Amendment No. 1 is out of order. Amendments Nos. 2, 6, 13, 22 and 26 are related; amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are consequential; amendments Nos. 2, 6, 13, 22, 23, 24 and 26 may be taken together.
Turf Development Bill, 1980: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following new definition:
" `qualified group' means a group consisting of not less than three individual persons as regards which the Board is satisfied that there is in force for the time being an agreement, in a form approved of by the Board and to which each member of the group is a party, whereby it is agreed by the group to do either or both of the following:
(a) by purchase, lease, hire or otherwise to acquire, or acquire the use of, turf development equipment and to use the equipment for the production of turf or turf products for fuel,
(b) to develop a bog for the production of turf or turf products for fuel;".
Essentially this amendment defines "qualified group" for the purposes of the Bill and has the effect of bringing informal and unregistered groups within the scope of the Bill.
During the Second Reading a number of Deputies expressed the view that the qualified society type of approach to co-operative or group developments, involving registration and submissions to the Registrar of Friendly Societies of annual audited accounts, could put off smaller groups who otherwise would be interested in coming together to develop bogs for the production of turf. The essential purpose of the Bill is to maximise private bog development for fuel, and though there may be a tendency to exaggerate the formality aspect, I agree that in some situations worthwhile development might not be proceeded with by the interests concerned because of excessive formality.
In these circumstances I accept that a less formal and less sophisticated regime would be justified in cases of this kind. This amendment is designed to bring such informal groups within the scope of the Bill. Such groups would not have formal existence in the terms of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. They would not have an obligation to register under that Act and they would be relieved of the other requirements associated with societies so registered. As is indicated in the amendment, a formal agreement inter se would be executed by all members of the qualified group in a form to be approved by Bord na Móna.
I accept a balance has to be struck in regard to the degree of control that must be exercised to safeguard the State interest, but it is not my intention that procedural issues should be made so burdensome that possible bog development by these informal groups would be frustrated. That is the sort of approach I will be expecting from Bord na Móna when they are dealing with this type of bog development.
Finally, this amendment fairly meets the points raised by a number of Deputies on Second Stage, to which I referred earlier. I would, however, like to emphasise that for long-term bog development, under which it may be necessary to ensure long-term commitments from a large group of people, co-operation by way of a registered society can have distinct advantages. A registered society assumes a legal personality which no informal group does for the purpose of, say, acquiring or proving turbary rights or commonage shares.
I am sorry the Minister did not go the whole distance in the praiseworthy direction which the Bill displays and do what I asked him to do during the Second Stage debate, namely, insert a new part into the Bill which would have the effect of encouraging the establishment of total energy co-operatives of which bog development would be a plausible and legitimate part of their activities.
Of course, I entirely agree with the Minister's anxiety to promote the co-operative effort. I said that before. I am glad the Minister recognises the peculiar appropriateness of co-operative effort through activity of the kind which this Bill is supposed to promote. But I cannot really see the point of the amendment which is before us now. I understand the Minister's anxiety not to tie people up in the necessity of getting themselves registered as friendly societies or as co-operatives in the strict legal sense of the word.
But the relevance of this thing would be very slight were it not for the fact that a distinction is drawn by the Minister in a later section of his Bill between co-operatives and qualified societies and all other cases. In other words, in the original Bill a distinction is drawn between co-operatives and private individuals. The Minister is now inserting a third category into the Bill, namely, what he calls qualified groups. He is assimilating those qualified groups, which as he says are to be informal groups of persons who are not put under the necessity of establishing a formal co-operative, not into the category of individuals, not into the category in section 8 (2) (b), but into the category of qualified societies, in other words, co-operatives.
When this Bill was at Second Stage I questioned the legality of this. I did not make a meal of it because I do not think there is anything sinister in it. But I did advert to the dubiousness of discriminating even for such a praiseworthy purpose as co-operative development, and discriminating between co-operatives and individuals in a quite separate context where the purpose of the Bill is simply to extract more peat from the bogs. I said that I could not see any reason why this discrimination should exist and that I could not see why the Minister could not simply have a flat rate of support for bog development, let it be the higher rate or the lower rate, though obviously he is likely to get more development the higher the rate is.
