I would advise the House that there are four amendments and that they may be discussed together. There is no need to advise the Deputies but let me remind them that on Report Stage they do not enjoy or suffer the same liberties they had on Committee Stage. Each Deputy may speak once and the Minister will conclude.
Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill, 1987: Report and Final Stages.
Once on each amendment, or just once?
We are taking the four amendments together. I assume that a Deputy will be at liberty to say all he feels like saying when he is on his feet. There is no limitation to how long he can spend, assuming it is relevant. The Minister may not be aware that we have two amendments that come to us from Committee Stage in the name of Deputy Keating which were not moved. If it would help, Deputy Bruton, if you wish perhaps we could discuss amendments Nos. 1 and No. 2 together.
That would be more suitable.
Again, I would remind the House that the mover of the amendment has the right to reply. Agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, line 9, to delete "£180,000,000", and substitute "£160,000,000".
I have been listening to what the Minister has said today. In the circumstances, there is not much point in proceeding with the amendment. It is perfectly obvious that the scale of events has gone beyond us. The figure of indebtedness has already gone up by £1 million or £2 million over the last three or four hours. The Minister feels strongly that £180 million is the figure. It is clear from what he has said to us today that the indebtedness of the company is £168 million and is rising. Accordingly, I do not see much point in pressing this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, line 9, after "£180,000,000", to insert "or such lesser amounts as may at any time be owing by Nítrigin Eíreann Teoranta".
With regard to amendment No. 2, there is a principle which is embodied in it which I would like to commend to the House. The essence of it is that I do not believe the cushion the Exchequer is affording to the new arrangement — and we all hope that it will work and work satisfactorily — should be there forever and that the guarantees should remain in place forever at the same level as it has been proposed to fix them in today's Bill. If — and this is the underlying assumption — the new joint venture company succeeds and assists in making NET that much more self-sufficient and self-financing than they have been, then it is not unreasonable that there should be some degree of escalator built in which would not be unduly restrictive in terms of their capacity to operate but which would, nevertheless, reflect our collective desire to ensure that this £180 million is not seen as an infinite capacity to work up to that limit, but rather one that was the maximum and that it was expected that, as reasonably and as quickly as possible, that sum would be reduced in practice.
A certain degree of piquancy has been added to this amendment by virtue of our discussion a few moments ago. There is need for a philosophy of approach to be addressed hereto if it is the broad view of the House that we can turn away from the sum of £180 million and leave it in place forever. Inevitably a company will operate within that framework and will not gird their loins as well as they would if there was an awareness of an expectation in this House that the figure is a temporary facility to be reduced systematically without endangering the company or the joint venture company but as quickly and as reasonably as possible, so that the taxpayer will be as little exposed as is reasonable to expect. This amendment, which is not necessarily framed or drafted in an ideal fashion and in respect of which I have no hard and fast views as regards its drafting, seeks to achieve that end.
It seeks to say that if at some point the £180 million is not necessary and the company have managed to turn themselves around and roll back their losing guarantees to a limit of £160 million, £165 million or £140 million, in effect those guarantees would be self-financing, which is not unreasonable. I should be very pleased to be given the option of getting guaranteed money on those terms. I know many companies that would be pleased to be told that essentially without a deadline they can have that sum of money but that at a certain point, on presentation of their set of accounts after two or three years, if they find they are in business, we expect them to reduce that indebtedness.
On a broader point I take the view that the giving of grants, used to promote industrial strategy should be reviewed in order to see whether they should become repayable loans. We are sometimes a little flaithiúlach with Exchequer moneys and we have been throwing figures around today such as £180 million as if, to use an expression which my father used to use, it was snuff at a wake. I do not know how much money that is but it sounds like a lot.
At a wake it would appear to be quite an amount.
I do not wish to be negative about this arrangement but if we go ahead with it what I want is for the joint venture company to respond in kind and to say that that is a fair condition, that we are not being unreasonable and that as soon as they turn the corner in profitability terms they will discard a certain percentage of the guarantee which would have been put in place. The spirit of that should be distilled in some shape or from and incorporated into this Bill.
