Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Jun 2001

Vol. 538 No. 5

Irish National Petroleum Corporation Limited Bill, 2001: Committee and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 1.

Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are related to amendment No. 1. Is it agreed that we discuss amendments Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11 together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following definition:

"‘current market prices' means the current price at which the product is offered by a refining company to a customer and is based on an appropriate international index for the calculation of petroleum product prices;".

It is a pity we are rushing this Bill through the House. It is important legislation and we should have more time to discuss it and tease out the issues. Where the small operators are concerned, being able to source supply from the national refinery at Whitegate is essential to their ability to compete with the major oil companies. The national refinery has given Irish owned companies the opportunity to offer real competitive choice to customers. We are really trying to draw attention to the need for this to continue.

I note the Minister stated in her Second Stage speech that this cannot be guaranteed. Basically we are saying that it is important that the small companies would not be squeezed out and these amendments have been tabled to draw attention to the need to ensure that would not happen. The Minister has said she feels this would not be the case in a commercial environment and that an oil refining company would sell to everybody who has money to buy product, but it is important that we discuss these issues.

There are a number of ways in which a large company could exclude smaller companies if it wished to do so. Perhaps this is covered by other laws on competition. It was interesting that a little while ago the Minister stated that an application has been made for clearance from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and perhaps the Minister will tell us the standing of that application. If I heard correctly what she said in her reply on Second Stage, the response of the Department is still awaited. I would be interested to know has she any indication from the Department or the Competition Authority as to the standing of that application.

She also mentioned something about EU assurances which had been sought or made available but she seemed a little wishy-washy on that matter. Perhaps she would state clearly that there is no problem in this regard where the Competition Authority, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the European Union are concerned. Could she also tell us if these bodies have any role in ensuring that the smaller oil companies are protected and what that role might be? If she could give us details of that role, it would be quite useful.

Amendment No. 1 is designed to ensure that current market prices would apply as decided by "an appropriate international index for the calculation of petroleum product prices". As the Minister will be aware, there are such indices. This, in conjunction with the other amendments, would ensure that the new owners of the refinery could not squeeze out a selected company of either Irish or foreign origin. I would be interested to hear in the Minister's reply if the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has given cast-iron guarantees at this stage regarding the competitive nature of this deal and if the EU authorities are fully on board.

The first part of amendment No. 9, which contains a number of parts, ensures that any company that refines oil into petroleum products within the State shall make available its output for sale within the State at current market prices at the time.

There are two aspects to this, first, that it will make the product available and, second, that it will make it available at a competitive current market price.

The second part of amendment No. 9 ensures that the products being sold will "be allocated on a non-discriminatory basis to all companies seeking such product and have regard to traditional off take proportions among companies purchasing product.". This will ensure that no company is squeezed out. Perhaps there is something in current legislation which provides for such guarantees.

The third part of amendment No. 9 states that any company that refines oil into petroleum products in the State shall in so far as it is capable ensure that a sufficient range and quantity of products is produced, or capable of being produced to meet national strategic fuel needs at a given time, with due regard to the national profile or fuel consumption within the State.

The Minister should have no difficulty in accepting these amendments. If the company is coming in here in good stead, as I am almost certain it is, then there should be no difficulty inserting these amendments in the legislation. They just copper-fasten what the Minister said will happen anyway.

In the event of a dispute arising between companies and the refinery, it would be important that there would be some form of arbitration in place. We are endeavouring to draw attention to this in amendment No. 10. I am not aware of the existence of any such arbitration at present. If the Minister has information in this regard, will she make it available?

The amendment sets out who might be the arbitrator. As usual, the arbitrator should be acceptable to both parties to the dispute or perhaps a person nominated by the Law Society of Ireland who would be acceptable to both parties. That would also have the effect of heading off problems and difficulties which might occur should such a dispute arise.