In fact what the Minister has now done by a singularly clumsy method is to adopt my suggestion because this proposal about a qualified group is effectively going to eliminate the individual altogether. At least the way in which the Minister envisages the qualified group must have that effect. He does not, for example, specify that the qualified group must consist of three or more individuals none of whom are related to one another, none of whom share any existing interest or property expectancy at the moment of the formation of the group. That is not insisted on at all. In other words, as I read the Minister's amendment, it is perfectly possible for a group to be constituted by a man, his wife and the old grandfather if he is still on the land. Why not? I can see nothing wrong with such a group and I am all in favour of them being as generously treated by the Minister as he can possibly manage. But if I had a strip of bog in the country and were anxious to develop it and make the most of this legislation and I saw that if I did it under my own name I was going to get support from the State of 40 per cent but that if I did it under the title of a qualified group I was going to get 60 per cent I would not be very long roping in my wife and eldest son as members of the same group. Not only is that so but the Minister does not even require in his amendment that that group should have any specified arrangements between themselves in regard to the share which each would provide in property and expertise, in know-how, in physical effort, in share of profit or loss on the development. That is all left absolutely up in the air.
I do not know what political instructions the Minister gave to his draftspeople or what the Minister's Department asked the Attorney General's department and the draftsmen there to include in it, but as far as the Minister's amendment goes it seems that the requirements for a qualified group are met if a farmer with a strip of bog and his wife and brother or his mother, if she is still alive and living on the land, or even if she is not living on the land, form a qualified group. They can form a qualified group and it is not required by this amendment that they should each contribute a certain amount of money or that not less than two of them contributed the money while one contributed know-how. All they need to do is enter into an agreement and so far as that goes the agreement might specify that all the financial support for the development, at any rate, the private financial support which the State does not provide, could come from one of the people and the other two could be simply written into the agreement as providing advice or simply cheering him on. I do not complain about that at all. I do not see anything sinister or undesirable in it. I am simply pointing out to the Minister that his amendment offers a loophole whereby any individual can transport himself from the 45 per cent bracket into the 60 per cent bracket by the simple device of writing in two of his relations into an agreement of which the Minister dictates not one single term.
If the Minister is willing to allow that to sit, if he is willing to accept my exegesis of his amendment, he might perhaps go one step further and admit that there is no point in maintaining any longer the distinction between two categories which he has erected in section 3 and he might as well strike out the 45 per cent bracket altogether. If he does that he might as well scrap, throughout the Bill, the painstaking references to qualified groups and societies. I honestly think that would be a simpler way of doing the job. It would have exactly the same effect in the end because the effect of the Minister's present amendment will lead to eliminating individuals, at least ostensibly, from the purview of the Bill and it will also avoid the admittedly only marginal danger that I adverted to on Second Stage, that his discrimination for an extraneous purpose in the administration of a bog development financial scheme might be constitutionally objectionable.
There is one more point that I want to make. Paragraph (a) in the Minister's amendment does not specify what form of purchase, what form of lease, what form of hire or acquisition he has in mind. Nor does it specify that this group has to have any legal personality of his own. In other words, so far as the amendment goes, a purchase lease or hire could be effected by one group and undoubtedly that is how it is going to turn out.
I think Deputy Kelly is under a misapprehension about this. First, let me point out that earlier in his remarks he referred—correctly, in my view—to the peculiar appropriateness of group working or co-operative working in relation to bog development. That is perfectly true and that is the key to the whole approach here. The distinction being made is between a registered co-op and an unregistered co-op which is in the form of a group. There is some practical experience of the operation of this kind of thing under schemes which have been administered by the Department of Agriculture and they have worked satisfactorily without the difficulties that Deputy Kelly has envisaged.
