Dublin Gas file and arguments within the Cabinet until November. I resigned in December.
The present Minister for Finance, then Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, was, to say the least, vigorous and enthusiastic about this deal. It went above and beyond the normal, natural and, in my opinion, obligatory commitment of a Minister to a Departmental position. I was frustrated by being denied access to documentation by the Minister, Deputy Bruton, on the question of Dublin Gas to which I was entitled not only as a member of the Cabinet but as a Minister in charge of a Department who because of the prices mechanism had a legitimate right. I was frustrated by not being told of meetings which were being held and on which the Department, which I had the honour of being the political head, was not represented. I was frustrated by the selective circulation of memos in relation to Dublin Gas. So, certainly if someone said I was frustrated, I was. Those are the reasons I was frustrated because I put up with that for 12 long months. Members of the Cabinet, with the exception of the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, who was not there, know that what I am saying is a statement of fact.
I do not now see the high profile of the champion of Dublin Gas, a private company, who put £126 million of taxpayers money at its disposal which was undoubtedly there when he told us that this was a great deal for the Irish tax payer. I will relate it to something else. In the Tánaiste's speech of last night he stated, apart from the company owing the Revenue Commissioners and Bord Gáis there was "... non payment of State debt and deferment of other major creditors." That means people are owed money.
The Deputy has one minute left.
I will take that minute to relate the two. The same Minister, Deputy Bruton, who rammed this deal through, sat on the Company Law Bill which I left and which would have given some protection. It would have made the directors of this company to some degree answerable if this company goes into liquidation. If the Minister had been as enthusiastic about looking after the workers and creditors in the many companies that have gone to the wall by pursuing what was already, when I left office, the Company Law Bill, which has not seen the light of day yet, he would have been better employed. It is legitimate to say in the face of this that the same Minister, Deputy Bruton, should be examining his position and maybe should be giving consideration to doing what I would regard in these sad and tragic circumstances as the honourable thing.
I listened very intently to what Deputy Cluskey had to say and I must say that what he said made a lot of sense. I quite understand the frustration he must have gone through. What he said, of course, is a damning indictment of his colleagues in the party who are in the Cabinet. That is a serious matter and calls for further questioning of Deputy Cluskey on these issues. I have no doubt that Deputy Cluskey is very sincere. Forgetting the fact of whether or not there is opportunism in this, the fact is that Fianna Fáil have gone on record as demanding nationalisation. In those circumstances I am asking Deputy Cluskey why does he not support this motion tonight if what he says is true and if he is as sincere as he says? If he wants to see an end to these gangsters, as he calls them, and Dublin Gas brought under State control, he has no alternative but to support the Fianna Fáil motion tonight.
Fianna Fáil have come out in unequivocal language in stating that they want nationalisation of the company. It is the only option open to the State. We have seen a situation where a grossly irresponsible and inefficient management have been operating the company. I must say that the Tánaiste stands indicted in knowing about this body for so long which is supported so strongly by the State and which is actually withholding and using money belonging to its workers. That is the first illegal act. Any small company resorting to that have found themselves in liquidation overnight. Still, the Tánaiste by his complacent attitude towards this company is actually conniving with them in this very serious situation. The company are using their own employees' tax money.
A second point is that they owe £13 million to An Bord Gáis. As Deputy Reynolds said last night, there is a great danger. The Tánaiste has admitted the fact that there are other creditors. There is a great danger with this company that other creditors may move through the courts to have a liquidator appointed.
This company have behaved irresponsibly and inefficiently; no measures will correct it at present. Some years ago, in the same situation, the State gave Dublin Gas a massive loan to help them out of their difficulties. The company repaid the loan when they found they were in profit and wanted to continue as a private company. I do not think we should give them the opportunity again. The State investment is too heavy. It is up to the State to recoup its investments and to guarantee and consolidate its investment by taking the company over and soon. Let me say to the Tánaiste that there is a great opportunity for him now to show that the Labour Party have muscle in the Cabinet and that they cannot be walked on, which seems to happen at present.
The Deputy's concern is very striking. It touches my heart. The Deputy has not said something sincere for years.
