The list of speakers given to me is: from 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. there will be a speaker on behalf of Fianna Fáil; from 7.30 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. a Government speaker; from 7.40 p.m. to 7.50 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.50 p.m. to 7.55 p.m. The Workers' Party; 7.55 p.m. to 8 p.m. a Government speaker; 8 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. a Government speaker, and from 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Private Members' Business. - Development of Natural Resources: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for its failure to implement comprehensive policies for the development of the country's natural resources.
A nation is its people and its natural resources and it is the signal failure of the Government to implement or even attempt a comprehensive policy, not alone in the area of manpower which has been the subject of many constructive debates by speakers on this side of the House, but also in the area of natural resources. Deputy Daly will be speaking later about forestry and Deputy Kitt will speak about the neglect of turf development.
I will concentrate on a few specific areas such as mining, oil exploration and natural gas. I heard Deputy Skelly refer to mining but I heard only a few sentences so I hope I will not take his remarks out of context. However, I should like to make the point that to my knowledge the Wright family do not have 20 per cent of Tara Mines, they have only ten per cent. The amount of loans in relation to one company to another have not been clearly defined or established. Those points should be borne in mind.
With regard to the national crisis, we should be looking to ourselves to see what we can do with our natural resources. How can we develop them to the maximum benefit of the people? I will have to draw arrows across the bows of various Ministers in an effort to get logical explanations for some of the policies they are pursuing which are very difficult to understand.
In regard to the most recent debacle in relation to the long drawn out saga of ten years, the position of Fianna Fáil in relation to Bula is to have it brought into production at the earliest possible opportunity in order to provide the jobs that are so badly needed and to reap the maximum national benefit which can be derived from it in the interests of our hard pressed taxpayers.
Then do not give it to Tara.
The people have received no return from this natural resource or from the disastrous decision to invest almost £10 million on behalf of the taxpayers over eight years ago. People are entitled to ask questions. Will they get a return? When will they get a return? What will be done in the wake of this debacle? I hope the Minister for Energy will speak in this debate and I call on him to state clearly and specifically what additional funds have been paid by the Government during the years from 1983 to date to the bankers of Bula Mines? For what purpose was the money paid and what were the results? I am not so naive as to believe that the bankers did not receive any comfort somewhere along the line, especially when they did not know where their money was going and were reluctant to go after the personal guarantors of the shareholders. Was there authority from this House to pay any money?
I recall the Coalition budget of 1982 where there was a specific amount of £1.7 million provided in the Estimates for arranging a deal between Bula and Tara. The Government then fell and when I was Minister for the rest of 1982 I used approximately £140,000 of the amount provided to buy approximately three weeks to try to finalise a deal. That is all I paid out; the taxpayer was saved the balance and it went back to the Exchequer at the end of the year unless between 14 and 31 December the Coalition handed over more money. I want the Minister to be very specific in relation to moneys paid from 1983 to date so that I can evaluate what is going on behind closed doors.
I now turn to the Government's handling of the take-over negotiations which were announced in this House in December 1984 and which were the subject of many questions. The Minister of State said then that he had a deal and time and time again I asked questions regarding the finalising of such a deal. I was told there were no problems, just a few small matters to be ironed out. I was told negotiations were confidential and I respected that. What happened? Apparently there was a deal worked out in August, if I am to believe everything I was told. I admit that the two parties concerned in the deal were difficult to deal with either separately or together but I was told that there was a deal. I do not know what happened then but I can speculate based on the information I received and on statements made. It appears that the Government, the Minister and the Minister of State believed that they had a deal because, if not, they would not have held a champagne party in the Department of Energy to celebrate. However, Bula then decided that they were not going to accept that deal and they put in additional demands totalling about £10 million. The handling, strategy and the non-recognition of the realities of economic life in relation to the metal industry at the time were obviously ignored by the Department. If they had not ignored these realities they would have put that demand into the dustbin recognising that they had a good deal in December 1983. Deputy Skelly need not be shaking his head because these are the facts.
It was not a good deal.
If the Deputy can get a better one I will shake his hand. The metals stock exchange did not even open for business yesterday. There is a collapse in the tin market and a shortfall of £150 million.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Skelly will have to leave the House if he cannot conduct himself.
I have no hang-ups about either company, I look on it purely as a business decision. I have been involved in these negotiations and I know how difficult it is to deal with the two parties concerned. The Government stand condemned for their ineptitude and bad judgment in these take-over negotiations. They stand condemned for ignoring the drastic changes in the market place and, above all, they stand condemned for their despicable and injudicious use of threats and "big brother" tactics. The whole thing backfired on them.
It is obvious that Tara were prepared to sign in August. Despite the fact that the deal had been improved four times during the year they were still prepared to sign until the demand was made for an extra £10 million. If I were in their chair I would do the same thing. They did not know what would be the end of the matter. The Government told them that the deal could be signed and then the other party came along with a demand for another £10 million. What way is that to carry on business negotiations? They showed a total disregard for the realities of the situation. A few days later metal prices came down and they have not stopped falling. Yet, the Government say that Tara should have taken on a deal that not alone would have bankrupted their operations but would have put strains on their entire enterprise. It was obvious from reading the Financial Times and other papers that the company had taken a corporate decision to reduce their borrowings.
Against that background a deal was on the table. It was celebrated by a champagne party in the Department of Energy but it finally collapsed in the face of the Government. We heard about the appointment of a receiver. He must be a mystery man because we have not seen him yet. On behalf of the shareholder holding a stake of 49 per cent, I want the Minister to clarify where is the receiver and what is his position. Apart from the bankers there are many other creditors who want to know where they stand. Above all, the workers in Bula want to know where they stand.
