Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Cowley was in possession. Are any other Members offering to speak a second time on that amendment?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In view of the fact that we had a short break since we discussed the amendment last night, the issue——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, Deputy, I understand you have already spoken twice on this amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but I will be brief.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, Deputy but you have already spoken twice on this amendment. It is Deputy Broughan's amendment. The Minister has not made a second contribution.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Cheann Comhairle——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Broughan has made a second contribution, as has Deputy Durkan. I call Deputy Broughan to conclude because it is his amendment and the Minister has indicated he does not wish to speak again.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the issue of the Corrib gas discovery, as the crisis developed I felt strongly that we had a dearth of information. The Advantica report, the Centre of Public Inquiry and the Minister's technical advisory group all showed there was a lack of fundamental information in this area. It would be important to immediately establish an agency that would give the State an expertise in the entire exploration area. The Natural Oil Reserves Agency Bill is an opportunity to do that. We do not have to reinvent the wheel in that regard. We only have to see the path taken by our Scandinavian neighbours in particular, the Norwegians and the Danes. People refer to the massive resources Norway has, and perhaps Denmark is an even more modest example, but the DONG exploration agency is a model for this country.

The Minister has been criticised severely regarding the Slyne-Erris round of licensing and for the entire licensing programme for this year. There is a belief among the public that we need a full debate on that. There is an oil exploration Bill in my name on the Order Paper and part of that Bill's remit would be to require the Minister to bring every licensing round before this House. The Minister might indicate when replying whether that is a course of action he would favour. The Labour Party would like to see ongoing invigilation of this area. Our Bill provides for a discussion and approval by the Dáil of each licensing round and a six year look-back at the round subsequently. We have the Indecon study and the Minister told the House last night he is still considering the possibility of having a review of the licensing terms, which he expects early next year. That is welcome but there is a case to be made for an agency such as the one the Labour amendment proposes. The Minister said that from what he knows now and what is beginning to become apparent from the resources available to him from different agencies, perhaps in three or four years time the establishment of an Irish exploration agency would be high on the agenda of the Minister for energy but I ask him, in view of all the controversies we have suffered over the past four or five years, to do it now.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 50 and 52 are being discussed together.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 13, line 33, after "functions" to insert ", subject to the approval of the Minister".

I have tabled this amendment because I feel the Minister should have to approve the hiring by the agency of consultants or advisers to help it to perform its functions. Over the last couple of days, I have been anxious to include in the Bill extra provisions to ensure the Minister is accountable to the House. In this instance, it would not be any harm for the Minister to have to give approval to any extension of the functions of the agency. I would like the Minister to respond in that regard.

Amendment No. 52 proposes to include the words "as determined from time to time by the Minister", which is an idea we have already discussed. The inclusion of the phrase, which is quite commonly used in the drafting of legislation, might be of benefit to the Bill. This section of the Bill is an appropriate place in which to insert it. This provision would strengthen the Bill by placing a focus on the need for accountability, to the Minister in this case. While I have been tempted to restrict the Minister's sweeping and almighty powers in all the cases so far, I want to elevate the Minister to a new role in this case. I would like him to be able to initiate changes which are beneficial, complementary and effective in bringing meaning to this section of the Bill.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not inclined to support amendment No. 50, which relates to the agency's power to engage consultants and advisers. During its ongoing day-to-day work, the agency may need to hire various specialists, consultants and advisers at different times. I do not favour this amendment, as I think it would be better to give the agency the maximum freedom possible. While there may be more merit in amendment No. 52, it comes into the same territory as amendment No. 50 because it might infringe on the autonomy of the agency.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Dáil should be responsible for this matter. It should have to give the final approval in this regard. I will give an example of that. As no code of practice was provided for when the Minister gave consent to the production pipeline for the Corrib gas project, the pipeline in question is illegal. Therefore, the company in question is able to do what it wants. That cannot be right, clearly. If the Dáil had been given responsibility in this regard, there would have been some accountability. No planning permission was given for the cold venting of gas, which is another issue. Shell, which is the main promoter of the project, was not prepared to look outside Bellanaboy as a location for the terminal. The Dáil should be accountable in circumstances of this nature for the reasons I have mentioned.

