Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Feb 1971

Vol. 69 No. 6

Fuels (Control of Supplies) Bill, 1971: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. B. Lenihan)

This is a Bill to provide for the regulation and control of the supply and distribution of fuels. There is no immediate need for the measures proposed; these measures are purely precautionary and I would hope that the Bill, if enacted, would go into cold storage and that it would never be necessary to avail if its powers.

In the light of what I have just said, Senators will no doubt wonder why the Bill has been introduced. I should explain firstly that the decision to have the Bill prepared and ready for enactment at short notice was taken several years ago as part of an OECD programme of a general preparedness to deal with peacetime emergency shortages. This preparatory work, including the drafting of orders, permits, et cetera, was carried through by my Department so that controls could be introduced at short notice if the need arose. I repeat that there is no immediate need but, because of the growing importance of energy sources in the economy and because of recent changes in the world energy situation, the Government have considered it prudent to have this Bill enacted so that the necessary powers will be immediately available if they are ever required.

I have mentioned changes in the energy situation as the reason for this Bill. These changes affect primarily fuel oil and coal. Both these commodities, at fairly short notice, have become in short supply.

The demand for fuel oil has been increasing rapidly in the western world. There are various reasons for this. There has been a steady growth in economic activity and industrial expansion. Fuel oil used either directly or as converted energy in the form of electricity is now the accepted source of motive power and heating for industry. Similarly, fuel oil is rapidly replacing solid fuels for domestic heating and with the growing standard of living the standards of domestic heating have been going up with consequent increases in energy consumption.

This situation of increased level of demand for fuel oil has coincided with shortfalls in other energy sources. The rationalisation of the coal mining industry in Europe has resulted in the closure of many uneconomic mines and an overall reduction in production. The programme of nuclear energy stations for the production of electricity has fallen short of targets. Reduced rainfall in a number of European countries in the year 1970 reduced the production of hydro-electricity. While there have been some gains through increases in the production of natural gas in Europe, this has, so far, had only a small impact on the overall energy supply position in Europe. In the USA, which depends heavily on the production of natural gas, production has been lagging with consequent heavier demands on other energy sources.

The combination of these circumstances gave rise to a greatly increased and unexpected demand for fuel oil and this situation has been aggravated by some fall-off in oil deliveries from the Mediterranean area. The situation has been such that if the weather this winter proved very severe supplies would have had to be restricted to some degree. Fortunately, the weather has, so far, been relatively mild.

The scarcity of fuel oil has created an extra demand for coal particularly for power production. This extra demand, combined with the reduction in the output of coal in Europe, has given rise to some concern about our coal supplies. This country still consumes about one million tons of coal a year mainly for domestic purposes. We are now dependent to the extent of about 80 per cent of our requirements on European coal sources and other countries are competing sharply with us for the available supplies. Unforeseeable circumstances such as a dislocation of transport facilities due to severe weather could in this tight situation lead to a shortage.

It will be noted that the Bill also provides for the control of supplies of electricity. We are now dependent on fuel oil for the production of more than 50 per cent of our electricity requirements and a scarcity of fuel oil could lead to a situation in which it would be necessary to ration electricity.

Senators will, of course, realise that powers to regulate and control the supply of fuels would be of little use to us unless supplies are available to control and regulate. Precautionary measures were, therefore, taken some ten years ago to maintain, within practical limits, a stockpile to safeguard against a short-term interruption of supplies. On Government direction, the Electricity Supply Board and CIE carry substantial reserves of oil. The oil companies also carry reserve stocks and, in addition, we participate with other OECD countries in a scheme for control and sharing of oil products generally which would be activated in the event of a scarcity of supplies. The coal trade in this country safeguards the supply position as far as possible by entering into long-term contracts and by diversification of supply sources and I am glad to say that their efforts successfully averted a shortage during a period of temporary supply difficulty last year.

I should say that stockpiling of oils and coal is a very expensive operation and can only be done within limits without increasing prices.

In the circumstances I have outlined, Senators will, I am sure, agree that it is no more than prudent to be in a state of preparedness to deal with a shortage of fuel supplies if the need should arise instead of waiting until an emergency is upon us. Enactment of this Bill would enable the Government, under section 2 (1), to declare by order at any time it considers that the supply situation warrants it, that the Minister for Transport and Power may control the supply and distribution of any fuel or fuels. The Minister would then be empowered to make orders under section 3 (1) to control to the extent necessary the supply and distribution of the various fuels covered by the Government order. Drafts of orders which would be made by the Minister have been prepared and they could be made at short notice. In addition, plans have been prepared to facilitate the speedy introduction of a rationing scheme.

Any order made by the Government would expire after a period of six months unless continued in force by order of the Government, and any order made by the Minister for Transport and Power would expire with the enabling Government order unless previously revoked by him.

While, as I have said, there is no immediate likelihood of a shortage of any fuels, the Government consider it wise to make all possible preparations to meet such a situation should it arise. It is for this reason that I recommend the Bill to the Seanad, but I repeat that the Bill is precautionary.

Mr. O'Higgins

There are a few queries I wish to raise on this Bill and there are some objections I wish to record in connection with the Bill. In his opening statement the Minister said he was sure that Senators would agree that it is no more than prudent to be in a state of preparedness to deal with a shortage of fuel supplies if the need should arise instead of waiting until an emergency is upon us. Taking that expression of the Minister's hope as being the principle contained in the Bill, there would probably be general agreement with regard to the principle of the Bill. I find myself, having read this Bill in the situation—possibly because I am a lawyer by profession— quite appalled at the manner in which the Government have chosen to put themselves into this state of preparedness.