It is not good enough to hide behind a smoke-screen. From reading the newspapers today it is obvious that the Government are creating another smoke-screen when another mystery tour takes off to Europe to talk to the Finnish company, Autokompu, and also an Austrian company. I listened to that fairy tale in 1982 for a while. I took the plane to Helsinki and I confronted Autokompu to find out their views on Bula Mines. Today in a worsening market situation I have little doubt about their views and I have little doubt either about the view of the other European company. Stop this smoke-screen tactic to try to cover up your failed negotiations that fell back into your lap. Give us a clear statement tonight with regard to the situation and where you intend to go from here. I cannot understand why you have messed it up so badly. There is the experience of ten years behind all of you ——
Will the Deputy please use the third person when he is speaking. As well as being in breach of Standing Orders ——
It gets under your skin. That is fair enough. I will try not to do that any more.
I do not wish to be the Ceann Comhairle who presided over the tearing up of a tradition that has lasted since the foundation of the State.
I will comply with the ruling of the Chair. If I go off the rails the Chair can ring the bell and I will come to order. A good deal was available but the Government could not recognise that. I ask them to stop using the smoke-screen tactic of mystery tours to Europe to try to retrieve the situation. I want the Minister for Energy to spell out clearly tonight where he is going from here. I also want him to explain why one private company has been singled out for special treatment in the past eight years. That company happens to be Bula Mines.
The Deputy singled out Tara.
I will come to them in a moment. I heard the Deputy say that the State will not get any money out of their deal.
That is right.
Should that prove true in the long term it will be a reflection on the bad deal that was done in the beginning. It is the first admission from any member of the Government parties that a bad deal was one in 1975. When the negotiations were proceeding I gave some gentle advice to the Minister for Energy and the Minister of State to stop the "big brother" tactics and the threats because that would only tend to undermine international investment. I am asking the Minister to explain to the people why the company got special treatment in the past ten years.
In addition, a sister company, Bula Resources, in the recent third licensing round got four blocks. Not alone are they minority stake holders but they are a majority stake holder in one case. They are handling a 60 per cent majority interest in one case, 40 per cent in another, 22½ per cent and 13.88 per cent. I want the Minister to explain why this happened. When he announced the third round he went overboard in stressing the financial criteria he was laying down for companies that hoped to be awarded blocks. He said:
It is the weakest link in a chain which breaks first. The progress of any group can be seriously hampered if the weakest member ... has to be picked up and carried when the going gets tough.
He said he would be very wary of companies that seemed to have ambitions to become operators which it was beyond their capacity to achieve. The company, Bula Resources, failed to honour their obligations in other good blocks they got in previous rounds. Will the Minister please tell the House how he thinks they will be in a position to proceed with the four blocks they have got? How could the Minister give four blocks to a company that would be ruled out on the basis of his own criteria? What is the explantion? Is it political, is it due to an ideological hang-up, or is it a combination of both? Not alone do the people here want to know but also the people on the international scene wish to know why this happened. We are talking about a company that failed to honour its financial obligations one day but that was given four blocks very soon afterwards.
On the Stock Exchange the shares of the company concerned are running at approximately 5p while the par value of the shares is 25p. Does the Minister realise that company cannot get in money without going to the High Court with a request to reduce the par value of the shares? If the company could not get money on good blocks in the past month, how does the Minister expect it will get it now? Does he expect the people and the Opposition in this House to believe that there was no interference either for political or ideological reasons? It defies common sense and logic why he should put at risk natural resources that can and should be developed by giving four blocks to this company.
What is the present position of the receiver in Tara Mines? If a receiver was appointed to any small business in the country he would have taken up office within five minutes, but in this case are the Government preventing their receiver from doing his duty? Are they giving comfort to the banks to keep him out? Is it true, as I heard today, that a timescale has been set by the receiver telling the Government to make up their minds or he will go in and do his job? What kind of an example is that to give small companies who are struggling to stay in business? They realise that if you are big enough and have the right friends in the right places a receiver will not be brought in, but if you are struggling and a receiver is appointed, he will be in within five minutes. That is the reality of economic life in Ireland today.
That is a very serious charge.
It is a factual statement and I want an answer here tonight.
I question that it is a factual statement.
If the Minister knew anything about business he would know that a receiver would not be kept out for weeks without some comfort being given——
I am surprised at a successful businessman saying that.
He would also know there are legal obligations——
That is why the Deputy should be very careful.
Order, please.
I have said nothing which is not factual and I want explanations from the Minister. Do not side step the issues — straight answers to straight questions.
The Tánaiste will answer the Deputy's questions in detail.
I hope he will. That is the purpose of this exercise. The third licensing round has been a total disaster, as I predicted when the Government brought out the revised terms. I said they were not geared to the reality of getting scarce international investment because of the state of the oil industry. The price of oil has dropped, but if we are serious about this we should tailor our terms and create a climate where investors can operate. We should not carry on like cowboys using "big brother" tactics with people who have come here to try to resolve problems which were of the Government's own making. That is not the way to encourage international investment. When we look at the way we are managing our affairs I am not surprised that the third round was a flop. It is cheaper today to buy oil on the world stock exchanges than it is to risk money in Ireland because there is not a clear recognition by the Government that risks must be rewarded and enterprise encouraged. This Government have gone consistently in the wrong direction over the past three years.
