Vol. 396 No. 4
Before the break I queried the relevance of section 6. Section 18 (1) of the Principal Act states:
The Board shall in each year, at such date and in such form as the Minister may direct, make to the Minister a report of its proceedings under this Act during the preceding year.
Section 6 of the Bill states:
Section 18 (3) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the words "capital account, revenue account".
Can the Minister give us a better explanation of what is entailed?
I am sorry, but as I was late in arriving in the Chamber for the resumption of the debate I am not clear on the point the Deputy is making.
Perhaps the Deputy would mention the cardinal points.
Can the Minister tell us what significance can be attached to the deletion of the words "capital account, revenue account" from section 18 of the Principal Act and what words will replace them? The section is very specific in the demands it places on the board.
I thought we were dealing with amendment No. 14a.
We have resumed on amendment No. 14a to section 6.
Have we disposed of amendment No. 14a?
Not to my knowledge.
The point being raised by the Deputy relates to the section itself.
May I clarify the matter? The board are required to lay before the Oireachtas in accordance with subsection (3) a report not later than six months after the end of the financial year. It is proposed to delete the words "capital account, revenue account". This is a difficult one for me to understand. What words are going to replace these?
The Deputy is referring to section 6 itself.
As I have explained already to the Deputy this has to do with the presentation of accounts. Sections 18 and 59 of the 1946 Act deal with the accounts and audits of the board. They provide that the board should keep, inter alia, a capital account and a revenue account but such accounts are no longer common in conventional accounting practices. This section amends section 18 of the 1946 Act deleting the references to the above accounts thus facilitating a change in the board's accounts in line with more modern conventional practice. Section 8 which more or less refers to the same thing, makes the necessary amendment to section 59 of the 1946 Act. The accounting practices which prevailed in 1946 are no longer operable and this section merely tidies up the matter and will prevent unnecessary duplication. Requiring the board to have a capital account and a revenue account means that the company will have to show these figures twice under different headings, which is unnecessary.
Before the break the Minister suggested that my amendment was redundant as the Government had made an order which requires State companies to lay their accounts before the House within six months of the end of the accounting year. If there is such a requirement the question must be asked why it was not adhered to in this case. The Minister must have been alerted to the difficulties when he did not see the accounts coming in. To some extent this undermines the earlier argument that the Government only received the accounts on 5 February. They should have long been alerted to the emerging problems.
The Minister stated that it would have been inappropriate for the board to adhere to the six months deadline in this instance. I find it hard to imagine that it would be accepted in the commercial world that a commercial company who had gone through a bad year when they faced real difficulties and, looking at a revaluation of their balance sheet, should not have to publish their accounts on the due date and could delay the publication of those accounts for many months. That does not ring very true with me. I acknowledge their difficulties and that what they have done is in accord with standard accounting practices. However, I cannot quite understand why the six months deadline, which one would expect the board to adhere to, was not adhered to in this instance. There is no doubt about the financial problems but why is there a problem in presenting them?
I have already explained this matter to the House and do not have much more to add to what I have already said. There was a delay in presenting last year's accounts because of the exceptional circumstances. I ask the Deputy to accept this and can assure him that the board will seek to comply with this requirement as far as possible.
The Minister states that it would be inappropriate to make it a statutory requirement as circumstances may arise — this is one — in which the failure to observe the six months' rule which is that a board must present the accounts within six months of the end of the financial year, can be justified. I find it difficult to understand the arguments being put forward to justify a delay. A bad year or a revision of the value of assets in accordance with standard accounting procedures would not justify a delay. Therefore what argument is the Minister presenting the House to justify not making it a statutory requirement and for leaving room for discretion as to when the board should present their accounts?
The reason I cannot accept the amendment is that if we were to accept it the only company on which there would be such a requirement would be Bord na Móna. I do not want to place such a statutory imposition on them and place them in a position where they would be the only semi-State company under such an obligation. I am not as concerned about this matter as Deputy Bruton is. He may have to press the matter to a vote as that is the only way he can resolve it.