One thing Deputy Kelly said may have been literally correct but the implication was not correct. The Deputy said that the agreement entered into by such a group would not be subject to the control of the Minister. Literally that is true but it would not be subject to the approval of Bord na Móna. To that extent the House can take it that an agreement of this kind would be subject to the approval of criteria. For instance, I can see no reason why there would be any point in an agreement between a man, his wife and his brother if only one of them had something to contribute and it was purely a device to get the higher level of grants, as I could not see Bord na Móna accepting that such an agreement would meet with approval and would enable such persons to get the higher grant. The parties to the agreement would have to be able to contribute something and I envisage that what they would contribute would be a stretch of bogland.
This gets it back to the point about appropriateness of co-operation in regard to the development of bogs. In order to make any economical use of mechanical methods of turf harvesting one requires between 200 and 250 acres.
The nature of the ownership of many bogs here is such that either there are numerous owners of small stretches less than 200 acres or large stretches of bog owned in commonage. Either way each individual does not have access to a stretch of bogland enabling him to use mechanical harvesting on an economical basis. That is what Deputy Kelly had in mind when he referred to the appropriateness of a group approach to the development of bogs. That is a physical fact related to the pattern of ownership of bogland. For that reason and because the purpose of the Bill is to increase the production of turf, it follows that we want to encourage mechanical production and that given the circumstances outlined we should give particular encouragement to groups to get together so that between them they can provide an economical basis from which to machine harvest turf. In recognition of that, primarily, the higher level of grant is being made available to co-operatives and groups.
The individual who has a large stretch of bogland and proposes to develop it is almost certainly doing so on a commercial basis if it is sufficiently large to justify the use of machinery, or a company which is doing so will in the normal way do it on a commercial basis. If turf is being developed on a commercial basis, having regard to the market available the grant of 45 per cent is not ungenerous. In the case of the smallholders the level of grant proposed is 60 per cent and it cannot be regarded as being excessively generous having regard to the contribution of 40 per cent that each will have to make.
There is no dispute between Deputy Kelly and myself on that score. I gather that the Deputy objects to the distinction between the individual or company on the one hand and the co-operative on the other. I have tried to explain why that distinction is being made. The only question at issue in this amendment is that the amendment deals with a situation in which Deputies urged on Second Stage — and I was satisfied that there was some substance in their submissions — that in some cases the red tape formality and legal obligations involved in the registration of industrial or provident societies can operate to prevent the formation of groups which would otherwise go ahead and produce more turf. This is a practical problem. I found that some Deputies were trying to organise groups to form co-ops in anticipation of the passing of this Bill, to develop bogland, and they were running into this problem. It is to meet that problem that I have introduced this amendment. It will not have the effects that Deputy Kelly fears. It will help to ensure achievement of the primary aim of this Bill which is to get more turf produced so that we can use our own resources and avoid imports.
I see the Minister's point and I sympathise. If the Minister's point is to get people who have small areas of bogland to pool them without the red tape of forming themselves into a legal co-operative, I approve of it. However, it does not come through in the words of the Minister's amendment. I know a person who is more or less the sole beneficiary, the owner or proprietor of a stretch of bog which is in the process of development, and as matters stand he will qualify for the 45 per cent grant. I agree that is a good grant. However, so far as the Minister's section I goes, assuming that this amendment becomes law, that individual will be able to claim a 60 per cent grant by a device whereby two other people who would not contribute a yard of bogland to his enterprise will agree with him to do this work. A technical employee or an associate of his could contribute know-how or interest and could ally himself so far as the Minister's amendment goes with the proprietor so as to form a qualified group.