Let us now look at natural gas and look at the Government's programme of inaction. In October 1982 I decided in principle, and announced it at the time, that Limerick, Clonmel and Waterford were to get natural gas. It is a sad reflection on this House and the way we manage our affairs that three years later we have gone very little further down that road. We must ask ourselves why. In October 1982 Limerick Corporation decided to accept a minority stake in a company which would provide natural gas into Limerick city and private enterprise were to get 60 per cent. The corporation accepted that, sent it to the Department and we accepted it and decided, in principle, that they would get gas. What happened? Since this Coalition came into office private enterprise were thwarted in every way possible with the result that they were forced to pull out.
The Cork Gas Company subsequently got into financial difficulties. The same consortium were interested in bailing them out and taking 70 per cent of the shares of that company but that was not approved by the present Tánaiste. At the end of the day they were forced to withdraw and once again it was decided that the ideal solution would be to have a nationalised gas industry in Cork. Now we have one in Limerick — whenever the gas gets there; and why it is taking so long I will never know — and we have one in Cork. What happened in Clonmel? There must have been five deputations to the Tánaiste about this so far, but there is no movement there. Is there no way in which these ideological hangups can be disposed of so that we can use the one natural resource that is available to us, which will bring economic activity back into the economy and provide the jobs which are so badly needed? Do not talk about where we will get the money because An Bord Gáis who are making £68 million a year are ready, willing and able to finance it. Everything is in place: there is the natural resource, jobs are needed, but there is no movement. Why? Is it political? Is it ideological? What is it? That is what we want to know tonight.
There is another crisis developing in Dublin Gas. The price of oil has dropped but will An Bord Gáis respond by reducing their prices? No; they are talking about increasing them. Anybody who looks at that financial setup will realise that that must inevitably bring about a crisis. Are we heading for the total nationalisation of Dublin Gas? Are the Fine Gael Party sitting beside men in a Government who are allowing this situation to develop? The new policy seems to have nothing to do with private enterprise or private investment, but letting the State control everything so that we can move towards the last stage of a socialist State. The Government already distribute 66p in every £1——
The Deputy is looking for more.
I do not believe this Government will be in power for very much longer. There is private money available for investment in joint ventures with the Government, but daily we hear this Government say they do not have the money to do this or that. Why not let private investment in? Because of an ideological hangup; Fine Gael are prepared to sit back and let the economy sink deeper and deeper into the rut. Let us know if those who are deciding our energy policies accept that there is place for private investment here. If we will continue to be subjected to this display of arrogance by this Government who say they know the best way to do everything. If they do, they have not done anything in the last three years, and they are unlikely to make any changes in that direction in the few months left to them. This is a terrible indictment of this Government.
The national grid was built before this Government took office and not even a spur has been put on since. The Coalition let an agreement between the British and Irish Governments slip away. This would have benefited the economy and the hard pressed taxpayers to the tune of £500 million to £600 million over 20 years.
Did the Deputy hear who pulled the plug?
At the moment ——
At least be honest with yourself, if not with the House.
I am being so honest that I ——
The Minister will have an opportunity to make his contribution later.
I know the truth hurts, but I am speaking from experience. Can the Minister with responsibility in this area to contradict anything I have said here this evening? We are still waiting for a gas extension from the outer ring of Dublin to Dundalk and Drogheda. There is a deposit of £5 million sterling in the kitty which the British Government lost on the deal which this Government let slip from their grasp. The cost of that pipeline in 1982 was between £13 million and £14 million and there are 23 million ECUs in Brussels for gas development, but for three years this Government have done nothing about it. If it lies there much longer I would not blame the people in Brussels if they redirected it elsewhere.
That is the record of inactivity and inaction of this Government. There is no logical explanation for any of the things I mentioned here tonight, and I look forward to the Minister for Energy telling me how much additional taxpayers' money he paid to the banks on behalf of Bula Mines, where he got it, and why we were not told about it in this House when the Estimates were going through, where we stand in relation to the receiver, representing 49 per cent of the shareholding, where he sees Bula getting all this financial help and backing that they could not get only two months ago to take on their obligations in relation to the three blocks they had and why a block of the four they got was one of the most sought after blocks which the Minister gave to a company who were not in a position to meet their financial commitments. That demands more than a glib explanation. It demands a logical explanation on behalf of the people and on behalf of the good name of Ireland at home and abroad.
My colleague, the Minister for Energy, will deal in detail with Deputy Reynolds charges in relation to oil and gas and in relation to the Tara — Bula question.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:—
"endorses the actions of the Government in the implementation of its policies for the development and exploitation of the country's natural resources.".
In relation to fisheries, since assuming office we have succeeded in finalising the common fisheries policy and we dealt with the expansion of the EC, specifically the addition of Spain and Portugal. We succeeded in retaining for ten years the Irish box and up to the year 2001 certain restrictions and limitations will apply on the Spanish and Portuguese fishing efforts. In relation to the fishing industry, we provided for them an aid package which has been very successful despite the prophets of doom who decried what it contained at the time. About 200 skippers have availed of this package. The result is that a vast amount of arrears have been reduced.
In relation to marketing, we have substantially increased financial resources to BIM for the current year and the results are showing. We have in place export credit facilities for the export of fish and the White Paper on the fishing industry is now being completed and hopefully will be published before the end of the year. That is a pen picture of the major steps forward in relation to the fishing industry.
In the strict sense, forestry would not be regarded as a natural resource because our forests have been planted but in the broad sense it can be accepted as a natural resource. The objective in this area is the exploitation of the resources and the maximisation of the benefits to this State on behalf of the people who have invested in that resource, namely, the taxpayers. I initiated a study into forestry. Last November I set up a review group to look into the area of administering this asset to see what changes might be recommended. That review group are about to report. Government support for the forestry programme goes on apace. In 1984 we planted 7,400 hectares. Together with that, roughly 450 hectares were planted in the private sector. There is every indication that the take-off of large investment in the private sector is now imminent. In 1985 we will be extracting roughly 600,000 cubic metres of saw log together with roughly 250,000 metres of pulp wood. The saw milling industry which was set up with the assistance of taxpayers' money through IDA grants now produces 35 per cent of domestic sawn white wood. To put this in context, only five years ago only 15 per cent of the domestic sawn white wood market was being satisfied by home grown timber.