We are entitled to an explanation why the Minister is standing his ground. Unlike the Minister, the House has to depend on published information. It seems that we have a right to demand the publication of that information as early as possible. According to the Minister, the Government agree with this principle. However, he is now saying that it should not be a statutory requirement as in certain cases it may be inappropriate to rush the presentation of the accounts. I would like the Minister to elaborate and explain what these certain circumstances are. The Minister's argument is that we should not impose a statutory requirement on Bord na Móna as there is no similar provision in place in relation to any other semi-State board. That is a very threadbare argument. The Minister now has the opportunity to create a precedent and say there is a better way, but if he genuinely believes a strong argument can be made for giving a board an escape hatch when they would be allowed to delay the presentation of accounts, perhaps he could explain it to the House. I am not anxious to push things to a vote if there is sound reasoning behind the Minister's argument.
The decision in regard to the presentation of the accounts to the Minister rests with the board. The House is aware that the board have delayed presention of the accounts this year and that had to do with their attempts to deal with the exceptional financial situation the company are confronted with and the present board's attempts to deal with that. I accept that their efforts to deal with this exceptional situation have resulted in some slight delay in their presenting the accounts to me. I am not unduly worried about it. I accept it. I cannot give the House details of the matters which were under consideration at the board which resulted in their delaying making their formal presentation to me. I am not in a position to do that.
Could the Minister not give use an example of possible reasons?
I do not feel free to go into that area at all.
I find this very unsatisfactory. I am quite happy to be reasonable. Maybe there is a grain of truth in the Minister's argument. I cannot understand why the Minister will not explain to the House why he feels, in some circumstances, it is justifiable not to meet a deadline on the presentation of accounts; let us forget about Bord na Móna or any other company. As I understand it, normal commercial practice is that there is a date set for the presentation of interim and final accounts of all companies.
Not always.
I would have thought that the deadline was always kept, but I do not pretend to be an authority. What is the nature of the problem that can make it justifiable to defer? What sort of problems would, in the Minister's view, make it inappropriate to rush the presentation of accounts?
The matters which the Deputy is pressing me on are the subject of confidential discussions within my Department with the management and the board of Bord na Móna, and I am not free at this point to discuss these matters with Members of the House in any detail. I have already indicated to the House that when these matters are resolved I will be quite free to explain the decisions that are being made and the reasons for them. I am not in a position to do so at present and I think that the situation that obtains whereby the Government have laid down their requirements that all semi-State companies present their accounts for publication before the House within a period of six months from the end of the accounting year is a requirement which the Government have been actively seeking to implement in all cases. In this case they have not complied with that requirement. I am aware of the reasons. I am not alarmed by the reasons; I fully understand them. I cannot explain in great detail what the reasons are. A point will come when I may be in a position to give fuller information. I accept that it may be unsatisfactory from the Deputy's point of view but I cannot give all that information now. We are dealing with a commercial company; we are dealing with commercial matters and I certainly am not free to discuss them in great detail at this point. I would ask the Deputy to accept that in good faith.
I propose withdrawing the amendment at this stage. I will consider the matter for myself and perhaps re-submit it on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 5, paragraph (a), line 3, before "which", to insert "(other than the research specified in section 19)".
Section 19 of the 1946 Act allows the board to engage in heat related research. This power is not subject to the approval of the Minister. Subsection (a) (1) (k) of the Bill extends this power to cover all types of research. It is appropriate that the new additional power should be subject to the approval of the Minister but in order to clarify that the peat related research is not ministerially controlled, the above amendment has been proposed. It meets the points made during the course of the Second Stage debate.
I am happy with this improvement on what is already there but, as we discussed earlier when my amendment to this was taken, I still feel it is too restrictive. It is a point that we need to come back to. The Minister, to some extent, is beginning to concede the principle that one cannot have every little item of expenditure vetted by two Ministers and he has agreed to allow peat related research out from under this very bureaucratic system of sanction. The principle applies with equal validity to many of the other things which have been included and remain under the net of dual sanction. The Minister needs to consider extending this amendment, which is welcome, to a wider category of activities.