In the event of failure to comply with these sections, there obviously should be some form of sanction and we provided for that in amendment No. 11. Perhaps the Minister has views on changing those provisions or perhaps there are guarantees already in place which can be enforced of which we are unaware, but it is important that the interests of the small indigenous Irish companies would be protected. As I have said, I am almost sure this will be the case anyway but I would like to hear the Minister say so. One of the reasons these amendments have been tabled is they give the Minister an opportunity to address the points and let us know the exact position.

I thank Deputies Stanton and Jim Higgins for tabling those amendments. These amendments were tabled at the behest of Tedcastles, a company operating in the oil market. I fully accept that people have a right to lobby and to put forward their point of view. The company in question put forward its point of view to me and to the Department, but obviously any such points of view are put to the office of the Attorney General and to the Department's legal advisers.

Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 would place an artificial restriction on the commercial freedom of the new owners – or the current owners – who will operate to the highest standards in a commercial environment. Deputies will be aware that under legislation I am remarkably free to accept amendments and I have done so in many cases in both Houses of the Oireachtas, but clearly these are entirely unsuitable and I certainly would not be able to accept them. Rather than placate Deputy Stanton with soft words, I must say that it would be entirely incorrect of me to accept any of these amendments.

It would amount to an unjustified restriction to supply goods and services on the part of the purchaser and would be against the free movement of goods and services set out in Article 29 of the relevant EU treaty. Apart from that it would be wrong, because of the need for commercial freedom, to tie down Tosco Corporation to adhere to the needs of one company. People have the right to lobby but our advice from the Attorney General and our legal sources indicates it would not be possible to tie down the company in this way, even at the behest of such an eminent company as Tedcastles Oil Products Limited, for which I have high regard.

With regard to specifying compliance with arbitration, people can have recourse to the Arbitration Acts if they wish. The State does not force anybody into arbitration because it is a voluntary act. If parties do not agree to it they can go to court. There is no compulsion on any firm to comply with arbitration. It would not be possible to include that in any legislation. In view of this, the amendment dealing with fines to be imposed arising from the failure to take up arbitration falls. I like introducing, considering and amending legislation, but I cannot accept these amendments as legally they do not stand up.

With regard to the other matter raised by Deputy Stanton, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment advised yesterday that it had been brought to the attention of the Competition Authority which agreed that existing competition legislation would afford all necessary legislative remedy should the proposed new owner of the facilities attempt to abuse its position or act in an uncompetitive manner. The same advice was offered by the Office of the Attorney General and our legal advisers.

It is useful to know that. This is a very important matter for the company mentioned by the Minister and other companies. I see no reason a company like Tosco Corporation should exclude companies. It is in the business of making money. Nevertheless, we must debate these issues when they are brought to our attention.

If I understand the Minister correctly, she has no fears that the smaller companies will not be excluded in any way. Will she put that on the record? Will she clarify the EU position? She mentioned assurances. Will she be more specific about them?

I only got the amendments at the end of Second Stage.

(Dublin West): It is an outrageous way to deal with legislation.

We only received the Deputy's amendments this evening.

(Dublin West): They were submitted for Committee Stage before Second Stage had been concluded.

I am nervous that amendment No. 9 would reintroduce a type of mandatory regime. The company and its associates which submitted briefing material to us brought Ireland to the European Court to end the mandatory regime. They failed but this amendment would reintroduce it. There is some protection in the marketplace and competition rules require the company to deal fairly with other traders. It would be extraordinary to provide for compulsory arbitration. I am not aware of any circumstance where that would apply.

Last week we received from the EU a standard request for information. It did not contain a threat of any kind. We will respond to the letter next week but I understand from my officials' speaking contact with the EU that the type of information we are providing will be acceptable.

I understand a vote cannot be called on this amendment because Report Stage follows directly after Committee Stage. In view of this I will withdraw the amendment with the view to resubmitting a similar one on Report Stage. I understand I will have 30 minutes to consider my position. It is marvellous to have such time between Stages.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "on" and substitute "on 21".