I think the Minister is sincere at the moment but the Labour Party do not have the necessary muscle in Cabinet and Deputy Cluskey has spelled this out. It is up to the Minister to prove that they have muscle in the Cabinet and to come into this House and announce that this company will be nationalised in order to safeguard taxpayers' money. The Minister says he has the interests of the workers at heart and he has stated that he will nationalise this company. Prove it, and if Fine Gael do not accept what Labour want they will have no alternative but to withdraw from the Cabinet and to take a stand on this very important principle. In my view it is very important that they do this.
The company are using taxpayers' money, money they owe to An Bord Gáis and the Revenue Commissioners but not in the interests of the consumers. Their consumer policy has been deplorable. They left consumers without gas supplies for long periods and they offer a very poor customer service. They have a great opportunity to serve the public now.
The State has an obligation to the taxpayer, to the employees of Dublin Gas and to the gas consumers to bring the company under the umbrella of An Bord Gáis not only to end price squabbles but to provide a decent service under State supervision. The Minister's attitude to this has puzzled me because he has known about this for many months but he tried to run away from it. Deputy Cluskey said this problem plagued him for eight months. Last evening the Minister accused Fianna Fáil of opposing nationalisation and supporting it, as the occasion suited them. Now he supports nationalisation when it suits him but he opposes it when it does not suit Fine Gael.
The Gas Company are in a mess of their own making. The State investment is as high as £200 million but the banks have a 25 per cent equity in this company for as little as £5 million. This raises a number of questions and, unless we act now, the State may not be able to consolidate its investment. Time is of the essence. It is not enough for the Minister to say they are considering a number of options. The time is ripe for the State to take over this company and they should offer the workers in Dublin Gas workers' shares at nominal prices. This is an opportunity for the Labour Party who have preached worker participation and nationalisation, to give workers an opportunity to buy shares in their own company.
This debate was proceeding along a certain course with Fianna Fáil arguing that An Bord Gáis should be involved in the operation of the Dublin Gas Company but, as a result of Deputy Cluskey's contribution, we have reached a more serious stage. Deputy Cluskey made some very serious accusations about the performance of Government since the Coalition came into power, charges which in my view leave the Taoiseach with no alternative but to come into this House and answer. I mention in particular the serious charge that, when Deputy Cluskey was a member of that Cabinet as Minister for Trade and Tourism, responsible for price control, he was refused a sight of memoranda which were circulating within the Cabinet. He charged that there was controlled circulation of memoranda with the Cabinet and that only some Cabinet members were allowed to see specific memoranda dealing with an investment of £126 million of taxpayers' money. That is a major political charge which the Taoiseach has no alternative but to come in here and refute.
Deputy Cluskey made a further charge that from January 1983 until his resignation he was refused access to files which he requested. These files related directly to matters for which he had responsibility given to him under the Constitution. The Trade and Tourism portfolio dealt with price control, including the price control of Dublin Gas. I repeat that Deputy Cluskey made the accusation that he was refused access to files. If that is so—or if it is not so—the Taoiseach has no alternative but to come into this House and clear the record, because these are constitutional charges. They do not relate only to Dublin Gas; they relate to the performance of Government.
