Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 6

Forestry Bill, 1988: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, lines 21 to 27, to delete subsection (3).

This is a purely technical amendment. Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, has been amended by section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, which has increased the fine provided for in section 13 of the 1967 Act to £1,000, the same monetary fine as provided for in section 7 (1) (a) of this Bill. It is not possible therefore to substitute one fine for the other, as provided for in section 7 (1) (a) of the Bill, since they are now the same. It is therefore proposed to delete that.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsection (3).

I have some basic objections to the Bill and I hope we can make some changes to it in the course of the day. My party and the whole trade union movement are concerned that if this Bill goes through unamended it will allow this company to be privatised at some future time, because this subsection is proposing that the private company which is being set up under this Bill can at some future date be re-registered as a public company. Not only this subsection but other sections, such as sections 17, 18, 19, 21 and 27, will allow for the privatisation of this company at a future date. I believe that is not the intention of the Minister, nor do I believe it is the wish of those of us who for some years now have been proposing that a private commercial company be set up to operate the commercial operations of the forestry industry here.

The establishment of the forestry industry, valued at £1 billion, has been the work of very dedicated men and women, professional and non-professional, throughout the length and breadth of the country over the years. With the introduction of the internal market of Europe in 1992 this company could, under this Bill, be taken over not only by people within this State but by people outside it. For that reason I propose the deletion of this section and I will be asking for the amendment of other sections at a later stage to prevent this happening.

I do not want to prolong the debate on this because we will be having a similar debate on other sections. I do want assurance from the Minister that he accepts the concerns of people working in the industry and in the Department at the moment and of those who will be working in the semi-State company when it is established and that he can tell us there will be no attempt in the future to privatise An Bord Coillte and that there will be nothing in this Bill to allow that to happen.

The subsection in question is just an enabling one designed to give the company flexibility with regard to its future development. Some State-sponsored bodies have in fact been established as public limited companies in the first instance — Aer Lingus, Air Rianta, B & I and a number of others. Any company established initially as a private company may, subject to the requirements of the Companies Act, re-register as a public limited company. Coillte Teoranta should have the facilities to do likewise. Indeed, if this subsection were deleted, it could do so within the parameters of existing legislation. This subsection however provides what may be regarded as a safeguard in that it requires Coillte Teoranta to obtain prior approval of the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Finance should it propose to become a public limited company. What I am really saying is that if we were silent on this matter we would not have the safeguards we are providing in the Bill. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

I believe the Minister of State is genuine in his arguments, as is the Minister sitting beside him, but I am thinking of a company which will go on into the future when there might be a change of Government which will see other Members on my left who might have a totally different attitude to a public company. Ministers with the ideals and the stated aspirations of people like that might believe that they had the power to do what I fear this Bill will allow them to do. I am appealing to the Minister to listen to what I have to say on this and not allow this Bill to go through unless it is specifically stated that it must be brought back into this House before any change such as privatisation could be made.

I am well aware of what the Minister says in regard to other Bills and other companies, but, now that this Bill is going through the House, it is reasonable to request that no proposal for the taking over of the company should be considered unless it is brought before this House. This is more specific in section 21 of this legislation, but the whole move towards the possibility of this starts in this subsection. This is why I feel I have to make the change in this subsection, but I will continue to make this point on other sections. I appeal to the Minister to assure the House that no attempt at privatisation or the sale of shares and the like can take place without reference not only to Ministers but also to this House.

There is clearly no specific intention contained within this section of the Bill to privatise and the fears which the Deputy expresses are in many ways groundless. I made the point earlier that if the provisions contained here were not present the scope for a private limited company to go public is already incorporated in existing company legislation. What I am actually doing is providing a further safeguard. In all of the discussion that has taken place in relation to changing the structure to manage our forest services, the staff and many people concerned with helping to evolve that change wanted the greatest possible flexibility. Secondly, it has often been asked in this House when legislation is being introduced, why do we not try to ensure that we cover the greatest number of eventualities possible, but I can assure Deputies that we are endeavouring to do this and I think they should be reasonably happy with that assurance.

If privatisation is not envisaged, enabling the company to re-register as a public limited company, surely this section is superfluous. The Minister has given no reason for its inclusion other than saying that this provision is contained in other legislation. What we are talking about is one of our great assets, State forestry, and the setting up of a new body to deal with it. What other eventuality could the Minister have in mind, apart from privatisation, for justifying the inclusion of this section?