It is generally bad that the Houses of the Oireachtas should consent without objection to any further increase in a system of legislation by Ministerial order which has become fairly prevalent. This legislation which is proposed to us now depends entirely on a Government order and Ministerial order. Not only does it do that but it provides in effect that the Government order, in the first place, and, secondly, any Ministerial orders to be made following the making of the general Government order, will all be made without consultation with either House of the Oireachtas. It is provided that when the orders have been made they will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and may be annulled by resolution brought in within 21 days.

In legislation which contains some of the very drastic powers which are envisaged in this legislation that procedure is not adequate. The Minister should ensure that any orders that will be made either by the Government or by him, as Minister for Transport and Power, will be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas before they are made. That would not cause any inconvenience at all to the Government, having regard to the statement we have just heard from the Minister. He has made it quite clear that these orders, or a number of them, are already drafted. Why does he not publish them now? Why does he not, in conjunction with this Bill, let us see the orders, let us know what is in them?

If we look at the Explanatory Memorandum which was circulated with the Bill, we will see that it is made clear—as indeed the Minister, to give him his due, made it clear in his opening statement—that the whole purpose of this Bill is to deal with possible scarcity conditions, possible shortages, which could give rise to difficulties. In the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum reference is made to short supply and in the second paragraph reference is made to short-term scarcity.

Throughout the Minister's opening statement that theme was developed. Having regard to the background— and I accept that that is the background to this Bill—I find it somewhat surprising that the powers which can be brought into operation on the making of a Government order will deal not only with the question of short supply but under section 3 of the Bill enable the Minister to prohibit the import of fuels. I could readily understand if power was to be taken to restrict the exportation of fuels which might be required in a situation of emergency as regards short supply. Section 3, subsection (2) of the Bill states that an order made by the Minister under this section

may contain all such incidental or ancillary provisions, including the power to grant or issue such authorisations or licences....

I am sorry, I am wrong there. It is subsection (1), paragraph (b), the second paragraph which provides that the Minister may by order

provide for the control, regulation, restriction or prohibition of the import or the export of the type or types of fuel to which the order under section 2 of this Act relates.

While the Minister has presented this Bill to the House, both in the Explanatory Memorandum and in his opening statement, as a precautionary measure to deal with a situation of short supply which might arise, nevertheless he is expanding the Bill so as to enable him to restrict or prohibit the importation of fuel. What are the types of fuel referred to in the Bill? Virtually everything one could visualise, including even firewood. There is one omission, and I am surprised it is there, having regard to the fact that the Minister referred to it in his opening statement. So far as I can see there is nothing in this Bill which would enable the Minister to deal at all with the question of natural gas. It may be that at present the sources of natural gas which might be available to us are either limited or untapped, but if a Bill of this sort is being introduced as part of our permanent legislation and as a precautionary measure it would seem to me that natural gas should be dealt with also, as well as the other types of fuel to which the Minister has referred.

I should like to ask the Minister, in connection with the Explanatory Memorandum that has been issued, what type of consultation has taken place in recent years with other European Governments. He has mentioned the question of the OECD approach to this but, referring to short-term scarcity, the Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say: "Situations of this kind nearly arose on occasions in recent years". I should like to know what those occasions were and how real danger was? What state of preparedness, if any, were the Government in in connection with them? Then the Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say: "The Government, in common with other European Governments, consider it desirable to be in a position to act speedily if the need should arise". I think that the Minister might give us some detailed information with regard to what consultations, or what advice, he or his Department have engaged in or received from other Governments.

I have referred to my view, in any event, that an opportunity should be given to Parliament to consider and, if necessary, discuss the orders that are contemplated in this Bill before those orders come into operation. Section 2 of the Bill is the section which enables the Government, if they are of opinion that exigencies of the common good necessitate the control by the Minister of supply and distribution of fuels, to make an order.

Section 2 then goes on to stipulate that any order made by the Government will have a life of only six months but it also provides that continuation orders may be made and that they may be made indefinitely under section 2. While the initial order has a life of only six months continuation orders, and any number of continuation orders as may be considered to be necessary, can be made, all extending the life of the original order. All that can be done without any consultation, good, bad or indifferent, with either Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. The only provision in the Bill to enable that situation to be reviewed is the provision for the laying of the orders before the Houses ex-post facto. The thing has been done before Parliament gets an opportunity of expressing a view as to whether or not such an emergency situation as is envisaged by the Bill has arisen. Bad enough as that may be, I think the provisions in relation to the orders that may be made by the Minister for Transport and Power, once the initial Government order has been made, are extremely drastic indeed.

The Minister, towards the conclusion of his statement, referred to the fact that the order made by the Government would expire after a period of six months unless continued in force by order of the Government. Then he said "Any order made by the Minister for Transport and Power would expire with the enabling Government order unless previously revoked by him". I wonder is the Minister quite certain that that is the position because there does not seem to me to be anything in the Bill, as introduced, which automatically kills a Ministerial order once the initial Government order has been made. In fact it is solemnly provided in section 3 that any orders made by the Minister will have the force of law. The orders which the Minister may make can be extremely comprehensive and can have far-reaching and continuous effects.

Any contravention of these orders will, under this Bill, be an offence punishable with heavy penalties. I wonder is it being suggested that, once the emergency situation which is envisaged has lapsed, once the Government order has lapsed, any aftermath of a Ministerial order is going to lapse also? The orders which the Minister may make may provide for the regulation and control of the supply and distribution of the type or types of fuel to which the Government order relates. They also provide for the control, regulation, restriction or prohibition of the import or export of those types of fuels. Then it goes on, in subsection (2) of section 3 to provide that:

An order made by the Minister under this section may contain all such incidental or ancillary provisions, including the power to grant or issue such authorisations or licences and give such directions as shall appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for giving full effect to any provision inserted in such order under the powers conferred on the Minister by this section.