Given the pipeline is coming into County Mayo and taking gas from the county, and in light of the protests which have taken place, it is only equitable and fair that the pipeline will be used to bring gas to towns in the county. That is the way I have always said it should be and that is the way it will be. I hope the Minister will ensure that gas is brought to all the towns in County Mayo, including Belmullet and Ballinrobe, because they all deserve gas.

The Dáil should have a say in what is happening. The Minister, who is continuing to issue licences, has said there will be no change in the terms of the licences until 2007 even though he promised, as a result of a Private Members' motion, to provide for a review of those terms by the end of this year. He is issuing licences and assuring those in the industry that they do not need to worry because he will not change anything until 2007. I would like the Minister to respond to my remarks in this regard.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will stick to the amendments before the House. I will respond to what Deputy Durkan said. My mother used to say that if you had a dog, you should not bark yourself. These amendments are in that category. There is no point in setting up a semi-State agency such as NORA to do a job within the limits set down in legislation by this House and then second-guessing it on the appointment of consultants and other issues that are the business of the company itself. I do not think that the phrase "as determined from time to time by the Minister" is necessary. It does not add anything to it. The levy is determined by the Minister and that is catered for elsewhere. One of these amendments represents an undue interference in the running of the company and the other amendment is not necessary because the Minister is the only person to determine the levy.

It would be wonderful to get gas into the towns in Mayo that have now been approved for it. The Deputy might try to help us to ensure that happens.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I note the points made by Deputy Broughan and by the Minister. Deputy Broughan and I spent many years on the Committee of Public Accounts and we learned a great deal. We learned much about allowances, remuneration and expenses for State and semi-State bodies. Serious questions were raised in the committee about how approval was given for consultancies. Arising from those experiences, I felt that it would be good to amend section 18(1) by adding "subject to the approval of the Minister". I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The Minister stated that it was provided for elsewhere when dealing with the levy, and that is true, but it is not provided for in this section. I do not see why it should not be subject to the provisions in the other part of the Bill outlined by the Minister.

We need to ensure that the Minister and the agency are responsible to the Houses of the Oireachtas, which does not mean second-guessing them. In several cases, provision is made for the Minister and the Minister for Finance to approve. I take the point made by Deputy Broughan that it is an internal function of the industry, but I am not so certain that it is. A consultant may advise a Minister that it is appropriate to engage a consultant to advise in a particular way. Depending on who the consultant is, the whole thing might be a foregone conclusion. There might be no way of monitoring the consultant and he or she could come up with anything. The electronic voting system is a classic example of something that got away from us. It took on a life of its own and nobody had any regard for it. Public money went after public money and there was no accountability.

In this situation, there is no harm in laying down new criteria whereby we intervene on behalf of the taxpayer. Let us stop apologising to everybody outside the House for doing so. If we are serious about our job, we should do it that way. We should include provisions that require ministerial approval for consultants. If it is in some other section of the Bill but not in this section, why not? I do not accept the notion that we should let it happen in this fashion. There are too many occasions in which Ministers and the Houses have been hijacked by decisions taken on the basis of advice given by consultants who were employed to give an appraisal——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy making his final reply on this amendment?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is my second intervention.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He has exceeded the two minutes allowed.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will leave it at that. If the Minister wants to say something, I will deal with it then.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will let the Deputy wrap up.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had not intended to press this amendment, but I now think it might be a wise thing to do. There is no point in complaining about things that I see going wrong without standing over it.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Members that they should always vote in their designated seats. They should not vote in someone else's name in another seat.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the danger of electronic voting.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 51 has already been discussed with amendment No. 3. Does Deputy Durkan wish to formally move the amendment?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 13, line 42, after "Minister" to insert "and Dáil Éireann,".

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 13, line 46, after "levy" to insert ", as determined from time to time by the Minister".

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 14, line 32, after "Finance," to insert the following:

"and subject to the approval of Oireachtas Éireann,".

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 15, lines 2 and 3, after "subsection (1)" to insert "and subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann".

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 15, line 7, after "fit" to insert ", and subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann".

It implies the same principle as the previous vote.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 15, line 23, after "Minister" where it firstly occurs to insert "and Dáil Éireann,".

These are all the same.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 15, line 31, to delete "after" and substitute "before".