Deputy Cluskey made very serious charges about Deputy J. Bruton, the present Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance has a very special responsibility in relation to the running of the country. If the Taoiseach is to maintain credibility for his Government in the eyes of the country, he must come into this House and clarify the position as to Deputy Bruton's performance in the negotiation of that deal which involved £126 million of taxpayers' money. After the specific charges made by Deputy Cluskey the Taoiseach has no alternative but to come here and clarify the position. Very serious political and constitutional charges were made by Deputy Cluskey,
Deputy Cluskey has tonight pulled back the curtain on what we all knew was going on in Cabinet but which had been hushed up by the handlers who kept the information from the public and portrayed the image of a united team. Deputy Cluskey's speech will go down in the record of this Parliament as the first pulling back of the veil on the performance of this Government. I repeat the Deputy Cluskey made the specific charges that he was refused sight of memoranda which were circulating among certain Ministers, despite the fact that he had constitutional responsibility for the Department of Trade and Tourism, for the pricing of Dublin Gas and for overseeing the operations of that company. He was refused access to files, to which he requested access, in relation to the Dublin Gas Company. He made very serious charges about the Government's whole performance at that time and specifically the now Minister for Finance who was then Minister for Industry and Energy, Deputy John Bruton, in relation to his handling of £126 million of Government funds. Deputy Cluskey put it as follows. He talked about the small group —who were the same group of oil share-holders—who were involved. He described it as the embassy cocktail party list, and he commented that the same people had connections with some political parties but not the Labour Party. Let me say to Deputy Cluskey in this House that all he has to do is judge the coverage that Fianna Fáil get in some 35 per cent of the media and he will see that they have no connection with the Fianna Fáil Party. The bedfellows whom Deputy Cluskey is talking about are in the Fine Gael Party, not in Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Cluskey said he was very reassured by the performance of the Minister since he took up responsibility for the Department of Energy. To be fair to Deputy Cluskey, he said that natural resources were not the exclusive prerogative of the Labour Party. I agree with him, as can be seen by the resolution that we have before this House tonight. Deputy Cluskey and others might talk about political opportunism. We say it is responding to a dire political need. Deputy Cluskey might have confidence in the Minister, Deputy Spring, in relation to his performance in the Department of Energy but I have not much confidence in him. How could one?
Look at the Dublin Gas Company situation alone. In August 1985, the banks first stopped funding the operations of the Dublin Gas Company. There has been no bank funding for them since 8 August 1985. We are now in mid-April 1986 and it is only as a result of Fianna Fáil putting down this resolution that the issue is being discussed at this stage tonight and this milk and watery amendment is put down by the Government. Dublin Gas Company have been left high and dry since August 1985 by the banks and by the Minister for Energy in whose performance some Members of this House have confidence. We are told that BGE have not been paid for their gas for many months.
In addition to all of that, a large debt is due to the Revenue Commissioners, somewhere in the region of £2 million, but what have this Government and this Minister for Energy done about it since August 1985? From August, to September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April is eight months and no action was taken until Fianna Fáil put down this resolution, and now we are accused of political opportunism. Thanks be to God somebody is acting as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers. The banks were still making profits on their interest charges and on their holdings, but what was happening to the taxpayers' money? The taxpayer is the loser in this. Only the taxpayer is losing, nobody else. Government credibility was lost tonight, of course, as a result of the speech which unveiled that can of worms on the far side of the House.
This Minister for Energy tells us that after September meetings took place between the Dublin Gas Company and BGE in relation to the set of circumstances that arose from the changes in the price of oil and the general financial situation that the Dublin Gas Company found themselves in. The projections formed a basis for monitoring a project and were reviewed and updated on a quarterly basis thereafter. The whole thing has been one comedy of errors. We have BGE not being paid by the Dublin Gas Company, the Dublin Gas Company getting no money from the banks, but they are using some of their cash flow to continue their conversion project which has now 72 out of 85 sectors completed. In the meantime they are going further into debt and the Minister for Energy sits there washing his hands of the whole situation and ignoring it totally until we put down this resolution.
The Dublin Gas Company have over 1,000 people full-time employed. Up to 400 are involved in the conversion project. If for no other reason than just the jobs of those workers, surely you would assume that the Minister for Energy who has the responsibility would involve him-self—or the Minister for Labour would involve himself—in the operation to protect the jobs and the investment. No, he sat back. The Dublin Gas Company and BGE got together, as was within the terms of their contract, to try to renegotiate the price being paid by the Dublin Gas Company in view of the fall in oil prices. They could not come to an agreement and at that stage, in February they referred it to the Minister. The Minister has had it on his desk since February and is only now bringing it to Cabinet and hopes to come to a decision within the next week.
What would have happened if Fianna Fáil had not put down their resolution? It is not that we particularly admire BGE as an efficient and effective organisation, but we see them as the only vehicle to involve themselves in the operations of the Dublin Gas Company. Nothing would have happened and the situation would have dragged on with no solution, and the taxpayer would continue to lose with nobody protecting his interests.