In relation to private forestry the Department are open to suggestions. A while ago Deputy Reynolds made the point that we were not asking the private sector to provide money for investment in all sorts of ventures. Both the Department and the Government are prepared to look at investment by the private sector in forestry. I do not wish that to be interpreted that I am proposing to sell off every State forest as I was accused of doing when an official of a certain bank mentioned that he had at his disposal funds which could be used to purchase part of the forest asset. My response to that proposal was that it was worth examining and that if certain conditions were met I would give it serious consideration. The obvious condition is that the taxpayers' return would be adequate and that the product would be used ultimately for the benefit of the taxpayer. There are other conditions but those are the major ones.
In relation to agriculture we have made enormous strides in recent times. The amount of revenue accruing to the State from that industry is enormous due to the advances made by many farmers, the vast bulk of whom have been able to avail of new technology. There are some who have not been in a position or who have been unwilling to avail of advances made and they are falling behind. We are in a very competitive area and we must consider the most efficient farmers. There is no room for inefficiency. We must choose the most efficient farmers and concentrate on their efforts to produce a product for which there is a market. We have 6.9 million hectares, nearly three million hectares of which are devoted to pasture and 1.2 million to hay and silage. Because of our climate and because of this fact two of our major industries are the cattle and dairying industries. They account for £2,855 million worth of exports. That is 66 per cent of our total intake from agriculture. We have made enormous strides. Despite the allegations that this Government have no interest in and no feeling for the individual who is prepared to invest in any industry, all these facts go to show that the country is vibrant and industries are prepared to seek markets and look forward to expansion. Despite what has been said, I feel that Deputy Reynolds' speech is totally political.
Factual.
I accept that this House is political, but the speech was totally non-factual. The Deputy made statements that were blatantly untrue.
I am waiting to hear that they were.
The final insult to my intelligence, of which I have at least a small amount——
The Minister has.
——was to stand up in this House and blame this Government for not getting gas into Northern Ireland. My colleague, the Minister for Energy, will deal with that.
(Interruptions.)
The people are not so soft as to take that one on board.
The Minister should not venture into that area. He knows nothing about it.
I know enough about it to refute that allegation which is without foundation, and the Deputy knows that.
Let the people be the judges.
On a point of order, before Deputy Kitt commences, let me inquire from the Chair when I am likely to be called.
There is no provision made for you.
Surely it is in the discretion of the Chair to call speakers.
Acting Chairman
I will use my discretion.
In the brief time allocated to me I make a special plea to the Minister for Energy concerning the private bog development scheme which is about the only scheme for developing private bogs as the local authorities cannot apply their local improvements funds to bog development. I ask the Minister to consider the submission that is with him for guaranteed loans or an interest subsidy to farmers who have incurred great debts because of the atrocious weather conditions we have had this year. Normally at this time of year I would ask the Minister to consider including more money in the Estimates for the private bog development schemes. This year after the bad weather the farmers have lost a great deal of money because they could not carry out the schemes approved by Bord na Móna. I ask the Minister to respond positively to the submission made to him that these subsidies or interest free loans be made available to people who find themselves in difficulty.
Regarding bog development, I would like to inquire, as I do usually on energy debates, concerning the ongoing review, as it is described by Bord na Móna, on the Derryfadda bogs. I cannot understand how a Government, who say that they have a comprehensive energy policy and are exploiting our natural resources look at hundreds of thousands of acres of bog developed in the Galway-Roscommon area and have not as yet given approval to continue with the building of the briquette factory. In 1976 we in that area hoped that the milled peat would be used in the power station and a great fear when the power station was rejected was that all of this milled peat would be shipped to Shannonbridge or one of the other ESB stations. It is ironic that this year, 1985, what we feared then is now taking place but for a different reason. Because of the shortage of milled peat the proposal now is to transfer and transport this milled peat to the ESB stations in the midlands. In 1977, after a deputation to the incoming Fianna Fáil Government, approval was given for a briquette factory in this area. Unfortunately it has not been built.
On 13 December last year Deputy Reynolds and I had a question down to the Minister for Energy concerning the review that was going on at the time. We were told that it was to be reconsidered in May 1985. In the light of the market situation at the time I would like to quote from the reply we received. The Minister said and I quote from the Official Report, column 2826, volume 354:
I have asked the board to keep me informed of the state of the peat market in the intervening heating season. The deferral of the project had inevitably affected employment levels in Derryfadda and there have been redundancies. Bord na Móna have made every effort to minimise the job losses and wherever possible have relocated workers at their other works in the area.
The job losses referred to the laying off of 100 people, an unfair way to deal with a review as carried out by Bord na Móna. We would like to know now when this review will be completed. It has been going on since May 1985, and since the project was sanctioned in 1979 it is time a decision was made.
On the question of layoffs let me welcome the fact that Bord na Móna decided not to lay off workers. That was a major concern of all Deputies and I hope the decision will carry through into 1986. In the Galway-Roscommon area £20 million is committed to the project. The local authorities in Galway and Roscommon have carried out water schemes and provided roads and other services, and now continuing delays are adding to the cost of this project. I would like to impress upon the Minister — though I am sure I do not have to do so — that a briquette factory is the most suitable means of utilising the production of the boglands in these areas. Now that the bogs are almost fully developed and the factory programme has reached the stage where tenders have been sought for the civil works, I ask the Minister to continue with the approval for the building of this factory. I ask him to inquire again concerning the possibility of EC funds for it. We understand that EC regulations provide for help towards the exploitation of peat resources and the processing of peat for briquettes.