The Minister shall ensure that a superannuation scheme approved under this section, including an amendment of the scheme, is laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after it is approved. It might be no harm to insert the words "before it is approved". It is debatable and the Minister is convulsed with mirth, but we would like to hear his invigorating response.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The provision, as drafted, provides that the Minister shall ensure the superannuation schemes are laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after such a scheme is approved. Section 22 provides that either House of the Oireachtas may annul a superannuation scheme. The text is in line with the standard provisions of legislation relating to similar State bodies and I am satisfied that the text of the Bill should remain unchanged.

The Deputy's proposal in amendment No. 61 is not consistent with standard corporate governance requirements imposed on similar bodies. Superannuation schemes in respect of State bodies are subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance in addition to the approval of the parent Department. This process ensures the provisions of a scheme are in line with legislative provisions governing such schemes for the public sector. There is no need for either amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept the Minister's comments regarding amendment No. 60 and I will not press it. The reason I tabled amendment No. 61 is that we have heard numerous expressions of concern regarding pensions, remuneration and the raiding of pension funds. While the amendment would not prevent such activity, it would introduce a review by the Pensions Board. Anything that could lead to a liability or a failure by the State or a State body or agency to live up its expectations would be serious. It might be a good idea to make this amendment to protect the Minister, the State, the public and those employed by the agency in the future.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the amendment, which we debated on Committee Stage. We also debated this issue yesterday while dealing with earlier amendments on the superannuation schemes. However, Members have received many complaints from the former staff of State agencies who were initially employed in the Civil Service before the State bodies to which they were transferred were established. Consequently, the terms and conditions of their superannuation schemes were amended. For example, pensioners attached to Dublin Port Company complain that the indexation of their pensions, which they had expected to continue, was arbitrarily withdrawn. Deputy Durkan is seeking to provide an additional protection for the staff of the proposed new agency, who were first transferred from the Civil Service in 1995.

This issue will continue to grow. For example, in Italy and Germany, governments arbitrarily decided that public sector pensions for which they were directly responsible would be subject to different terms and conditions. This is a concern and Deputy Durkan's attempt to provide for additional invigilation by the Pensions Board has merit.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Public sector pensions are dealt with in this manner. Standard corporate governance requires that the State through the Minister for Finance and the Minister of the parent Department looks after pensions and I do not propose to depart from that practice. The best protection any pensioner can get is from the State.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not propose that the House should divide on the amendment but, as Deputy Broughan stated, complaints regarding pension schemes have been brought to the attention of Members over the past number of years. The longer one is a Member, the more instances are brought to one's attention. I am not critical of the Minister but, under the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, responsibility for the postal service transferred from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to An Post. This included an obligation to observe all the pension and remuneration entitlements that the staff who were transferring had but, unfortunately, that did not happen. If a body such as the Pensions Board had approved the transfer at the time, we might not be in this situation. The reason that happened is a regulation or statutory instrument was introduced to remove authority and responsibility for the obligations entered into by the Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas in one fell sweep, with the staff left swinging in the air.

Deputy Broughan has tabled a later amendment, which contains a nice, meaty arrangement and, therefore, while I do not propose to seek a division, I will press the amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 15, line 44, after "section" to insert "subject to review by the Pensions Board".

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 17, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"(3) A code of conduct drawn up under this section shall require records of interests of persons to whom the code applies, and records of conflict of interest, to be maintained and to be opened to public scrutiny during office hours.".

The amendment relates to section 25, which deals with a code of conduct for the agency. The section provides for proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest to be maintained by a person while performing functions as a director of the agency, a member of a committee of the agency, chief executive, a consultant or adviser employed by the agency or an employee. The second also provides that the agency should publish the code of conduct. The Minister should go a step further and specify that the code of conduct must "require records of interests of persons to whom the code applies, and records of conflict of interest, to be maintained and to be opened to public scrutiny during office hours".

I tabled the amendment in the interest of transparency and to prevent conflicts of interest. Membership of the board requires experience and expertise in the oil distribution business. Board members will have contacts within the industry and the code of conduct sets out how conflicts of interest could be avoided. The Minister may say in reply that the code will entail records being kept, but that should be specified in the legislation to be absolutely sure. For example, a register of Members' interests is maintained in the office of the Clerk of the Dáil and by the Standards in Public Office Commission. The same standards should be expected of other public servants such as those who will run the agency on a statutory basis. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support this timely amendment, which is similar to amendments discussed in recent days. It is not an attempt to imply any irregularity. Rather, it is an attempt to protect the agency, the Government and the taxpayer from something unanticipated coming down the tracks.