I think the Deputies are being too apprehensive in regard to this provision. As I stated earlier, Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, B & I and a number of other State companies were established as public limited companies and I think the Deputies are failing to make the distinction between that kind of setup and privatisation. I think the safeguards which are being provided here are acceptable and, in fact, stronger

My suspicions arose out of the fact that the legislation to be used as a model to set up this company is the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act which set up both An Post and Bord Telecom. This subsection did not appear in the Act setting up An Post and Bord Telecom and I want to know why. Both of these companies are operating very successfully and I ask the Minister why can he not accept this amendment to delete this subsection and allow this company go ahead and operate. I see no great demand for an amendment like this to be made to the Postal and Telecommunications Act to enable this to happen in the case of An Post and Bord Telecom. Many of the other sections which we have let go through without debate are in line ball with many of the sections contained in that Act and it was agreed when discussions took place between the Congress of Trade Unions and the Minister that that is the legislation which should be used as a model to set up this company. Yet, we see a new subsection being included. It is not necessary to do so; it was not necessary to do so in the legislation setting up An Post and Bord Telecom.

A distinction must be made between the type of company that both An Post and Bord Telecom are and the type of company which it is envisaged will be set up under this Bill. Under this Bill it is envisaged to set up a company which will develop a natural resource as distinct from a service industry. If we look back to the time of the foundation of this State we will see that a State company was formed at that time, the Dairy Disposal Board, to allow the State to provide developmental services where the capital, the will or know-how did not exist. Over a period of time the assets of the Dairy Disposal Board were transferred — those which were transferable — to co-ops many of which have now been turned into public limited companies. There must be flexibility, especially where commercial entities involved in the processing of raw materials are involved. For those reasons I support this section.

As it provides for privatisation which is part of Progressive Democrats policy anyway.

Deputy Kavanagh is right when he says that a decision was taken to base this legislation on the legislation setting up Bord Telecom. I think he would be the first to admit that many areas of forestry activity differ from the activities of Bord Telecom and to slavishly follow the Act setting up Bord Telecom would be inappropriate. Secondly, a number of sections contained in this Bill are designed to facilitate the development of forestry and these are not contained in the legislation setting up Bord Telecom. I hope that when we come to deal with those sections the same arguments will not be used in an effort to delete them. If we use a model we take only the essential ingredients, but we must style the Bill to suit the activities of the forestry sector. Deputy Kavanagh and Deputy Sherlock are labouring this point and they can be satisfied, from experience in other public limited companies, that the fears they are expressing are, generally speaking, groundless.

My final word to the Minister is that this is a very basic area of the Bill which I am opposing and asking for it to be changed. The unions, when discussing this Bill with the Minister, were led to believe that this area was going to be safeguarded adequately. I do not accept the Minister's explanation for the inclusion of this subsection, which was not included in previous Acts, in that fundamentally different activities will be carried out by this company. We can look to the experience of Britain where British Telecom have been privatised. We have a very large asset in forestry. A value is being put on this which will be reflected in the share issue at a later stage.

If a public limited company is set up, when changes come about after 1992, undoubtedly, not only will people in this country see this as a very valuable asset but also those outside of this country will see it as a very valuable asset. We already know that the brewing and distilling industry is being looked at by foreign companies. I do not see any difference between the takeover of a company involved in forestry and the taking over of a brewing or distilling company and, therefore, when I see an addition to this section which was not included in the legislation setting up An Post and Bord Telecom I have to assume that it is introducing an element into the Bill which would allow for privatisation to take place far more easily than is the case under the Act on which this legislation is designed. I will be pressing this amendment.

Let us take the Deputy's argument that there is a fundamental flaw in this Bill. Existing company law enables a company which is registered as a private limited company to re-register as a public company. In this section we are providing the safeguard whereby the company will be required to obtain the prior approval of the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Finance should they propose to register as a public limited company. The arguments which the Deputy has made and the proposal to delete this section weakens the very position which he sets out to safeguard.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. This section facilitates the sale of this company at a future time. I have made my arguments on this and the Minister is aware of the concerns of the trade union movement in relation to this section. If the section was changed in the manner in which I want, then this House would have to be consulted before any attempt would be made to change it to a public limited company or allow it to be privatised. That is what I want to achieve.

I concur with what Deputy Kavanagh has said. We have waited a long time for legislation to deal with our forestry, which is a great natural resource. There can be no justification for including a provision in the legislation whereby the company may register as a public limited company. The Minister has not put forward any arguments for this. I fully support the points Deputy Kavanagh has made in this regard.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 13.

