Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Jun 2001

Vol. 538 No. 5

Irish National Petroleum Corporation Limited Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Stanton

When we concluded last night I was outlining the deal that has been agreed. In her contribution the Minister referred to the sale and purchase agreement. This is also referred to in the Bill in a number of places. In putting the Bill though the House tonight we are asked to agree to the terms of the sale and purchase agreement without having seen it. In a way we are agreeing to something we have no seen. My colleague, Deputy Michael Ahern, asked the other day about the land. That is a matter that had not been divulged up to then. Were it not for the fact that he asked it is unlikely we would have been told about it. There are issues such as the sale and purchase agreement on which it would have been useful to have been briefed given that it is an integral part of the deal.

On balance it appears Tosco is getting a good deal and everyone regards it is a good deal for the State. We are told that by offloading this asset we are guaranteeing the future of the economy, the consumer and the employees at least for 15 years but, hopefully, for much longer. That would be the wish of the House. Perhaps the Minister would refer to this matter in her reply.

Has the European Union been consulted and, if so, are there are any problems in regard to anti-competitive laws, State aids, etc., that may affect us later?

Looking at the deal and how the sale process went through, we have ended up with a deal between Tosco Corporation and the State and INPC. I appreciate that much work has been devoted to this by officials in the Department and by others. If today the Minister were to reopen the deal and invited anybody who wished to make a bid to do so, what would be the result? Would other companies be interested and would the State have got a better deal?

Under the terms of the proposed transaction the State will receive $100 million from Tosco and the INPC will retain a certain debt. What is the net gain to the State after the deal has gone through and how is it arrived at? We are told it will be a small gain but it is hard to quantify it. I appreciate that the stock on hand is to be resold. Given that it was bought in the first instance by INPC, how does it balance out? Would it not be easier if the money coming to the State from Tosco had been debited by the debt and we knew the net proceeds? It would have been more transparent if that was the case. How are employment and other matters being copperfastened? If, for example, in three, four, five or ten years' time Tosco decides to close the refinery and walk away, what comeback, if any, has the State given that, according to the Minister, this is a strategically important facility for the State? Are the sale documents enough to give the State the assurances required? Have bonds or other guarantees been entered into?

I mentioned last night that Tosco is being taken over by a larger entity, Phillips Petroleum Corporation. What negotiations have taken place with Phillips Petroleum Corporation and how does it view the deal? I realise we are a small fish in a large pond but small fish have a habit of getting eaten up in large ponds. I am also concerned about the effect on the smaller Irish customers of INPC. Can the Minister give assurances to these Irish indigenous companies that they will not be threatened? Can she give assurances that their future may even be safeguarded or enhanced by the arrival of Tosco on the scene?

It would be useful if the Minister were to give details of the employee share ownership plan. This issue is being voted on shortly by the workforce. Had this debate been delayed until after the workers had decided and it was known how they were thinking then hopefully everyone here would be on side? Is every staff member in INPC being treated equally in regard to ESOP? I know the answer but I would like if the Minister could put it on the record. Are any special benefits accruing to any staff members of INPC as a result of this transaction that have not been put on the record to date?

While we are told that overall this is a good deal I have expressed a few concerns. Another concern, on which we are tabling an amendment, is what happens in the event that this company, or a future company, decides to close the refinery and walk away? Can it sell it to anyone it wishes for any reason and, if so, would emergency legislation be necessary? Should it revert to a greenfield site? There are parallels with ISPAT. I hope the problems at that company will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. IFI in Cork Harbour is concerned in the event of closure that there would be a provision that it would revert to a greenfield site. It that were to happen it would be a massive cost on the Exchequer. Has the Mini ster looked far into the future? Is it possible to provide for that in legislation? I have tabled amendments on this matter for discussion later. I am not sure whether it can be done but I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

This refinery is an essential facility in the State. There are thousands of Irish consumers who rely on fuel from the INPC on a daily basis. Last winter and the previous winter fuel levels were low in some parts of the country. At one stage the National Oil Reserves Agency supply had to be tapped into. Will the Minister refer to the informal arrangement that exists whereby the refinery can help in the case of disruption from local or international events? What arrangements has she made with the new owners to ensure that continues?

