Vol. 168 No. 4
I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Each amendment must be seconded on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, to delete lines 29 to 32.
I am tabling this amendment again because the Minister of State might, to use his own words, reflect on it in view of my strong views. I hope, having had time to reflect, he will accept it. I remind everyone of the concern I have. Section 8(3)(i) which I wish to have deleted states:
subject to subsection (5) of this section, [which deals with the functions of Bord Gáis Éireann] subscribe or guarantee money for charitable or benevolent objects or to or for any institution or for any public, general or useful object. . .
Subscribing money for charitable or benevolent purposes should not be the function of a State body, other than State bodies specifically established for that purpose. It is not the function of do-gooders, as we have often seen before, to make charitable donations, and it should not be the function of a State body to use taxpayer's money to do so. My real concern is that this is so wide open, it could enable a Bord Gáis sub-board to make political donations in the future. Yes, they are limited by subsection (5), but I am talking about something such as the proceeds of two golf classics being given to a political party.
Everybody in business is inundated with requests to make political subscriptions, but this provision is far too open. We are also inundated with requests to make charitable donations, but this is State money. I am not being a scrooge, but it should never be the function of a State board to use taxpayers' money for its own favourite charities, causes or political parties. If it is done for commercial, market reasons – in other words, if they decide to sponsor something – that is all right. It is being done for clearly spon sored commercial reasons with a good commercial objective behind it.
I urge the Minister of State to accept this amendment. This is bad law and I have never seen it before. The Minister of State said it is already in the functions of An Bord Gáis, but we should not reinstate it in the functions in this legislation. The Minister of State agreed to reflect on this case and I hope he has had time to do so. No State board should use taxpayers' money to make donations to its favoured hobbies or charities, and certainly not to its favoured political parties. I hope the Minister of State will accept my amendment.
I second the amendment.
I listened carefully to what Senator Quinn said, both on this occasion and in the course of the earlier debate. Political donations are certainly not envisaged in this case. The Senator made some compelling points, both now and earlier. I undertook to reflect on the points he made, and I meant that. I will need some more time to reflect and, in particular, to establish the implications of the proposed amendment. I undertake to do so in the context of the Bill going forward.
I thought the word "reflect" meant reflect in this House. Normally, I would vehemently disagree with legislation that is rushed through Committee and Report Stages, although we accepted it on this occasion. I assume the whole purpose of having a separate Report Stage debate is to enable the Minister of State to reflect on points made on Committee Stage. In this case, the House agreed to take Report Stage immediately after Committee Stage. I appreciate Senator Liam Fitzgerald's agreement to a five minute sos to make sure we had time to reflect. However, if the Minister of State is saying he will reflect upon and consider the matter when the Bill goes to the Lower House, that is not good enough. I think that is what he means.
That is precisely what I mean, yes.
I am sorry, but that is not good enough. I really feel strongly on this point. I do not know of any other State board which is allowed to make charitable donations, even if they are limited, to its favoured hobby, pastime, sport or charity. No State board should use taxpayers' money in this way. To put the Minister of State's mind at rest, we are not talking about good marketing and sponsorship, we are talking about charitable donations which are not even limited. The provision is so wide it means that, in future, Bord Gáis Éireann could state, "We are going to make political contributions." I know they are limited by subsection (5), but it should never be the function of a State board to do so.
In recent years we have put up with scandals that have been brought about by this. I urge the Minister of State to reflect now, rather than wait until the Bill goes to the Lower House. The purpose of having this House where amendments can be tabled is so that we can reflect. We agreed on this side of the House to have Committee Stage followed immediately by Report Stage, but if it means the Minister of State will only reflect on matters raised here before the Bill goes to the other House, I will be very disappointed. I am unable to accept his views, although I hope he will change his mind.
I re-emphasise that political donations are certainly not envisaged. This is not some kind of innovation that is being introduced in the Bill. I remind the Senator, and the House generally, that this provision already exists in the Gas Act, 1976. I stressed that point earlier and I am stressing it again now. It is being repeated here for the sake of clarity. I also wish to clarify the undertaking that I am giving to make the appropriate amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil, once I have satisfied myself that there are no hidden negative effects in the Senator's proposal.