I would like to say a few words on what I see as the complacency ——
Acting Chairman
You have two minutes.
—— of this Government as regards energy supplies. When Deputies on this side put down questions about alternative energy options we are told for instance, that short rotation forestry is not successful. I see no commitment to that project or to other alternative energy areas. I impress upon the Government the necessity for planning, research and development in these areas, particularly with the timber industry. We heard the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry dealing with some of those matters in the House but the papers that have been produced by people in the Agricultural Institute have shown very clearly that in small industry particularly timber could be used as a fuel which would help that industry if they had the technology to use it. It is a renewable source of energy and is also a non-polluting source of energy. I am very pleased that a Galway company, Tuam Engineering, provided the generator for the windpowered turbine at Kinsealy. This has great potential for the horticulture industry as was the case also in Corca Dhuibhne where the Tánaiste performed the opening ceremony.
Almost.
That type of project, especially the one at Kinsealy, has great potential in terms of the export market. I understand that in 1984 Denmark exported wind turbines to the US to the value of about 90 million US dollars. There is Danish technology at Kinsealy and I should like to see the Department becoming more involved in that area. They are a little complacent about alternative energy. Perhaps they are lulling us into a sense of false security. More money should be spent on research and development in this area.
I am delighted that this debate is taking place because industrialisation on the basis of our natural resources is the cornerstone of the economic policy that The Workers' Party have been promoting for more than a decade. I am very pleased that recently the IDA understood the importance of this development and now have a special section dealing with the matter of natural resources and with the development of industries based on natural resources. The investment in such industries is very welcome.
I do not know whether the Government have yet realised the importance of the wealth creating potential of this type of development. By all means we should encourage foreign industrialists to set up here and in that way to provide extra jobs, but these industries are not as wealth creating for the economy as are industries based on our natural resources.
I regret that the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry does not regard forestry as a natural resource. What else is it? The Minister seems to have the impression that our natural resources are represented merely by our mineral wealth and probably by oil. Forestry is a natural resource that is renewable. The State is renewing our forestry resources but private individuals and companies should be encouraged also to become involved in this area. Forestry could also be a source of great industrial development but our forestry, as in the case of so many other areas, has not been the source of job creation and wealth that it might have been. It must be taken out of the hands of civil servants and there must be no holding back in terms of its development.
Bord na Móna who did such a tremendous job in developing one natural resource should be given responsibility for marketing and developing our forestry especially since peat resources are being depleted and may not last for more than another 20 years. The Sugar Company and the ESB are also examples of how natural resources can be harnessed and developed into major industries.
Up to 30 years ago we were taught that we had no mineral resources but then minerals were discovered. Attempts had been made during the past couple of hundred years to find minerals but it was always thought to be the case that they did not exist. Now we find that they are in great abundance in the Meath area but we are not using them to the extent that we should be exploiting them in terms of industrial development and job creation. Between 300,000 and 350,000 tons of ore are being taken from the country each year from the Tara mine alone and now we are telling Tara to take over Bula and to adopt the same procedure there. This will result in nothing being left behind as was the case at Tynagh.
A number of years have passed since the carrying out of a feasibility study into the provision of a smelter in the Ballylongford area. That survey was conducted by a multinational company but the Government should now carry out their own feasibility study with a view to providing a smelter for the minerals taken from Tara and Bula. Immediately, the Government should review the lease on Tara in order to ensure that the royalties are paid on the tonnage extracted rather than by way of the present system whereby royalties are paid only on profits which are proved by way of corporation tax.
Clever accounting can avoid that. Therefore, in the context of the Bula deal the Government should force Tara to accept a renegotiation of the lease and to pay royalties on extraction.
Mr. O'Malley rose.
Deputy Bell.
May I ask when I may be called on to speak to the debate?
Acting Chairman
My understanding is that at the outset the Chair read out a list of speakers and that was agreed.
Agreed by whom?
Acting Chairman
It was agreed by the Whips of the parties and consequently I am calling on Deputy Bell.
Neither the Whips nor the parties apply to me.
Acting Chairman
I find that the list was put to the House and that the House agreed.
Have I the right to take part in this debate? I began my contribution to it in January 1977 and I am still going strong.
Acting Chairman
Since the House agreed to the list that was put to it, it is Deputy Bell's turn to speak.
It is very regrettable that Independent Deputies seem to have no right of audience.
Acting Chairman
We must abide by the agreement of the House in relation to the list that was put to it. Deputy Bell has only five minutes.
I presume that an expression of disagreement on the part of some Members would not make any difference and that certain Members are excluded from speaking to this debate.
Acting Chairman
As I have said, the House agreed to the list put before it and I must abide by that agreement.
I do not think that the list was put to the House. However, is it not a matter for the Ceann Comhairle, in accordance with the rules, to decide who should speak?
Acting Chairman
The list was put to the House and the times allocated accordingly.
It is a disgrace that Independent Members are not allowed to speak and that a man of Deputy O'Malley's standing must sit here hour after hour and not be called on when he is offering.
Acting Chairman
I must abide by the decision of the House.
Deputy O'Malley was first on his feet on the last couple of occasions. Arrangements should be made to allow Independent Members to contribute. It is disgraceful that they are ignored. Fianna Fáil might have made some provision to allow Deputy O'Malley in.
Deputy Skelly should solve his own problems.