Mr. O'Malley

I am happy to welcome this Bill because I fully support what the Minister is doing. Both she and the board of INPC have done a good job between them in bringing about this arrangement. I support the sale by the State of various Irish public companies. I would love to see the Minister being as successful in the disposal of Aer Lingus, CIE and other activities that are an encumbrance to the State and the taxpayer. I wish her luck in that and I hope she will bring the same magic to bear on those august bodies as on the INPC.

I have a particular interest in this because I started the INPC. It is the only State company I formed and I only formed it because I had to. I did not altogether agree with it, but I was faced with the situation in Baghdad in the summer of 1978 whereby, if I was to acquire oil for Ireland that was extremely badly needed at the time, I could only do so by forming a State oil company. Later that year on 23 December, I went to Oslo to try to acquire what was described as a golden block in the North Sea. Again it was the same story. The Norwegians were more than willing to sell it or allot it to the Irish but not to any private company. In the summer of 1978 I had given directions that a State company be established. When I came back from Oslo on Christmas Eve I found that had not been done.

For the first and only time in my career as a Minister, I found that there was resistance to the policy that I had decided on by certain civil servants. I had to have a discussion with the most senior of them and I suggested to him that if he did not agree with my policy, he had an option open to him at the following general election. The following morning he resigned from the Civil Service. Because of the delay, I then had to form this company, not as a State board, but as a limited company under the Companies Acts. It was originally set up only as a trading company and it traded very successfully at a time of great difficulty in 1979. At the time, we were not thinking of the terms of trade at all; we were thinking of simply being able to buy oil at virtually any price.

We were very successful in Iraq. I was greatly facilitated by a number of ministers at that time who expressed great good will to Ireland. They accepted my undertaking that I would establish a State oil company in Ireland and that I would not sell any of the oil provided by Iraq to any of, what were then known as, the seven sisters. I honoured that undertaking later, even though a very lucrative offer was made to me by one of the seven sisters to dispose of a substantial amount of oil I had bought in Baghdad at what would have been a very considerable profit to the Irish Exchequer at the time.

I did not envisage this company being anything other than a trading company, but in 1982 the people who then owned the Whitegate refinery decided to give it up, partly as a result of the bad relations that existed between the Irish State and certain major oil companies, to which I may well have contributed myself. The then Government decided it had no option but to take it over. I never regarded it as a great bargain. There were huge difficulties and the Minister has explained some of them very well in her speech, particularly the mandatory regime which was a very artificial sort of subsidy. However, it was not the Exchequer that was paying the subsidy but the Irish consumer who paid over many years.

There was the appalling tragedy involving the Betelgeuse after which, when Chevron gave away Whiddy, it was logical that that asset should be acquired by the INPC even though it was not a valuable asset at that stage. I think it was acquired for nothing and, of course, the State got a significant amount of money because Chevron did not honour its obligations relating to Whiddy.

The net result is that today the INPC at Whitegate has been staggering on from year to year with a rather uncertain future and this arrangement, which has been made, is an excellent one and I support it. The Minister said in her speech that there was a written undertaking that these arrangements were guaranteed for 15 years. I suggest that that is unenforceable. I do not see how it can be enforced. I am sure the undertaking is offered in all good faith, but even since these negotiations began, the ownership of the purchasing company has changed. It seems it is now owned by a very much bigger company. I do not know if the Minister or any of her successors could enforce this undertaking if it were subsequently breached either by the present purchaser or by somebody that has taken it over.

One of the happier aspects of this is that, where the INPC in its first incarnation, was founded by an O'Malley now, in its second incarnation, it is being taken over by an O'Malley.

Mrs. O'Rourke

And he is a lovely man too.

Mr. O'Malley

I am glad that one of them was lovely. I am glad there was one nice O'Malley there.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I said he is lovely too, just like the Deputy himself.