This refers to a map which is required. The relevant map has been duly sealed and signed and has been deposited in the Ordnance Survey Office. The map indicates the Bantry off-shore jetty known as the main jetty and in respect of which the State continues to retain liability. Although the deposited map was not prepared by the Ordnance Survey, it was considered that the Ordnance Survey Office in Dublin represented the most appropriate location for depositing it.

There is a full stop after the figure 21 in the amendment. I do not think it should be there. On previous occasions the Minister has had to introduce amendments to remove full stops.

The matter can be corrected in the Seanad if necessary.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

(Dublin West): I move amendment No. 2a:

In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.–(1) The Minister shall not sell, exchange, transfer or otherwise dispose of all or any of the shares held by the Minister in the Corporation to any potential purchaser without first conducting a thorough environmental audit of the potential purchaser's environmental record in this and in any other jurisdiction where it has operated.

(2) The Minister shall not sell, exchange, transfer or otherwise dispose of all or any of the shares held by the Minister in the Corporation to any potential purchaser that has been in serious breach of health and safety laws in this or in any jurisdiction outside the State.".

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment – there is no reason it should not be accepted – and that it is also supported by the other Opposition parties. The purpose of the amendment is to protect our environment and ecosystems from predatory oil corporations and to protect the health and safety of the workers employed by them and other citizens or residents in close proximity to the facility.

In her reply to Second Stage, the Minister treated the points I made in a totally flippant fashion. She did not respond to the points about the health and safety record of Tosco Corporation which, as I said, is disastrous. It obviously cut corners and a failure on the part of the management of the corporation was responsible for the tragedies in California. The report by the investigating authority, the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, stated in relation to the 1999 disaster that management had responsibility to ensure that work was halted when it became clear that it was proceeding in a dangerous fashion. It also stated that worker error was not a root cause of the accident and that a satisfactory management system is one that anticipates that humans will inevitably make mistakes but still ensures the safe conduct of work. Effective job planning, hazard review and management oversight could have prevented the Avon tragedy.

As I said on Second Stage, this tragedy, which cost the lives of four workers, occurred after another incident a year or two previously that involved similar management failure. There is a chronic pattern of cutting corners to maintain high profits. The Minister proposes to hand a facility in Ireland over to a corporation that is guilty of criminal negligence. She must reply to these points.

I intend to.

(Dublin West): She did not do so on Second Stage.

I was waiting for the Deputy's amendment.

(Dublin West): The Minister referred in a jocose fashion to the fact that the corporation was headed by a nice man called Mr. O'Malley.

I addressed Deputy O'Malley and said he had the same name.

(Dublin West): The Minister referred to another Mr. O'Malley who is obviously a principal in the corporation. Health and safety are not jocose matters. Since those explosions, Tosco was taken over by Phillips Corporation, an even bigger multinational company which also has a disastrous safety record.

Phillips refuses to enter into a safety contract with the trade union concerned, the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union. If the Minister intends to pursue the sale to this corporation, she must get safety guarantees from it. It is not sufficient to say that the same management and employees will remain in place. It is up to the oil corporation that takes over to decide what management will be put in place. The Minister cannot say that the same management will be in place for the next 15 years or that it will be in a position to maintain the same health and safety record and procedures that obtained when the operation was in public ownership. She must take serious cognisance of the health and safety record of Tosco Corporation and its parent company, Phillips Corporation.

I am surprised that Deputies from west Cork in particular did not look more closely at the environmental record of Tosco Corporation. A wonderful natural resource is located in the vicinity of the facility that will be handed over to the corporation. Bantry Bay has a wealth of fishing and it is important in tourism terms not only to the people of west Cork, but to people from the rest of the country and abroad who are made welcome there. A corporation that is given responsibility for such a sensitive industry should at least have a perfect record with regard to environmental protection and related areas in its previous activities in other jurisdictions. However, Tosco Corporation has been an environmental disaster. It has contributed to a disastrous situation in San Francisco Bay. Numerous reports bear that out and numerous leading politicians, who could not in any way be accused of being socialists, have pointed out the disastrous role that Tosco, among others, played. In the case of Santa Monica, it then tried to walk away.