I am not sure whether it will be possible to do that within a specific time span but I would prefer from the company's point of view to be a little more elastic about it and to give them the option, bearing in mind that we are talking about a timescale which will undoubtedly be predicated by their assessment of how well they are doing. As I said on Second Stage, if my party were in power at this time it is unlikely that this Bill would have been introduced but if we are going to go down the road of extending this guarantee all I am asking is that that guarantee should be automatically reduced in line with a return to reasonable profitability on the part of NET — the joint venture company.
I think the Minister of State has some sympathy for that view. I am not pushed about whether this amendment is well drafted or not. The Minister of State has better resources at his disposal to deal with that aspect. I do not think it is unjust or unfair to expect that and if it is not unjust or unfair we should put it in place. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider it and try to embody it in the Bill. I accept that it would be unprecedented in terms of the NET saga but perhaps it is now time to change the atmosphere. This debate is almost a repetition of debates which have taken place in the past. There should be a circumscription on the giving of these guarantees. The old order has changed, the money is just not out there. There is a constant battle for scarce resources and that has to be brought home to people. All we are saying is that we will underpin the company once more but in three to five years time when things begin to go smoothly, as we hope they will, we will expect the company to stand down between £20 million or £40 million of that guarantee. Therefore, I commend this amendment to the House and hope that the Minister of State will be able to take it on board.
The difficulty I have with Deputy Keating's amendment is that it envisages that the amount due will free fall in a straight line. The reality is that the figure may zigzag. It could fall and then go back up again by either £100,000 or £500,000 before falling back down again. As happened in the recent Stock Exchange falls, the figure may zigzag like a stairs.
I am not saying that it should be as strict as that. After a period of about three years we could bring it down by £10 million.
The advice which we have received from the Attorney General's office is that this amendment is not practical and even to reword it in order to get to the spirit of it would also have practical difficulties. If a limit is built into the legislation as has been suggested in this amendment and if the figure falls by £10 million and suddenly goes up by £250,000 one could not go back up by that £250,000 even though they might need to. From a legal point of view it could not be implemented in that way because——
What happens if it falls next week?
The Deputy's amendment states "or such lesser amounts as may at any time be owing by Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta." This would mean that if the figure came down and suddenly edged back up, the edging back up would be totally forbidden by law. It may not go back up without the permission of the Minister for Finance. Therefore, if it does fall and has to edge back up by a couple of hundred thousand pounds in a short period for time the Minister for Finance has to give permission. That appears to be the best control mechanism contained in it. I am aware of what the Deputy is seeking to achieve. The Deputy wants to prevent, if the figures come down, the company from going wild and building up debts again. We are approaching this matter on the basis that this is the figure which is needed and if the figure comes down the Minister for Finance will not allow it to go back up again. That is the spirit in which any Minister for Finance should approach it. The advice which we have received from the Attorney General's office is that the wording of this amendment would make the management of it absolutely impossible.
Is there any way in which the spirit of the amendment could be incorporated into the law?
The Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce will come to this House to say that he has good news in that the figure has come down, looks like staying down and that a new Bill is being introduced to reduce the limit.
When did that ever happen?
The limit will be controlled by the Department of Finance. It is an upper limit which is now needed. If a lower limit was put in it would prevent the company from getting up to the upper limit which they need.
The guarantee which is in place is for £150 million. Apparently, the Minister has given permission to spend £180 million regardless of the fact that the limit is £150 million. I do not believe that the control operated by the Minister for Finance is what should be in place. I believe that this figure should be governed by law in some way. The other way has not worked.
The figure that is now needed is £180 million.
I would like to remind the House that we are not on Committee Stage. Does Deputy Keating wish to reply?