  • Abbott, Henry.
  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Matthew.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm Michael.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lynch, Michael.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Mooney, Mary.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary T.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald. Liam.
  • Fitzpatrick. Dermot.
  • Flood. Chris.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • O'Dea, William Gerard.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Swift, Brian.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G. V.


  • Bell, Michael.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Howlin and M. Higgins.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Let me advise my parliamentary colleagues that we have with us in the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery some parliamentary colleagues from Spain, in the person of the President and Vice-President of the Cortes of Castile and León. I know Members would wish to join me in welcoming them most heartily, especially as they are celebrating the 800th anniversary of the establishment of the Cortes of Castile and Leon. You are most welcome, gentlemen.

We now proceed to deal with section 9. I am putting the Question: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill." Is that agreed?

It is not agreed.

Deputy Kavanagh, to speak on section 9.

Because of the failure to adopt the amendment which I have put forward, I am opposing this section.

Question, "That section 9 stand part of the Bill" put and declared carried.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, subsection (1), lines 6 and 7, to delete "Coillte Teoranta or, in the English language, The Irish Forestry Board Limited" and substitute "Coillte agus Adhmad Teoranta or in the English language, The Irish Forestry and Timber Board Limited".

My amendment has been put down in order to expand the functions of this enterprise. The Minister proposed that the company be called Coillte Teoranta, or, in the English language, the Irish Forestry Board Limited. I have added "The Irish Forestry and Timber Board Limited" or "Coillte agus Adhmad Teoranta" because there has been a lot of talk about the prospects for forestry and the timber industry and how in a few years we will be able to export quality products. A company were set up to run forestry, but the House should have anticipated further activity in the processing and final product industry. By calling the board "The Irish Forestry and Timber Board Limited" we would be giving credence to the belief that in the long run this company will be producing products from start to finish.

I do not propose to accept this amendment. "Coillte Teoranta" is the name by which the company will be generally known. It is short, recognisable and makes a good impact. It also reflects that the business of forestry, which embraces other activities such as timber sales, etc; will be the primary activity of the company. The modern commercial practice in relation to naming companies is to have an abbreviated form which encapsulates the brief of the company and which is saleable. Long-barrelled names, however well intentioned, do not meet this criteria and, even if adopted, are not generally used. The design and presentation of the emblem of the company will leave nobody in doubt as to their all embracing nature. In the final analysis a short name for a company is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, neither is including a long list of responsibilities. In the long run the people in the company, their entrepreneurial skill and ability and the way they perform their duties will ensure that they are known and understood by the public. I am confident of a positive response in that area and, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. The existing name is appropriate, saleable and readily understood by the public.

I am in favour of the amendment because "Coillte agus Adhmad Teoranta" sounds very well. Did the Minister say that the company would deal only with forestry and are precluded from dealing with timber industries?

No, the Deputy must have misunderstood what I said. The range of activities for the new company will embrace all the activities which are at present engaged in by the forest service. Long names of companies are not used by the public and it is far better to have a name which can be easily used and which encapsulates the brief of the company.

I do not intend to press the matter. However, the Minister should note that the name I propose would be even shorter than "Coillte" because "Coillte agus Adhmad Teoranta" could be known as CAT and there could not be anything shorter than that. I do not know if that would be complimentary, but it is a thought. In future, downstream industries and manufacturers of timber should be part of the Coillte portfolio and if the word "Adhmad" was included people would be interested. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept my amendment.

"Coillte" is preferable to "CAT" any day.

I am on the Minister's side in regard to the name. "Coillte" is a nice short title and "The Irish Forestry Board Limited" is not really a translation.

We could have a very long debate on the translation of English into Irish or vice versa. The Irish language is separate and has its own distinct way of expression. There is no legal obligation to fit an Irish name to an exact English interpretation. The word “Coillte” is all embracing and attractive and it should remain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, subsection (1) (a), line 23, after "forestry" to insert "including land acquisition and afforestation".

I am asking the Minister to expand this section to include land acquisition and afforestation. Will the Minister concede the point that this company will have a future in land acquisition and afforestation? I also want to establish the criteria under which this commercial basis will be operated. As Deputies are aware, there is a fledgling private forestry development area and "commercial" should mean open and fair competition.