Amendment No. 18.
There is a number of points in subsection (b) (4) giving power to Coillte Teoranta to delay returning accounts.
The Deputy has confused the Chair by referring to amendments which were dealt with under group one put by the Ceann Comhairle last week.
The first amendments, as I understood them, were in relation to the definition of a cut-away bog. These amendments refer to the Minister's provision in relation to the use of cut-away bogs. The purpose of my suggestion to delete this subsection is that I cannot see the point in giving to Coillte Teoranta the right to freeze——
Which amendment are we dealing with?
We are dealing with section 7 (b) (4).
On a point of information, we are on page three, section 7, amendment No. 18 and paragraph (b) (4). Is that correct?
That is correct.
The amendments in relation to this matter are the cut-away bog amendments Nos. 1 and 18, and amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to amendment No. 18. What we are dealing with now can only be section 7, as amended.
The Minister is amending section 7 which suggests that any power conferred on the board in relation to cutaway bogs should be exercised only in accordance with such general directives as may be laid down from time to time by the Minister. That introduces a rather strange sort of animal into the commercial decision-making of Bord na Móna. The Minister has lectured us in the House that we should not introduce restrictions on the operations of Bord na Móna and he is at pains to lift the yoke from Bord na Móna in making their commercial decisions. This proposal, by which he has modified the requirement in the original Bill that Coillte Teoranta would call the shots on the use of cut-away, is very unsatisfactory. The Minister is being left with the ability to lay down directives in some unspecified way. I would like to hear what the Minister hopes to achieve with this compared to a simple situation where the board were under no particular obligation as regards the use of their cutaway and they would make a decision on a commercial basis. They could if they chose set it in grass or put it out for tender for forestry use, either public or private. It seemed to introduce into the Bill a principle which is contrary to the philosophy the Minister addressed earlier.
Am I entitled to move my amendment? It is No. 4 to amendment No. 18 which reads:
After subsection (5) to insert the following subsection:
"(6) Where the Minister proposes to issue a general directive under subsection (4), a draft of the general directive shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas and shall not come into effect until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House."
We must have clarification on this. Amendment No. 18 was grouped with amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 18 for discussion purposes. Do Deputies want to discuss amendment No. 18 and amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to amendment No. 18 which are related? The Deputies will have to decide.
These amendments have already been put to the House and the ministerial amendment was carried. Section 7 as it now stands is the section amended. The Deputies are raising a query in regard to part of section 7 as it appears in the original Bill. That has already been amended by a decision of this House. If the House wants to discuss the provisions, as Deputy Bruton has done, of the amended section 7, I am quite happy to respond to the points raised.
The problem was there was some confusion at the beginning of Committee Stage and people did not realise that all these amendments were being discussed together.
That was not the reason. The reason was there was nobody else here when the debate started and I agreed to wait for the Deputy to come in before proceeding further. The first group of amendments was already taken.
The Minister did not wait.
The Deputy's colleagues were here but did not contribute. When I saw what was happening I agreed with the Chair that we would stop the debate until the Deputy came in.
Only amendment No. 1 was agreed and that was taken in a group for discussion.
Last week the Cheann Comhairle asked that a group of amendments be taken together and the House agreed to take amendments Nos. 1 to amendment 18, 3 to amendment No. 18 and 4 to amendment No. 18. The amendments moved by the Minister were carried.
The amendments may be taken in groups for discussion purposes but only one was agreed. I am trying to clarify the position. I suggest that we take amendment No. 18, and amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to amendment No. 18.
Last week it was agreed that we would discuss amendments to amendment No. 18 together with the other amendments.
It was only for discussion purposes but only amendment No. 1 was agreed.
That is fair enough.
I know in time you will allow me to move my amendment, but at present may I speak to amendment No. 18?
