I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, line 4, to delete "as".
I would like to hear the Minister's response at the outset, perhaps as a sign of things to come.
National Oil Reserves Agency Bill 2006: Report Stage.
The amendment is not accepted. It proposes the deletion of the word "as" from line 4 of page 6. "Agency" means the body corporate formed and registered under the Companies Act and continued in existence under section 7 of the National Oil Reserves Agency Bill. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
I am impressed but I am not impressed, so to speak. I would have thought the Minister might go further into the reasons it is not possible to accept the amendment. We outlined previously what we believe are compelling reasons for accepting the amendment. Will the Minister elucidate further on the reason that should not be the case?
It is not necessary.
Having considered the matter, those of us who saw fit to put down the amendment believe it is necessary. I am pressing the amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, line 15, after "oils" to insert ", including oils derived from bio fuels".
We discussed this matter on Committee Stage. This amendment is necessary and desirable and is indicative of where we need to go in the future. It says something about the intention of the Bill in particular. It is intended to be all-embracing and descriptive. It is a necessary amendment.
I am not accepting this amendment. I accept the motivation in putting it down but it would have the opposite effect to the effect the Deputy wants. My understanding of the intent of the Deputy is that he wants biofuels mentioned in this section because of the increased importance of biofuels, renewable energy sources and so on in the future. I do not disagree with his view that they will be important. That is why we have come up with the two schemes in regard to biofuels but the effect of including this amendment in the Bill would be to place a levy on biofuels similar to that on fossil fuels. That would make biofuels more expensive and for that reason would defeat the purpose of the excise relief scheme on biofuels.
While I accept the thinking of the Deputy in trying to highlight the importance of biofuels in the future, this Bill is not the way to do it. It would be more appropriate to a different kind of Bill. I am sure the Deputy would not want a levy to be put on biofuels because that might have the effect of diminishing any move towards the provision of biofuels in the future.
I have thought about this matter since Committee Stage and I believe I was right the first time. The original intention was as the Minister has indicated, but there is no reason the same cannot apply as does now, where a particular exemption is made. The description of petroleum products in the Bill includes the following categories of products: "(a) motor spirit and aviation fuel (that is to say, jet fuel of the gasoline type and aviation spirit); (b) gas oil, diesel oil and kerosene (including jet fuel of the kerosene type); and (c) fuel oils.” Including biofuels in that section could have reflected a developing area of the industry. More importantly, there is no reason the Minister cannot put in the exemption regarding excise duty that currently exists. He could make it wider and more long term, which would be hugely beneficial for the development of the alternative fuels industry. That would give an excellent opportunity to the Minister to again reaffirm a zero level of excise duty on biofuels, and biofuels would be named specifically in the context thereof.
I accept what the Minister is saying on the inadvisability of placing further levies on biofuels. Is he satisfied that the Bill makes sufficient reference to biofuels and acknowledges the need to include them in national reserves? This is the purpose of the Bill.
The Department must be aware that there is a proposal for a new private biodiesel facility in Cork Harbour, which is to be in close proximity to the existing oil refinery in Whitegate. Given that the intent of the Bill is to manage fossil fuel reserves, could it not be amended, even at this late stage, to take account of non-fossil fuel facilities that are likely to be created in the near future and of the need to reserve whatever types of fuel are created therein?
We are now discovering resources with major potential. In the past ten years, nine exploration wells were drilled and two proved positive, namely, the Corrib and Dooish fields. In view of the Langeled pipeline from Norway, is the position on fuel not changing dramatically? By the industry's own reckoning, there are 10 billion barrels of oil to be discovered and these would be worth €500 billion to €600 billion. This is an awful lot of money and I therefore ask the Minister to comment on this matter.
I am not sure whether it would be in order to comment on Deputy Cowley's statement. I could do so but——
It is well outside the scope of the amendment before us.
It is in line with what the Minister is saying about exploration potential off our coasts.
We are desperately trying to encourage foreign and native exploration companies to determine whether we have the reserves to which the Deputy referred.
The Minister did not give them a licence.
I hope the reserves exist and, if so, we will be in a totally different position from the one we are in at present.
Deputy Durkan should note it makes no sense to add a provision to this Bill so one can exempt another. The purpose of the Bill is to address the question of oil and petroleum stocks, set up the company to manage them on an ongoing basis and ensure we have the petroleum reserves required to meet our national and international obligations. The question of moving from excise relief towards having a certain percentage of biofuels in our reserves is not a matter for this Bill but the Government is committed to addressing it, as is evident in our Green Paper.
I asked a specific question on a new development.
I am aware of at least 50, if not 100, applications for biofuel refineries and for excise relief. These are being examined by experts and I will receive advice on them. I will not comment on any individual application as it would not be right.