I hope there will not be controversy on this area. The principal objectives of the Bill are set out in this section, and one that should be clearly stated in the Bill is a reference to the acquisition of land. It has traditionally been part of the forestry industry and part of the operations of the Department, to acquire land for forestry. I go somewhat further in my amendment and say they should be able to acquire land compulsorily if necessary because that, too, has also been a feature of the acquisition of land for forestry. That should be clearly stated as an objective of the new company. Without that being specifically stated the company will not have the power to acquire land unless there is reference to the Minister. The Minister retains that power to acquire land on a compulsory basis under the 1946 Act. If we are setting up a commercial company and if we are to have confidence in this company, that power should be transferred to the company. That power will not go into private hands but will remain in a State company. That objective should be included. I hope the Minister will see the logic of my argument. There is no point in having a company which must keep referring to the Minister or his successor to acquire land on a compulsory basis under the 1946 Act.

The Bill fails to include the principal objective of the company to acquire land for forestry and fails to list among the powers given to the company the power to acquire land. While the Minister may argue that this objective and the powers are implied in the Bill, we say they should be specifically included so as to remove an element of doubt. Our amendment No. 5 seeks to alter section 12 so as to include in the objectives of the company the objective of acquiring land for the business of forestry and related activities. Our amendment No. 11 to section 12 would give the new company the same power that the Minister at present enjoys under the 1946 Act to purchase or take on lease or otherwise acquire any land suitable for forestry or related activities. It is essential that the company have the power to acquire land compulsorily, if necessary, for forestry. If they do not have the power to acquire land the company will be a dead duck from the beginning.

Of the European countries only Iceland has a smaller proportion of land planted than Ireland. We have just 5 per cent of land planted compared to 65 per cent of land in Sweden, 30 per cent in Norway and Germany and 25 per cent in France. Even countries like Holland where there is a great shortage of land have a much higher area under forestry than we have. Various programmes have been announced by different governments over the years aimed at expanding our forestry and different targets have been set for planting rates, but they have rarely been achieved. In 1948 the Government produced a White Paper which provided for the establishment of 10,000 hectares of new plantations per annum over a 40 year period. The aim was to give us a total productive State forest of 470,000 hectares by 1990, compared to the 70,000 hectares we had in 1948. As we approach 1990 the actual area of forestry is less than the target in 1948 and in more recent years the planting rate has fallen again. In 1985 less than 5,000 hectares were planted.

If we are to ensure that we have sufficient land for the proper development of our forestry the company must have specific powers to acquire land. Land which is under-used or unused should be capable of being acquired compulsorily by the company subject to the normal arrangements for compensation, in the same way as the Minister now has the power to acquire land, or Bord na Móna have the power to acquire land for bog development. Unless the company is given the power to acquire land, it will be a dead duck. The Minister will find it hard to justify not agreeing to this amendment to give the company the power that is necessary.

I support the composite amendments. Our amendment No. 10 seeks to acquire suitable lands for planting in keeping with the company's requirements. If this company is to operate with the degree of autonomy required to be truly commercial in practice, then it must have the power to acquire land as they see fit, to fit in with the long term objectives of the company. If the company have to go back to the Minister and the Department to obtain land through the Minister, the commercial activities required to procure land which is part of the raw material in this industry will be fettered.

I will deal with these amendments together since they reflect the basic recurrent theme of land acquisition by the company. I agree that Coillte Teoranta, given the scale of proposed activities, must have the power to acquire land. I agree with the sentiments of the Deputies on that score. The power will be provided for in the memorandum and articles of association of the company. It is not customary in the case of the establishment of a new State-sponsored body to provide for the detailed activities of that body in its relevant legislation. Such legislation, as section 12 sets out here, normally sets out the general thrust and objective of the new body and detailed functions are specified in its memorandum and articles of association. These powers will include the purchase, or taking on lease or otherwise acquiring any land or right over land required in connection with the company objectives, together with the power to plant, manage and supervise.

I understand the concern of Deputies who put down these amendments. If we were establishing a State corporation instead of a company it would be absolutely essential to make provision in the legislation and to stipulate accurately the functions and obligations. The company system, however, has much wider freedoms and the normal practice is to make provision for these matters in the memorandum and articles of association. That will be done and I have clearly indicated the area it will cover.

I was absolutely astounded at the remark made by Deputy Sherlock that the rate of planting had declined in recent times. It is no harm to put on the record of the House that last year we had a record national planting, between State and private, and this year it will be very close to 14,000 hectares, which is 4,000 hectares above any previous record achieved in this country. It is obvious from the funding figure in the Bill and from the historical pattern of forestry involvement in Ireland that public planting will have an important role to play in implementing the major forestry programme which this country needs. The need to maintain an even age forestry estate and of guaranteeing supply is also obvious.