I suggest we take amendment No. 18 together with amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to amendment No. 18.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 5, paragraph (b), to delete lines 14 to 30, and substitute the following:
"‘(3) The exercise by the Board outside the State of any of the powers confined by paragraphs (a), (b), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) or (1) of subsection (1) of this section and the exercise by the Board in the State of any of the powers conferred by the said paragraphs (h), (i), (j) or (k) shall be subject to the prior consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.
(4) Any power conferred on the Board by subsection (1) (j) of this section in relation to cut-away bog shall only be exercised in accordance with such general directives as may be laid down, from time to time, by the Minister.
(5) In this section "cut-away bog" means a bog substantially cleared of turf'.".
This amendment, since being listed on an Order Paper of the previous Dáil has been further amended on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman, and that accounts for some of the changes to the previous amendment. It amends section 7 in three important respects.
Bord na Móna have asked that the level of ministerial control of their powers outside the State should be relaxed. They have claimed that section 7 (b) (3) of the Bill is too restrictive. They accept that it is appropriate to provide for ministerial control in respect of the non-peat related powers but most of the other powers are routine, day-to-day matters. This point was also raised by many speakers during Second Stage and the amendment to subsection (3) now removes ministerial control on the powers outside the State at paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) of section 7 (a) (1) of the Bill. These powers relate to such routine and day-to-day activities as entering into contracts, undertaking hire purchase schemes, operating shops and showrooms, and mounting exhibitions. Most of these powers are exercised abroad in the context of the board's marketing activity and are not ones that require approval by the Minister.
In relation to ministerial control, the thrust of the Bill is that the non-peat related powers should be subject to the approval of the Minister whereas the board will be free of such control so far as their peat-related powers are concerned. At paragraph (j) of section 7 (a) (1) the board are being given the power to develop commercially certain cutaway and other bogs incapable of commercial exploitation for turf production. However, this non-peat related power is not subject to the approval of the Minister. In keeping with the general thrust of the Bill it is considered appropriate that the Minister should have to give his approval to any developments in this area. Subsection (3) of this amendment now provides the necessary control.
Subsection (4) of this amendment provides that the use or disposal by the board of cut-away bog shall be subject to ministerial directives. This is to remove from the original Bill the unqualified right to all cut-away of Coilltes which they consider suitable for afforestation purpose and enables the Minister to implement the recommendations of the independent Committee of experts to consider the use of cut-away when these are received.
Subsection (5) of the amendment includes a definition of cut-away bog in the section. This necessitates a consequential deletion of the definition in section 1.
The point that Deputy Bruton raised relates principally to subsection (4). The position I inherited was that Coillte would have first call on any cut-away bog required for afforestation purposes, Coillte and Bord na Móna would between them examine the various cut-away bogs that were available and Coillte could decide which ones they required for forestry purposes. The Government decided to make a change in that arrangement and provided for the change in this Bill. The change involved the establishment of a committee of experts to look at the disposal of cut-away bog which is going to become available in very large quantities over the next 30 to 40 years. Happily, Bord na Móna through their own research and development have succeeded in transforming cut-away bog, which I suppose heretofore could have been deemed practically derelict land, into excellent grazing land. Very substantial quantities of cut-away bog will become available over the next 40 years so it is important that the State lay down a comprehensive policy for the use of these lands. Arguments have been made for use other than afforestation by farmers in the midland area who are adjacent to the cut-away bogs, that these good farmlands might revert to farming purposes to increase the number of smallholders farming in the midlands or other areas where the land is available.