On the amendment, I understand what the Minister is saying on the insertion of a reference to biofuels and why it could, in the context of this Bill, be detrimental to their development. The Minister missed the 2005 biofuels target completely.
The problem is that the Minister does not have a further right to reply and the matter the Deputy is raising is not directly related to the amendment.
I wanted to ask him about our reserves given that we are considering the National Oil Reserves Agency Bill. What role does the Minister envisage for biofuels? In this regard, Deputy Boyle referred to a proposal for a development in Cork and we know of another well publicised one in Limerick.
There is no point in the Deputy continuing if we cannot allow the Minister to reply to him. We are discussing amendment No. 2——
It is about biofuels.
It includes the phrase "including oils derived from biofuels". The Deputy is either for this or against it.
I am supporting the amendment because the Minister should have included a section on biofuels in the context of our reserves. On Second Stage, the Minister and I had a lengthy discussion on the period for which reserves should last. The EU requirement stipulates 90 days and the Minister referred to a period of 108 days. I contended that it should be at least 120 days. Biofuels could supplement a reserve that would last for this period. Given the international requirements, Deputy Durkan is correct to try to introduce this measure into the Bill and I support him in doing so.
I admire the Minister's tenacity in not changing his view. I have thought about this matter and believe we on this side of the House were not trenchant enough on the last occasion we discussed it. It is wrong not to mention biofuels. What is wrong with storing them as part of our reserves? Why should specific mention not be made of the need to develop and store biofuels, particularly if we are to achieve what is set out in the Green Paper, which I hope will ultimately change colour, and in our proposals of more than a year ago? The Minister is right that there are approximately 100 applications for the development of various biofuel plants and we should therefore recognise biofuels in the Bill in the context of storage.
There is no reason compelling the Minister to include excise duty. The Minister for Finance has already made an exclusion in respect of a certain number of litres of biofuel. This is in order and can be done at all times. After all, it is the Minister for Finance who does this in any event at budget time. I ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to think again about the storage provisions so as to encourage the development of biofuels. Ireland is 90% dependent on imported fuels and the only country in Europe with a huge hill to climb in this regard. To miss out on an opportunity to include a specific reference to biofuels is deplorable and I ask the Minister to consider what he can do about this. Including such a reference would improve the Bill considerably and would mean those involved in the production of biofuels would be treated appropriately. Now is the time to include the reference in the Bill.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 3, 17, 19 to 25, inclusive, 28, 34, 39, 44, 45, 48, 51, 53 to 59, inclusive, 64 and 68 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, line 18, after "section 5” to insert “, subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann”.
These 15 amendments are all related to the same issue, which is to require Dáil approval for changes that may take place from time to time. We discussed this matter last night and on Committee Stage of this Bill a couple of weeks ago. There is a growing fear that legislation passed in this House hands over responsibility to bodies, groups or agencies for which the Minister is not accountable to the House and in respect of which major changes can take place without the knowledge of the Oireachtas, but simply with the agreement of the Minister.
I do not distrust the Minister, but it is fundamentally important that when responsibility for day-to-day administration has been handed over to other agencies, the changes that follow should be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. A Minister normally makes an order that is laid before the Houses in the Oireachtas Library. That is of no consequence at all. Sometimes it comes before the House as a motion without debate. This is a sovereign Parliament and it is our duty to be responsible and accountable, while it is the Minister's duty to be accountable to the House. We cannot do that unless we insert an amendment or series of amendments.
The Minister made reference in the recent past to recognising the fact that the Oireachtas has a role to play and that it needs to be informed on an ongoing basis. This protects the Minister because if an issue arises that involves a change, the House will know about it and can debate it if it so desires. I remember the debate on the telecommunications Bill in 1983. An undertaking was given to An Post workers that regardless of what happened in the future, all the conditions on salary and pensions pertaining to civil servants would transfer with them to An Post. However, by statutory instrument, ministerial order or regulation, full responsibility for that particular section was handed over to An Post and the Minister was no longer accountable to the House.
It must be recognised that we cannot go on like that because it is bad for Parliament, for democracy and for accountability. It makes us look like fools when we cannot ask a question of the Minister that is directly related to his portfolio without incurring the wrath of the Chair who will tell us that the Minister is not accountable to the House. We cannot even put down a written question because it will be deemed out of order.
The time has come when we need to take a stand and ask whether we are serious about parliamentary democracy and accountability. In the event of a change in authority devolved by the Minister to anybody else, we need to have a means of ensuring the Oireachtas has some knowledge and an opportunity, if it so desires, to agree or to disagree.
We had a lengthy discussion of these Report Stage amendments, and I made the point they do not all belong together.
Correct.