The Minister says that the board must approve of this agreement. I do not see any sinister intention here but I must complain about legislation which includes a completely free floating arbitrary discretion in a statutory board effectively to shut someone off from the benefit of something which the law as it stands appears to give him. On what criteria will the board approve? If what is central to the Minister's thinking is that this provision is intended in ease of people who are all proprietors of bits of bogland and want to put it into a pool and qualify for the upper grant, let him say so. What is to stop him having a further amendment or expanding or drafting this in a slightly different way so as to impose the black and white condition that each member of the group must be the beneficial owner or at least have an interest in a special bogland sufficient to entitle him legally to contribute that strip of bogland towards the common enterprise? I cannot draft that amendment or expanded amendment off the top of my head, but I am sure I could do it in a quarter of an hour if I sat down and took pen and paper.
So long as I have been in Opposition in this House and the other one I have listened to Ministers talking about law enforcement assuming that everybody will behave reasonably. This is a bad principle, because history shows that the law books are littered with incidents of Ministers who did not behave reasonably, not out of any sinister intent but just because they misconstrued their powers and went too far or fell into the comfortable misconception that they could do what they damn well liked. The Minister is going to give this free voting power to the board to approve or disapprove this agreement, and in those circumstances he ought at least take the trouble to write in the criteria on which this approval or disapproval is to be granted withheld.
My party is anxious to see the Bill pass, and we will not hold it up or make a meal out of it, but I would appeal to the Minister to look again at the section and the amendment. I make him a present of his having the best possible intent. So far as the amendment goes I know its purpose is a salutary one, and I support it, but it is so loosely drafted it does not seem to exclude a development which would effectively eliminate the low level grant altogether or, if it does not eliminate it, allow it to survive at the uncontrolled discretion of the board exerciseable according to criteria which are not visible.
When I spoke earlier I referred to the fact that I envisaged each party in the group regarding this amendment as contributing something. I said that what I would normally expect would be that they would contribute a stretch of bogland, but I did not say that was the only situation that could arise. It would be certainly the most common, but one could envisage a situation in which one party contributed the use of machinery and other parties contributed the use of bogland. There could be other possibilities, and that is why it is not spelled out precisely here. I will certainly undertake to consider further the points Deputy Kelly has made. This is not just as straightforward as it looks if one wants to cover the various possibilities that exist. I would point out that something similar has been operated satisfactorily under schemes administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Would the Minister consider between here and the Seanad putting in at least a further section to empower the board — perhaps regulation is not the right word — to prepare a scheme of some kind with a certain statutory status in which the board would spell out in its own way the criteria according to which it expected to exercise this discretion and have that laid before both Houses in the ordinary way for approval or disapproval so that at least those interested in the scheme would know where they stood?
I will certainly consider the question of Bord na Móna setting out so far as it can guidelines for the operation of this part of the scheme. With regard to the latest suggestion made by the Deputy we will come to some amendments later on. The approach I am adopting is not to lay them before the House but to oblige Bord na Móna to incorporate them in their annual reports which are of course laid before the House.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 2, lines 19 to 24, to delete from and including "and —" in line 19, down to and including "for fuel." in line 24 and substitute "and has for or amongst its purposes or objects the provision of turf for fuel;".
This is a drafting amendment. As the definition in paragraph (a) stands it might suggest a bias in favour of co-operative agricultural societies in that these societies can come within the definition of a qualified society without the requirement at (b) whereas other societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1893 do not. This is not intended, and the official amendment is designed to clarify the position. In its new form the definition gives equal status to all co-operatives registered under the 1893 Act but, for the purposes of the Bill, such societies must have for their purpose or objectives the provision of turf for fuel.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 11 consequential on amendment No. 4 can be debated with it.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 2, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following new definition:
" `turf development equipment' includes any vehicle, other than a road transport vehicle or any part thereof (or anything designed for use on a road transport vehicle), machine, machinery, appliance or equipment (or any part thereof), whether driven by mechanical power or not, which is designed or intended by its manufacturer to be used to extract turf for fuel or to move turf, when so extracted, to loading points for subsequent transport by road or rail.".
This is a drafting amendment. It is in consequence of the earlier inclusion of the definition of a qualified group, and it merely transposes the text of subsection (6) of section 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order.