What the Minister of State has said to me is that the wording of the amendment causes a problem because it might be over strictly interpreted. He has also said that the Minister for Finance would control the figure. I am saying that the Minister for Finance has not controlled it. As this saga has shown, it has not worked and invariably, a document will be put before the Minister which he will sign. That is not the kind of control I want. What I want is a formal statutory control. I do not want the wording to be strictly interpreted. I would like to see an inbuilt mechanism for a review so that the figure for indebtedness would not stand forever at £180 million. I believe it is reasonable to try to achieve that and I would like it to be incorporated into this legislation in some shape or form. I feel strongly about it.
Acting Chairman
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
I am.
Acting Chairman
I am putting the question: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand".
Question put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Is the Deputy pressing amendment No. 2?
I accept that the House would outvote me on it. I am not going to call an unnecessary vote.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 2, line 19, after "£180,000,000.", to insert the following:
"The Minister may give a guarantee either in respect of the entirety of the principal or of a proportion thereof.".
This amendment seeks to add to the power which the Minister has to give a guarantee. At present, he has the power to give a guarantee for the entirety for each pound, of the £180 million. What I am proposing in this amendment is that it should be possible for the Minister to give a guarantee in respect of either the entirety of the principal, as at present, or a proportion thereof at his discretion, so that the Minister could say: "I am giving a guarantee but the guarantee is that for every pound you lend to the company I will ensure that you are repaid 90p in the pound and not 100p in the pound." This would be a good and reasonable commerical approach in the future in respect of State guarantees where they are being given that the Government should as a matter of practice not necessarily offer 100p in the pound repayment, guaranteed, but a fraction of that amount, either 80p or 90p in the pound.
We should get away from the idea that bankers once they lend to a State company are going to get all their money back because unless the bankers have some money at risk they are not going to scrutinise the loan adequately. The very act of bankers scrutinising a loan before it is given to a company can often do the company the best favour they have ever had in their commercial existence, in that having to satisfy the banker that it is a good risk for the banker the company learn more about their own operations in answering the banker's questions than they might learn from simply looking into their own heart, so to speak. At the moment as long as a State company are borrowing from a bank on the basis that the bank are going to be repaid their entire money by the taxpayer even if the company make a total hames of their operations, the bank do not apply a deep scrutiny to the propositions put to them by the company for the use they are going to make of the money being offered on loan by the bank to the company.
My proposal that the Minister should be empowered — it is not a requirement, it is simply empowering him — to offer a guarantee in respect of a fraction of the sum, not the entirety, would mean that if the Minister was guaranteeing 90p the bank would be at least ar risk to the extent of 10p in every £ lent and in order to secure that 10p the banks would try to scrutinise the project more closely than they would otherwise. The bank, the company and the State would benefit in that there would be a much more commercial and tightly focused examination of each proposition put forward. That is the case for the first amendment.
In regard to the second amendment, I propose that this State guarantee we are giving, this new, much more generous limit of £180 million that the taxpayer will find in respect of the borrowings of NET holding company as against the £150 million which is all we are obliged to find from the taxpayer's pocket at the moment should obtain only up to 1 January 1992. We should try to reduce progressively the extent of the State exposure to the debts of this company. If by 1 January 1992 the debts of NET have been reduced to, say, £140 million, £100 million or zero, then there would be no need for anything to be done because the £150 million limit which would exist after 1 January 1992 would at that stage be quite sufficient to accommodate the borrowings of the company as to 100 per cent. However, if the company still at that stage, on 1 January 1992, owe, say, £180 million or £170 million, then it is only right that this House should have another look at this matter. If that is the case something will have gone very radically wrong with the arrangements which have been put in place as a result of this deal. If by 1 January 1992 NET holding company owe in excess of £150 million, then it is fair to say that this deal probably will not have succeeded as the Minister and all of us in this House would wish it to do.