I do not know what the final outcome of the investigations undertaken by the committee I have set up will be but they are in a position to invite submissions from all interested parties. The IFA and the ICSMA and other rural organisations have made submissions to the Department in regard to the future policy on the disposal of cut-away bogs. I felt, and indeed the Government felt, it was necessary to have a comprehensive look at the question and we have appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Donal Creed, the former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Food to receive and consider submissions and make recommendations to the Minister. If the Government support the recommendations of the committee the Minister would want to be in a position to implement those recommendations. The section is amended in order to ensure that the Minister has the power to issue general directives in regard to the future use of cut-away bogs. I think it is a much more satisfactory arrangement than what has been made heretofore. I know it has been widely welcomed by the farming organisations and I expect that a very substantial number will avail of the opportunity to present their viewpoint to this group of experts. I await with great interest the outcome of their work and I look forward to seeing their recommendations. I expect they will make recommendations to me well before the end of this year. I am reluctant to delay the disposal of cut-away bogs but I think a couple of months is a small period to wait when one is laying down a policy which may be in operation for many decades. If the policy is a good one, it could operate over that period and play a very major part in rural life in the areas where this land becomes available in such huge quantities. The position that obtained was that Bord na Móna after developing the lands put them up for auction and sold them off in very large lots. I did not consider that very satisfactory from a socio-economic point of view but it would have been satisfactory purely and simply from Bord na Móna's point of view. I felt it was a wider issue than the Bord na Móna requirement and I am anxious to see the national socio-economic issue addressed in the disposal of these lands. The quantities that will become available for disposal are very extensive and in the region of 200,000 acres is expected to become available over the next 30 to 40 years. We are talking about an amount of land equivalent to the size of an Irish county. It is quite substantial.
The key issue affecting the future of Bord na Móna which needs to be addressed, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that it is being addressed and will be sorted out without delay, is the future use and control of cut-away bog. It is estimated that between now and the end of the century an area larger than County Louth will become available for alternative uses as Bord na Móna complete their turf cutting operations in areas of the midlands. Such a large acreage of land becoming available offers tremendous opportunities for major developments for agriculture and related areas. Considerable research has already been done by Bord na Móna and An Foras Talúntais into the potential alternative uses of the land and there is a number of possibilities including horticulture, biomass, conventional forestry, grassland and amenity use. All of these offer both advantages and disadvantages and the best use of cut-away bog may lie in a mix of options to allow for a degree of flexibility which would take account of the local circumstances and changing conditions. However, it is vital that an early decision be taken as to who is to have responsibility for the development of the cut-away bog in order to allow the necessary planning to begin. There had been the predictable calls from the farming organisations that the cut-away bogs be divided into small units and handed over to existing or aspiring farmers. Such a move would be a retrograde step as it is clear that the cut-away bogs will need a centralised drainage system which individual farmers are unlikely to be able to provide. It is also clear that to get the best return from cut-away bog will require substantial investment and a high level of technical expertise. It also has to be said that the vast majority of farmers showed no inclination to develop bogland, so to let individuals reap the benefits of work done by Bord na Móna would be unfair and economically senseless.
The amendment proposed by the Minister is unacceptable in that he seems to be reserving exclusively to himself the right to decide the future of cut-away bogs. The ministerial amendment states: "any power conferred on the Board... in relation to cut-away bog shall only be exercised in accordance with such general directives as may be laid down, from time to time, by the Minister". Another factor to be considered is the position of a very large number of very highly skilled Bord na Móna workers and ESB employees in the turf burning power stations who depend on peat for their livelihood. Steps must be taken to ensure that the cut-away bogs are developed in such a way as to provide the maximum possible employment opportunity for those who might stand to lose their jobs when the present phase of bog development is completed. The most sensible step would be to give Bord na Móna overall responsibility for the development of cut-away bogs.
At a time when State companies in general seem to be fair game for every right wing politician and pundit, it is worth reminding the House that the record of Bord na Móna, despite the Irish weather, has been good and that private enterprise has shown little or no interest in bog development. Section 7 of the Bill as originally drafted seems to place an obligation on Bord na Móna to hand over the cut-away bogs to the new forestry company. We supported the Forestry Act, 1988 and we welcome the establishment of a commercial State forestry company which the Bill provided for. We acknowledged totally the need to expand the area under afforestation as the area of Irish land under forestry is only 5 per cent, the smallest in the EC. It needs to be rapidly expanded. There is no shortage of land, privately-owned bogland and marginal land which is under-used or not used at all which could and should be acquired by the forestry company without having to take the cut-away bogs from Bord na Móna. If the jobs of Bord na Móna workers are to be protected as the current phase of bog development is completed the board will need to consider all possible options for the use of cut-away bogs.