If I had more than five minutes I would share my time with Deputy O'Malley but that is not the case. I asked for the opportunity to speak briefly under a couple of main headings in this debate.
The main question for us in the constituency of Louth is the natural gas pipeline. It appears that there is a certain amount of confusion in this respect so perhaps when replying the Minister will clarify the matter. In the course of visits to the constituency, one or two Ministers indicated that the gas pipeline would go ahead. Unless the gas pipeline is extended from Dublin to the Border, Louth and the Border area generally will suffer greatly.
I think it would be accepted by the House that Louth is probably the most industrialised county in the Border region but it suffers severely from adverse Border trade and the exchange rate. If we are to compete and to secure replacement industries for those which we have lost it is absolutely essential that this decision be taken. As a member of the Labour Party and speaking as a Labour Deputy in the constituency, I ask the Minister, as a colleague and as the Minister responsible, to use his good offices to have this decision taken speedily so that we can make up for the time we have lost.
If the Minister for Energy has no objection, I will let you continue for a moment.
Noimead amháin.
I am making a special appeal to the Minister. There is one company in the town of Drogheda that would use more natural gas than the whole of Dublin city. It does not make sense to have a gas pipeline within 26 miles of that town, with a further 20 miles to Dundalk, without these towns being included. One must take into account that the Morecambe Bay field on the British coast is about 60 miles from Dundalk as the crow flies. In the event of no further gas being discovered on our west or east coasts, it would make sense simply to extend the gas pipeline from Britain to Dundalk and reverse the procedure so as to ensure the extension of the supply of gas to industry in the Border area.
I also remind the Minister that we have a very large fishing fleet in the constituency of Louth and that this is an area that has been badly neglected. The pier is virtually falling into Clogherhead harbour and the 35 boats from there have to dock in Drogheda, Mornington, Skerries and Howth because of the condition of the harbour. I ask the Minister to take note of those two main issues affecting the constituency of Louth. I hope in the next debate to get more than five minutes to contribute.
In my opening remarks I would like to reply to the Opposition speakers and first to make a few general points. I hope to deal with the points raised by my erstwhile adversary across the floor, Deputy Reynolds.
First, I should like to state that this Government are fully committed to the comprehensive and orderly development of our natural resources both on land and sea. If you look at the area of energy policy, the fundamentals of that policy are that the Irish people are the owners of whatever oil or gas exist off our shores and of most of the land-based minerals. Any natural resources policy must recognise that fact and the objective must be to facilitate the exploration and search for these natural resources while, at the same time, ensuring a fair return for the people as the owners and also a reasonable award to the lessees who are entrusted with the development of the resources. I do not believe, however, that this has been particularly a philosophy of Fianna Fáil over the years. They appear to favour the easy option, to belong to the "Let us give away our resources" school of thought.
I never said that.
I can accept that — and for Deputy Reynolds in particular — in that it can be popular in certain business circles. It may be in the shorter term, but I suggest that in the long term and over the long haul it is disastrous both for companies and for the Irish people who are the owners of the resources.
After ten years?
I would particularly remind Deputy Reynolds that this is not a banana republic——
It is not far from it.
——whatever the Deputy may think of it personally.
It has been goaded into being one.
It is certainly not one in the area of resources policy. Changes made by the previous Coalition in the mid-seventies, both in relation to mining and petroleum offshore, have provided a stable framework for development and exploration. The Fianna Fáil attitude always has been — and we have seen more of it here tonight — to bend and wilt to the passing pressures of the day. What the Government are providing and what is in the long term intersts of companies engaging in exploration is a fair regime governing tax, royalties and safe participation. Terms that are over-generous to the companies cannot last — public opinion rightly would not allow that — while a framework that is over-harsh will not ensure adequate exploration or development.
We should also pay careful attention to the idea of using our natural resources for development, that is, of selling them cheaply to aid industry and so on. This should not be the norm of policy. For example, in the case of natural gas it would mean that the Exchequer obtains less revenue and the Irish people therefore a lower reward than if the full market price were charged. It may be desirable in certain circumstances to forego revenue for a wide policy aim or where premium markets for natural gas are being built up, but we must remember that often demands for cheap gas are, in fact, demands for more subsidies of one sort or another and we should evaluate them on that basis.
In relation to oil exploration generally, Government policy was spelt out clearly in April 1975, with the publication of the terms to be applied to exploration licences to be issued under Ireland's first and subsequent licensing rounds. These terms took full account of the need to achieve a broad national interest objective. They also recognised the potential of our offshore areas as a source of energy resource which could, if properly exploited, make a very valuable contribution towards meeting the energy needs of the economy which even now is overdependent on imported oil.
They also took into account the distinctive characteristics of the oil exploration industry. These were a vastness of scale of operations involving initial large scale expenditure on exploration with a corresponding expectation of pro rata large scale returns from development; the costly and specialised technology constantly being adapted to the changing needs of new operational areas; also, the volatility of the industry to the exploration and exploitation stages; also, the fast pace of development necessitating some measures of flexibility on the part of the State to take account of short term considerations while ensuring that the policy reflected long term national needs and avoided any element of indiscriminate exploitation; also, the fact that any hydrocarbons discovered were essentially a finite resource.
Finally, it was recognised even then, despite the general air of optimism which prevailed, that there could be no certainty that significant commercial deposits of petroleum would be discovered and, even if these were found, that they could either be quite limited deposits or prove to be such as to represent a considerable surplus over and above conceivable national usage. The terms provided for a fair return on effort and investment on the part of licencees and set maximum limits for State royalties and State participation, with provision for reductions in these areas when this was necessary to ensure a fair return for investors.