Mr. O'Malley

I wish him every success. I think the State is getting a remarkably good bargain. When I read the Minister's speech, I see that the bargain is not quite as good as I thought it was when I read it in the papers. There are very many liabilities as well and there are all sorts of small print that have not been divulged to the House. That is a pity. On the face of it the Minister did a good job, but she should have laid the agreement on the table of the House and let us read it. There may be all kinds of small print that make this less attractive from the Irish point of view than we believe. On the face of it, it seems excellent because the State is not alone getting rid of a wasting asset, which only survived because of an artificial subsidy, but it is actually getting paid, unlike another place in Cork Harbour where it received £1 and paid out many millions and we are now facing the possible closure of it.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We paid £1 and got a five year guarantee.

Mr. O'Malley

The board and the present chief executive of the INPC are to be congratulated on the work they have done to bring this about. I am glad it appears to have fairly universal support in this House. I am sure it also has pretty universal support in the country as a whole. I hope we will see an expansion of activities in both Whitegate and Whiddy. I think it was excellent that some years ago Whiddy was partly reopened on a single buoy mooring basis. However, it is much less satisfactory than the original arrangement there because it cannot deal with vessels that it used to. Its importance is in terms of strategic storage. Whitegate's importance was often exaggerated because, in my view, it is no longer vital to have refining capacity on this island.

Milfordhaven is much closer to the main oil markets in Dublin and on the east coast than Whitegate and is a much more convenient place from which to buy refined oil products. Nonetheless, Whitegate lasted way beyond its time and performed a valuable function in many respects. I am glad this Bill, which sees the end of its initial chapter as a publicly owned facility, will hopefully lead to an even more successful chapter as a privately owned facility in the future.

Mr. O'Flynn

I am sharing time with Deputy Daly. My only connection with the Whitegate refinery was that my late father and father-in-law helped to construct the refinery in the early 1960s. Many of my constituents in Cork North Central have worked there and many are retired on pension. While I welcome the Bill, I am concerned about a number of issues in relation to the sale of Irish National Petroleum Corporation's business and commercial assets to Tosco in the US. I welcome the employee share options scheme for the workforce. I am concerned about the pensioners, many of whom have approached me on the matter. The workers will do well from this sale and I thank the Minister for ensuring that they were well looked after. The pensioners, as far as I know, will not receive anything out of the company and its assets, other than the pensions to which they are already entitled. I ask the Minister to consider if anything can be done in that regard for the pensioners.

The Seveso directive has been mentioned earlier. The facilities in Whitegate and Whiddy could come under that directive. That is a matter of concern. Has the Minister investigated whether the Whitegate refinery would, in fact, come under the Seveso directive? If it does, would that mean that all the land around the refinery would be sterilised? I know that my constituency colleague, Deputy Kelleher, raised the issue yesterday and I understand that the Minister will look into the implications. Other industries in the lower harbour are already under threat from the Seveso directive and are currently being looked at, including NET, which is also coming up for sale shortly. I welcome the undertaking by the US company to operate the refinery and oil terminal for at least 15 years on a fully commercial basis, without support from DNR, and a further undertaking to maintain existing jobs and conditions of employment. Could the Minister clarify whether that is a legal requirement and if there will be penalties if the existing jobs are not maintained?

Deputy O'Malley has referred to the current difficulties in Irish ISPAT and obviously one should not say very much in advance of the Tánaiste's meeting with the owners of the company in London tomorrow. I welcome all the initiatives which have been taken and the responsibility shown by all concerned, including public representatives, the unions and staff and the suppliers and creditors of the company. I hope it will be possible to save Irish ISPAT and that the workers will not lose their jobs.