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot. |
Glynn, Camillus.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann. |
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coghlan, Paul.Costello, Joe.Hayes, Maurice.Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary.Keogh, Helen. |
Manning, Maurice.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Quinn, Feargal.Ridge, Thérèse.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 22, subsection (1)(b), line 34, to delete “applied.” and substitute the following:
"applied, and
(c) whether publication takes place under subparagraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, it shall cause the annual accounts to be published by electronic means at the same time.”.
We discussed this amendment on Committee Stage. The Minister listened to me and accepted four amendments, two of them connected with this topic. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. This is a modern Ireland, one which does not limit itself to old fashioned methods of communication. It seems outrageous that we do not establish in these Houses that in future electronic means of communications is simply normal and not something for the avant garde or a small number who think in that way.
The amendment states that publication of accounts, under paragraph (a) of this subsection, “shall cause the annual accounts to be published by electronic means at the same time.” Nowadays electronic means of communication are an essential. This is not enabling legislation. I am not simply saying that they “may” publish them, I am saying that in future all accounts should be made available. The Minister's heart is in the right place. He has accepted some of these amendments already and I urge him to accept this amendment as well.
The case the Minister made was that it might not be fair on this particular board if they had to publish using electronic means and others did not. It costs less to do this than to type it on paper. To electronically publish accounts which are already published is simply a matter of pressing a button. There is no cost involved. It is democratic and transparent, and I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
I did not speak on this on Committee Stage, but I listened very carefully. As someone who is computer illiterate, and I freely admit it, I wanted to mull over the implications of what Senator Quinn had said. He put forward his reasons very cogently and with his commercial background, which he brings to bear very effectively and well in his contributions in the House, he is au fait with the merits of promoting this in the world of rapidly developing technology. Even those of us who are technologically illiterate can see it by listening and observing. Nevertheless, it is my understanding from other legislation that has gone through the House that this did not apply.
It is also my understanding from observing the war that is being waged with the banks – it is not even to the extent of electronic communication – that there is a very significant resistance among the older generation to following this policy. I am not using my own circumstances to take a decision on this, but from my perspective I can see why this might be the case. There is a lot of public disquiet among bank customers at the manner in which they are being literally forced into making the transition and doing so rapidly. Taking this Bill alone as it specifically refers to Bord Gáis and related competitors, I can see the difficulties that will arise. I can see the resistance that will be there.
I am not sure that using legislation to impose legal impositions is necessarily the correct way to proceed at this time. Since it does not apply to other companies where legislation brought a greater degree of accountability and openness, there is a dichotomy and inequity there, and therefore I caution the Minister. I certainly urge and encourage him to look at ways and means by which the global use of electronic communications would be rapidly accelerated, but I am concerned that legal imposition is not the right way to go.
There is considerable merit in Senator Quinn's amendment. We seem to be flying in the face of IT in not catering for this. On a question of principle alone it should be embodied in the legislation. That would send out the right signals that the remaining semi-State bodies are moving along the same road as the commercial sector. It would signal that we are keeping abreast of the technological developments of the mod ern era. From the point of view of principle alone I would like to see it embodied in the legislation.
It is difficult to believe that we are having this debate. This is a bit like being back in the 15th century. Printing is well established and somebody is saying that not everybody can read and, therefore, we should not bother printing. The fact that Senator Liam Fitzgerald is not au fait with the Internet may be to his advantage because most of the time it is an enormous waste of time and it is dreadfully diverting for lots of reasons.
I find other things diverting too.
The Senator will find plenty of those diversions on the Internet as well.
Senator Ryan does not even know the diversions I have.
The point I am making is that we should not be having this debate. This should have become a matter of stated public policy. I recently spent a considerable amount of time looking for the most recent report of the Dáil boundary commission. It is not on the Internet. The gloss of Ireland as a high-tech, knowledge-based information society is increasingly that, a gloss. When Mr. Justice McCracken produced his first report he put a little aside in it admitting that he was totally unfamiliar with information technology and was extremely grateful to a few people who helped him during the compilation of his report. I remember a scandal from 1994 when it emerged that the Attorney General's office was at a very primitive level of technology and technological assistance. It is not so long ago that we heard that the Garda fraud squad, dealing with high levels of fraud, did not have a fax machine.