The new forestry company will be involved in all phases of forestry and wood processing. It will grow its own timber and will also purchase timber from privately-owned forests. As I said on Second Stage, why not allow Bord na Móna to get into the forestry area if they decide that this is the best option for cut-away bogs and allow them to sell the timber they would produce to the State forestry company in the same way as the private forestry companies?
The future of the cut-away bogs is too important a matter to leave to the decision of the Minister alone. I am talking about an area of land equivalent in size to County Louth. While we accept that the Minister must have a major say in the future of cut-away bogs, the matter is so important that any directive he proposes to make should have the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
In the context of this review group which the Minister has set up, how will the commercial interests of Bord na Móna in this land, which is a valuable asset to them, be balanced with the wider socio-economic concerns to which the Minister refers? It has long been recommended by numerous people who have looked at the affairs of State companies that where a Minister imposes an obligation upon them to do something which would be non-commercial he should pay for that out of Exchequer funds. In other words, any burdens they would have to carry for social reasons should be paid for by the Exchequer. The Minister's colleague enshrined that principle in some legislation which has gone through this House in the past.
What is the Minister's view as to the best commercial use from Bord na Móna's standpoint and the alternatives? If the committee come up with a list of alternatives which include amenity use which would provide no great commercial return to the board, will the Minister envisage some compensation to the board for that loss or will the board have to shoulder the cost?
The manner in which the bog is exploited by the board would have a bearing on the possibilities of other uses. Not all uses are compatible with the board's taking every last piece of turf they can recover from the cut-away bog. Wider uses could be pre-empted by the manner in which turf is extracted from a bog. Does the Minister envisage that the committee might recommend not only upon the use of cut-away bog but also that the board would be under an obligation not to "mine out" a bog where some purpose was envisaged which required some extra cover on the cut-away? I am not certain of the technology but I understand this can be a problem.
Regarding the amendment proposed by Deputy Sherlock that the House should have a right to see the type of general directives, I presume the Minster would envisage laying such orders before the House as a matter of course. It is reasonable in that they will affect policy in this area for a long time. It concerns 200,000 acres of land and there should be an opportunity for the House to examine these directives. The amendment as tabled requires that the House should pass a resolution agreeing to the directive. In my experience, limited though it be in Government, it is very hard to get time positively to approve orders of this nature. A more reasonable approach would be a system where directives would come into effect unless a motion to rescind them had been tabled within 21 days. That is much less onerous for a Minister. It puts Deputies on notice that if they want to see changes they must do something about it. The Minister does not have to await the order of business. Many would regard these as minor orders which would be put at the bottom of the queue and it could be months before a positive resolution could be made. Deputy Sherlock might consider an alternative framing of this amendment which would allow a directive to come into effect unless a motion seeking its overturn had been tabled.
I am seeking that the Dáil should delegate to the Minister for Energy of the day the necessary powers to make decisions on policy in relation to the usage of cut-away bog arising from the report of the committee to which I have referred. It is a question of the exercise of executive power. I am asking the Dáil today to extend this power to the Minister for Energy of the day. This is a very important matter because of the amount of land that will become available. If the Dáil gives me the power today, I do not think it would be appropriate to specify in the legislation that the directives I might issue under this Bill should themselves require a further resolution of the House before coming into effect. It is for the Government to decide what policy they wish to follow in this area. They are setting about this task by establishing a group of people with special expertise to listen to all the arguments. Some of the arguments made by Deputy Sherlock will no doubt be made to this committee. I am asking them to consider all these matters and to make recommendations to me. I will then consider them and put certain proposals before the Government for implementation. It is the Government who will decide.