With regard to the INPC transaction, I welcome the provision for security of supply. I understand the proposed transaction means that Ireland will retain the strategic benefits of having an indigenous oil refining and terminal capacity at least cost to taxpayers and consumers. The State will no longer be directly involved in the commercial side of the oil industry and will be in a position to refocus attention on strategic oil security concerns. I understand that, in an oil emergency, the Minister will have extensive powers which will continue to extend to the refinery and terminal regardless of ownership. That is very important. The National Oil Reserves Agency – NORA – maintains strategic 90-day stocks of oil, in compliance with international obligations. Although currently a subsidiary of INPC, NORA is not included in the transaction and will continue to operate in the State sector. Could the Minister clarify if the 90-day stocks will be maintained and stocked by Tosco on behalf of the State or will some stocks be maintained overseas? The crisis of the 1970s should not be forgotten.

Mr. Daly

I chaired a meeting of the Committee on Public Enterprise last week at which officials of the company and the Secretary General of the Department and his staff gave a very detailed analysis of what is proposed. They answered very fully and frankly the questions which arose at that meeting and I thank them for being so forthright. I compliment the Minister on what seems to be a very successful transaction which should offer an opportunity for development. I understand there was some discussion about a development plan for the future, in terms of strategic development of the site itself. I do not know if that is written into the agreement.

The Minister will be aware of concerns, especially on the part of the small oil companies such as TOP, Tedcastles, Estuary Fuel and Campus, many of whom supply the Munster and Connacht market fairly substantially. They fear that, in this arrangement, they may well suffer a competitive disadvantage as a result of the actions of this company when it takes full control. They would like to see the commitments which, apparently, have been given by the company in the negotiations with the Department, written into the legislation.

I also wish to refer to the effect of this deal on the consumer. It has been suggested that the obligation on the oil companies to purchase part of their supply from INPC represented a cost of about 10p per gallon on the price of petrol. Can the consumer now expect a corresponding price reduction, or what effect will the changeover have on the consumer price? It seems reasonable to expect that the consumer should do better in the new arrangement and should see substantial reductions. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this. It is most important that the consumer be taken into account, having carried the cost of the former situation. In the new arrangement, some benefits should accrue to the consumer by way of price reductions on petrol, diesel, home heating oil and other commodities.

In general, I compliment the Minister on arrangement she has made. Hopefully, she can write into the legislation the commitments given in private discussion.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I am sharing time with Deputy Bradford. In the Irish National Petroleum Corporation Bill, 2001, we have yet another privatisation by this Government which has been involved in a privatisation frenzy since it came to power four years ago. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are now so suffused with the ethos of the capitalist market that virtually the only economic policy, if one can call it such, that they cling to is to privatise every valuable national asset that still remains in State ownership and to off-load them to private interests in such a way that they finish up in the hands of multinational corporations. This is entirely consistent with the policy which has been driving the European Union for several years – a policy which has been dictated not by the interests of working or ordinary people but by the interests of the multinational corporations exerting huge pressure on Governments in the EU through such organisations as the European Round Table and other pressure groups from big business in the EU.

Fianna Fáil, in particular, has a shameful record in selling off our natural resources. The Corrib gas field which has been handed over to Enterprise Oil is an outrageous robbery of an extremely valuable asset that properly belongs to the people, yet the commercial and economic benefit from it has been handed lock, stock, and barrel by a Fianna Fáil dominated Government to yet another multinational corporation on foot of a deal which they probably cannot believe is so favourable to them with no royalties and with a corporation tax rate which they can write off against expenses not only incurred in Ireland, but elsewhere. Incredibly, when the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources stood up in the Dáil and I asked him how much value should be placed on the one trillion cubic feet of gas estimated to be in the Corrib field, the Minister, on behalf of the Government, admitted he had no idea how much this resource was worth. A significant resource was handed over without any independent assessment and without any independent supervision of the company to whom it was given.

Now the Government has agreed to sell the Irish National Petroleum Corporation to Tosco Corporation – a major oil company with the bulk of its operations in the United States. This is a company to whom the Government proposes to hand over our entire oil refining industry and major oil distribution industry. The Minister, however, did not give us the history of this company and its record in critical areas in the United States. Tosco Corporation has a criminal safety record that has resulted in the deaths of workers not only on one occasion, but on two occasions at its Avon plant in Martinez, California. It also has a disastrous environmental record causing catastrophic pollution to ecosystems where it has been operating.

