Last November in Chicago Dr. Kissinger, the United States Secretary of State, made an important speech in which he warned the western world in particular that the high prices for crude oil fixed by OPEC threatened the future existence of the western industrial world as we have known it in recent decades. That speech and sentiment was probably true for the most part but since then and since the amendments to the agreement we are discussing were initialled in October and November, 1974, there has been a major change in the United States policy in relation to oil and in relation to the sentiments expressed by Dr. Kissinger last November in Chicago.
These are of great significance because the sentiments of the United States at the time of the original signing of the agreement may not have been totally in conflict with our interests and with our sentiments. It appears that since this agreement was originally signed and its amended form signed on behalf of the Government, the United States has changed the rules and we are now being asked to approve an agreement that is significantly different. At least the circumstances are so significantly different that its meaning and effect will be different from what was originally intended.
When dealing with details of the agreement I shall say something about the voting system that is proposed to be established in this authority. The voting system is such that it is totally weighted in favour of the United States and its interests. An example of this is that as the agreement stood when it was signed at Brussels on 13th November, 1974, there were what were described as 100 oil-consumption voting weights distributed between the various countries who were then part of the agreement. The United States has 48—in other words it has 48 per cent of the muscle straightaway and if anyone else goes with the United States it has almost control. The extraordinary situation is that Ireland under that heading has no votes at all. The only other country with no votes, because like ourselves it was considered of no significance, was Luxembourg.
When we see the total dominance of the United States in the context of this agreement we must consider the current United States policy. They have changed ground since the November, 1974, policy.
The present proposal of the USA Government is to put a 3 dollar-per-barrel tariff on imported oil from OPEC. Their second proposal is to remove price ceilings on domestic US oil so that it will climb to the level of imported oil. Thirdly, they are now endeavouring to negotiate a floor price which is not much below the present level. Furthermore, they incorporated in that floor price for oil a built-in escalating clause to cover world industrial inflation.
The current proposals of the US Government in relation to this agency, which is virtually controlled by the US, can be summed up as being proposals which in each instance suited the interests of the multi-national oil companies, and I do not think it is unfair, as has been suggested by Deputy Barrett and others, to say that the interests of the multi-national oil corporations and of the USA and their policy in relation to oil are almost synonomous.
We are, therefore, putting ourselves in a situation that we are going into an authority controlled by America whose policy, in turn, is identical with that of the multi-national oil corporations whose activities we have had so much reason to resent in this country and others in recent years. It is no wonder that the public are confused. First of all, the US Government said that high prices are intolerable and then a few months later their objective seems to be actually to make them higher in the US and to stop them from falling in Europe.
The agreement we are now being asked to endorse has been formulated under the influence of the USA whose so-called energy policy is completely muddled with contradictions as between what they are now seeking to achieve and the principles which they propounded through the Secretary of State in Chicago last November. Participation in the EEC and the OECD should not diminish our traditional aspiration with regard to non-alignment with power blocs. We now enjoy international acceptability and credibility with regard to neutrality and independence not disimilar to the countries traditionally regarded as bases for international aid, such as Sweden and Switzerland.
We ask the Government here, before finally committing us to this agreement, to look at the circumstances which would bring the agreement into effect. The greatest single possibility of its being brought into full effect would be consequent on OPEC retaliation to political provocation initiated in the turbulent mess of Middle East politics, or because OPEC retaliated against an authority such as this which they would rightly feel had been set up as an authority in some way in direct confrontation with OPEC's best interests.
These are the obvious circumstances in which this agreement would operate and we should clearly recognise that. If we do, we must appreciate that we are being drawn into an area which is fraught with danger. We will be labelled because of our association with this authority and because of our association with those who dominate and control the authority. No case has been made from the Government side, as far as we can see, to show why it is essential that we should ratify this agreement and become part of this new proposed energy authority.
All the evidence in the past 18 months causes us and many other people to have the gravest reservations with regard to any proposals related to oil or energy which emanate from the Government. I would suggest to the Government that there is a strong case for us now to give serious consideration not to join this proposed authority to which we are provisionally committed but to stay away from it and, as our own resources become developed, to consider joining OPEC.
We now know we own a substantial gas field. The indications are that this country now has under its control a certain amount of oil. We do not know yet whether the amount will be sufficiently large to make it a worthwhile commercial find but the indications are that that may well be so. The fact that we are certain we have a substantial gas find and that it is likely we have a worthwhile oil find is of tremendous benefit to this country.
When the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke on this the other day he saw fit to criticise the arrangements which put us into this situation of having oil and gas fields developed within the jurisdiction of the Government. For many years he and others, by innuendo and otherwise, suggested that while Fianna Fáil were in Government after the last Coalition debacle in the 1950s they made a bad arrangement. But we are now in the situation that this same agreement which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and others criticise actually qualified us for entry into the OPEC group. It has given us the means, without any cost to this nation, by which we can prove to the world that we have under our jurisdiction an energy source and this has created the widest possible interest among those who have the financial resources and expertise to prove and develop the extent of the oil and gas within our jurisdiction.
I suggest that we should now begin to identify ourselves as a producer nation. We should now be formulating an intermediate energy policy until we extend our area of known deposits and get them into production.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,