Some time during 1991 — not tomorrow but a prudent distance away — this House should have the opportunity to review the entire operation to see if it is going well if, as probably will not be the case, the borrowings are still in excess of £150 million. Therefore, I believe this is a most reasonable and prudent amendment. This amendment, bringing the guaranteed borrowings of NET holding company down to £150 million from 1 January 1992 from the rather larger £180 million which they would obtain up to that date in no sense affects the jobs in IFI in Arklow or Marino Point. As the Minister said during the Committee Stage debate, the financing of this new NET holding company who are concerned with managing the gas contract and the debt is not connected downstream with IFI. They are a separate company and will continue in their own way. Any difficulties encountered by NET holding company in managing the inherited debt are no longer the problem of IFI. Therefore, there is no problem at all as far as NET are concerned. The workers in Arklow and in Marino Point in IFI, formerly known as NET, are not affected by this.
All we are saying in this proposal regarding the guarantee of £180 million is that the banks, the only people concerned in this, should be guaranteed no more than £150 million after 1 January 1992 unless this matter comes back to this House and the House decides it should continue with the new limit of £180 million rather than the lower limit of £150 million which is amply generous for the exigencies of the situation that should obtain at that time if this deal is going even half right.
I am impressed with Deputy Bruton's argument. I want to be constructive and helpful. I have difficulty with amendment No. 4 because of the 1992 date and the circumstances that might or might not pertain at that time. Regarding amendment No. 3, do I understand the Deputy to want to insert that into the Bill at this stage and further that it will mean the legal position would be that the £180 million would still be the maximum figure but that as and when the exposure reduced the Minister could use his powers to fix the limit at a level lower than £180 million if he found that necessary?
We are attracted to this. Let me share my concern with the Deputy. We are nervous about it because, while I like the sentiments in it and it makes sense, once I get the upper limit of £180 million then I am not all that worried about whether the Minister feels that he can reduce it within that limit. The Deputy is perhaps even more experienced than I am in this. I am nervous about doing that without having the Attorney General look at the wording involved in it. I do not know whether any other option is open to us.
Unfortunately, I do not think so. I am not a legal draftsman either but I see it working in that the Minister will now be extending, immediately I presume, guarantees to the banks as to 100p in the £ in respect of moneys up to £180 million. As those moneys are repaid new loans will be negotiated, still within the overall limit of £180 million. The Minister might decide to use power under this legislation to say that in respect of any additional loans the guarantee he will give will not be for 100 per cent repayment but for 90p in the pound or a certain proportion of the amount. I stress that the amendment does not oblige the Minister to enter into that arrangement. If he wants to give a 100 per cent guarantee, he is empowered to do so by the first part of the section. Amendment No. 3 simply enables him to take a different approach if he wishes to do so by offering a 90 per cent guarantee in the case of, say a company who are doing very well. According to the wording of the amendment, the Minister may give a guarantee in respect of the entirety or in respect of a proportion thereof. There is no obligation on the Minister to avail of this amendment and he can leave it as a dead letter. On the other hand, he may use it if he wishes. No bank could say that he has not got the authority of the Oireachtas to give a partial rather than an entire guarantee. It would give the Minister flexibility which he perhaps does not have to give a reduced rate of guarantee.
I had thought that the intention behind the amendment was that the figure of £180 million would stay there but as the tide fell and the exposure came down to, say, £140 million, the Minister could pin it at the new figure of £140 million. That has certain attractions, once we get the upper limit of £180 million.
He can do that anyway. This whole Bill permits the Minister to give a guarantee — it does not oblige him. At the moment he signs a paper to the effect that he is guaranteeing a loan in its entirety. The purpose of the amendment is to give him the alternative of guaranteeing only 90 per cent of the loan.
The amendment would permit the Minister to reduce the maximum figure.
Yes, in respect of an individual loan.
In respect of the whole £180 million on day one.
Yes.
I cannot accept it on that basis because we are stuck with that figure.
Let us assume that the £180 million is in place. In response to a request for a guarantee up to £5 million in respect of a particular project, could the Minister say that he would guarantee nine-tenths of it?