On 23 February 1999 four workers were killed in a fire at Tosco's Avon refinery in California. In a report that was produced in 2001, the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board found that the management of the company was negligent and that it was routine negligence that led to four workers losing their lives in that accident. According to board member Rosenthal:

Better management of job planning and execution could have prevented this tragedy. Our investigation uncovered two root causes of the accident. First, Avon refinery management did not have an effective process for assessing the dangers of maintenance operations and implementing needed safeguards. Second, neither the parent Tosco Corporation nor the facility management had investigated or corrected a pattern of serious unsafe practices at the Avon refinery.

Only two years before the 1999 disaster, an explosion at the same plant killed another worker and injured 46 others. A federal investigation reported that the same management deficiencies were responsible for the death of that worker and the injuries to the others, yet the Minister for Public Enterprise proposes to hand over to people guilty of criminal negligence the lives and the health of 150 Irish workers. That is a betrayal of those workers and of the health and safety legislation of this State. It is a betrayal of the people of this country. Would the Minister license a driving school to a person guilty of two major road tragedies where people had been killed as a result of deliberate negligence? That is what she proposes to do in regard to this critical sector of the national economy.

Tosco also has a disastrous record of environmental destruction. It has been guilty of severe ongoing dioxin pollution violations. Its own tests, let alone independent monitoring, showed dioxin levels in its waste discharge to San Francisco Bay routinely and dramatically over the discharge limit. One of the environmental groups, Communities for a Better Environment, has monitored it and has said that dioxin is a useless by-product of industrial processes involving chlorine and the most toxic group of synthetic chemicals known. A major study showed 1998 documented dioxin contamination of San Francisco Bay fish at levels that result in high risk of cancer, endometriosis, diabetes and childhood learning problems in subsistence anglers and their families.

The city of Santa Monica, California, is suing 18 oil companies, including Tosco, for damages that could exceed $200 million claiming that the firms polluted drinking water wells with the possibly cancer causing gasoline additive MTBE. The mayor of the city of Santa Monica said "thanks to the oil industry, the City can no longer use most of its drinking water. . . . . The time has come for the oil industry to pay for the clean-up of its pollution". The Minister proposes to hand beautiful Bantry Bay over to the mercy of a multinational corporation with this record of destruction – Bantry Bay with its crucial fishing and tourism industries. The Minister has been seriously negligent in not telling the Dáil about the disastrous record of this corporation to which she proposes to sell the Irish National Petroleum Corporation.

It is extraordinary that Fine Gael and the Labour Party are acting as cheerleaders to the Minister in this. I oppose this Bill. I will challenge a division tonight, even if I stand alone on these benches, to lay down that it is a criminal act to give this company to these people with criminal negligence records and to give away another national resource which could have been developed and could have moved into exploration and other areas of our natural resources as a publicly owned company. That would be the alternative.

Mr. Bradford

I thank Deputy Joe Higgins for sharing his time. I might not agree with all of his analyses but he presented an alternative view to what most people would have seen in this legislation. It is not a black and white issue, as with any Bill passing through the Dáil. The issues raised by Deputy Joe Higgins are worthy of consideration. I hope the Minister will respond to them.

Last night we debated the Fine Gael Private Members' motion on Aer Lingus. We appear to have reached a stage where there is an acceptance that State enterprise is out of political favour. We have travelled a long political route since the 1970s and 1980s. If this type of proposal were passing through the Dáil in that period there would have been charges of privatisation and selling off the State silver. It would not have been easy politically, some years ago, to do what the Minister is doing. That State enterprise is out of favour does not mean that it is wrong. We should reflect carefully before we decide to progress further on our present path.

There is a consensus in the House that this legislation is a step in the right direction, but I hope the Minister will respond to the queries that have been raised. Where Whitegate is concerned, it is an important national asset. Deputy Stanton has given a detailed résumé of what is being said about the matter in our constituency. Forty percent of the national fuel requirements are provided through the Whitegate refinery. What we are now discussing has a huge bearing on national fuel supply.