I accept that there could be financial implications for Bord na Móna arising out of certain recommendations that might be made. If the committee are to make recommendations which would involve a loss or cost of any kind to Bord na Móna, they have been asked to quantify that cost. That will be taken into consideration by the Minister and the Government when making a decision. It is very important that the management of the bogs should ensure that the cut-away bog remains suitable for conversion to farmland. That is also a matter the committee are considering and they will be making recommendations in that regard.
It is essential in order to turn these boglands into arable land and good grazing land to leave a certain thickness of bog. There is a mixing of the shale underneath with the bog and that, when properly treated and fertilised, results in the growth of the grasslands. It is really just a question of proper management and it would be highly inappropriate if Bord na Móna were to be allowed to continue to operate in a vacuum and cut the bog down to the shale and not leave sufficient thickness to facilitate the transformation and conversion back into farmland. That is a technical point and it will be taken care of.
Deputy Sherlock suggested that this matter was too important to leave it to the Minister and he wanted Bord na Móna to decide on the future of this matter. We are moving away from the situation where Bord na Móna had full authority in relation to the disposal of cut-away bog. The earlier Bill brought in by my predecessor proposed a system whereby Coillte would, in consultation with Bord na Móna, have first option on the cut-away bog. That is the decision which I am changing. I am also changing the original position which was that Bord na Móna would dispose of cut-away bog in whatever way they desired.
I am seeking to establish clearly what is in the national interest in relation to the disposal of these lands. That is a matter that will be decided when we get the report some time this year. I invite Deputy Sherlock or any group who wish to make submissions to this committee to do so. I hope a large number of bodies will be moved to do so, particularly the group of workers to whom we are referring who have a vested interest in this area. I would like to see their point of view taken into consideration. The opportunity is there. It is not for me to say today what my preference is. Rather than take that course I am taking the longer more difficult course of seeking a comprehensive review of the situation which would facilitate all the different groups who have proposals and ideas on how this land should be disposed of. I hope the House will welcome the move which is very worthwhile. I will certainly not delay in coming forward with firm proposals to Government when I receive the report of this committee.
I move amendment No.19:
In page 5, to delete all words from and including ",and, in addition" in line 40, down to and including "Minister for Finance" in line 43.
I have tabled this amendment to sound out the Minister's intention in relation to the remuneration of officers and servants of the board. The Bill says that:
...the Board shall comply with any directives with regard to such remuneration, allowances, terms or conditions which the Minister may give from time to time to the Board with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
I want to find out the Minister's philosophy in this area. If one decides that it is up to the board to run their affairs, a decision about specific remuneration attached to specific positions in the board should be a matter for the board. I accept that the board would be bound by national agreements and so on, but what has the Minister in mind when he says that he might issue directives on remuneration and allowances to the board?
It has been the practice in legislation that provision is made to ensure that Government pay policy would be adhered to by the semi-State sector. This policy has been followed since the enactment of the Gas Act, 1976, which established An Bord Gáis. Successive Governments since then required that the boards of State-sponsored bodies have regard to Government policy when determining the pay and conditions of their staff. I am sure the House will agree that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that this well established policy is continued. I am merely making provision for it in the first Turf Development Bill which has come before the Dáil for a long time.
I acknowledge the need for the Government to ensure that the board have regard to Government or national guidelines and to Government policy concerning remuneration and conditions of employment, but I am asking about the intention of this additional thing that the Minister is bringing in, that the Minister may from time to time give directives with regard to remuneration and allowances, terms and conditions of the board. These I understand are directives outside the national norm and outside Government general policy. Why does the Minister see it as being necessary for him to have powers to issue directives in relation to Bord na Móna which might not be issued in relation to other State boards?
This is the statutory power that the Minister would have to intervene when normal consultation procedures have failed to ensure compliance by management of State bodies with Government policy on pay and terms and conditions of employment. Without this, the section would be toothless. Exhorting State bodies to adhere to national pay norms is one thing, but not having the power to implement it is another.