Here we have a subsection which gives the Minister vast powers as to what will be included in his orders. He can give whatever direction he likes. There is no rein or check whatever. There is no guideline laid down as to what course the Minister is going to pursue. There is no general statement of Government policy as regards fuel. It is entirely discretionary to the Minister as to what type of order he may make or what type of directions he will give. There is no one, except the Minister, to judge to what extent the directions he may give are going to be regarded as necessary or expedient.

Then we go along to section 4 of the Bill to find out what happens if any of the Minister's orders are contravened. Subsection (1) states clearly that any contravention will be an offence. It says:

Any person who contravenes (whether by act or omission) or attempts so to contravene a provision in an order made by the Minister under this Act or in a direction, shall be guilty of an offence.

Therefore, you have an offence created if a person either by an act or omission contravenes either an order which the Minister makes or a direction which the Minister gives.

Subsection (2), I think, could be summarised as the subsection which is intended to deal with a person who abets a contravention of the order. Subsection (3) deals with the contravention involving a ship or aircraft and provides that the person in charge of the vessel or the person who has its management shall each be guilty of an offence.

Section 4 (4) deals with a body corporate and if an offence is committed by a body corporate it provides:

Where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been so committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, the director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to have committed the offence.

In subsection (5) we go on to the penalties. I want to call the attention of Members of the House to just what is being proposed under Section 4 in relation to the offences. There is no provision in this section which stimulates that a breach of the Ministerial order or direction shall only become an offence if it is done knowingly by the person who is to be charged with the offence. The person who contravenes a Ministerial order, or who acts contrary to a Ministerial direction, even though he does not know that the order has been made or the direction given, even if he does it quite innocently and accidentally, will, under the terms of section 4, be guilty of an offence and will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for six months, or both.

I have referred to the subsection dealing with bodies corporate and which provides that, if an offence is committed by the body corporate and if that is consented to by the various officers, they also will be guilty. I have no particular objection to that but it does not stop there. It says that, if it has been committed with the consent or approval, or proved to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of the various officers, then those officers will find themselves in the position of being guilty of an offence.

It does not need a lawyer to know that degrees of neglect vary considerably and what may be held to be neglect in a criminal matter, in a matter involving a technical offence, may be of the very lightest nature. The mere fact that the secretary of a company omitted to open his post until the afternoon, instead of doing it as he normally would do in the morning, might be held to be neglect and in certain circumstances might make that unfortunate person guilty of an offence under this legislation which would render him liable to a fine of £100 or imprisonment for six months, or both. I would strongly urge the Minister, between this and the Committee Stage, to consider amending this section, or at least to make it quite clear that an offence will be committed only when a person knowingly contravenes any of the regulations made by the Minister or any directions given by him.

The Minister, I think, pointed out that electricity is one of the commodities being dealt with by this order. I want to ask the Minister to let the House know if this legislation providing for Government order and Ministerial order could be used, for example, if a situation arose again where there was an ESB strike, a strike of ESB workers. Would the position be that this legislation could then be relied on? Could the Minister, in pursuance of authority given to him under section 3, make an order providing for the regulation and control of the supply and distribution of electricity? Would the situation be that, without any discussion in the Dáil, without any discussion in this House, the Minister could simply, by regulation, bring into operation all the powers which were brought in under the Act dealing with the last electricity strike? Could he do that then without any Parliamentary discussion whatever? It seems to me that the door would be opened for the Minister to act in that way if section 3 goes through unaltered.

I appreciate the principle behind this Bill; I appreciate the need to be ready; I appreciate the desirability of protecting the public and acting for the common good if an emergency situation of shortage should arise. But I feel this Bill will require very close and very searching examination on Committee Stage. I hope that some of the matters I have mentioned now will be considered by the Minister between this and Committee Stage and that, on the Committee Stage discussions, if the Minister does not introduce amendments himself, I would hope that from this side of the House we would be able to discuss the sections in Committee and to put forward amendments which would try to achieve what the Minister has in mind and at the same time eliminate some of the objectionable features of the Bill as it stands.

Ruairí Brugha

When the Bill was introduced I was a bit surprised to find that we needed it, that in fact we could run into a situation here suddenly in which the Minister for Transport and Power or the Government had no powers to deal with the use of essential fuel resources.

The Minister in his opening speech referred to the change that has taken place—which is, to say the least, startling—that we are now dependent to the extent of 50 per cent on fuel oil. It is fairly obvious that, if any type of emergency arose, this area of resources, which is vital to the life of the community, should be protected and that we should be able to use what resources existed or were stored as sparingly as possible. There is no doubt about that. I have listened to Senator O'Higgins but I am sure that he would be the first to criticise any Government that failed to do this and that waited to call the Dáil or the Seanad together to discuss the situation that already existed. Any intelligent person would make provisions in advance to enable the Government to act in the public interest in a situation that could only be regarded as desperately serious, if it became necessary to use this type of Act.

Of course we can discuss in Committee the relevant sections of the Bill. It occurred to me listening to Senator O'Higgins how would a supplier or a large holder know the position. In all probability he would know because the emergency was there; the situation of shortage would be there and he would want to be deaf and blind not to know that it existed. Therefore, if a person with a private interest, holding very large supplies were to do away with those supplies in any way it would be difficult to claim that he did not know. Perhaps Senator O'Higgins may have a point when he stipulates "knowingly" in the event of prosecution. However, the Minister might consider some means of informing the holder of large supplies, if it became necessary. There could not be very many of them; this is a small country.