As a matter of interest why are Deputy Pattison's two amendments ruled out of order?
Because they involve a potential charge on the revenue. That is what I am told.
Would not a county council come under paragraph (b) in section 3? Deputy Pattison is trying to make a qualified body into a separate entity. It must be in the Bill at some time, because a county council would at least qualify under any other thesis.
As the Deputy knows, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle does not decide these things. This has been gone into fully by the Ceann Comhairle and the amendments have been ruled out of order.
I was not aware of this until I arrived in this morning.
Neither was I for that matter. These things are decided by the Ceann Comhairle and they are governed by quite a number of precedents. Amendment No. 6 has already been debated with amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 2, subsection (1) (b) (i), line 29, to insert ", qualified group" after "qualified company".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Pattison is in order and amendment No. 10 is related.
I have been asked by the Labour Party formally to move Deputy Pattison's amendment, I therefore move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, subsection (3), line 10, to delete "to significant extent".
The deletion of the words "to a significant extent" would mean that even in a situation where the proposed development would be mildly detrimental to the board's interests the board could propose their refusal of a grant application and in that event referral of the change to the Minister in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of this section would be required. Obviously there would be quite a few such cases and consequently a high rate of referrals to the Minister, thereby delaying or even frustrating worthwhile bog development projects by private interests for what might well turn out to be the most trivial of reasons. Indeed, on its own and without what I might call the follow through in amendment No. 10, it would not have any other immediate effect.
The net effect of amendment No. 10 would be to leave the Minister with no power other than that of confirming the board's power to refuse the application which, it can be assumed, it would have done in the first place but for the referral provision. Accordingly, acceptance of this amendment would defeat the whole purpose of the provision which, as I said on Second Reading, I regard as crucial and necessary as a sort of assurance to private developers of fair treatment where there is a conflict of interest between them and the board. For these reasons I am not disposed to accept amendment No. 7 or Amendment No. 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir, you are not authorised to withdraw it.
Well, if it is not being pressed, it is withdrawn.
Amendments Nos 8 and 18. Deputy Kelly to move amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Pattison. Amendment No. 18 is cognate. Therefore we can discuss the two together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 3, subsection (3), line 11, after "by" to insert ", or employment in,".
The idea encompassed in these amendments is embraced already in section 6 (2) (b) in that refusal of a grant application in terms of subsection (2) (b) would, by inference, comprehend a development that would be detrimental to employment by the board. Of course Bord na Móna's primary objective is the optimum development of bogs for fuel. While I accept that maintenance of maximum employment is of the highest importance, it cannot become a priority in itself in the context of this Bill, It is not the essential purpose of this Bill. As I have already indicated, its essential purpose is the maximum production of turf for fuel. However, it should be remembered that a considerable number of new jobs is expected as a result of increased activity in the development of bogs by private interests. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate to establish what amounts to a statutory preference for employment by Bord na Móna over that by private developers, as these amendments would seek to do. For this reason I am not proposing to accept these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Pattison. Amendment No. 27 is related. Deputy Kelly to move amendment No. 9.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 3, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:—
"(5) Any direction given to the Board under this section shall be laid forthwith before each House of the Oireachtas as in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as regulations made under the Turf Development Acts, 1946 to 1981.”.