We should remember that the value of the stocks retained by the agency at any given time will be considerable, meaning the agency will have a certain amount of responsibility. It is imperative that the highest possible standards apply in respect of potential conflicts of interest. It would be better to stipulate such a provision in the Bill than to leave the issue to one side and suggest that all eventualities are covered by other sections and Acts. It would protect everyone involved, including the Government. While changes in Government may take a long time, they do occur.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 25 provides for the drafting of a code of conduct in respect of standards of integrity and concern for the public interest. That code must apply to directors, the CEO, employees, consultants and advisers engaged by NORA and the employees of those consultants and advisers. The code is additional to the requirements on NORA's directors under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, which provides for the disclosures of interests of holders of certain public offices, designated directors of certain public bodies and persons employed in designated positions therein.

The provision is specific. Persons occupying positions prescribed in the regulations are required to furnish statements of registerable interests or, if they have none, make nil return statements. The directors of NORA are prescribed as designated directorships under the Ethics in Public Office Act and must make annual returns under that Act. The manager, financial controller and operations manager must also make returns under the Act.

I am satisfied that the measure as drafted provides adequately for the protection of the public interest. I agree we must ensure that there are no conflicts of interest or if there are conflicts of interest, that they are stated clearly and registered, but we should not impose stricter requirements on NORA's directors than we do on the directors of other State or semi-State companies.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Our records are available. For example, anyone can check the Minister's, Deputy Durkan's, the Ceann Comhairle's or my interests. Under this and other sections, will the same requirement apply to NORA's directors? What if someone is a director of a distribution chain or is involved actively in the industry? I tabled the amendment because it would be useful to have records, not just a code of conduct. Our records can be found in the Oireachtas Library and can be checked at any time. Would it not be wise to include the word "records"?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I note the Minister's reply, but in light of Deputy Broughan's statement, will the Minister elucidate the precise procedure and mechanism to be used in the determination of what constitutes a conflict of interest? Interpretations may vary depending on who is giving the advice. We could all get advice to the effect that we are covered by this provision, but we must double check and second-guess matters to ensure that we do not do anything wrong. With the best will in the world——

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach will have a good bit of work to do before 1 January to revise the record.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely. Ordinarily, it can be difficult to keep everyone on side, but it will be more difficult to do so in respect of an agency with NORA's type of contacts. For example, it will buy and sell on the global energy market.

If the Minister responded to Deputy Broughan's points and elaborated on how the State would be doubly protected, it would assure the House. People of substance must be involved at this level and one cannot impugn their integrity beforehand, but it would be no harm for everyone to be aware of the starting point and to try to aspire to the highest possible standards to protect the interests of the State.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A balance must be maintained in these situations. The only public servants at a similar level who must make disclosures that are open to public scrutiny are officials in, for example, An Bord Pleanála, who are involved in a process that should be open.

The directors will provide a public service and the State will avail of their expertise in the areas outlined in the Bill. A Deputy asked whether the Bill addresses adequately the matter of stockbrokers, but it would not be fair or reasonable to expect them to make public declarations of all their business before becoming directors of this State agency. It is sufficient that the CEO, directors and so on know that they must make declarations. The balance is correct.

The only business NORA is in is the buying and selling of stocks of oil. On what might constitute a conflict of interest, the case that comes to mind is that of a board member making decisions on where to buy or sell oil while being involved in the matter under consideration. While I would like the maximum amount of openness and transparency, a balance between persons' private business affairs and their provision of public service on a board must be maintained in this case. The CEO and the directors must make returns which, while not required to be made public, will be available if a question arises. Three out of the five employees of NORA make returns under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 so it is well covered as it stands.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I feel it would be better to adopt the amendment, I will withdraw it.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 17, line 31, after "billion" to insert "unless otherwise provided for".

I do not intend to press this amendment because we discussed it on Committee Stage. I accept the explanation given by the Minister at the time. I proposed the insertion of "unless otherwise provided for" because I anticipated circumstances changing dramatically on account of the value of business being transacted by the agency. An existing provision might not be sufficient if the situation changed but I accept the Minister's point that ministerial control and responsibility have to be maintained.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 64 arises out of Committee Stage and has already been discussed with amendment No. 3.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 18, line 13, after "Finance" to insert "and Dáil Éireann".