The Government, considering the possible serious position created for the entire community in the provision of power for factories, homes, hospitals and so on if there were serious misuse of fuel supplies, should be in a position to see a very substantial fine, to act as a deterrent. We are becoming more and more dependent on the resources which are imported, such as fuel oil. I would certainly support the idea that the Government should be placed in a position in advance to deal with any serious situation that would arise.

In the concluding part of his address, the Minister mentioned the question of rationing. The only query I would put to him there is whether or not any form of rationing is in existence, because if the situation did arise the plans would need to be ready. I do not see a great problem in relation to the ESB. We had this experience many years ago where the Electricity Supply Board were operating a very efficient rationing system. The Minister should have a right to require them to do so, although he should not need it, in order to conserve supply.

The Minister mentioned the demand on coal supplies. We are not in a very strong position in regard to the supply of coal and fuel oil because our consumption is so heavy, and I doubt if at any stage we would have more than a couple of months supply. It would, therefore, be essential to ensure that any stocks on hands should be conserved and used in such a way as to serve the community for as long as possible. I am therefore supporting the Bill, although I may raise a few points on Committee Stage.

Dr. West

I wish to ask the Minister a few questions in connection with this Bill. Senator O'Higgins has raised the point that the natural gas resources are not included in the definition of the word "fuel" in section 1. Does the Minister intend to include nuclear fuels in the coverage of this Bill when they become relevant? As time goes on, we may become more dependent on nuclear resources and this may take away some of our dependence on fuel oils.

It is all very well to have a Bill dealing with shortage of fuel, but when the fuels run short, I certainly agree that they must be rationed but when they run short what will happen to this country? Does the Minister think that because of the pressure of consuming countries on those which produce that shortage will not occur? I am less optimistic. The present conference in Teheran outlines the division between the consuming and the producing countries.

What will happen to this country? Our transport depends entirely on petroleum products. Our industry, to a great extent, depends on petroleum products. In 1980, I think 80 per cent of our electricity generation will depend on oil. What is going to happen? Have the Government made any provision in the event of an extreme and protracted shortage? I was very glad to note that CIE and the ESB have got reserves, but how long will these reserves last? What is the position on this? It is a very serious matter and there should be more in the way of contingency plans than just a Bill to ration supplies, although this is necessary. I should like the Minister to say something about this.

Does the Minister intend to use the powers given him by this Bill in the event of industrial disputes? There was an interesting situation recently during the Northern Ireland electricity dispute. Our electricity grid is connected to the Northern Ireland one. That is a very good development and the link provides backing for the Northern system in the event of a shortage there and it provides for our system in the event of an electricity shortage here. However, during the dispute in Northern Ireland the link was officially cut, not blown up by some enthusiast from North or South of the Border. The Electricity Supply Board here did not wish to get involved in any dispute with its colleague organisation in the North. I should like to ask the Minister how he intends to use the powers in this Bill in the event of an industrial dispute. These sorts of restrictions, these sorts of powers, are necessary but I should like more information on what would happen in the event of a major shortage.

Mr. Russell

The action the Minister proposes to take to give him powers to regulate supplies and the distribution of fuel by order follows the OECD programme of general preparedness to deal with peace-time emergency shortages. I wonder if the OECD have given any consideration to wartime emergency shortages. We live in a world that is virtually continuously at war in some place or other. It would seem appropriate here that consideration should be given to the possible effects of various local wars and to what might happen if they spread into larger areas.

The Minister has handled this matter in a somewhat haphazard manner. As he has told us, this is a precautionary measure. He wants powers to regulate supplies of energy fuels by order. No consideration seems to have been given to supplies of these necessary fuels. In other words, the Minister has said, in effect: "Look here, there is no emergency at the moment; this is purely a precautionary measure. If you pass this Bill, I intend to put the Act into cold storage until it is required". With all due respect to the Minister, and having regard to the rapid changes that have taken place in the world in regard to the use of various energy fuels, he should have gone very much farther in his capacity as Minister for Transport and Power to ensure that steps will be taken to provide, as far as is practicable, supplies of the necessary fuels, the most important fuels such as oil and coal, over the next decade. I should like to see the Minister setting up some form of permanent committee or institution, such as a National Fuel Supply Council to advise him on the country's requirements of the various types of energy fuels over, say, the next ten years. This council would be a permanent body; it would meet regularly; it would advise the Minister and his Department from time to time, as circumstances changed and as the needs of the country altered on energy fuel requirements for industrial, commercial, domestic and other purposes.

The Minister said that the storage of large quantities of fuels, particularly oil and coal, is a very expensive operation. I think the House would feel happy that the country should undergo these heavy expenses if it means that, in time of emergency—and, these days, an emergency can come very suddenly —the country would be reasonably well supplied with at least the most important fuels. Today, oil is the most important fuel as far as this and every other developed or developing country is concerned.

We have taken no active part, as far as I am aware, in the drive to find new sources of oil. Apart from some minor participation by private enterprise interests, the Government have not participated, as far as I am aware, anyway, in any of the worldwide oil drilling programmes that are going on at present. Other countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, are not content to rely on the traditional sources of oil—for very good reasons. We have seen, as Senator West, quite rightly said, that already, in the midEast, supplies of oil are threatened due to the fact that the people who control the affairs of the mid-Eastern countries are demanding a greater and greater share of the rewards from the oil won from their countries. This situation could blow up into an emergency. As a matter of interest and as we are talking about controls and storage, how would the country stand if there was an emergency as of now? Have any plans been made for a continuance of supplies of oil from countries other than the Middle East and, if so, could the Minister give some indication of what these steps are?

One obvious location for the storage of oil is the Shannon Estuary. Storage tanks could be erected there at a comparatively small cost. As we know, and as myself and other Senators who live in that area have stated time and again, the Shannon Estuary can take in tankers of over 200,000 tons at the present time. It would seem a very obvious centre to store vast quantities of oil for use in the country.