This is the law of the land. Even without the last four lines the law of the land would be that the board must have regard to these and once the Government had enunciated their policy concerning remuneration and conditions the board would be under an obligation to meet it. It seems to me that this is bringing in something new apart from the Government's general conditions. It is giving the Minister a specific function in relation to the pay and conditions of a particular board. Maybe I am misreading it.
I am not too sure what the Deputy means in relation to the law of the land because there is no law which gives the Minister statutory power to do these things in regard to Bord na Móna unless it is contained in this Bill. If Deputy Bruton's amendment was accepted the effect would be to delete the Minister's power to issue directives on pay. The section and the powers contained in it are similar to those contained in the other legislation relating to other State sponsored bodies.
I move amendment No.20:
In page 6, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act of 1953 is hereby amended by the insertion of ‘at least' after ‘equal to' and the said paragraph as so amended is set out in the Table to this subsection.
TABLE
‘(b) the payment of contributions to the fund by persons to whom the scheme applies, and the making by the Board of payments equal to at least the aggregate of such payments,'.".
By virtue of the provisions of the Turf Development Act, 1953, and in particular section 6 thereof, various schemes have been implemented by Bord na Móna which, inter alia, set out the level of superannuation benefits on retirement payable to members of such schemes. Section 6 (2) (b) of the 1953 Act specifies that the contributions to be made by the board to the superannuation fund must be equal to the aggregate of contributions from members in the scheme. The effect of this was to decrease their contributions to the scheme, notwithstanding actuarial advice to the contrary and in particular notwithstanding the realities that such limitation on the levels of contribution by the board have, according to actuarial reports commissioned by them, resulted in serious under-funding of the schemes. The amendment is intended to enable the board to increase their contribution to more than 50 per cent of the total.
I should like to get clarification. As I understand it, there has been a problem with the pension fund in Bord na Móna and the board have been setting aside money to top up the pension funds to ensure their continued ability to meet the draws upon them. I should like the Minister to tell us the state of the pension funds in relation to the prospective draws upon them on an actuarial basis, and whether this enabling legislation will allow the board to commit the money they have already been setting aside. Are these funds additional to what we understand has already been set aside, as I heard a figure of £12 million mentioned which the board are putting into their fund over a number of years so that it will be adequate to meet requirements?
I should also like clarification as to the effect of the accelerated redundancy programme of the board on the pension fund. Is there a problem with the redundancy package in relation to the pension fund in that it creates a drain on the fund which runs ahead of normal actuarial setasides by the board? Does the Minister feel that there might be problems for the pension fund as a result of high levels of redundancy in the board?
The payments arising from the redundancy scheme were not the cause of the problems in the pension scheme. The problems in the pension scheme arose through an underfunding because the provisions in the legislation which did not enable the board to increase their contributions above 50 per cent mean that the shortfall would be in the region of £12 million. The board have made a decision to meet these following the enactment of this legislation. The scheme will be amended and the increases which they were unable to meet will be paid from 1 July 1989: the figure will be up to 10 per cent on existing pensions to all pensioners. There had not been an increase over the previous four years. The board have made arrangements for the funding of the additional moneys and can proceed to make the necessary arrangements when the Bill is enacted.
Will people lose as a result of increases in pay rounds in the interim? Are they lost for ever or will the £12 million include some compensation for the years in which there had been no increase? Looking to the future, does this change in the legislation ensure that all national understandings will be automatically passed on to pensioners of the board who are covered by the various funds?
The company have had discussions with workers and their representatives in regard to the amounts they may have lost because of the inability of the fund to pay increases during recent years. They have agreed to the payment of an up to 10 per cent increase because, of course, it will not apply in every case. The maximum increase will be 10 per cent. These payments will be made from 1 July last. I expect that in future the fund will be in a position to meet all increases that arise.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next week, subject to agreement between the Whips.
Will the Minister give a date?
Next Tuesday.