This amendment proposes that any direction given under this section by the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as regulations made under the Turf Development Acts, 1946 to 1980. I am advised that the relevant provision — that is, section 4 of the Turf Development Act, 1946 — does not require that regulations so made must be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, as I indicated in an interjection earlier on a point made by Deputy Kelly, I agree with the intent of the Deputy's amendment: that ministerial directives under this section should be made public. This can best be done through including particulars of any such directives in the annual report which Bord na Móna are required under section 18 of the 1946 Act to furnish to the Minister and which he is obliged to lay before each House of the Oireachtas under that section. Essentially I think this will meet the Deputy's concern that ministerial directives should be published. In the circumstances I hope the House will agree that his amendment is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Amendment No. 11 has already been debated with amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 3, lines 34 to 41, to delete subsection (6).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3
Amendment No. 12 has been ruled out of order. Amendment No. 13 has been debated with amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 3, paragraph (a), line 43, to insert "qualified group or" before "qualified society".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
I wonder if the Minister will consider requiring the board to draw up a scheme so that applicants for grants under this Bill will know where they stand. Will he make sure that the guidelines or rules which the board lays down will relate also to the form referred to in section 4? In other words, that the plans which the board requires will be in such form and contain such information as they want, that they will give some indication of the form and information they expect beforehand so as not to waste people's time.
I agree with the Deputy. What I envisage is that the board will produce application forms which will be as simple as it is possible to make them consistent with the requirements of the Bill and the obligations placed on Bord na Móna. But I would envisage that application forms would be produced which would indicate the requirements.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 14 in the name of Deputy Pattison. Amendments Nos. 21 and 29 are related. Amendment No. 32 is an alternative. Amendments Nos. 21, 29 and 32 may be debated with amendment No. 14.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) The cost of administering this section shall not be a charge on the revenue of the Board.".
I can inform the House that it was never the intention that expenses incurred by the board in the administration of the scheme of grants to be provided under this Bill would be a charge on the funds otherwise available to the board under the Turf Development Act, 1946, as amended, from their internally generated revenues. I am advised by the parliamentary draftsman that in fact this is the position under the provisions of section 11 (1) of this Bill, which is the financial provision. In other words, it was not the intention that moneys provided as heretofore would be used for the purpose of these grants. I am advised by the parliamentary draftsman that the provisions of section 11 do not change that position. Therefore this amendment and those being discussed with it are not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 15 in the name of Deputy Pattison. Amendment No. 16 is consequential and amendment No. 17 is related. Therefore we will discuss amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 4, lines 29 to 31, to delete subsection (1).
As the provision stands it imposes what amounts to a constraint on Bord na Móna in that it precludes the board from refusing to make a development grant solely for the reason that the bog the subject of the grant application is capable of and suitable for development by the board itself. The amendment seeks to remove this constraint. Quite an amount of bogland in this country could be classed as capable of and suitable for development by Bord na Móna and, by implication, similarly capable of and suitable for development by private interests who would be the owners or have turbary rights over such boglands but who in the circumstances of this amendment could nevertheless be refused a grant by the board which, a looking to its future development programme, might wish to reserve such boglands for their use though actual development might not be planned for many years to come. I am not saying that this would actually happen but the amendment offers that possibility. Subsection (2) of this section provides for situations in which the board may refuse to give a development grant and affords adequate protection for any bog developments planned by the board in the reasonable future. I regard the constraints imposed on the board by subsection (1) of this section as central to achieving the aim of this Bill and of respecting the reasonable freedom of bog owners or of turbary right owners to engage in private development. I think it will be clear to the House that it is necessary to endeavour to maintain a fair balance between the requirements of Bord na Móna and those of the owners of bogland or of turbary rights. I sought to do this in the Bill. To upset that balance would be not alone unfair but might well call into question the legality of this Bill. For that reason I do not propose to accept this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Amendment No. 17 in the name of the Minister has been debated already with amendment No. 15.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 32, to insert "but subject to section 2 (4) of this Act" before ", the Board".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 45, to delete "be comprised" and substitute "consist".
Deputy Kelly will recall that he raised this point on Second Stage and I resolved to meet him. I hope that he is happy with the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 46, after "members" to insert "and at least one member shall be a nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions".