Domestic fuel companies are very dependent on the fuel supplied from Whitegate, and they make a strong argument that a successful Whitegate refinery operation allows them to purchase fuel at a competitive cost. There is a concern among fuel companies that without an operation such as Whitegate, they will not be in a position to purchase their fuel supplies at competitive rates that allow them to thrive and afford savings to the consumer.

The House will be aware of the ongoing debate throughout the country on the price of petrol and the variations in price. While competition is the spice of life, it is essential that the facilities the Whitegate refinery could offer to Irish fuel supply companies are available under the new owner. That is the leap of faith we are taking in this legislation. There seems to be no legislative obligation on the new American owner to give the same guarantees of fair dealing to the smaller Irish companies. I am sure that point has been made by my colleagues and I am interested to hear the response of the Minister. If we make the leap of faith without those guarantees being made available, we will not only have unhappy former employees of the Whitegate company, but many concerned consumers wondering what kind of deal they will get from the new owner.

The competitive status of the Irish fuel companies must be maintained. The people who have worked at Whitegate over the years have played a major part in its development and expansion and their interests must be looked after by the Minister and her Department.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I thank all Deputies who contributed to the discussion on this Bill. I thank the parties for accepting the Bill and dealing with it in such a thorough fashion. There were many points made in the debate that I will try to address. Concern has been expressed on behalf of small independent companies and I note that the Fine Gael amendments deal with the Tedcastle concerns which we received in our Department. Everybody is entitled to put forward views here and we seek legal advice on them and give them due consideration.

The Irish retail market, in which INPC is not involved, is dominated by the major companies such as Esso, Statoil, Texaco etc. They account for 70% of the retail market as of now. There are several smaller operations, which Deputy Daly mentioned, such as Maxol, Tedcastle, Estuary, etc. They account for 30% of the market.

If the legislation passes through both Houses of the Oireachtas, the existing contracts between INPC and its customers will pass to the new owners and they will be regulated under normal commercial terms. One cannot force them to do anything and it would be wrong to try. The reduction of the mandatory regime has not been dealt with comprehensively in today's discussion. The INPC existed from year to year and the whim of whatever Government was in power determined whether the mandatory regime amounting to £15 million paid by the consumer, would be authorised. I do not look upon that with rancour. It was a fact of life. A former Cabinet decided to dispense with the mandatory regime. After about four months, it was not done because of a knowledge of the clear dangers involved. It had not been done by 1997.

When I became Minister, there was a huge need for investment in the site. The Government did not offer a letter of comfort but backed a loan taken out by INPC of £70 million for Auto-Oil I. In 2005, it will be under Auto-Oil II and the new owners will have to comply with that. That will require an equal investment to reflect our environmental needs, a point of which we have lost sight.

General reassurances have been given regarding the question of the EU. The Competition Authority has assured us in writing that it is aware of the arrangement and that it meets their requirements. Compliance and competition rules are being addressed by Tosco and the INPC has applied for clearance from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We received a reply from the Competition Authority agreeing with the way the matter has been dealt with and with what will emerge.

Last night, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe raised the matter of the remaining debt from the 1986 developmental plan as outlined by Garret Fitzgerald for the area in question. That is clearly a political matter and one we have asked other Departments to consider, but whatever money will be realised from this will not come to our Department. It will go to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and be put into the general Exchequer fund. It will not go to any one Department and that is the way it should be.

Deputy Stanton asked if any search was made for other would be suitors. An intensive search was made. I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Ed O'Connell who has been chairman of INPC for a number of years. He is one of the most excellent civic minded people I have met in a long time. He knows how to run a company satisfactorily. He goes about his business in a professional way. He and the board, and successive boards, have been strong on doing the best for the business they had under their care. That also goes for the employees. I have been to the company twice and I have never been in such a work environment in which there is an ease of manner between employers and employees and in which the work in hand is tackled with relish and enthusiasm, but most of all that easy relationship has been a significant force in creating a positive work environment.