Ministers have repeatedly stressed that the flexibility provided for in the terms would undoubtedly be exercised where necessary in the case of marginal fields. Where the oil industry sought more specific assurances earlier this year we responded by producing a formula for reliefs in the case of marginal fields which in general was well received by the industry.
But with what results?
Since 1975, licensing terms have stood the test of time and have been used by successive Governments as the basis for offshore exploration. That our licensing terms are not as unattractive to the oil exploration companies as some would have us believe is borne out by the fact that since licences were first issued subject to those terms almost £400 million has been spent by those companies on drilling activities. The vast amount of knowledge and data relative to our offshore has been provided to my Department at no cost to the State as a result of the companies' exploration efforts. Including the well currently being drilled, a total of 89 wells have been drilled offshore to date, apart from onshore wells. Next year at least ten wells will be drilled, which is the highest number since 1978. The data relating to those wells and all the related seismic data supplied to my Department free of cost are the basic elements in the large data bank to which I have already referred. While individual companies hold particular sets of data, the Department of Energy are the only organisation in possession of all the data, seismic, geological and geophysical, which have so far emerged from the exploration of offshore Ireland.
In many instances this gives us considerable strength in our negotiations with the oil companies and enables us from time to time, technically and within the limits of commercial confidentiality — which is a matter of paramount importance to the industry — to be of great assistance to them in their assessment of acreage. These are all parts of the national interest objective which I and the Government continue successfully to pursue.
In relation to the third licensing round, the suggestion has been put forward by Deputy Reynolds that because only 15 out of 77 blocks have been allocated the third round has not been a success. Of course Deputy Reynolds seems to have forgotten the history of past licensing rounds and the success or otherwise of the third round or any round should not be measured by the proportion of blocks on offer that were licensed. This falls into the error of assuming that every square on the map has the same potential. This is not so and it was recognised when the 77 blocks were offered that many were likely to be of little or no interest. The success of a round depends only on whether it leads to a continuing satisfactory level and quality of exploration over the blocks on offer, satisfaction being measured in terms of what is considered to be appropriate and necessary to see the area fully explored. The facts will substantiate that the third round was a success.
Nobody but the Minister believes that.
This might hurt the Deputy but he will have to listen to it. First it resulted in about 6,500 kilometres of seismic data being made available to the Department and to the industry. Prior to the round there was only a superficial knowledge of many of the blocks on offer in the round. Secondly, of the blocks considered by my Department to be of significant prospectivity and therefore worthy of licensing with drilling commitments, well over half have been licensed. Once the seismic referred to above had been acquired it was possible to determine which blocks were significantly prospective and there were 29 in that category. Of these there are six blocks which for good technical reasons were not attractive to exploration companies at that time. There are three which could be licensed but for the delimitation dispute with Britain. Of the remaining 20 blocks, 15 are licensed. My Department are at present making preparations to promote the remaining blocks. Thirdly, the level of work commitments for the 15 blocks is the maximum that could be achieved at this time and a large amount of seismic is committed. The fact that ten wells will be explored next year is very satisfactory.
In relation to the question of mining, which seems to be of interest to Deputy Reynolds——
Why did the Minister give four to Bula?
I will tell the Deputy if he will wait a minute. I should like to talk about the question of mining because time seems to be of the essence here. Government policy is to secure continued investigation of the country's mineral potential, the development of identified economic ore bodies and their exploitation on terms that provide a fair return to the State. Steps were taken in the early seventies to ensure an equitable return to the State from the exploitation of mineral resources. In 1974 the 20-year tax holiday introduced by Fianna Fáil was ended. About the same time the State established for the first time its right where it was deemed appropriate to take a participating interest in mine development through the securing of a State shareholding in the Navan ore body. This right was firmly enshrined in the Minerals (Development) Act, 1979.
There has been a fall off in investment in recent years which is reflected in the minerals industry worldwide. However, against the background of the current worldwide economic situation mineral exploration here is still being maintained at a reasonably satisfactory level. New sources of investment continue to be attracted. This arises because companies realise that in Ireland they have a well developed physical infrastructure and a network of services and can explore for and develop minerals within a relatively simple but effective legal and administrative framework. There is a stable political climate and the assurance that, in the event of a discovery, they will receive a fair and reasonable return on their investment.
I should reply to Deputy Reynolds who in the course of his contribution made allegations both in relation to the third licensing round and in relation to negotiations which have been conducted in my Department. He implied that the negotiations were on the basis of either political or ideological favouring. This was an interesting remark from Deputy Reynolds but one which I will certainly refute either inside this House or outside. If the Deputy wished to make the remark outside he would find himself in a hell of a lot of trouble.
Set against the Minister's own financial criteria, why did he give them four blocks?
I approached the question of the difficulties in the Navan orebody as somebody with no preconvictions and a totally open mind in my efforts to bring about a solution which would be best for the development of minerals here. I have approached the mining problem in a totally honourable manner and I totally refute the allegation by Deputy Reynolds that a comfort was given to either party. I challenge him to say it outside the House.
How much taxpayers' money was paid from the banks on behalf of Buala Mines?
No comfort has been given and there was no holding of the receiver. Anything that was done was in an effort to bring a conclusion to a sad saga in the development of minerals in this country. Deputy Reynolds is as aware of that as anybody in this House. Anything that has been done has been with a view to bringing about the development of all the ore body in the Navan area. I would ask Deputy Reynolds to withdraw his remark in this House that there have been either political or ideological considerations in my handling or my Department's handling of the mining situation during the past 12 months.
I will withdraw if the Minister answers the five quesitons I put to him.
(Interruptions.)
Why does Deputy Reynodis want to give it to Tara?