I hope the Minister, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party will agree to my amendment that a potential purchaser should be subjected to a thorough environmental audit of its environmental record in this or any other jurisdiction. It is being given the management of a facility where the same slipshod approach to the environment that was taken in San Francisco Bay might be implemented in Bantry Bay. If that happened, the fishing community, the farming community and the tourism industry would suffer grievous damage.

I am aware that the company and the Department carried out due diligence tests and I am sure environmental considerations were part of those tests. Tosco had some trouble with the chemical MTBE in San Francisco and perhaps the Minister could give me some information on it and whether the company intends to use it in Ireland. It is an additive about which there are worries. Can the Minister find out if it is in use at Whitegate?

The other issue concerns the link with the Phillips Corporation. Some ask the reason we should not wait until the takeover of Tosco by Phillips is completed. I understand the Phillips Corporation is anxious to develop exploration in Alaska. This raises environmental considerations and concerns regarding the Kyoto agreement. The Minister of State yesterday expressed his concern about our obligations to the agreement, which is partly concerned with fossil fuels.

The Minister mentioned linking the National Oil Reserves Agency with the sustainable energy authority which is to be established. As there may be a conflict of interest, I urge the Minister to look at the proposal again.

I have studied these amendments. The Deputy clearly has concerns, which is to his credit. I do not say this in a jocose manner. The joke merely concerned Deputy O'Malley having the same name as the man involved in Tosco. It was not very heavy humour.

Everyone has environmental concerns. When I met Mr. O'Malley, the head of Tosco, recently we spoke about environmental matters. On the same occasion I spoke with Mr. Paddy Power, the chief executive of the INPC. Mr. O'Malley told me about the 1998 accident in California. He went through Tosco's record in some detail. While the accident was a very sad one, the company's record on a league table of environmental and health and safety matters is extremely good.

The United States is a different country. The company will be operating in east Cork and subject to the EPA and the Health and Safety Authority. The management and employees of the company will be largely the same as those of the INPC. The laws to which the company must adhere are the laws of this country, not the United States. Irish environmental and health and safety laws are very rigorous and demand that companies operate to a very high standard. I do not know the standard of such laws in the United States but I venture to say the standard here is much higher. Any multinational company coming into Ireland knows it must operate to Irish health and safety standards.

On the same occasion I inquired about the health and safety regime in the INPC and was assured it is very strong. Staff are trained in these areas, they attend seminars and members of staff give advice to other staff members. Standards are closely adhered to. Over many years, Departments and successive Ministers have given leadership in the area of health and safety and environmental protection in places of employment.

I accept that Deputy Higgins has genuine concerns and have answered his amendment in good faith. Deputy Stanton asked about an additive. I do not know if the additive to which he referred is being used but will I inquire for him. He also asked about the link between Tosco and Phillips. Phillips is aware of Tosco's involvement with the INPC and fully satisfied with it.

Has the Minister, her Department or the INPC had contacts with the Phillips Corporation?

We have had telephone contact with Phillips.

(Dublin West): We are about to involve one of the country's essential facilities with an extremely unsavoury oil corporation. The corporation has had intimate dealings with the Indonesian regime while the most horrific repression and massacres were being carried out routinely in East Timor. In 1989, weeks after a massacre, the corporation made a contract with the Indonesian Government for oil off the Timor Gap. These are the people to whom the Minister is about to hand over a crucial facility.

Does the Minister not worry about giving this crucial facility to a corporation which will not be under State control and can close down operations if the world economy goes into recession, as happened with Irish Steel? Bantry, Cork and Ireland are mere blips in this corporation's world and it can turn its back on us as quickly as not.