INPC searched for possible suitors for a year and other likely suitors emerged, but in the end Tosco appeared to be the best. The chairman of the company came to me with details of that about 15 months ago and last August the Government arranged that we would go ahead with intensive negotiations with Tosco, which INPC did.

Deputy Joe Higgins voiced strong concerns about the record of Tosco in the US and other matters relating to the environment and to safety records. The same management and employees will run INPC the morning after the closing date of the sale in mid-July as run it now, subject to HSA rules and what is laid down by the Environmental Protection Agency. There will not be new management or employees at any time as a guarantee of employment has been given to the staff. I wish to address that point because Deputies O'Malley and Stanton spoke about it.

While a written guarantee of employment has been given to the staff, the Deputies might ask what that is worth and say it is only a piece of paper. It is, however, a formal document in which Mr. O'Malley from Tosco gave a guarantee of 15 years' employment to staff with the same conditions of employment as appertain now. Considering that ISPAT gave a commitment of five years' employment, a guarantee of 15 years employment is reasonably steady and forward looking.

Tosco intends to develop the site. Deputy Stanton raised that point last night. Tosco has said that this is just the beginning. I am always wary in such circumstances. I cannot say, hand on heart, that anything wrong would never happen here or that a member of staff would never be let go from this employment. We got a formal document signed by the chief executive officer of Tosco following intense negotiation between it and the INPC and Government officials and one goes along with that in the belief that it is as strong as one can get at the time.

As Deputy O'Malley said, it is interesting that Mr. O'Malley, the chief executive officer of Tosco, was the originator of that company in difficult circumstances. When a swift and clear strategic policy directive had to be given, he gave it. The insight he gave us of how he had to eventually get that done was interesting. He is also keen on playing golf.

Mr. O'Malley

Is he as good as I am?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not know what the Deputy's handicap is or how they manage such things in the States. Mr. O'Malley comes here six times a year and, therefore, has a strong connection with the country. I know that sentiment does not come into arrangements, rather it is business that features.

Deputy Stanton asked about the details of the ESOP. It is being voted on and the union leaders have recommended it to their members. It remains to be seen what they will say. I will not view the end-game until that happens because they have a right to their ballot and I am sure it is a secret one. The figure is an average of £30,000 per person, but I am sure that will depend on length of service or whatever is the appertaining criteria. I do not know what it is exactly because I do not enter the discussions on such matters nor do I wish to know the details of what the union worked out. It worked out an average figure and I do not know on what it is based. It was worked out with the chairman of the INPC and its chief executive, Paddy Power, a very fine person. He is an excellent chief executive who has been in constant touch with the unions. The chairman came to see me and then the Minister for Finance with the arrangements regarding the average figure of £30,000. As to the breakdown of that and who among the 234 employees will get what, I do not know, nor is it my job to know that.

It is in Tosco's best interests to ensure that there will be commercial viability, development works and a future for this refinery. Tosco has gone into this for purely strategic purposes. It wanted to purchase this refinery. The talks that went on for more than 12 months tell the tale of intense and, at times, testy negotiations which yielded the result arrived at.

The reserves are not included in the deal. Responsibility for those will rest with National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA. If and when this legislation goes through and the sale goes through, we will then deal with NORA, a semi-State body. It comes under the heading of sustainable energy which is currently the source of legislation. Since that legislation has not yet been worked through, it would be suitable to include it in it. NORA remains what Ireland needs, a repository of necessary strategic stocks. They will enable us to withstand anything that might come our way in terms of dangers in the pipeline, which we do not envisage but about which one can never know. The retention of NORA as a semi-State body with its strategic stocks is important.

The land involved is 140 acres. It is a bonus to have the land in reserve as it will facilitate expansion at the refinery. If any of the farmers or other people in the area wish to approach Tosco they can do so. That will be up to them.

Question put.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Vótáil.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As tellers have not been appointed for the Níl side, I declare the question carried in accordance with Standing Order 68.

Question declared carried.