Their being grouped together by the Bills Office or whomever is responsible was incorrect. A central theme runs through them that all regulators, State agencies and bodies must ultimately be accountable to the people through the Oireachtas. The Executive must take final responsibility. Deputy Durkan seeks to change the approach that we have taken in a great deal of legislation in recent years. We saw it in spectacular form where the Government offloaded what are clearly its key functions to regulators or other agencies. Then, when difficulties emerge, it can say that they are not its fault but that of the regulator. For example, it was the regulator who increased gas and electricity prices, and it had nothing to do with the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, or the Government.
I unfortunately missed the Minister's speech last night, but I made the point in my contribution on escalating energy prices that there is a critical necessity to retain an ultimate role for the people and for us acting on their behalf. That is Deputy Durkan's interest and what he has tried to achieve in this series of amendments. As I said to the Minister on Committee Stage, some amendments concern the fundamental, ordinary work of the agency operating as a free-standing body and would hinder day-to-day operations. That is why I consider it important that I briefly examine each.
The first refers to the share transfer day. It makes the point that it should be subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann and meets the general thrust of what Deputy Durkan seeks to do. Amendment No. 17 concerns the objects and functions of the agency, with which amendments Nos. 19 to 25, inclusive, also deal. Regarding those amendments in particular, I support Deputy Durkan in principle. He seeks to insert into the fundamental principles and functions of the National Oil Reserves Agency the ultimate requirement that the Minister himself be responsible. For example, section 8(3) reads as follows.
The Agency has power to do anything that appears to it to be requisite, advantageous or incidental to, or appears to it to facilitate (either directly or indirectly) the performance by it of its functions as specified in or under this Act or in its memorandum of association and that is not inconsistent with any enactment for the time being in force, including power——
(a) to acquire, by purchase or otherwise, hold, store, import, export, transport and exchange oil,
Its key functions are outlined there. Deputy Durkan, in amendment No. 17, seeks to include a requirement that it be referred to Dáil Éireann where there are joint ventures, partnerships or a commercial arrangement with other persons "to construct, acquire, maintain and develop in the State". By seeking to impose that rule, we could be straying into the company's day-to-day operational affairs.
In amendment No. 19, Deputy Durkan seeks to add the requirement ", subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann". It is wrong that the amendments were grouped in this way, since it makes it very difficult for us to discuss this properly and discharge our duty as legislators. Approval would be required "to sell, as the Agency thinks fit, oil held by or on behalf of the Agency". I believe that to be part of the agency's intrinsic work, and perhaps Deputy Durkan might reconsider it, since it is clearly its central business.
Amendment No. 20 concerns property, an area where a requirement of responsibility to Parliament would be advantageous, and Deputy Durkan is right to add it to section 8(3)(i). We can think, for example, of the difficulties that have arisen regarding the port companies and the sale or otherwise of land. Deputy Durkan makes the fair point in amendment No. 20 that the agency should perhaps be required to bring major land transfers, purchases and sales before the Minister and the House. It is “with the consent of the Minister for Finance”, but it could also come before Dáil Éireann.
That takes us to amendment No. 21, which deals with commercial agreements with a third party or otherwise for the purpose of enabling the agency to perform its functions. Once again, if that involved extensive changes to those functions, there could be a case for Deputy Durkan's amendment. Amendment No. 22 seeks to amend a new section dealing with additional functions:
The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and after consulting with the Agency and any other Minister of the Government who, in the Minister's opinion, is concerned, by order assign to the Agency such additional functions connected with the functions assigned to it by or under this Act as the Minister considers appropriate.
Again, I feel there is merit in Deputy Durkan's amendment, since we might be discussing the extension of functions. I have asked the Minister, in a subsequent Labour amendment, to examine the possibility of establishing an exploration agency. The Minister opened an interesting exploration conference this morning that referred to exciting developments in the oil province. The Acting Chairman, who hails from County Mayo, alerted me to this, and it was very interesting to hear talk of an exciting oil province, given that the Minister and his predecessor had attended the House for four years and given us the poor mouth, claiming we have no energy resources and that, if we have anything, we will give it all away and let the big boys such as Shell, Statoil and the Americans take whatever we have.
Deputy Durkan's proposed insertions regarding the powers of the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, throughout the Bill are interesting. Additional functions might be developed, for example, exploration. The Minister will admit that our big problem was that the resources available to him when first appointed to the Department were not such as to give him a clear picture of what exactly was happening with hydrocarbon deposits off the Irish coast. Unfortunately, he did not follow my advice and take the Norwegian route of asking the oil companies to teach us everything that they know and train our people for a few years. When we knew what they knew, we could issue licences, decide regimes and so on. I urge the Minister, even before the general election, to frame a new licensing regime. Amendment No. 22 is very useful, and the Deputy should be commended.