Deputy Cluskey told us in this House tonight, very accurately I assume, that a majority of the Members of this House support the idea of nationalisation. We were told that the Labour Party support it. They are in Government. There are four of them at the Cabinet table, one with responsibility to handle the issue, a responsibility given to him by the Taoiseach and, under the Constitution, by the President. They are the ones involved in the Cabinet, and the Labour Parliamentary Party support the resolution that we have put down. Deputy Cluskey presumed to speak for The Workers' Party and I will presume to do the same thing. They would support it. Fianna Fáil put the resolution down. A majority in this House are in favour of national intervention whether by BGE or some other vehicle. BGE are the only vehicle available, so we suggest that they should be used for this purpose.
Having listened to flowery speeches tonight on this subject let us test the mettle of the Labour Party on this issue and see whether they vote with us. It is easy to make speeches about it, to churn out the cliches in favour of natural resources that we have heard time and time again from the Labour Party over the years. This amendment put down in the name of the Minister for Energy by the Government was described by my colleague, Deputy Reynolds, as another bit of Coalition sellotape. Let us see if the sellotape is strong enough tonight in view of the views articulated here by members of the Labour Party with regard to nationalisation. Let us see if the sellotape is strong enough tonight or whether their convictions are strong enough and whether they will vote with Fianna Fáil on this issue. Let there be no doubt about it: they might accuse us of opportunism but what we have down is right. They in their hearts support it and let it be supported here because only in that way can they take the right and proper course of action and carry it against Fine Gael. That is basically what it is about. It is about the rest of this House having a particular point of view. One person in Fine Gael was fingered tonight by Deputy Cluskey and unfortunately that man is the Minister for Finance, Deputy Bruton. When the announcement was made with regard to this package Deputy Bruton gave interviews and said that if things went astray the banks will be the losers. The truth of the matter is that it is not the banks who have lost — they are still getting their interest — but, as always in dealing with this Government, the taxpayer. So we have an opportunity to vote tonight on loudly declared, deeply held views with regard to the abuse of £126 million of taxpayers' funds.
There is a lot of merit in the course of action we have proposed. One aspect of it that I am very much in favour of is that the whole area of Dublin would be under the control of An Bord Gáis rather than having the narrow view that Dublin Gas takes with regard to the city and then a certain extension out to the outskirts. If An Bord Gáis were involved the advantages of natural gas would be made available to my constituents at a very early stage. There would be an extension of the gas pipeline to the towns of Swords, Malahide, the areas around Portmarnock and the northern areas of the constituency. Logic dictates that if one has a resource such as natural gas it should be made available to our horticultural industry, users of a considerable volume of energy, so that they can compete against the Dutch and the other continentals who are themselves recipients of natural gas. If An Bord Gáis were involved they would be more inclined to extend the gas grid and in that way build up the clients of the company to the eight times growth factor that was considered when this deal was originally announced. We are probably at two or three times the growth factor rather than the eight which was required to make this £126 million a financial success.
I want to see this Private Members' Motion of ours passed for very much the same reasons that Deputy Cluskey enumerated: to ensure the control of the money that has been invested and will be further invested by the taxpayer; to ensure the continuity of supply to those that have the supply and to ensure continuity to an extended area within the Dublin region; to ensure that the employment of those within the Gas Company will be maintained. We have heard carping criticism of some of the operations of the Gas Company. No public utility is perfect but on the whole the Gas Company do a very good job and the workers in that company are entitled to some security with regard to the maintenance of their employment.
In conclusion, in view of the very serious charges which Deputy Cluskey made against the Taoiseach, the Taoiseach has no alternative but to take the first opportunity available to him to come and answer the accusations and charges made against him, against the performance of the Government in relation to the refusal to provide sight of the files, in relation to the refusal to circulate memoranda to particular Ministers of Government, and against the general performance of the then Minister for Energy and Industry, Deputy Bruton, who is now Minister for Finance. In view of his position as Minister for Finance, I feel that the Taoiseach has no alternative, morally, constitutionally and politically but to come into this House and answer the specific charges made about the Government's performance and to answer the charges made tonight when the lid of the can of worms was lifted and there were no national handlers around to protect it and try to beautify it. It is not a very pretty sight that was painted for us by Deputy Cluskey here tonight.