The Minister must inquire as to the chemicals to be used. I have a report from Reuters, dated 21 June 2000, which refers to the chemical about which Deputy Stanton spoke. The report makes the point that the chemical, which was thought to have been a component of clean burning gasoline, has been disastrous environmentally and caused the disastrous damage to the water system in Santa Monica. The Governor of California has banned its use from 2002. We must know what we are dealing with and what will be dealt with around our shores.

The Minister is putting faith in a company whose record does not warrant such faith. How can she stand over the health and safety or environmental record of this company, bearing in mind the chapter and verse I have quoted? Can I take it she is accepting my amendment?

No, I am not.

I am not supporting the amendment because I know Deputy Higgins has tabled it in order to stop this going through. That would be the effect of it.

(Dublin West): The Deputy should deal with the content of the amendment.

The idea that Deputy Higgins expects capitalist companies from America to be either savoury or moral stretches the imagination to an unbelievable degree.

(Dublin West): I do not expect them to be savoury or moral.

Private companies come to Ireland for one reason, that is, to make profit. We have rules and regulations to ensure they do not damage our environment and that they provide proper working conditions for their employees. The Environmental Protection Agency enforces the environmental aspects of our regulations. Companies regard environmental and other concerns as a nuisance and a hindrance to their making profit but our high standards must be adhered to. For these high standards we can be partly thankful to the European Union whose particularly high standards with regard to the oil industry are applicable here.

We also have planning and licensing legislation. There are very real controls on any company, regardless of how immoral or unsavoury it might have been elsewhere, that wants to operate in Ireland. I am satisfied that the proposal before us will be confined by the licensing and other arrangements.

As regards the poisonous chemical used to clean petrol, benzene, it is now known to be carcinogenic. It probably did a lot more harm to humans than the lead that was previously in petrol. If benzene is used to unlead the petrol one would be better off with lead. Scientists did that rather than the chemical companies.

When was the due diligence study carried out by the INPC and the Department on Tosco? Has the Minister any further details on the environmental element of that? Were they satisfied with what they found?

Due diligence was carried on over the past 12 months since the protracted talks began. The environmental records are on a league table in the US. As I and Deputy Stagg have said, whatever the record in another country when a company comes in here it must observe the laws of this land. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Health and Safety Authority legislation is equal to any in Europe and is extremely rigorous. There is no question of a company coming from another country or continent and not being subject to the environmental and health and safety concerns and planning regulations that appertain in this country. A company cannot bring its baggage with it and expect to be able to do what it did in another country. The European influence under the social contracts entered into with it in the area of health and safety, the EPA and so on, is one of the finer points of our EU involvement. Many firms grumbled as each of these was introduced but now they are proud of our record in that regard.

(Dublin West): The problem is that there is an environmental protection organisation in the US and Tosco was found to be in defiance of its regulations on many occasions. In one of its facilities around San Francisco Bay in 1999 tests found from its smoke stacks dioxin levels 20 times that which should have been the limit. It was under the control of the EPA. I do not expect multinational corporations to be moral or anything else but I am astounded that this Government, backed by Fine Gael and the Labour Party, should be prepared to hand over to immoral corporations, quite clearly guilty of many environmental and political transgressions, a crucial industry. It is astounding that the Labour Party in particular is strongly supporting the Minister in this regard when there was an alternative. It could have been kept in public ownership and it could have extended into exploration for natural gas and oil around the coast instead of handing that over to other multinationals.

Rubbish.

(Dublin West): What is rubbish? It makes absolute sense.

It is absolute rubbish.

(Dublin West): The Deputy is in favour of the deal Fianna Fáil did with Enterprise Oil in handing it Corrib gas for nothing, not one royalty or cent, in the nineties. It is a deal that might more appropriately be done in a huckster's tent at the Galway Races, where probably it was done. I am amazed that the parties in opposition which should be checking the Government are cheer-leading it in regard to this vital industry.

Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Has the Minister the figure on what will be the net benefit to the Exchequer from this deal?

I hope to have it; I have asked them to make it out for us at the end.

Not much when they are finished.

No, there would not be and I set that out on Second Stage. I will try to get a figure for the Deputy.

(Dublin West): I want to go on record as opposing the sale of INPC and this section.

I am not in favour of the amendments put forward by Deputy Higgins.

That has been dealt with already.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with ESOP. It would be useful if the Minister would clarify that all workers will be treated equally as a result of the sale and that no one employee will get any benefit over another. Everything must be transparent and above board so that we will not have people coming back in a year's time saying that payments were made to such and such but they were not divulged at the time. Will the Minister give an assurance that is the case? I have already asked this informally of some of top people in INPC and they have assured me it is the case but I would like to see it put on the record of the House that no extra benefits will accrue to anyone from Tosco or from this sale.

As far as I know, but we are aware of the revelations being made now so one never knows about such matters. I cannot look into a crystal ball and say that never again will anything untoward happen in any company. I would not have that knowledge. As regards ESOP, that is a matter between management and the unions. They have worked out their arrangements and the unions have recommended it to their members who will vote. I do not know what each individual union member will obtain but it is an average of £30,000. I cannot say above or below that.

As far as I know, everything has been done with regard to these payments openly, transparently and in full knowledge. I am wary because of events that are now emerging

I am not trying to be smart but who would have divined matters which are now emerging?

(Dublin West): Some of us could see what was going on.

I cannot give cast iron guarantees but the people I know such as the chairman, the chief executive and the board members are of admirable character. I do not envisage anything untoward happening in that respect.

The Minister made the point that she is not involved in the ESOP. I find that strange because Ministers have always been involved in the ESOP as the shareholder acting on behalf of the Government. Part of the shareholding in the company is being transferred from the Minister to the staff. Arising from that the net take to the State, which I appreciate is being used up to pay for the debt and other matters, will be reduced. It is, therefore, very much in the interests of the Minister to be involved or even to sign off on the ESOP. The share she holds on behalf of us all is being transferred to the workers.

Some of it is held in cash and some in shares. That is how the arrangement has been worked out.

The shares are in the new company.

That is correct. It is cash and shares.

Will these shares change hands again when Tosco enters the Philips fold?

They will hold them irrespective of whether the company is called Tosco or Tosco/Philips or Philips/Tosco.

It will be the same as with Eircom. If it is taken over, the shares will be taken over.

The workers will have their shares and their money.

In the unlikely event that the workers do not accept this deal, what are the Minister's contingency plans for the company?

The sale of the company depends on acceptance by the workers. That information was contained in yesterday's speech on Second Stage. We await the result.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"7. (1) Notwithstanding any provision in the memorandum or articles of association of the Agency or any enactment to the contrary, the Minister may, with the prior approval of the Minister for Finance, by order direct the Agency to transfer any or all of its assets or liabilities or both, including petroleum, to the Minister or other public authority on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit and, where appropriate, more than one such transfer may be so ordered.

(2) Notwithstanding any provision in the memorandum or articles of association of the Corporation or any enactment to the contrary, the Minister may, with the prior approval of the Minister for Finance, by order direct the Corporation to transfer all or any of its assets or liabilities or both, including all or any of the shares owned by the Corporation in the Agency, to the Minister or other public authority on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit and, where appropriate, more than one such transfer may be so ordered.

(3) Amounts (if any) paid by the Minister in respect of a transfer directed under subsection (1)or (2) shall be repaid to the Central Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

(4) Stamp duty shall not be chargeable on any instrument under which stocks or marketable securities of the Agency are transferred to the Minister or other public authority.