We discussed this already and the suggestion has been the subject of two or three votes already, so I do not propose to press the amendment.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 65 arises out of Committee Stage and has been discussed with amendment No. 4.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 18, line 28, after "Minister" to insert "and the Standards in Public Office Commission".

We discussed similar amendments and it is almost identical to one of Deputy Broughan's. I attempted to identify difficulties that might arise for the State in the future. I will not press the amendment but hope that, having followed this tortuous procedure, we do not regret our failure to adopt the amendment in ten or 15 years' time. As time moves on, as the Minister knows, in this world of sophisticated technology, the extent to which the State can become liable increases.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 19, line 16, after "activities" where it firstly occurs to insert the following:

"save where such activities are deemed to affect policy".

We did not discuss this and I would like the Minister to respond.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 30(1)(g) provides that, if required by the Minister, NORA shall provide the Minister with information relating to its policy and activities other than day-to-day activities. That provision, as drafted, provides for appropriate corporate governance of NORA. The Deputy is concerned that activities affecting policy might not be reported to the Minister but that is adequately catered for in section 30(1)(g).

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept the Minister's response but policy should always be vested in the Minister. We have, from time to time, expressed our frustration in this House at the lack of accountability of the Minister to the House. It would have been helpful to insert the amendment to tighten up Parliament's supervision of the operation of an agency such as NORA, which, once it is established, will be at a remove from the Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas. The agency may engage in activities which change policy without reference to the Minister or the Houses of the Oireachtas but since we discussed this issue ad nauseam during the course of this debate I will not press the amendment.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 67 arises out of Committee Stage and has been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(h) key information on the Irish oil industry and market and to make this information available when necessary to the Competition Authority and the Commission for Energy Regulation.".

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 68 arises out of Committee Stage and has been discussed with amendment No. 3.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 19, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"(3) The Agency must provide an annual account of the levy and all its revenue-raising activities to the Public Accounts Committee of Dail Eireann.".

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 69 to 71, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 19, line 38, after "obligations" to insert the following:

"at the highest level required by the European Union".

This refers to Part 4 of the Bill concerning the maintenance of oil stocks and the duty of NORA in that regard. The Bill provides that the agency maintains at all times a level sufficient to comply with the State's stockholding obligations and higher levels as the Minister may, by written direction, specify if he or she considers it necessary to do so for the effective performance of the agency and its functions. That includes holding the oil stocks itself and entering into holding contracts.

We debated on Second Stage the level of stocks to be held. The Minister responded on Committee Stage that 90 days' worth of supplies were held, which was sufficient. However, I felt it was important to specify the amount. The European Union has formed the view in the past 18 months that energy is perhaps the most important issue of all. It decided that it was, therefore, critically important to maintain oil stocks at the highest possible level. The Minister reported that we had 108 days' supply but I put it to him that the commissioner declared the general target to be 120 days, meaning we did not reach the overall safety levels the European Union uses. The amendment proposes a specific reference to the European Union in the legislation. If, in the future, a higher level of stocks were required we would then seek to comply with that. The Taoiseach attended the recent meeting of Heads of Government on the European gas supply, relationships with Russia and North Africa and the particular difficulties with oil because of the volatility of the regions concerned.

We also discussed on Second Stage and Committee Stage the subject matter of amendment No. 71. It proposes a sufficient internal-external holding ratio so as to ensure there are enough stocks physically held within the jurisdiction of the State if a crisis arises. The last information the Minister gave to the House was to the effect that one third of stocks were directly under NORA's control, one third under the control of the oil companies and one third made up of stock tickets from Wales, Denmark and other places. The Minister may have more up-to-date information on that. The public would want us to ensure sufficient stocks are held within the jurisdiction.

Perhaps the bulk or 100 days supply might be on the island and not necessarily be involved with stock tickets. However, any oil that is waiting for us on the Continent, in Welsh ports or elsewhere in the UK would have to be brought here. If we faced a situation of rationing or were unable to get oil stocks to the country, the internal ratio would be critical. The Bill provides that the Minister can lay down a higher level, but I suggest that to refer to the internal-external ratio would offer an additional power to a Minister for the future. Ordinary citizens would feel that having the oil here in the country is the most important issue.