I welcome the opportunity to say a few public words about this. Fianna Fáil are presented with a lot of ammunition which Deputy Burke has endeavoured to use. He spoke about the Government portraying themselves as very united and said that that image has now been broken. But there is quite a lot of political play around that and it is not very difficult to look back and see how Fianna Fáil portrayed themselves as a very united party until this image was broken. He did confirm that big business has finally abandoned Fianna Fáil and that is the reason they have now to go to the United States to raise money to fund this depleted Republican party. I think that can of worms has been opened.
I think that explanations and redress are required and corrections must be made. This happened in the early stage of Government and, maybe, in the first flush of power of Government. Certain people would agree with Deputy Cluskey's implied criticisms that there are certain people who think that private enterprise is the answer to all things and that whenever one has a project or a business or an industry one hands it over to them and they will have all the answers. But we must remember that at the time there was a grab-all approach to Dublin Gas, especially from the point of view of some small vested interests who thought they were going to get their hands on a virtual gold mine and who thought they were going to print themselves money from then until the end of the century. I remember myself, 25 to 30 years ago, going out of this country on the emigrant boat and noticing a few large companies that were around and the power that was vested in the directorships held by the members of the boards of those companies in Dublin. I suppose it was akin to what is often referred to as the merchant princes of Cork but it is much smaller than Dublin. When I came back years later I found all the same people controlling the same amount of power and now, a quarter of a century on, you will still find them, bowed, maybe greyed, balding, but nevertheless still hanging on there in the boardrooms of the big conglomerates of Dublin. It is no accident that when oil is struck or other resources come within reach of the economic saviours of the country, the same people and their friends turn up in those places as well.
It is also no accident that since the foundation of the State there is a cyclical operation whereby the same professional classes and vested interests for whom the State seems to have been founded keep turning up. If you go to their funerals or read about them you will notice that the same people turn up there too, those who turned up at AGMs and EGMs. The small man sends in his proxy vote because he feels very much out of place in those surroundings.
Mistakes were made and at the time private submissions were made to nationalise Dublin Gas. At the time I thought what they were trying to do was impossible, to pull a 19th century company into the 20th century without the technology to ease the transition. Their resources, materials and assets were rotting under the streets of Dublin and had to be replaced. A few people thought that they could get their hands on a gold mine if they could become involved with and take control of the company. I believe that they probably had innocent but willing co-operation from members of the Government and Departments. At the time the advice of consultants was sought and although I have never seen it published, I understand that a report was furnished to the Cabinet. These consultants were from the private sector, the same type of consultants who advise on massive take-overs and investments. I think that the advice given then was not to privatise the company but to nationalise it. Unfortunately, that mistake has cost us in the region of £126 million. That is all very well if you have a pot to dip into and if a Government operate as though that pot was theirs to use as they will but, if things are to run properly, that is not the case and you are simply robbing the taxpayer.
Maybe we can make amends here by rationalising the company, making it work properly and preparing it for the 21st century. We were dragged into the AIB debacle but if we let the present situation continue debts will accumulate and the State will have no option but to rescue the company. Contrast that with the case of a company with small resources who try to operate a business out of a cash flow. All the interests operating against those small businesses, including banks, will very quickly pull the rug from underneath them.
I do not see why the sympathy of this House or the people with one-third of the population on social welfare, should be on the side of those who have had every chance to make a go of it. They invested. They knew what they were doing, They carried out research and decided to go forward. They made a mess of it and we should not take them out of that particular hole. The basic aim of the project was to capture the premium market then and the Government adopted a policy of depleting the Kinsale gas field over a short period of time. The whole industrial and domestic market was there for the company to take advantage of. The market targets were not reached and I realise, as everybody else does, that commercial decisions are made on the basis of the situation prevailing at the time. It must have been clear to the company at all times that the targets had to be achieved to service the debt obligations negotiated and entered into by Dublin Gas. Equally, it must have been clear that the premium part of the mix with its higher contribution of profits, had to be achieved. In that, the company singularly failed and I do not think there will be much sympathy from the people of Dublin if the company goes under and has to be taken over. We should remember that there are instances where the State has got involved very successfully and has run companies profitably. On an operation of this size, the Government should step in to get the company back to where it was a couple of years ago, even though we have lost a considerable amount of money in the meantime. I hope that the Minister for Energy, when considering all the options before he makes a decision, will follow that course.