Amendment No. 23 concerns the share capital of the agency and the Minister for Finance. Again, that might profitably be brought before the Oireachtas. Amendment No. 24 deals with the issue of shares, and since that relates to the initiation of the company, it may not be as significant.
Amendment No. 25 in the name of Deputy Durkan concerns memoranda and articles of association and seeks to insert "and Dáil Éireann". Memoranda and articles are so fundamental, as everyone in the House who has been a director will know, that the area should be returned to Dáil Éireann. I am not sure if Deputy Durkan will call a vote on every amendment, but in this case too the approval of Dáil Éireann could be very useful.
Many amendments have been grouped together, and since they refer to different things, we might more profitably have discussed them separately.
Amendment No. 28 relates to the board of directors. Section 14(2) states: "The directors (other than the chief executive) shall be appointed by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance." The amendment is interesting because in it Deputy Durkan is seeking to return approval for the appointment of directors to Dáil Éireann. As I indicated to the Minister, I am of the view that we should follow the example of the Scottish Executive in respect of directors. The Scottish First Minister, Mr. Jack McConnell, has established an independent board to oversee the appointment of directors. Members of the public in Scotland who possess the requisite experience, enthusiasm and energy and who want to become directors of state bodies can put themselves forward. There is not, therefore, an in-crowd comprising people who tend to become directors of everything and another group of individuals who are not considered. I would prefer if we proceeded along those lines and transferred the appointment of directors into an independent sphere so that it would not be a case of Buggin's turn or jobs for the boys coming into play, or of party hacks being appointed as directors. However, I understand the spirit of Deputy Durkan's amendment.
Amendment No. 34 relates to the allowances and expenses of members of the board of directors, a matter Deputy Durkan wishes to be brought to the attention of Dáil Éireann. The Minister will recall that a major debate took place when the Minister doubled or trebled the salary of the chairperson of An Post for a number of days' work per week. That matter was not brought to the attention of the House until a parliamentary question was tabled in respect of it. I again understand the spirit of Deputy Durkan's amendment.
Amendment No. 39 refers to the strategy statement and the period specified by the Minister. Section 15 states that the strategy statement shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. That is currently the case but it is then the responsibility of Members to inquire about it on the Order of Business. We are fed up asking questions in that regard. Yesterday, Deputy Gilmore asked that an important report be laid before the House and, even though the Deputy was clearly within his rights, the Ceann Comhairle tried not to accede to his request. There is merit in amendment No. 39 because it would ensure that a discussion would take place in respect of the strategy statement. We are engaged in historic work dealing with this Bill and, consequently, this is one of the most important days in the history of exploration and the management of energy resources in Ireland.
Amendment No. 44 relates to the power to establish subsidiaries. I am not sure about this in the context of the operations of State agencies or bodies. The chief executive and the board of directors of the new agency should be given maximum flexibility in respect of its operation. In such circumstances, I am obliged to diverge from Deputy Durkan because I do not know whether it is necessary to put that matter before the House. If we were to operate in this way in respect of the 500 or so State agencies, we would get little other work done.
Amendment No. 45 is similar and relates to the memorandums and articles of association of each subsidiary. Again, I am of the view that it might be useful to leave the management of the new agency with a free hand to carry out work in this regard on its own.
Amendment No. 48 relates to the directors of subsidiaries and the fact that they may be appointed and removed. I again diverge from Deputy Durkan in this regard. I do not agree with this amendment because I would like the chief executive and the board to have operational freedom.
Amendment No. 51 relates to the terms of the chief executive's contract. Section 19 states:
(3) The chief executive holds office for such period and subject to terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances for expenses) that the directors appointed under section 14(2) may, with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine.
I am inclined to opt for the board, in operational terms, having rights in this regard. On each occasion Deputy Durkan saw reference in the Bill to the Ministers for Finance and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, a red light began to flash——
An alarm sounded.
——and he chose to include in his amendments the phrase "with the approval of Dáil Éireann". I applaud him for that and I welcome the spirit in which it was done. However, I would not like to interfere in the operational freedom of the agency, which we want to be successful and to be in a position to carry out its work on behalf of Ireland and its people.
Amendment No. 53 relates to the functions of the chief executive. Section 20(7) states: "The chief executive shall not hold any other office or position or carry on any business, trade or profession without the consent of the directors." That provision is clear and I do not see any reason to change it.
Amendments Nos. 54 to 59, inclusive, relate to the staff and superannuation. On Committee Stage, I indicated that I would broadly prefer a report to be laid before the Oireachtas but that each action should not require the separate approval of the Houses. In respect of superannuation, Deputy Durkan may state that difficulties arose in respect of the An Post pensioners. These individuals were originally civil servants and then became employees of a State agency. They were informed that, effectively, they had lost their fundamental rights.