I have difficulty with anything below £180 million. It is a technical matter which I would want to discuss with the Attorney General. I cannot accept anything that dilutes the maximum figure. It is no good to us if the Minister could say on day one that £180 million is the figure but that he will guarantee only 90 per cent of it. I need the full guarantee for the full £180 million.
In conclusion, the Minister under amendment No. 3 still has full power to give a guarantee up to £180 million. That power is in no way diluted. All the amendment provides is the power to offer a 90 per cent guarantee if he wishes to do so. He still has the power not to avail of that option and to continue to give the full 100 per cent guarantee up to £180 million.
The Minister has indicated a willingness to look at the ideas in this amendment. Perhaps he would agree to look at this matter between now and the debate in the Seanad. If he can bring himself to make an amendment in the Seanad limiting this, I imagine Deputy Keating and I could agree to pass that amendment within five or ten minutes on its coming to the Dáil. In the light of the goodwill expressed by the Minister — perhaps I am grasping at straws — I am not proposing to press amendment No. 3 in case it might spoil this incipient willingness to look at a well-intentioned amendment.
I am very disappointed with the response to amendment No. 4. The House has a right to have another look at this very large guarantee some time in 1991. If they still need over £150 million of State guarantee in 1991 there is something astray in this company. The rate at which profits should be made on the gas contract should be such that their borrowings should be below £150 million by 1991. If that is not so, there is definitely a case for the Dáil to have another look at the matter. The Minister may say there would be great problems in this. If there are problems, he has already expressed the solution. He said that in his view the Government are obliged to pay all this money back anyway.
I did not say that.
I apologise. The Minister did not say that. He said the Government should aim to do so. It would be possible to say that the Government would not allow anybody to be at a loss pending review by the Dáil. It is essential that we have a review clause in the Bill. The amendment would not take away the Minister's £180 million guarantee, extravagant and all as I may think it is. It simply says that it shall only apply until 1 January 1992 at which date it will come down to £150 million unless the Dáil has otherwise decided in the meantime. That is a reasonable amendment and I hope the Minister will be able to accept it.
I undertake to consider a review clause between now and the date when the Bill is debated in the Seanad. That is as far as I can go at this stage.
Deputy Bruton, and all Members, want a review of some kind. I wonder if the portion of the amendment which states that after 1992 the sum will revert to £150 million is causing the Minister a problem. If that was dropped would the Minister be prepared to accept that there should be a review clause? We did not get a comprehensive reply from the Minister as to the problems he is facing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 2, line 21, after "1987", to insert the following:
"and shall have effect until 1 January, 1992, at which date the sum guaranteed will revert to that obtaining prior to the passage of this Act".
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 84.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Begley, Michael.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Colley, Anne.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garrett.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCarthy Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keffe, Batt.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Power, Paddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Roche, Dick.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Swift, Brian.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Durkan and Flanagan; Níl; Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
On this Stage I simply want to avail of the opportunity to raise one relatively minor matter which did not arise during the Committee or the Report Stages. This relates to the position of the worker directors of whom there are four on the board of the holding company. It is my understanding——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I must insist on the best of order. Members leaving will do so as quietly as possible.
My point concerns the position of worker directors on the board of the company which is now a holding company. I understand that when the worker directors were represented on the board of the operating company, then NET, now Irish Fertiliser Industries Limited, they had considerable facilities for attending the board meetings and consulting with employees whom they represented in regard to their work and in regard to developments on the board. Since Irish Fertiliser Industries has been created as a substitute for NET, some of the worker directors have been even refused incoming and outgoing telephone calls in regard to company business as distinct from the business in which they were directly concerned in their place of work and they were only allowed days off from the company for actual meetings of the board and for discussions ancillary to those board meetings, that is with any interests with whom they needed to consult to obtain information, time was not allowed. I realise that this is primarily a matter for Irish Fertiliser Industries but on the other hand if the system agreed by the Government is to work, that is, the system of affording worker directors on the NET holding company a right to be on that company in order to represent the interests of their fellow employees, people must have a reasonable opportunity for time off — perhaps two or three days a month but not just one day a month. There should be a reasonable, but not to be abused, facility for receiving incoming calls and for making outgoing telephone calls in respect of broad company business as distinct from business related to the work the individual engages in.