I support this important motion put down by Deputy Vincent Brady which has become even more important because of the serious charges regarding the operation of the Coalition Government which were made by Deputy Cluskey earlier tonight. We all know that Deputy Cluskey took a principled and honourable stand in regard to this matter and the fact that he has now disclosed that he was refused documents about the pricing policy relating to Dublin Gas is very important and one which the Taoiseach is, in duty, bound to answer. The people of Dublin and the rest of the country will want to know why a full Cabinet Minister who shares constitutional responsibility with the other members of the Cabinet was not given an opportunity to participate fully in the work of the Cabinet.
Another important element arises here — why did the Minister for Energy stay in Coalition in these circumstances like a pet mouse? When Deputy Cluskey was treated in this disgraceful way why did the Minister continue in the Coalition Government? This is one of the major questions which arises from the disclosures here tonight. It is all very well to say that the Minister for Energy is favourably disposed towards Labour Party policy generally and that he will do his best but there are points of principle which should be observed. Deputy Cluskey stood very clearly on a point of principle and it is quite clear that while he supported the Minister and held his peace until now in relation to this, he has made it very clear tonight what actually happened. We have got a different view of the Coalition Government and one which the Minister for Energy and other Labour Party Ministers must answer because it is not sufficient for them to remain silent on such a major issue, a central element in national policy.
Gas users in Dublin want a stable and competitive price regime with security of supply. They need protection from the wide fluctuations of the international energy market. The present pricing arrangements, which were known to management to be unsuitable a year ago because of falling oil prices and other factors, have failed. That is obvious and that is the element Deputy Cluskey foresaw in 1983. The present arrangements have also punished the Dublin householder as well as the industrial producer who uses gas. This is not something that has had an indirect effect on people. It has had major consequences for some producers in the last year.
The price of natural gas did not fall in line with the general decline in energy costs. Householders who have invested heavily in gas-fired central heating found that Dublin Gas were unable to protect them from this rip-off. Disillusioned consumers have been cutting back on consumption and are considering a switch back to oil or solid fuels, both of which are imported. Others who were planning a change to natural gas are holding off because of the uncertainty which was allowed to develop over the past year. The Dublin housewife is nobody's fool and she is able to judge the uncertainties and decide on where she should spend her money.
Initially, natural gas was hailed as a major development in the fight to reduce air pollution and thereby improve the health of Dublin's citizens. This policy is clearly now in jeopardy as the Dublin Gas Company are unable to control their own destiny and are now losing out to the cheaper alternatives of oil and coal which heavily pollute the atmosphere.
The Government are obviously happy to allow this scandalous position to continue even though the Labour Party are collectively involved in Government at present. Therefore, they are collectively responsible for Government decisions. Have the Labour Party in Government forgotten their roots? They should not forget that it was the workers of the Dublin Gas Company who stood by Dublin's emerging labour movement, sometimes at great personal cost to themselves, as in the great lock-out of 1913. They constituted the backbone of the worker's campaign for better conditions and a decent living wage.
The interests of these workers, and workers at large, as well as those of each and every householder in Dublin were not considered by the Labour Party of 1986 although massive profits were accruing to the Government of which the Labour Party are a part. By retaining the Dublin Gas Company, and by not nationalising the company, they would continue to bleed the Dublin consumer and allow the private company to carry the odium. Margaret Thatcher would be proud to have such Labour Ministers in her Government. I can hear her saying: "Why cannot I have some docile Labour people who would comply with my medicine?"
While Dublin Gas were kept at arm's length, An Bord Gáis raked in the profits for the Government. A look at the annual report shows that their profit before taxation rose from £17 million in 1981 to £80 million in 1984. Even more interesting is the way in which these profits were applied as directed by the Minister for Energy to the Exchequer: £71 million in 1984 and £63 million in 1983. Included in that £71 million in 1984 is £17 million which went to the Gas Company to be repaid in 1991. However, it is still coming back to the Exchequer. It was the Minister, according to a statement by Bord Gáis, who directed that method of disposal of the profits. Therefore, the Government continued to enjoy the rip-off while the Dublin consumer suffered.