Has the country sufficient shipping facilities to ensure a regular supply of oil from alternative sources if an emergency arises or will we be faced with the situation that our ships are contracted out to other countries for moving oil when we need them closer home? These various considerations should have been in the Minister's mind when he was considering bringing this Bill before the Seanad. It deals in the short term, with an emergency situation. It does not take into consideration the question of supplies of fuel. It is merely a provisional measure to enable the Minister to make certain Orders. The House would like to be assured that, if the Minister is likely to have to make an order suddenly, there will be fuels there to be distributed and that they will be distributed over a sufficiently long period of time.

I regret there is no reference in the Bill, or in the Minister's speech, to joint action with the North of Ireland. Senator West touched on that point. Any action to provide for an emergency either in peacetime or in wartime should certainly be taken in conjunction with the North of Ireland. None of us wants unilateral action in regard to the Twenty-six Counties if a serious emergency arises that will affect supplies of energy fuels North and South. The Minister should seriously consider the setting up of a permanent council to consider all aspects of our energy fuel requirements. Such council should include representatives from the North of Ireland. The Minister should be guided by its findings and recommendations.

Mr. Nash

I welcome this most desirable precautionary measure. The two factors which can most upset the normal life of the citizens of a State are shortage of water and shortage of fuel. When shortage of water occurs in an area, the distribution becomes rather haphazard. Sources are cut off for various hours and let on for various hours. Everybody can draw when it is on. This of course is the best that can be done. With fuel, the situation is completely different. Various people have stocks of it on hands and some can pay more for fuels than others. There must be an orderly distribution. The necessity for an orderly distribution can arise at any time. It would, of course, arise in wartime but it can also just as easily arise in peacetime and it can arise for very many reasons. The reasons may be natural. There may be a shortage of water and motor power where water is used for motor power in other countries. It may be seasonal. It may be due to war conditions with which we are not personally involved. It may even be due to domestic conditions such as trade disputes. In each and every one of those conditions the Minister and the Government should be empowered to take appropriate steps to ensure that there will be an orderly distribution of what is available and that what is available will be used to the best advantage in the interests of the common good. Those circumstances may arise when neither House of the Oireachtas is in session and when it will not be possible to introduce legislation readily. Immediate steps may be required. Possibly, consideration of these matters would influence Senator O'Higgins in the criticism he has urged that the Dáil and Seanad should be called together and legislation passed where something has to be done immediately.

In those circumstances, these various views are needed for so many different things. They have got to be put in order. I do not give them necessarily in the order that is most important. There are considerations of transport, power, light and heat. Those various views can be broken down. There may be requirements for industrial purposes, for domestic purposes or for pleasure purposes. It seems reasonably clear that the Minister could not give an indication in advance of the particular type of order that would be required having regard to the special exigencies of the situation.

Mr. O'Higgins

Did he not say that they are already drafted?

Mr. Nash

They are draft orders. But these draft orders are with so many blanks. They merely specify—I feel sure—the type or form they would take—how you measure out priorities as between, say, industrial, domestic and pleasure users of things, and so on. I do not think it would be possible to make the orders in advance. Like Senator O'Higgins, I do not like legislation by order. If emergency situations arise—if they can under any circumstances be justified—they would be justified in those circumstances. Like Senator O'Higgins, I have some slight reservations regarding section 4 which concerns a person who contravenes whether by act or omission. An omission may be deliberate: it may not be deliberate. The problem arises as to when, how or in what circumstances an omission is committed. I should like to see the word "omission" qualified there. I do not know how it can be qualified. Even "knowingly", I fear, would be an adequate word there.

Likewise, section 4 (b), which reads:

Where a person is convicted under this section the Court may, in addition to the various other powers it has, forfeit not only the goods or chattels used in relation to or by means of which the offence was committed.

There again "by means of which the offence was committed" can, in my opinion, be unduly wide. Possibly we could rely on the good sense and discretion of our courts but, at the same time, I should much prefer to see penalties set out precisely and with specific limitation.

Again, in section 4 (4) "or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of a director, manager or secretary of a company". The word "neglect" could possibly be the neglect to sack somebody who was careless or neglectful at work and who does not draw attention to something. The word "neglect" there would, in my opinion, need to be qualified. There, however, are minor matters. I should like the Minister to consider them.

The Bill itself is a piece of very wise legislation. I welcome it. I should like to see more legislation of this nature to provide against contingencies which can arise in various circumstances. This is one of the few I have seen; this is one of the first, in my memory, while I have been a Member of the Seanad. I congratulate the Minister on his foresight in introducing it.

Senator Russell asked what the position would be if an emergency happened at the moment. He will realise, I am sure, that if huge stocks are to be kept it involves the investment of huge amounts of money which is tied up. It makes the fuel considerably dearer. In industrial competition and in everything else the price at which fuel and motor power can be got is a very important factor. Provided that reasonable stocks are kept by such bodies as oil companies, CIE, the ESB, I do not think unduly large sums should be sunk in stockpiling. If unduly large sums are so sunk there is always the danger of loss through evaporation, seepage and otherwise. Those are the only comments I should like to make on the Bill. Again, I congratulate the Minister on its introduction.

Professor Quinlan

The Bill before us has been introduced as a purely precautionary measure. Yet, when we go fully into the Minister's statement we find many grounds for prudent planning. I agree with Senator Nash that the instrument itself is highly desirable to have in the case of an emergency. We know from the conference in Teheran, and others, that a fuel crisis could be precipitated at any moment, even a crisis of relatively short duration, while there are differences over prices. Consequently, we must be prepared for such a situation. I shall look at a few such steps which we can take.