Order, please. I am calling on Deputy Brendan Daly to conclude the debate, without interruption.
On a point of order, I have offered five or six times in this debate and your predecessor in the Chair, Deputy Allen, was making the most praiseworthy efforts to call me. I wonder if I will be called to speak before the debate ends.
The Ceann Comhairle read out a list of names at 7 o'clock which was agreed upon. At 8.15 p.m. I must call on a Fianna Fáil speaker to conclude the debate on the Private Members' motion. Deputy Brendan Daly has offered on behalf of Fianna Fáil. It is outside my control.
The new system of drawing up lists and agreeing them is a most unsatisfactory one. Those who are not in a party are automatically excluded from such lists.
I am sincerely sorry, I must allow Deputy Brendan Daly to conclude the debate.
It is a pity that I can make no contribution to this debate. I recall speaking on this topic for the best part of nine weeks in 1977. Perhaps there was a more democratic situation at that time.
You are not questioning the Chair, I hope.
I am questioning the new rules.
There are no new rules. I would be very grateful if you would resume your seat, please.
At the outset of the Minister's contribution he claimed to be committed to the development of our natural resources. The difficulty with this Government is that they claim to be committed to everything but are achieving very little, if anything. That was clearly demonstrated by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in his contribution which was a lamentable performance, a hopeless response to the critical situation which faces him in relation to the development of two major national resources, forestry and fisheries.
I support the motion fully condemning the Government for their failure to implement comprehensive policies for the development of our natural resources. Many of the problems currently affecting the development of marine resources and marine-related industries can be attributed to an absence of policy, fragmented administrative structures and the overlapping of financial and human resources. At the same time we have a lack of investment of research and development in the marine sector.
We in Fianna Fáil have recognised for some time that the sea represents a national resource with a huge developmental potential which as yet has only been partially released. Last March our leader, Deputy Haughey, announced that the next Fianna Fáil Government will establish a marine Department to exploit fully the potential of our marine resources. We have spelled that out very clearly in a documented policy outlining the position the next Fianna Fáil Government will adopt in this area.
This contrasts starkely with the performance we have seen, particularly in relation to the development of our fishing industry. There is a totally depressing atmosphere in that industry. Fishermen are in severe financial difficulties with arrears mounting daily. Boats are being repossessed weekly. Our infrastructure is completely undeveloped and many of our harbours and landing places throughout the country are in a state of dereliction. Some of them are even dangerous. One collapsed in my constituency last year.
The entire fisheries policy being pursued by the Minister is inadequate for needed development. Fish quotas are inadequate to meet the needs of fishermen. With the accession of Spain to the EC, fishermen's livelihoods are in jeopardy and many jobs in the industry have been put at risk because of the failure of the Government successfully to negotiate higher quotas, particularly for herring and mackerel. Thousands of jobs are at risk in the fish processing industry. I suggest that the Minister has abdicated his responsibility totally in regard to fish quotas. We have a lack of research and development throughout the entire field of fisheries and the aqua-marine sectors of our economy.
Fianna Fáil have been proclaiming for some time that the sea as a national resource has a huge potential. Last March Deputy Haughey announced that the next Fianna Fáil Government will establish a marine Department to be known as Roinn na Mara to exploit the potential of our marine resources. We have set out in great detail the policy Fianna Fáil will adopt in this respect. It contrasts very sharply with the policy we have seen in this area.
Policies set down by successive Governments for fishery development have not been implemented. The forest planning programme is in decline. Targets have not been reached and, as the Minister said tonight, we planted only 7,000 hectares last year though the target was 10,000 hectares. Our land reserves for forestry have been depleted by the Government. We have had the Minister here and outside speaking about the need for development of our forests, but the review body which he set up and which were due to report last June still have not issued a report. The Government do not appear to be able to make decisions about what the mechanism will be for future development of this resource.
We are importing timber annually to the value of between £5 billion and £6 billion, 90 per cent of which could be grown successfully at home. Small sawmills throughout the country are working at half their capacity and jobs have been lost in old established mills like Kilrush and Mountrath. This has happened because the Government will not provide timber. Worse still, we had the Minister's proposal to sell off State forests to private financial and banking institutions. He is not sufficiently interested to keep up timber supplies that would maintain employment in this sector.
We on this side are deeply committed to the development of these resources. It has become necessary to establish a State body, similar to Bord na Móna, to exploit the potential of our forests to ensure that we will at least be in a position to meet our own needs in regard to timber. We have spoken of the job potential in timber. We are sick and tired of Minister after Minister telling us that they are committed to this, that and the other but we never see action from them. The time for commitment is over. The time for action is now.
In regard to fisheries again, we saw massive dumping of lead on the oyster beds in Galway under Government licence, and similar damage being done to the Cork oyster beds by the pumping into them of raw sewage. These two enterprises were earning more than £5 million annually.
Deputy Faulkner spoke of the need to supply Drogheda with natural gas. We support that call fully and we have spoken of it on numerous occasions. Earlier in the month, Deputy Faulkner tabled a question on this subject. It is not good enough to say that feasibility studies will be carried out. I urge the Tánaiste to go ahead with this gas extension to Drogheda and to other urban areas throughout the country. The Shannon Industrial Estate are crying out for a supply of natural gas.
It is time for the Government to come out of the dark in this respect. Infrastructures should be created whereby jobs will be provided. We have seen only failure from the Government in all areas of national endeavour. They have failed to exploit our natural resources. They have failed to manage the country's finances. They have failed to deal with even the most pressing of our economic problems. It is no wonder Fine Gael are in total disarray. There is only one honourable course for this Government and that is to call a general election and let the people decide their future. I have no doubt about the answer they will get.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.