I received an upsetting communication last week from a person who formerly worked with the Dublin Port Company. The individual in question worked for the port for 45 or 50 years and served Dublin and Ireland very well, but discovered that the normal indexation relating to a State servant's pension is being abandoned in his case. The man is not receiving any pension increases and he feels bad about it. He is of the view that this issue, which falls under the remit of the Department of Transport, should be addressed. Where the operational freedom of the company would be affected, I would prefer if matters were not brought before Dáil Éireann.
Amendments No. 64 relates to temporary borrowings. As the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is aware, issues can arise. His predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, became upset with the ESB when its representatives went to New York to make arrangements for financing and apparently did not inform him of the fact. Nothing of that sort could happen under the provisions of section 27. In my view, the matter with which amendment No. 64 deals is covered in the Bill.
I reiterate that it is confusing to be obliged to deal with approximately 25 amendments that relate to different aspects of the new agency's operations. Unfortunately, the relevant authorities have pulled a stroke in grouping these amendments together and thereby preventing us from engaging in an adequate discussion on each one.
Amendment No. 68 in my name relates to section 31, which deals with the provision information to the Oireachtas on the performance of its functions by the new agency. It states:
(1) Whenever required to do so by the Committee of Dáil Éireann established under the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann to examine and report to Dáil Éireann on the appropriation accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the chief executive shall give evidence to that Committee on all matters pertaining to the expenditure of the Agency and any of its subsidiaries.
I wanted to add there that the agency must provide for the Committee of Public Accounts an annual account of the levy and all its revenue raising activities. I stated on Committee Stage that I am not sure whether the roundabout reference there to the Committee of Public Accounts is necessary because that committee, of which three of us here were former members, is a constitutional committee. That 12-member committee is specified in the Constitution and it has a constitutional remit. It would be reasonable that all aspects of the levy which will fund NORA must also be invigilated by the Committee of Public Accounts with the Comptroller and Auditor General.
While the 0.4% levy is relatively small, it is still an important revenue raising device of Government and the fundamental revenue raising system of this company. It would be fair to add this third section and clarify that all aspects of the levy will be open to scrutiny by the Committee of Public Accounts. The Minister and the Minister for Finance have roles in the development of this, but it is important that it be specified in the legislation.
Reviewing all those amendments, first and foremost I am sympathetic towards the general principle that Deputy Durkan outlined. It is important and valid. Everybody in this House is deeply frustrated about the regulators, and how we will ensure that they are properly responsible will be a topic of discussion coming up to the general election and is in the interests of the Government and any future Government.
For example, the other day the Minister issued a statement on his Department's website that the sea-fisheries protection agency will be established in January in Clonakilty. He seemed to refer to it, rightly so given the legislation, as being the regulator and I presume it will have a significant role in all assessment of fish stocks and negotiations about fishing and, in particular, in evaluating how those stocks are exploited and sustained. It may well be the case in the future that the Minister, in accordance with the legislation, will have little influence. There has been much discussion about whether there should be a super regulator to look after the regulators. Of course the super regulator should be us. That is our function and we are correct to retain that function.
I support the spirit of Deputy Durkan's amendments, which would clearly establish the role of Dáil Éireann as the ultimate guardian of the people's rights in the management and development of this company. Where these amendments go into the day-to-day operational matters, as I stated on Committee Stage, I would be inclined to let the statutorily established NORA carry out its functions, as all the great semi-State bodies have done, and have reasonable freedom. I would not support them in that case. I strongly recommend the Labour amendment on the Committee of Public Accounts.
There are approximately 35 amendments grouped together. Deputy Durkan went to the trouble of tabling most of them and it is correct that we should debate them all.
I do not propose to accept any of these amendments. As Deputy Broughan stated, I can understand the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. If, as he also pointed out, we were to accept any or all of these amendments, Dáil Éireann's time would be spent trying to make commercial decisions for NORA. I do not know why we would single out NORA as the only agency where this should occur but if we go down this route of corporate governance, the logic would be that we should do the same for An Post, the ESB, RTE etc. If we go down that route, we will end up spending most of our time here, with no significant expertise in the day-to-day running of such organisations, trying to make commercial decisions for them.