The Minister mentioned stockpiling. A certain amount, within limit, is all right: it is rather costly. When we talk about cost, we should bear in mind that coal is still a very important item in our fuel supply. One million tons per annum are imported. The time is opportune to have another look at our Irish coal supply sources. Many of these closed down because they were uneconomic: there was no great pressure to keep them going. I refer to Castlecomer, indeed, there are other Irish coal fields in rather serious straits. Money will have to be spent on stockpiling and, because we are so dependent on fuel oil, a certain amount could be spent on further development of our native coal resources. Maybe a certain amount of that should be made the responsibility of some board; maybe a number of them should be nationalised or maybe some more broadly based national company should be set up to ensure their development. It is opportune to take another look at this matter.

Water is still an important part in this. Therefore, under that heading, I ask the Minister if he is satisfied that the ESB are keeping their water stations at peak capacity; that maintenance, and so on, is adequate and has not been allowed to lag behind. A diminution of water generating power, or a temporary reduction of it is of no consequence in the normal state of affairs. But, when we are planning to meet short-term emergencies, our water resources provide a great means of stockpiling. In other words, reservoirs can be kept at a prudent level. We can ensure and the Minister can demand from the ESB that all their water turbines be kept in a state of preparedness: they must be at something over a 90 per cent efficiency goal level.

I come now to worries about our oil supplies. Just two years ago, I was at an opening ceremony where we were, in effect, transporting an oil field from the Middle East and locating it in Bantry Bay. We have in Gulf Oil tremendous stocks of oil but have we any priority rights in those stocks? If we have not, why not? That is something into which the Government should look. We sold much too cheaply to Gulf Oil and, furthermore, we have no rates. We provided a tremendous set-up for them. In the present situation, they are probably looking for expansion as well. There was a suggestion of building some new tanks there.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are having very detailed discussions along this line.

Professor Quinlan

Yes. We have a very strong card there if we play it right. Let us now examine the question of conservation in the use of oil. The Minister quite rightly mentioned the big development in central heating. It is becoming quite a feature of life here. It would be well to try to ensure and advise that conservation procedures be adopted in the installations—proper insulation, and so on—to ensure an efficient system. It is well to have the orders available because, if even a short-term crisis developed, prompt action would be required to ensure that what we had was equitably distributed and made to last out the crisis as well as possible.

When considering what I would regard as a short-term fuel crisis, surely we have got to look at another source also—the possibility of a general electricity strike at any time. This could have a most crippling effect on the nation. While it does not strictly come under the present Bill it is nevertheless the responsibility of the Minister for Transport and Power. It is up to the Government to ensure a full supply of power. Strikes should not be tolerated in our national electricity system. It is up to the Government to rule out that even if it means that slightly differential wages have to be paid to ensure that this right of the nation to its electricity, generated by a semi-State company, is guaranteed. We cannot tolerate strikes in essential services of this nature.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I welcome this Bill not its precise terms as a belated recognition of the danger facing our country in common with the rest of Western Europe but, more particularly, having regard to our resources, this country. I say, and I doubt if anyone will dissent, that the availability of energy for production lies at the root of all modern economic development. As there has been great economic development in Western Europe, in particular, over the past 20 years, there has been a greatly increased demand for petroleum products. This increased demand is likely to continue. The petroleum-exporter countries are so organised, the ten of them, they are supplying 80 to 85 per cent of the needs of Europe. Venezuela is able to put a 60 per cent tax on oil companies' profits and to threaten a unilateral increase in its posting of oil prices. I understand that, in America, the oil companies control the gas companies and also control the coal producers. That being so, they are in a position to support the demand for extra prices by the petroleum-exporting countries.

The Times, today, referred to negotiations that have failed: I agree with Senator Quinlan that this failure will not be of long duration. This is a debate about price. There are two very tough negotiating bodies engaged in the operations involved here. We know how tough the oil companies are at this end. We see how the oil-producing countries are becoming increasingly tough as they become increasingly aware of the strength of their position. The Times said:

The negotiations, considered to be probably the most important development in the oil industry for twenty years or more,...

We have a situation which has been exacerbated by political traditions. It would be an extraordinarily wise man who could make any prophesy in regard to political developments. If I am not incorrect it is from the Middle East that we get most of our supplies of crude oil. The ESB, Cement Limited and certain other producers also get supplies from Russia. On a point that was made, I think, by the Minister in his opening speech, the very fact that the demand is increasing means that the sources from which we are getting our supplies, whether it be oil, as in the case of Russia, or coal, as is the case of Poland, are under threat from demand from other countries.

It is interesting to note that for the first time in 30 years the United Kingdom has just relaxed a 30-year ban on Russian crude oil. That is an indication of the kinds of problems we shall be faced with. This Bill, or something like this Bill, should have been under debate here months ago. If that had been done perhaps we would not have gone through the situation that I think the public largely went through uninformed when we were faced with a coal shortage here before Christmas. At that time we were faced with a really serious threat. We were saved, possibly, by the mildness of the weather. The shortage arose out of political troubles in Poland: who says they will not be repeated? The position was aggravated by the coal strike in Britain.

We must ask ourselves whether the Minister has struck an entirely wrong note by the use of the words "in cold storage". I do not think this should be in cold storage at all. It should receive constant attention not merely from his Department but from the various representatives—the people who are in-informed; the people who will tell you about the position of coal supplies; the people who import coal; the oil companies.

What is the position about our refinery? I understand that one of the problems is a scarcity of refining capacity in Europe. I know nothing of the degree or the capacity to which our oil refinery can be increased or if it is being fully utilised by the demand for the products here. Senator Russell introduced a very good concept indeed into this debate and one which accords with my thinking and, I think, with something Senator Quinlan said. The phrase used was "a national fuel supply council": it does not matter what you call it.