I have already made the case to the Minister that there should be bi-monthly reports to the holding company on the operations of Irish Fertiliser Industries, on its financing, and on the extent to which its financial targets are being achieved.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but he will appreciate that on the Fifth Stage discussion is confined to what is in the Bill. I am giving the Deputy some latitude but I would like him to have regard to that fact.
I appreciate that and I have said all I want to say.
Is the Fifth Stage agreed?
Could I have a response?
Might I make an observation?
Deputy Michael Keating had better get in now before the Minister.
My general desire is to be as helpful as I can in circumstances such as this but I and my colleagues have difficulty in that we have not been able to obtain from the Minister the kind of details, evidence and answers to questions relating to profitability and viability and to the internal structuring of certain key costs which would enable us to come to a conclusion that we should support this measure. It is not our desire to inhibit the hopes for success of the joint venture. We hope it works but some of the things that were asked today were eminently reasonable. The things asked referred to some form of review mechanism, some degree of downscaling of the guarantees, depending on how well the company did and so on. Broadly speaking, the basic information necessary to make a judgment in favour of the Bill was not provided. If I was to support this Bill I would have to do so on the goodwill and on the general suggestion of the Minister, without getting the necessary evidence. Without disrespect to anybody, the record in that regard, particularly in this case, is not good. Accordingly, we have no option but to oppose that Bill. I regret that in some ways but if one reads the record of this debate, the reasons are clear. The basic questions which a public representative has an obligation to ask have not been answered. The basic data on which the key commercial decisions were made within the confines of the Minister's Department, which involved various advisers, but did not involve this House and did not extend to the spokespersons in this House in any way was not supplied. In those circumstances, I regret that I cannot support this measure. I hope the Minister is right and that my fears and intuitions are wrong. We have done our best during the day to amend this Bill and improve it. We hope the results the Minister speaks of will come about but unfortunately we are not in a position to support the measure.
In reply to Deputy Bruton's point the board of NET at their meeting which, I understand, is next Friday, will be reviewing the arrangements for reasonable facilities for worker directors. They will also look closely at their arrangements for monitoring IFI because that is clearly one of their roles. I will certainly encourage the board of NET to take account of Deputy Bruton's points, many of which are eminently sensible.
I appreciate Deputy Keating putting his view again at this stage of the Bill. I am disappointed that the Deputy is unable to support this Bill because while it may not be perfect the alternative would have been dire for the workers of NET and for the company itself. It is not a choice between ideal situations. It is a choice between going along with this commercially put together deal which gives NET a whole new start and which gives an opportunity to them to work with one of the world's biggest companys, an opportunity to take on the world markets in a much more aggressive way, knowing that they have a very sound partner and a sound company, IFI, behind them. That means that the sky is the limit in the sense of commercial advancement and achievement. I am disappointed that the detailed aspects of that main thrust are somehow getting in the way of getting full support for this Bill. However, that is the right of Deputies.
On behalf of the Government and on behalf of the House I wish IFI, the NET holding company and the workers and staff every success in the direction in which they are now going. We were fortunate to have put this joint venture deal together with such a reputable company as ICI. It offers a fresh start to NET and it has allowed us to put into a box in the shape of the old NET as it were, the old problems — the borrowings. In that box we can make some attempt to deal with them, which is what we are now doing.
This is a new departure for NET. It gives us the opportunity to expand our role in the fertiliser business throughout the world. It gives us an opportunity to make a new start with the NET operation. I know that other Deputies join with me in wishing the company every success.
Question put and declared carried.
This Bill is a Certified Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.