Deputy Cluskey was involved from January to December 1983 but he became so frustrated with what was happening that he could not take any more. He was also frustrated because he was being kept in the dark but he got enough information to realise that money was being taken away from this area with the result that consumers would lose out.
The State, via Bord Gáis, brought natural gas to Dublin. This involved a large capital outlay by the State. To justify this there must be increased utilisation in Dublin of the order of seven or eight fold. A mere four fold incease has only been achieved. How would a greater increase be achieved in present circumstances? It could not happen up to now because of the uncertainty that has existed for almost a year in regard to Dublin Gas. While that uncertainty exists consumers are not going to invest in changing to natural gas. They will hesitate and wonder if they would be better off changing to oil. How can the board of Dublin Gas claim that they are on target if things continue as they are? How can they justify their competitiveness when they need a big enough price reduction to compensate for the loss of competitiveness with oil?
The reality is that a 20 per cent reduction in gas charges is needed and needed now. The fact is that not only is gas a vital natural resource but the Gas Company are in a commercial strait jacket. This resource cannot fluctuate widely under external market factors. It is a fundamental resource for the Irish people and responsibility for maintaining supplies and controlling prices in the best interests of the consumer must lie with the Government and not with the banks. The dog should be wagging the tail and not the tail wagging the dog, as in this case.
Our other energy board, the ESB provide a national grid as well as maintaining a sales and maintenance service. Dublin Gas provide only a national grid without a similar commitment to the consumer. Now, we have the banks backing off. This has led to uncertainty among the public. The public should be reassured that there is a definite policy for gas where their interests are concerned. It is vital that their interests are protected and that we should consider the interests of consumers in Limerick, Cork and other centres. We must have a strategic policy for energy, a policy which must be in the interests of the Irish citizens, one which will protect the interests both of the private consumer and of industry and one which will insulate the consumer, as far as possible, from the fluctuations of the open world markets. We know that prices go up and down in relation to the prices on the world market but the consumer must receive the protection which is possible. The arrangements that exist are designed, as the Minister said for occasions when the price will rise. Whoever thought that the price of oil would keep on rising? In my view it was obvious that it would not continue to do that. The consumer needs to be protected from the fluctuations that are taking place at present.
If Dublin Gas fail to reach their targets then the State will have to pick up the pieces. It is preferable for the State to do this now and for Bord Gáis to take over the Dublin Gas Company, as suggested in our motion, to resolve the present crisis, to protect the substantial State investment and interests in the company and to ensure that the future supply of natural gas to Dublin will be available at reasonable prices.
This is one of the most important issues that has come before the House in a long time and it has been made more important by the disclosures tonight by Deputy Cluskey. He has given us an insight into the working of the Coalition in regard to one of our basic resources, one which is of extreme importance to householders. As Deputy Cluskey and Deputy Burke have said, householders in Dublin city and county, and industrialists including those involved in horticulture, need to be able to avail of natural gas. In Government we ensured that natural gas would be available throughout the country and, in fairness to the Minister, he has gone further than the policy we initiated.
We have down a motion affording the Labour Party an opportunity to ensure that this will happen. We know, from what has been said by Deputy Cluskey, that the Labour Party are in a very invidious, uncertain and unhappy position within this Government. We know that are being manipulated by the handlers and by the business interests who feed off this Government. We know that to be the reality; it has been clearly stated in the House this evening. We are affording the Labour Party an opportunity to be shielded and protected, to cross the House this evening as they did on other occasions when they were prepared to support social legislation we were promoting. We call on them here this evening to come across and support us on this motion, to put into operation the kind of legislation which they claim they want to support. It is not sufficient for the Minister for Energy to say: "Lord, make me pure but not today." We want the Minister to be pure today, to be a pure Labour man and support this motion.
Question put: "That the amendment be made."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies Barrett(Dublin North-West) and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.