These factors will be taken into account by the Government in deciding, as an ongoing evolutionary process, the best way to achieve national forestry planting targets. All in all, Deputies can be satisfied that the powers which they seek to put into this legislation are incorporated in the memorandum and articles of association. That is the normal practice. All of the areas which they have referred to are adequately catered for by those provisions.

Another point raised by Deputy Kavanagh was that he wanted Coillte Teoranta to have the powers of compulsory land acquisition. That presents a difficulty. Because of the unfair advantage which the power to compulsorily acquire land would confer on the company vis-à-vis other private forestry companies, I am proposing to retain those powers at ministerial level for use at the discretion of the Minister.

I accept that the basis of these amendments will be contained in the memorandum and articles of association and as such I do not intend to press amendment No. 7. Nevertheless, I want to voice some concern that a facility which the Department with responsibility for Forestry have to acquire land, under their terms, in the name of the Minister, cannot be transferred to the company. I hope the facility will be allowed to the company to always approach a Minister when acquisition is necessary because acquisition has been a necessary feature — and I am aware of this from my own constitutency — of the forest industry down through the years. If the company cannot do that they will be tied to the other commercial interests which they never had to face in the past. For the continued expansion of the timber/industry it is necessary but if the Minister considers it cannot be done I hope that the power under the 1946 Act can be used. I hope some facility can be provided between Coillte Teoranta and the Minister which will allow acquisition to continue in the same way as it has in the past, perhaps by presenting the Minister with an annual demand or some necessary facility to allow him to acquire land on their behalf. I am afraid that this might be a facility that would not be readily available to the company. I agree with the Minister when he gave the figures for the increased planting. In 1985, 7,000 hectares were planted, in 1986 it increased to 9,000 hectares and to 11,000 hectares in 1987.

I said earlier that the powers for compulsory acquisition would, if granted to the company, confer an unfair advantage. Therefore, I have to indicate to the House that any use of compulsory acquisitions in the context of involving an arrangement between the Minister and the company would perhaps have almost the same kind of implication and would have to be very carefully managed. To satisfy the Deputy, this power is being retained by the Minister. It will obviously have to be used with the utmost discretion but the fact that the power is being retained should ensure that in circumstances which permit its use the flexibility will be there.

The reason I put down that amendment was that not only were employees in the Department concerned about the non-reference to planting and to afforestation but the private people in industry were afraid that the wording in this section, to carry on the business of forestry, was limited. They felt there should be some indication in the Bill about the intention of the Government to give the company the power to plant. While the Minister has told me that there is a distinction between a corporation and a company memorandum, I am not aware that any other company has been set up, or is being set up, in the State which will have the same powers as this company. This will be an exception because it will acquire assets for sale. Because of the scope that will be available to its directors and management following its acquisition, I wanted to put in the aspiration that planting would be done and that it would be in the memorandum of association or in the Bill. I accept the Minister's assurances that it will be in the articles of association. Down along the line I am not certain that in the future a managing director, chief executive and directors of the new company might just engage in forestry activity which they would see as the sale of timber and the sale of forests or the manufacture of goods. For that reason I wanted land acquisition included in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would explain the difference between the State corporation and the new company. While I accept in good faith what the Minister has said, I would like an explanation as to why this aspiration cannot be contained in this section.

On a point of clarification, perhaps the Minister would define "related activities" and explain what is envisaged in the section.

Under section 38 of this Bill the Minister has power to direct the company to engage in planting, setting targets or indicating the Government's wishes in relation to national matters of that kind. There is no question but that these powers for direction are contained in the Bill. Very often the question is raised — and it was raised during the course of the Second Stage debate — as to why we are interfering and not letting the company live a life of its own. I do not think one can expect to have it both ways, to accuse the company sometime in the future of trying to have a life of its own, independent of the Minister and, at the same time, accuse the Minister of incorporating powers which will allow him to make sure the company is obliged to do what the Government consider is necessary.

A point was raised in relation to the difference between a statutory corporation and a company and the consequent difference in relation to functions and obligations which can be enshrined in the memorandum and articles of association. A statutory corporation is established with a singular purpose, is limited, and has a commission status. It has always been the tradition to incorporate in the legislation establishing those corporations their specific functions.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.