Amendment No. 3 relates to the Dáil deciding on the NORA share transfer day. The Dáil is deciding in the Bill that there will be a company and a share transfer. The Dáil need not then be the body that decides when that will occur and it is better to leave it to the company to decide to finalise a proper share transfer day.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 to 21, inclusive, relate to commercial decisions for the company. It would be ridiculous, either in this Chamber or in committee, to oblige a company to come and be second-guessed by people like ourselves who would not necessarily know, and should not be expected to know, the details of NORA's commercial contracts, joint ventures, approving the sale of oil or property, or commercial agreements. The company employs a chief executive and will have a board, and legal, financial and other advisers, for all these matters. If we were to decide to take over and start making decisions on those matters, apart altogether from our lack of expertise, can the Deputies imagine the amount of time that would be involved? I am sure every Member of this House would be capable of reading all the legal, accountancy and other advice and eventually making a decision on it, but it does not make much sense that we would go down that route.
There would be a validity in general terms to amendment No. 22, which would ensure that the Dáil would approve the assignment of any additional functions to NORA, if the legislation allowed the company to take on functions other than the core function of stockholding, but this is circumscribed in the legislation. The legislation makes it clear that the sole function of NORA is stockholding. In this case the assignment of additional functions to NORA is prescribed in the Bill and can only relate to stockholding. There is no need for such Dáil approval. NORA cannot go down the route of oil exploration, as perhaps Deputy Broughan suggested. If we decide to go down that route at some stage, that will be a matter for separate legislation.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 relate to commercial matters also. These are internal matters for NORA, not ones with which we should become involved. As Deputy Broughan appeared to agree, it would be unnecessary interference in the day-to-day running of a semi-State company which we are establishing.
Previously, we discussed amendment No. 28 which relates to approving board appointments. There is nothing to stop anybody in this country submitting a CV to any Minister and stating that he or she is interested in membership of a board or boards. It happens, although not too often.
Does the Minister advertise them?
No. I do not advertise them because the existing companies and boards are listed in various publications. If they have such interest, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from writing to the Minister to ask to be considered for membership of a board. I have done that once or twice — no more than that — in my ten or 12 years in the House on the basis of a curriculum vitae I received. I often take formal and informal recommendations from civil servants who know people and from both Opposition and Government Members. If somebody wants to be considered for appointment to a board, there is nothing to stop him or her. I do not believe in setting up a bureaucracy for such appointments.
I do not make an apology, nor would any other Member, for a Minister with responsibility for a particular agency seeking to make sure people appointed to its board know what he or she wants and requires from the company and its board and appointing somebody on that basis. There is nothing wrong with it. The notion of independence in appointments to State boards is a nonsense. A Minister must appoint a board to act on his behalf as shareholder. If I appoint a board that does not necessarily subscribe to a Government view of where the company should go, it will only cause difficulties, as happened in the past.
What about a talent bank?
Of whom should the appointee be independent? Most Members have commented that such bodies are too independent during this and other debates.
We must be consistent. I am accountable for the board I appoint and, therefore, I will not appoint people to a board if I think they will cause problems for the board, the company and myself, as a shareholder.
The Minister makes my case.
Let us stop the nonsense. Every political party has appointed people to boards who they felt merited it and who they felt would reflect the views of the particular Minister or Government. I have appointed people of different political persuasions because they had something positive to contribute to the board. The nonsense that every time we are in Opposition——
That is very rare.
I accept that and, hopefully, it will remain as rare.
The Minister is whistling past the graveyard.
The Deputy should not draw me down that route.
Come on down anytime. The Minister will be more than welcome.
I would not go down the same cul-de-sac as Fine Gael.
It sounds very like that.
Amendments Nos. 34, 39, 44, 45, 48, 51, 53 to 59, inclusive, and 64 refer to day-to-day operational matters, which need to be looked after by the agency, not the Oireachtas. The issues raised are addressed in the Bill. For example, amendment No. 58 deals with superannuation schemes. The Bill provides that approved schemes be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and we have our own procedures after that to deal with them, which is correct. It is not up to the Dáil to approve such a scheme or to approve a pension for an employee to which he or she is entitled, which is suggested by amendment No. 59.
The Houses should not get involved in temporary borrowings because that is an internal matter for the company. Deputy Broughan tabled amendment No. 68, which is valid. Its intent is to make sure the collection and expenditure of the levy and revenue generating activities of NORA are reportable to, and investigable by, the Committee of Public Accounts but that is covered by the legislation. It provides that NORA must prepare annual accounts, which should include details of revenue earned and expenditure. The format of the accounts must be in accordance with company law and the Minister has a right to make additional requirements. All this is subject to scrutiny by the PAC and the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
The Deputies are correct that a number of the amendments do not make sense from a commercial point of view and, perhaps, they could have been grouped together. Others do not make sense from the point of view of the internal workings of the agency, as Deputy Broughan stated. The remainder are covered by the Bill and I do not propose to accept any amendment.