This amendment seeks to have a nominee of the ICTU appointed to the advisory committee to be established by the Minister pursuant to this section. The functions of the advisory committee are to assist the Minister in his consideration of cases referred to him under section 2 (3) of the Bill. These are what we might call conflict of interest type cases. It is my intention that the nominee of Bord na Móna would be appointed to be a member of this advisory committee. I would expect that such a nominee would take into account the interests of the board's work force regarding issues on which the committee would be consulted by the Minister. I hardly think that second congress representation would be required. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept this amendment and I think that in the circumstances I have outlined it is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 4, to insert "qualified group or other" before "person".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 6, to insert "it or" before "he".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 9, to delete "person towards the cost of the purchase by" and substitute "group or person towards the cost of the purchase by it or".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 has been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 14, to insert "qualified group or" before "qualified society".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I would like to take this opportunity, because the phrase occurs in section 8, to get confirmation from the Minister on something. The expression "turf or turf products" occurs in a few places in the Bill including this section. To clear up a doubt which I have heard expressed, I ask the Minister to confirm whether "turf and turf products" includes milled peat produced from the bog and used as an industrial fuel in its own right and also used as raw material for briquette production.
Yes, I can confirm that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 32 and 33, to delete "any bog which the person proposes to develop for the production of turf or turf products for fuel" and substitute "the bog to which the proposal relates".
This is purely a drafting amendment. Essentially it removes what amounts to an ambiguity in the last two lines of section 10 (1).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 have been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I appreciate that the section bears the side note "Accounts". Would this not be the right section to recast in such a way as to oblige the board to produce a scheme which then could be called a statutory scheme setting out the criteria on which they were going to judge plans and also judge the agreements with regard to these qualified groups?
The Deputy will appreciate that the matters he is referring to are matters of administration the requirements of which may change from time to time. I am not sure that it would be appropriate, even if it were possible, to provide for this in the Bill. My intention in spelling out the obligations which I see devolving on Bord na Móna and having been on the record of this House is that they can be utilised in dealing with Bord na Móna and would be a guideline to Bord an Móna with regard to the administration expected on this scheme. That is probably about the best way I can deal with this rather than attempting to provide statutorily for matters which may change from time to time.
That is the very thing I want to try to guard against. I can see that there might be material reasons for changing a scheme or criteria on which a scheme is administered, but I would be anxious to make sure that the public and the people interested in availing of this know where they stand. It should not be possible for the board arbitrarily and at a whim, capriciously perhaps, to change criteria in such a way that a scheme which would have got by on one of these group agreements or a plan for development which would have got by last month will not get by this month or vice versa. I will not hold the Minister up, but he might consider between now and the time the Bill goes to the Seanad whether he will write a short section into the Bill. Of course, that would mean coming back to the Dáil, but we will facilitate him when he is seeking for this from the other side of the House.
The Deputy is most helpful.
We could perhaps do it immediately after the election of the Taoiseach. At any rate, it seems that it would be a good idea to do this and not leave it open to the board either to neglect to produce a formal published scheme or to feel free to alter the terms of the scheme perhaps without adequate notice from time to time.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendment No. 34 is cognate with amendment No. 33 and the two amendments may be debated together.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 6, line 11, to delete "forty" and substitute "fifty".
It has now emerged that the Central Fund advances to Bord na Móna are at present in excess of the £40 million originally provided for in the Bill and the amendment proposes to increase the limit to £50 million. I understand that in conjunction with internally generated revenue this will cover the board's projected development expenditure for about the next three years.
I know we have inflation, but this is ridiculous. It is only two months or perhaps a little more since this Bill arrived in this House. Was it since Christmas or just before Christmas? I am not exactly sure, but it was in the middle of the winter. At that time the purpose of section 13 was to provide for an increase in this limit from £28 million to £40 million and in the short space of these few months second thoughts have overcome the Department and presumably the board and now it is £50 million they want. Is there any reason for this sudden raising of the ceiling in such a short time? Are there any considerations at present in the Department's mind which were not or could not have been present when the Bill was being drafted?