When we talk here about rationing, I think the basic thought lying behind this is to empower the Government, the Minister or some person—if scarcities arise—to speak for Ireland and to have the strength, going into the market, of being so authorised and equipped with the best possible information and the best possible contacts. The Department would have the co-operation of the oil companies who have got to live in this country in the future as well as derive their profit from it now. They would also be assisted by the coal importers who know a great deal about their own business because, to survive, they have to know it. The determination of priorities would be the secondary objective of giving the Minister the sorts of powers he has asked for. The determination of priorities can be and will be, if these critical days come on us, a very painful matter for a lot of people. If I understand our national situation correctly, if we run short of crude oil there will be planning which will involve the determination that certain industries will be cut back. We should think ahead of how this plan should be applied in such a critical situation. Will we cut back capital intensive industries which would probably mean a cut back on our exports? Will we cut back on employment— which leaves a still more painful choice but one which, possibly, a planner would see should be made in our situation?

This is not a matter for cold storage. This is a matter for a plan by people who understand the full range of our industry and its requirements— people in the ESB; people in the Department of Transport and Power; people in the business of supplying and getting the various fuels involved. The leader of my party said, in opening for us this debate, that we shall propose amendements not with a view to depriving the Minister, because ultimately he must have the powers to do everything necessary to cope with an emergency situation. Take, for example black marketing. The best must be done for the country. The Minister should not be dependent solely on advice from the excellent advisers, no doubt, he has got. A cross fertilisation of the thinking of these advisers and the thinking of the other two types of people I see involved in this is necessary and desirable—people whose job it is to look after our industry and plan ahead for it. The Industrial Development Authority I presume have a plan ahead. The Department of Industry and Commerce, no doubt, is in accord with that plan. There are also the people who are in business in relation to this.

I want to refer to the definition of "direction" in section 1. It seems absolutely outrageous—here I speak as a lawyer—that there should be any question of somebody being guilty of an offence because he has breached a direction which the Minister can give orally, not in writing. By definition, the direction can be given orally as well as in writing. In the past year or so many things were done orally that should have been done in writing and confirmed in writing. Communications from Ministers or their authorised officials, should not be given orally but if they are given orally they should be confirmed in writing. I end on that note. It seems an important smaller point that I should like to have amended on Committee.

Mrs. Robinson

I should just like to follow up Senator FitzGerald on that point. I could not agree with him more that the word "direction" in this Bill has been given a very broad meaning in that it provides for anything the Minister may do, either orally or in writing, under power conferred and that a contravention of it by a person would be a criminal offence. I should also like, in conjunction with this and following on Senator FitzGerald's words, to point to section 3 (3) where:

Every Order under this Act and every authorisation and direction shall have the force of law and shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with the Order, authorisation or direction contained in any Act other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any Act other than this Act.

The effect of this would be that the Minister could orally repeal or disregard earlier legislation or earlier orders. I do not think there is any precedent for this. I am not sure if it can stand, on the face of it, that the Minister could orally by-pass the provisions of any other Act by simply giving a direction. I mention this point; it may seem a minor point; it may seem a point for the Committee Stage rather than this Stage. However, I think it better to raise the point at this stage in the hope that an amendment will be put in either by the Government or by another person and that it will be accepted.

I have no quarrel and I shall not take up the time of the Seanad in speaking about the fuel or coal supplies. I take it, from those who know much more about it than I do, that it is a necessary precautionary measure these days and a welcome one. I should like to confine myself to talking about the provisions of section 4 which, I find, are rather typical of many provisions creating offences in statutes now in that they are very dangerously worded and appear to interfere with the liberty of a person by limiting their defences which they would be accustomed to under the law.

Section 4 says:

A person who contravenes (whether by act or omission) or attempts so to contravene a provision in an order made by the Minister under this Act or in a direction shall be guilty of an offence.

The person does not have to do this knowingly. He can do it accidentally. He does not have to do anything. It need not be a positive act. It can be merely an omission. This goes very far in creating guilt, in creating a criminal offence, and, as I said earlier in relation to Senator FitzGerald's point about a direction, it can even be an oral statement by the Minister which can be contravened in this way, accidentally, by a person, on the face of that wording, and the person could be found guilty of an offence. I wonder why the phrase, "or attempts so to contravene". In the normal case, if a person cannot be found guilty of an offence he can be convicted of attempt if he has committed sufficient acts leading up to the offence to justify this. If they are sufficiently related to the attempts to commit the offence, even though the offence itself was not actually committed, the person can be convicted of attempt, I do not see why this has to be included here as a separate offence.

Similarly, I should like to know why it is necessary under section 4 (2) to create an offence for a person knowing that another has committed an offence under the section who gives that other person any assistance with intent to prevent or hinder the detection of it. Could this not also be left to the normal criminal law? The problem I have with this Bill is twofold. The wording of it, in giving the Minister power to make orders and directions, is too wide. The section relating to criminal offences unnecessarily interferes with the freedom of the individual. Otherwise, I welcome this Bill. I welcome the fact that it is a precautionary measure which will not be used unless the conditions warrant it.

Mr. McDonald

I have just one or two queries to ask of the Minister. While I note that he stresses that it is purely a precautionary effort, I want to ask him if he can visualise in the future that the Minister for Transport and Power will be able to declare, for example, counties where the people, for domestic purposes, shall use only perhaps coal or turf or oil. Could he possibly anticipate this in peacetime? I suppose it could be expected in a state of siege or war. What is the present life expectancy of our turf supplies in the midlands? For how long more can we expect peat briquette production, which is such a very valuable asset and so very popular with the householders throughout the country, to last?