The reason the amendments were tabled is because a number of us served on the PAC for a long time and there were countless instances where various directions were given and powers devolved by Ministers to State board appointees, which the House approved, and the people proceeded, correctly, in their own way. However, not all decisions were proofed to the extent they should have been and the PAC was only able to examine the accounts after the event. Given the development of modern technology on a daily basis and the lessons learned from those experiences, the time has come to insert a provision in legislation to ensure the Houses of the Oireachtas are also informed about such decisions.
The approval of the Minister is required and I can well understand why Ministers who have served in Government for a long time feel that is sufficient. There is a tendency, as Ministers are driven everywhere in State cars and do not know what it is like to drive themselves, to become detached from reality and, as a result, to hand over control lock, stock and barrel to an agency.
The Minister asked why such a provision should apply to NORA. Why not NORA? This agency should be accountable, given that there could be a serious reliance on it in the event of fuel crisis in the future. Why not interpose here and now? The Minister also asked why the Houses of the Oireachtas should give approval if Members do not have the expertise in this area. Perhaps we have not but the Minister also has no such expertise nor has the Minister for Finance. We cannot keep up to speed with the machinations of the commercial world all the time. The Minister conceded that in one case, a referral to the Houses would be necessary.
I am speaking about the principle. Deputy Broughan is correct in that I tabled this raft of amendments because the approval of the Ministers for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Finance were sought, but the approval of the Houses——
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has gone over time.
We have been given a certain amount of latitude due to the number of amendments. If the Acting Chairman bears with me for a moment, I will conclude.
Acting Chairman
The rules are set by the House.
If the Acting Chairman wants to argue, we will. For as long as I have been a Member of the House, it has been the procedure to discuss large groups of amendments taken together without addressing any specifically and to vote on them separately. I made general comments in the first instance and was particularly short in my discourse.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has limited time.
I know.
The poacher has turned into the gamekeeper.
He has.
Acting Chairman
When I am in the Chair, I observe the rules of the Chair.
That is the reason for the amendments, namely, poachers turn into gamekeepers and vice versa. In my time as a Deputy, there have been countless instances of changes or appointments where it would have been useful to include some reference to the Dáil or to allow the Dáil the discretion to opt in or opt out of the approval process.
I accept the Minister's statement on board appointments. I do not expect the Houses to always decide the composition of the board because the Minister needs a board to carry out the agency's day-to-day work, but what is to stop people from elevating themselves to positions where they would experience conflicts of interest, for example, of which the Minister might not know? There have been countless instances of Ministers needing to inquire in the House about someone's bona fides and being answered by one of his or her colleagues.
The thrust of our amendments is to recognise the Oireachtas for what it is, namely, the Houses of Parliament to which Ministers are accountable. While the Ministers for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Finance may approve matters, as is the case in respect of most of these amendments, they also represent the Government and their activities can only be examined by the Committee of Public Accounts after the event.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has gone five minutes over time.
Given current developments whereby more power is devolved to agencies outside the House and in respect of which Ministers do not want to or have no willingness or liability to report to the Houses, this bad situation must be changed. It is bad for democracy and the Parliament and it is dangerous for Ministers and the administration of State and semi-State bodies.
Upon examining this tranche of amendments, I agree with the Minister that it is important not to intrude on the independent workings of the company and to allow it to carry out its functions. It would be unfair to invigilate more in respect of NORA than other companies and would make life unworkable.
The spirit of Deputy Durkan's amendments is important because he is seeking to have the House take ultimate accountability. In some ways, the spirit is best expressed in amendment No. 39, which relates to the strategy statement and what NORA will do.
It relates to policy.
I welcome the Minister's statement. If we were to examine the matter of exploration more seriously, we would search for a vehicle other than NORA, but the only option open to the Opposition benches is to try to develop that idea through this Bill.
Regarding the company's strategy statement, there was an example yesterday of a report lying in the Oireachtas Library for 21 days and we were not sure that it was there. Another spectacular example involved statutory instruments devolving a chunk of the Minister's Department, including a part that was not meant to be taken. The House had not sanctioned the Minister's transferral of small harbours to the Department of Transport.
That situation owed to our tortuous problems with the structure of the Department from day one, namely, it is two and a half Departments in a bag and everything is trying to get out to do important national jobs. Other Departments administer a single company or State body, such as the Department of Defence. For example, many people have no earthly clue about what the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, does in his so-called Craggy Island Department.
He does nothing.
What that Department does is a mystery to everyone in the House and the media.
There will be a restructuring of the Government. While communications, broadcasting and so on would comprise a massive Department, energy, the subject of today's business must also comprise a large Department. Marine matters should be pulled together in a separate Department because they relate to a more significant territory than other areas administered by Departments.