No. The Deputy will note that I said that it has now emerged that the Central Fund advances are at present in excess of the £40 million originally provided for in the Bill. I did not say that it had since occurred. To be quite honest, I am not quite sure why this was not known earlier, but I can tell the Deputy that there is no sudden change in the circumstances or the planned expenditure of Bord na Móna.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 6, line 20, to delete "forty" and substitute "fifty".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
I would like to say, at the risk of boring the Minister, leaving party politics out of it, that I hope, whoever is in charge of his Department after the next election, will dig out the idea which I advanced on Second Stage and again this morning. This is the idea of trying to see, in the localities in which the country could conveniently be divided for such a purpose, if it might not be possible to establish co-operative societies or groups with the simplest possible structure in which there would be widest possible and most informal local membership devoted to conducting an energy audit in the district to find out how much energy of various kinds in that district is actually consumed. This could show what room there is for cutting down that consumption, the potential source of energy creation which exists there in the form of bog development, small-scale hydro development and, once the technology becomes cheaper and better understood, the generation of wind power which could be fed into the national grid, the collection of waste and the heating of large premises, schools, factories or glasshouse undertakings. These are all small-scale activities which our experience over the last eight years has taught us we should not despite. The collective effect of those in the conditions we live in could not possibly be negligible.
There are also activities that lend themselves well to voluntary effort and, I make no apology for saying, to juvenile effort, the kind of effort which even very young people can be encouraged to take an interest and pride in: the collection of waste, the reclamation of small patches of ground, the planting of small-scale forests and so forth. I am not suggesting to the Minister, if he is still in charge after the election, any more than I would ask my own colleague if we are in charge or if I am that Minister myself, that the Department or the State should engage in a wild, nationwide overall attempt to do something which has never been done before. I am however, suggesting that some consideration should be given to the possibility of total energy co-operative development along those lines in localities which are small enough for the individual to have a certain over-view of, so that he can see and feel the results of his own particular effort in the development of alternative sources and so on. A co-operative effort of that kind would actually be money-making depending on the rate of success. This could, on an experimental level, even if it was only in a gingerly way, be tried out and, if the experiment proved promising, it could be gradually extended. If it did not prove promising it could be folded up.
The Bill had an unreserved welcome from this side of the House, as the Minister will admit. The thing I most like about it is the co-operative element which it discloses. I am glad to see the Minister take an interest in it even though I am not entirely happy about the form of discriminating between co-ops and others. I would have liked the Minister to go further. I wish, if things go against him in the election, that whoever is responsible for that Department on my side, will go further, precisely in the energy field, along the lines of co-operative effort. I, however, welcome the Bill and I am glad, after a rather dull and unadventurous four years in the Dáil, in which it was very difficult to see that any great initiative was being shown or any great new thinking was anywhere around in the Government ranks, that we appear to be closing on a note on which I do not have to speak any bitter words. I know there is other business to come but that will conclude my contribution to the 21st Dáil.
I would like to thank Deputy Kelly and the other Deputies who participated in the Second Stage debate for the gentle welcome they gave to the Bill and the constructive criticisms they made, which I hope today's debate will show have been examined and taken to heart by me and, where possible, that I have tried to tailor the Bill to the various views expressed. I will not follow Deputy Kelly into his speculation about the results of any election because I know you would rule me out of order if I were to do that.
It would be quite irrelevant.
I want to point out to Deputy Kelly that, as he knows, we are engaged in the process of evaluation and are successfully bringing to the attention of the public the importance of a number of aspects of energy production and energy conservation which, as he correctly said, was not very highly regarded a few years ago. Energy conservation is a matter to which I have given a great deal of attention.
Deputy Kelly mentioned juvenile participation. I am glad to tell him we have had a very successful competition for children of first and second level schools in connection with energy conservation. The standard has been very high, particularly in the primary schools. The prizes will be awarded very shortly.
With regard to the question of co-ops which would pursue all of those matters at the one time in particular areas, that idea has considerable attraction but I am not yet convinced that it is capable of practical application. I hope in due course to have the opportunity to examine that in more detail. I would again like to thank Deputy Kelly for his approach to this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.