I should like to question the propriety of Government policy in exporting such large quantities of peat moss. This is, perhaps, a national asset that we could use to improve lots of the very pure clay loams that we have throughout the country. I should also like to ask if the Minister will have powers under this Bill to create smokeless zones or something like that in our cities and towns.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. B. Lenihan)

As has been said here, this Bill is essentially an emergency Bill which we can have at the disposal of the Government on behalf of the community in the event of a situation arising where the Government, on behalf of the people, have come to the opinion, as spelt out in section 2, that the exigencies of the common good necessitate the control by me, on behalf of the State, of the supply and distribution of fuels. Flowing from that, the required order, to last for six months, would be made by the Government and renewed by the Government if necessary. It would enable Minister for Transport and Power to take all necessary steps in regard to direction, control, regulation, storage and distribution of the basic fuels as set out in section 1.

I would like to answer one query raised by Senator O'Higgins. He raised the point about natural gas. Natural gas is included within the definition of liquefied petroleum gas as set out in (b) of section 1. Another point that has been made by Senator O'Higgins and some other Senators is that perhaps in the interests of natural justice the word knowingly should be included in the penal section. That is a valid point. I propose to bring in an amendment to that effect.

I agree very much with Senator FitzGerald. I am more for his approach than that of Senator O'Higgins in the general context of this matter. It is emergency legislation where the vital interests of the community such as jobs and lives, are concerned. Legislation of that kind, which is only brought into being in an emergency situation, must of necessity be drastic. It is the type of legislation where one cannot, as it were, apply all the canons of ideal legislation in that it is quite simply an enabling Bill to enable the Government and the Minister for Transport and Power to take the most serious, drastic and draconian measures in a situation that warrants that type of decision making on the part of the Government. In the ordinary course of events this legislation by Government order would not be justified but in this type of emergency legislation I feel it is fully justified.

Mrs. Robinson

Would the Minister say it was such an emergency that would require that an oral statement by him, if contravened, would create a criminal offence?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I was going to come to that situation. I think so. It is the type of matter where immediate decisions may have to be made—decisions of the kind where an oil tanker in Bantry, Cork, Dublin or Waterford may have to be literally requisitioned at the drop of a hat and in a very immediate, definite and positive way. In that type of situation, the situation for which this legislation is designed, I feel the word "oral" is justified when one has regard to the exigencies involved.

Another point was made about the inclusion of the word "conservation" in paragraph (b) of section 3. I will give consideration to the inclusion of that in the definition, so as to read "provide for the control, regulation, restriction, prohibition or conservation..." It is possibly a good drafting point that can be considered between now and the Committee Stage.

What is happening at the present time is not just an Irish problem: it is an European problem. We have already started discussions with the oil companies concerned with the supply of oil to Ireland with a view of guaranteeing us the maximum amount of storage of oil here. We would hope to be in a situation to guarantee at least two to three months supply from within our own storage sources. By our own I mean the storage resources within the community to be supplied by the oil companies, who want to ensure that, as far as possible, there will be voluntary arrangements of this kind. Business discussions are already taking place in this regard. But in the last analysis we want to have a measure under which tough and ruthless action may be necessary in the national interest.

The overall situation is not just an Irish problem; it is a European one. In particular, Europe is vulnerable in this respect in that it is almost entirely dependent on Middle Eastern and North African sources of supply. For this reason it is essential to have legislation of this kind and all other western European Governments are now engaged in the preparation of similar type legislation to meet a situation which it is hoped will not arise, but which is there. The oil producing countries of the Middle East and North Africa are digging in their heels in regard to price and supply to Western Europe.

Another point I should like to make is in regard to natural energy requirements. Perhaps this is more relevant to the legislation which will be discussed when we resume, that is in connection with nuclear energy. At the present time we are overdependent on oil. Of the primary sources of fuel for energy requirements, oil accounts for 57.2 per cent of the total supply. It is very important that we diversify our energy supply as much as possible. That is the whole purpose of the legislation that will be following in regard to nuclear energy. At the moment we have a situation where we have become over dependent on oil as an energy source. In the national interest it is essential that we have as dispersed and diffused energy resources as possible. This is a full justification for our whole turf development programme and our hydro-electric development programme. It is all important that, as far as possible, the community is not dependent on any one source, but that we have a wide range of energy supplies.

I want to assure the Seanad that at all stages we have been very much in touch with the situation. We are members of the special OECD Oil Committee. They have been meeting regularly, particularly in recent months, with this emergency situation looming. We are very much in contact with the whole situation and it is not one in which Ireland alone is involved. Countries more powerful than ourselves, such as Britain, France and Germany, are even more vulnerable than we are. We all have a common interest in ensuring that (a) we make reasonable settlements with the oil producing countries, which we are reasonably hopeful will eventuate; and (b) in the event of such a reasonable settlement not eventuating, to have the appropriate legislative measures to deal with the storage, distribution, regulation and organisation of our energy requirements—rationing, conservation, general organisation—so that in a given emergency we can derive the maximum utilisation from whatever oil, fuel or other resources we have. It is a minimal development which we should organise as a precaution against a situation developing. We wish to see these matters being worked out on a voluntary basis; that is why I used the phrase "cold storage". We do not want to set up any panic stations, but we shall have this legislation available with the drastic orders that need to be made under it in the event of steps being needed to be taken in the national interest. That is the summation of the matter and I should like to thank the Seanad for their welcome of the Bill. We shall probably range to a wider degree over the whole energy and power field in the legislation which will be taken on resumption—that is the Nuclear Energy Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th February, 1971.

Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.