We miss a great deal because measures are not brought before the House for approval. Instead of wasting whatever time is not spent on legislation, we should spend it on invigilating strategy statements. Will the Minister accept amendment No. 39, which best expresses this wish?
I will not withdraw amendment No. 68. When we were members of the Committee of Public Accounts, we invigilated expenditure. This matter relates to revenue and is an interesting aspect of revenue-raising and taxation. Deputy Durkan and I spent four or five years examining accounts.
Ten years.
One tends to examine that side of the matter, particularly the Comptroller and Auditor General's comments on a gross misexpenditure of money, but this is a slightly different issue. I urge the Minister to adopt amendment No. 68 because it would do no harm.
The Minister is silent.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 4 and 65 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
""Standards in Public Office Commission" means the commission established by section 21 of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 (as amended by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001);".
Having examined the Bill, the amendment is relevant and useful. I mean no disrespect to people on the boards of bodies or agencies. It never does any harm to apply the same principles as apply to public representatives. As time goes by, more and more responsibility is handed over to agencies and other bodies, or quangos, as the late former Minister, Brian Lenihan, used to call them. I do not think he was being complimentary in using that word and he had a deep-rooted suspicion of all such bodies. Being the parliamentarian he was, he felt it was never any harm to rigorously apply the same rules to us humble public representatives. We have our faults and do not always achieve the highest standards we would like, but that is the way things are. That is life and it is a true reflection of humanity.
It would do no harm to interpose the amendment as suggested. The Minister is not in an accommodating mood. It must be because of the football match last week — was it Australian rules football? The Minister should not be negative as we do not seek to trap him. In fact, he might one day find himself on this side of the House feeling lucky that he accepted certain amendments.
I propose the amendment and await the Minister and other Members' responses.
I am sympathetic to the spirit of Deputy Durkan's amendment relating to the Standards in Public Office Commission. Given the high standards imposed on parliamentarians relating to personal financial probity, it is reasonable that similar standards apply across the State sector.
The Deputies are mixing up two separate matters by grouping amendments Nos. 4 and 65 together. Amendment No. 4 is not consistent with the standard corporate governance requirements imposed on similar bodies. If accepted, it would result in the form of the NORA annual accounts requiring to be approved by the Standards in Public Office Commission, which would not be welcomed by that body, apart from the fact that NORA would then be treated differently from every other semi-State company.
If the intent of the amendment was for the people involved in NORA to meet the same ethical standards as other people in public office, then that is catered for elsewhere in the Bill. I assure the Deputies that various public service ethical requirements have to be met in this case. The amendment relates specifically to the accounts but the Bill contains comprehensive controls over the form of the accounts, as is the case with all semi-State companies. Provisions in the Bill require that the form of NORA's annual accounts meet the requirements of the Companies Acts. In addition, they have to be approved by the Minister and the Minister for Finance and be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Committee of Public Accounts also has a role.
We are all at one in the belief that the highest possible standards must apply and that people involved in NORA must comply with the same ethical obligations as everybody else in the public service, but that is catered for and this amendment would not in any way assist it.
That may be the case. I do not intend to detain the House all day on the subject but the amendment was prompted by experiences we have had with bodies or agencies to whom responsibilities have been devolved by the House. For example, after a person serves on a board such as NORA, he or she could make available vital and sensitive information to other bodies, groups or agencies. I will not mention specific cases but we all know about people who held public jobs and moved into the private sector, having in their possession information which could be useful in the pursuit of their careers.
I accept the Minister's statement that adequate provisions are made elsewhere, albeit using different words, and I do not suggest anything untoward will happen. However, where a person operates in a particular capacity and moves on somewhere else armed with certain information, the standard provisions should apply as to how he or she is permitted to use that information. As the Minister knows, there has been more than one case in the public arena where people with useful information have been able to use it, not necessarily in the public interest. I merely suggest it to be helpful to the Minister and his administration.
I repeat that I am broadly sympathetic with the point of view articulated by Deputy Durkan. Is the Minister saying this point is sufficiently covered by section 14(10) of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 as it relates to the director appointed? That is the thrust of what Deputy Durkan is seeking to achieve. As he stated, there have been isolated cases where people have been alleged to have made information known outside a company. It is important the highest standards of probity apply and there is merit in the amendment seeking to ensure they do.
I am saying this is covered by section 14. It is also covered in section 24, which deals with cases, which both Deputies cited, relating to unauthorised disclosure of information by directors or a CEO. I do not disagree with the point generally but it is not a debate for this Bill specifically. Rather, it should be the subject of a wider debate on people who are in specified positions for a certain length of time, including Ministers, senior civil servants and local authority officials. There should be a lapse in time before such people can work in a private sector position where their duties are related to their former public duties.
I accept the Minister's admission that there is a need for a wider debate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.