asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the date on which the rate of interest to be paid by Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta was fixed for each advance issued as set out in the reply to Question 68 of 23rd February, 1967.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Interest on Advances to Nítrigin Éireann Teo.
47.
A Cheann Comhairle, as the particulars requested by the Deputy are in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with your permission, to have the statement circulated with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
|
Amount of Advance |
Date Issued to Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta |
Interest Rate |
Date Interest Fixed |
|
£ |
|||
|
12,000 |
5/1/62 |
6¼% |
5/1/62 |
|
12,000 |
26/3/62 |
6¼% |
26/3/62 |
|
10,000 |
26/6/62 |
6¼% |
26/6/62 |
|
12,000 |
23/8/62 |
6¼% |
23/8/62 |
|
10,000 |
10/10/62 |
6¼% |
10/10/62 |
|
18,000 |
19/10/62 |
6¼% |
19/10/62 |
|
670,000 |
30/1/63 |
6% |
30/1/63 |
|
400,000 |
29/3/63 |
6% |
25/3/63 |
|
200,000 |
1/5/63 |
6% |
1/5/63 |
|
200,000 |
8/6/63 |
6% |
8/6/63 |
|
100,000 |
9/7/63 |
6% |
9/7/63 |
|
100,000 |
9/8/63 |
6% |
9/8/63 |
|
260,000 |
25/9/63 |
6% |
25/9/63 |
|
320,000 |
4/10/63 |
6% |
4/10/63 |
|
330,000 |
1/11/63 |
6% |
31/10/63 |
|
20,000 |
2/12/63 |
6% |
30/11/63 |
|
275,000 |
3/2/64 |
6% |
3/2/64 |
|
150,000 |
10/3/64 |
6% |
10/3/64 |
|
300,000 |
20/4/64 |
6% |
20/4/64 |
|
300,000 |
11/5/64 |
6% |
11/5/64 |
|
130,000 |
10/6/64 |
6% |
10/6/64 |
|
250,000 |
10/7/64 |
6% |
10/7/64 |
|
200,000 |
10/8/64 |
6% |
10/8/64 |
|
150,000 |
10/9/64 |
6% |
10/9/64 |
|
250,000 |
12/10/64 |
6% |
12/10/64 |
|
100,000 |
10/11/64 |
6% |
10/11/64 |
|
100,000 |
10/12/64 |
6% |
10/12/64 |
|
200,000 |
11/1/65 |
6¼% |
11/1/65 |
|
200,000 |
9/2/65 |
6¼% |
9/2/65 |
|
70,000 |
10/3/65 |
6¼% |
10/3/65 |
|
300,000 |
10/5/65 |
6¼% |
10/5/65 |
|
150,000 |
1/7/65 |
6¼% |
1/7/65 |
|
201,000 |
3/8/65 |
6¼% |
3/8/65 |
Bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil an Leas-Cheann Comhairle sa Chathaoir?
Tá a fhios agam ach níor thug me fe ndeara é nuair a fhreagair mé an Cheist.
48.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the total amount due to the Exchequer for interest for advances to Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta on the 30th June of each of the years 1962 to 1966, inclusive; and the amount that has likewise accrued up to 31st December 1966.
49.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether any sums have been received from Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta on account of interest on advances; if so, the amount of these sums; the date of each such receipt; and the amount due and unpaid for interest on such advances to the 30th June 1966 and to the latest available date.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 49 together.
I would refer the Deputy to the particulars concerning interest on advances made to Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta during the period to 30th June, 1966, set out in the statement circulated with the Official Report in reply to his question on the 23rd February, 1967. The figure for the period from 30th June, 1966 to 31st December, 1966 is not available to me at present.
On 21st April, 1962 the company paid a sum of £189 being the interest due on advances to the 31st March, 1962. The company deferred further interest payments pending completion of the development stage of the industry and the working out of the terms and conditions governing repayment of advances. This matter is at present under examination by my Department in association with the Department of Finance.
Does the Minister agree that the total figure he failed to give after the 30th June last is £757,847, less perhaps £189 of which I was not aware until now?
This may be so. It is approximately right. I did not fail to give the information but the Deputy is aware that I had already given it to him last week.
No, the Minister gave an individual one but not the accumulated total. I want the total.
I apologise to the Deputy. He did ask for the total.
Has the Minister got it handy?
I am afraid I would have to do the sum. I have not got the figure.
I did the sum but I would not guarantee that it is accurate.
The figure is approximately correct anyway.
50.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he received any explanation from the Board of Directors of Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta for the non-inclusion of the amount due to the Exchequer for interest in each of the accounts for the years 1962 to 1966, inclusive; if so, what was such explanation; if he did not receive any explanation, whether he sought one; and, if not, why.