(5) In this section 'other public authority' means–

a)a Minister of the Government other than the Minister,

b)a body established by or under statute, other than a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1963 to 1990,

c)a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1963 to 1999, in which all the shares are held by or on behalf of, or by directors appointed by, a Minister of the Government, or

d)a company to which paragraph (c) does not relate in which all the shares are held directly or indirectly by one or more of the following:

one or more than one Minister of the Government,

one or more than one body to which paragraph (b) relates,

(iii) one or more than one company to which paragraph (c) relates.”.

This amendment is in two sections. It provides for certain matters that may need to be addressed in relation to any future restructuring, particularly the future ownership and assets, of the National Oil Reserves Agency. Deputy Stanton raised that question a few months ago. The overall purpose of the section is to facilitate the winding down of the INPC group and to provide for the transfer of the shares or assets to another State-owned entity. The precise manner in which the proposed restructuring will take place remains to be determined.

Section 7 provides for a number of options which may or may not be exercised depending upon the circumstances prevailing at the time that NORA is being restructured and to where it is going. It is not completely clear to whom NORA will be transferred but it will be to a public semi-State company.

I ask the Minister to clarify the future of the INPC. Will it be wound up or mothballed or, as one source has given me to understand, continue in some shape or form possibly to be activated at a future date if required?

The INPC is to be wound down over a period. There remain, however, some loose ends to be tied up. Arrangements for the transfer of NORA, for example, have to be made. All that needs to be tidied up. I spoke to the chairman this morning and he will oversee that process. The board of INPC operated on a rotating basis. When vacancies arose they were filled. From now on vacancies will not be filled so it should be satisfactorily wound up in around 12 months.

It is unusual in Irish legislation to see foreign currency used for compensation amounts or in this case the guarantee amount. Why are the figures in US dollars and not punts?

(Dublin West): It is the Boston syndrome.

The Attorney General recommended inserting that.

He is always right.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Acting Chairman

Amendment Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, subsection (2)(a), line 10, to delete “Subject to paragraph (b), the” and substitute “The”.

On amendment No. 5, the Minister mentioned a figure of 12 years in her speech last night. I do not see the figure in the legislation. I ask the Minister to inform us about the guarantee in terms of its value and extent and the length of time the State will provide it.

The Deputy seeks an earlier date of 2007 in one of his amendments. The legislation provides for a guarantee of 12 years.

That figure does not seem to be in the Bill.

Is the figure in the Bill?

It is not in the Bill. It is in the heads of agreement. As the Deputy will be aware, Whiddy Island and the jetty will be there forever. I understand the Deputy proposes a limit of 2007.

That is the intention. It will ensure that this guarantee is not indefinite. As it stands, we are almost signing a blank cheque.

As I said last night, the jetty will be indefinite. Does the Deputy mean the jetty?

Who came up with the figure of US$75,000,000 and how it was arrived at? Was there an audit or inspection and, if so, who carried it out? The Minister also mentioned repayments to the Exchequer on foot of this guarantee. Could she explain how that will operate?

What exactly does the Deputy mean? I presume the people who carried it out are advisers and professionals such as auditors, engineers and surveyors employed by the advisers to provide them with their professional knowledge.

Can the Minister tell us what is the potential environmental problem, the liability? What exactly are we talking about? As I have constituents living in the area, what is it that might be there that we should know about?

The agreement entered into was that we would be liable for any environmental hazard which would arise and be shown to have happened prior to take-over. I do not know. The Deputy is from the area. We have Auto Oil 1 which costs £70 million and which in 2005 will cost at least that, if not more. In any oil refinery environment there will be an ongoing need for environmental inspections, audits, controls and improvements. That is what the European standards which we have adopted are all about. That is what led to—

Acting Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but the time permitted for proceedings on Third Stage has expired and I am required to put the following question, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 20 June—

I thought the time allowed runs until 10 p.m.

Acting Chairman

Report and Final Stages are to be dealt with before 10 p.m. I am required to put the following question, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 20 June: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Public Enterprise and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, that the section, or, as appropriate, the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to, and the Schedule and Title are hereby agreed to."

Question put and declared carried.
Barr
Roinn