If every simple matter such as this has to be a subject for debate, it makes the British TUC in the 1980s look like a model of technological flexibility. It is not a huge issue. Nobody is compelling people to read this information on the Internet or electronically as it will be printed anyway. We are simply saying that it should be compulsory to publish it on the Internet, which is not a difficult procedure. One brings up the document and pushes a button. Companies which decide they do not want to publish would have to go to great lengths to avoid the document turning up electronically by accident. It would cost them a great deal more money than the effort of making it available electronically.
It is a bit like saying we should not make it compulsory for a State commercial body to have a website. The board of any State commercial body which does not have a website should be sacked for being so far behind modern realities. The idea that this simple amendment should be a matter of debate rather than nodded through, having been dealt with years ago, is incomprehensible. To anybody in this country under 40 years of age, it is as strange as saying we should have a witches' dance to pray that the sun will rise in the morning. It is as fundamental a reality as that.
I urge the Minister of State to accept this amendment. It is not breaking new ground. Senator Quinn, being electronically very sound, has tabled these amendments frequently. I remember the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, accepted a similar amendment to the Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill, 2000. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Treacy, accepted a similar amendment to one of the insurance Bills and I think the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, accepted a similar amendment to one of the public service Bills. These amendments have been accepted in the House before. This is the right time to admit it would be wise to publish company accounts in the most modern manner as well as in the traditional printed manner.
My earlier comments reflected my concern that there would, possibly, be discrimination against natural gas undertakings. We are not only talking about BGE, but a growing number of concerns and undertakings entering the gas market and gas sector generally. We should not be discussing this matter. All I am looking for is some common ground with Senator Ryan's statement. For instance, companies are not required by legislation to have telephones, but they all do. I thought the same would follow as far as technological assistance, accounting methods and other matters were concerned. It would be wrong to insert this into a Bill concerning one particular sector.
I was happy to accept similar amendments from Senator Quinn. My reservation about this amendment is that it would discriminate against gas undertakings. I support the use of electronic media, but an obligation in law of the type requested should only be introduced through an amendment to the companies Act to ensure it applies to all companies equally, at the same time rather than just one sector. For those reasons I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
I am sorry the Minister of State does not accept the amendment because, as Senator Henry said, similar amendments have been accepted in the past. I table these amendments, the vast majority of which have been accepted, to almost every Bill that comes before us. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister of State has accepted two other amendments.
It is important we set standards. The Government has declared its wish to become the e- government and, therefore, the e-hub of Europe. It seems outrageous then that, when this kind of legislation is being passed, we insist only that companies publish their accounts on old-fashioned paper.
Senator Ryan spoke very well about the time when William Caxton and others started printing. At that stage no one argued that because not everyone could read, they need not print. I do not accept the Minister of State's analogy with telephones, that is, that companies are not obliged to have telephones, but they all do. The amendment is not the same, it concerns information which the public has a right to know. All companies have a right and an obligation to publish their accounts. State companies and natural gas companies should ensure they publish their accounts by electronic means as well as in print. I use the term "electronic means" because I have been informed that is the term the draughtspeo ple insisted on using in the past when I used other terms.
The Minister of State has already accepted a couple of similar amendments. His heart is in the right place. He should also accept this amendment because the public has a right to know. That is Government policy. The right to know by electronic means is also Government policy. Let us ensure we do not step back from that.
The Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, listened and accepted similar amendments to this – I do not know their precise detail – and, as Senator Henry pointed out, to the best of her memory the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, also accepted a similar amendment. We are living in the Stone Age if we do not accept this kind of amendment.
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Glynn, Camillus. |
Hayes, Maurice.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann. |
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coghlan, Paul.Costello, Joe.Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary. |
Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Meara, Kathleen.Quinn, Feargal.Ross, Shane.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
With the permission of the House I propose a suspension until 6.15 p.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