Basically, what I wanted to achieve through this amendment was for a sufficient ratio to be physically within the jurisdiction. I did not want to put down a particular figure because the figures will obviously change. The Minister made the important point on Committee Stage that 108 days in a major world crisis situation or during a crisis involving the main oil supply countries would give us the ability to keep the economy running for six months or more. Nonetheless, it is important to refer specifically in the Bill to the importance of a high internal holding. That is what I have sought to do in this amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support amendments Nos. 69 and 71 in the name of Deputy Broughan. Reference has already been made to what the Minister said on Committee Stage with regard to the fact that adequate provisions have already been made and that we must comply with European regulations in this regard. Notwithstanding this, we are an island nation and are somewhat isolated from the rest of Europe. For that reason, it might be helpful to recognise that what is applicable in the rest of Europe may not suit us, particularly in the energy area and with regard to storage capacity here. I know we have the ability to store oil in Europe also.

There could come a time when, due to circumstances outside our control or that of Europe, our requirements may change. This could happen overnight and for that reason Deputy Broughan's amendments are constructive and useful. They would strengthen the Bill and protect the interests of the people and the country both domestically and industrially.

I put forward amendment No. 70 for the same reason. I know the Minister replied on Committee Stage and pointed out the Bill is compliant with all the European Union regulations with which we must comply. Like everybody in the House, I am a strong European, perhaps stronger than others. This has nothing to do with the Bill, but I would like to mention in passing that when we joined the European Union we had a healthy fishing industry. However, it is rapidly disappearing. Perhaps we contributed to its disappearance, given the limited scale of our activity in the area.

Therefore, to those who might be critical of what Deputy Broughan and I are trying to say here, I make no apology when I point out that our circumstances may be somewhat different. With no disrespect, perhaps the European Union, which acts in everybody's best interest, did not legislate sufficiently for all eventualities. When it achieves utopia in the area, we will listen to it. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, the amendments are worthy and have the potential to strengthen Irish interests and requirements.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposed amendments are already fully catered for within the Bill. Provision for compliance by Ireland with the EU obligation, which currently stands at 90 days, is already provided for in section 32(1)(a), which provides that "The Agency shall maintain ... such oil stocks ... at — (a) a level sufficient to comply with the State's stockholding obligations". That provision also addresses amendment No. 70.

With regard to amendment No. 71, I am satisfied that section 33, which provides that NORA must obtain the approval of the Minister to hold stocks outside the State, adequately covers the amendment proposed by the Deputy. The Minister has the power to say that more stocks should be held on shore on this island at any stage as he or she deems prudent.

I know the issue is of concern to all. One of the long-term objectives of NORA is to increase the volume of NORA-owned stocks held in Ireland, having regard to storage availability here and value for money. We should approach this incrementally and NORA is currently pursuing a number of options in this regard. The objectives also require putting NORA on a sound financial footing.

With regard to our oil stocks, on 1 August we had 107 days of reserves and on 1 September we had an estimated 104 days of reserves. Of those stocks, NORA held 71 days of stocks. Some 40 days were wholly owned by NORA and 31 days were stock tickets. Of the total reserves, 66 days of NORA and industry stocks were held in Ireland. I accept the Deputies' concerns, but the amendments are unnecessary because they are fully catered for within the Bill as it stands.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 19, line 41, after "functions" to insert "or as may be required".

I have spoken on this amendment as it was discussed with amendments Nos. 69 and 71. I will not press it, but it relates to the integrity of the storage capacity. This whole scene is compliant with EU legislative requirements. I remind the House that the EU is not always correct in its determinations. For instance, the electricity grid has, to my knowledge, collapsed twice during the past 18 months, once last week and once a year ago. We must take account of that. Despite the best determination and the fact the service is provided over land, which is much easier than what we are trying to do here, I believe——

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 70 has been discussed.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have spoken only once on it.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not appropriate to return to the debate on that amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am allowed to speak a second time as proposer of the amendment.

It is no harm that we learn from these experiences. The issue of grids was discussed in another context by this House though that is a matter for another day. I have been watching the operation and it is, essentially, a grid. I will not press the amendment but ask that the Minister note we are only as strong as our weakest link and this could well be the weakest link.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 71 in the name of Deputy Broughan arises out of Committee proceedings and has been already discussed with amendment No. 69. Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. I move amendment No. 71:

In page 19, after line 41, to insert the following:

"(c) a sufficient internal-external holding ratio so as to ensure there are enough stocks physically held within the jurisdiction of the state if a crisis situation arises.".