51.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in the absence of provision for the amount due for interest on advances from both the accounts and the notes thereon, the accounts of Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta to the 30th June 1966 are prepared in accordance with section 149 of the Companies Act, 1963; and, if not, what action he proposes to take to enforce the law in this respect.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 50 and 51 together.
The accounts of Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta for each of the years 1962-1966 inclusive were certified as being in order by the company's auditor and I have therefore not sought an explanation, nor do I consider that any explanation is required, from the board of directors of Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta for the non-inclusion of the amount due to the Exchequer for interest in the accounts for these years. I would refer the Deputy to the note on the company's balance sheets of the 30th June, 1965 and 30th June, 1966 to the effect that as the conditions of repayment of Exchequer Advances had not been determined, interest had not been provided for in the accounts.
I have no reason to believe that the accounts of the company for the year to the 30th June, 1966, are not in accordance with section 149 of the Companies Act, 1963.
Does the Minister consider that it is in accordance with section 149 to omit a figure of £757,000 from the accounts?
As I have said, I have no reason to believe that the manner in which the accounts were presented is not in accordance with section 149 and I have received a certificate from the company's auditor who, as the Deputy knows, is the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I have read it.
The Deputy is familiar with it. It states——
I have read it. May I take the Minister out of his embarrassment by asking him this question?
I am not in the least embarrassed. I want to draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General has certified that he is satisfied that the information required under the Companies Act has been furnished and I see no grounds for departing from that view.
May I ask the Minister if he appreciates, as the Minister in his private avocation would readily acknowledge, as I do and the Minister for Health does in ours, that if it were done in an ordinary private company, not a State company, the directors who signed the report and all concerned would properly be prosecuted for an offence under the Companies Act — properly prosecuted — and certainly, if I signed an account with the omission of a figure of £750,000 and only a reference to interest without any reference to that figure, I should be prosecuted. It is a public scandal of the worst sort that has been seen since the State started State-sponsored bodies.
I do not agree at all with what the Deputy has said. At least, I should say that I do not agree with the implication of what he has said. I would remind the House that, in effect, this company started trading only in 1965 and that the progress which has been made there has been very substantial, that there has been no misleading of shareholders or the public——
The shareholders are the Minister for Finance.
——or no attempt to mislead such. The implication of the Deputy's question was that there was some such attempt to mislead, but the Deputy knows as well as I do that that is not so. As he says, the Minister for Finance is the shareholder and the Minister for Finance is well aware of the full situation and the notes by the Comptroller and Auditor General draw the attention of anybody who reads the accounts to the existence——
Of an unspecified sum for interest.
Yes.
Which, on investigation, becomes £757,000.
Yes, but is the Deputy suggesting——
It is a new criterion of honour in State companies.
Has anybody lost or been misled in any way?
Yes: the public is grossly misled.
And Deputies of this House.
May I put this to the Minister for Industry and Commerce: In a public company it is the shareholders who would be misled by the certificate or by the report of the directors and the accounts as signed by the directors. In a State-sponsored body it is not the shareholders, because they are the Minister for Finance, but it is the people who have provided the money, the taxpayers, who are entitled to get the proper, truthful, full disclosure. That was not given in these accounts and it is, I suggest to the Minister — and may I say that it occurred before the Minister went into that particular office or I believe that he, with his legal knowledge, would not have allowed it — a disgraceful performance, and has besmirched the honour of State companies in the country?
I am afraid I cannot accept that at all.
Very good. Will we discuss that on the Adjournment on Tuesday night?
If the Deputy wishes, he may.
I will.
But I do want to say on this occasion that this company has been doing excellent work.
I am not challenging that.
I do not want any suggestion or implication in what Deputy Sweetman has said to rub off and to suggest that that work is not as valuable as it was or that the work had managed to take place by reason of some mishandling of public money.
There is no such suggestion.
I know the Deputy does not mean that but I want to make it perfectly clear, lest there should be any misunderstanding, that there is no suggestion by Deputy Sweetman or anybody else that that is so and that Deputy Sweetman is merely referring to the accounting procedures of this company.
And the fact that these accounting procedures were deliberately designed to mislead the public.
That I do not accept.
52.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has issued any directions to the company under clause 4(2) of the schedule to the Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Act, 1963; and, if so, if he will lay a copy of each such direction before Dáil Éireann.
The form in which the accounts of Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta are furnished was approved by me after consultation with the Minister for Finance. Apart from a notification to this effect no direction has been issued to the company under Clause 4 (2) of the Schedule to the Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Act, 1963.
The form of accounts as published is the form the Minister directed?
A draft form of accounts was submitted to my Department and was approved by my Department.
Would the Minister put that draft form of accounts on the Table of the House?
I would to consider that.
Will the Minister consider that before Tuesday, please?
I will do so, yes.
Thank you.