Amendment No. 20a is out of order.
SECTION 19.
Why is it out of order?
I wrote to the Deputy to explain that,
I have not received the notification.
The Deputy received it a week ago. It was given to him at the meeting because I signed it and handed it to him.
Yes, I got the letter at the last meeting.
Amendment No. 20a provides, inter alia, that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications shall be fully responsible for the expenses incurred in reviews and reports. Since section 19 of the Bill as it is framed at present enables the Minister to recover some of these costs from the board this amendment involves a potential charge on the Revenue within the meaning of the Standing Orders 12, 124/3.
Apologies Chairman—
We cannot go back to it because it is out of order.
I have never seen it in my time in the Dáil that anybody who tabled an amendment was not given the courtesy of making their case.
You can do that on Report Stage but not on Committee Stage.
I cannot understand that. It is a total conflict.
That is my ruling.
It is a new ruling. We should take note of this precedent.
Amendment No. 20a not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 25, subsection (2) (i), line 7, to delete "a review" and substitute "the review concerned".
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are drafting amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 25, subsection (2) (ii), line 9, to delete "a review" and substitute "the review concerned".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
There must be absolute transparency, openness and accountability in any situation. This Government started on this road, or at least it said it would. If a Department can recommend a review of a semi-State body to a Minister or if a Government or a Minister can decide to have such a review, that is a good thing; there is nothing wrong with it.
However, let us look at the ESB. How many reviews of the ESB have taken place? I put down a question last week — and I thought I was reasonably good at English — asking the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the number of reviews that have been carried out to date on all semi-State bodies since they were established. The reply stated the number of reviews carried out since the Department was established as the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. The Department is singular and semi-States are plural, yet I got an answer to cover two years.
I expected an answer to cover the period since the foundation of all the semi-State bodies because I wanted to make comparisons. We know that one report on the ESB cost about £2 million. A similar report on CIE in the past cost the same. Further reports and reviews were carried out. It is the prerogative of a Government or of a Minister or of a Department to take a decision to review the affairs of a semi-State body. My amendment has been ruled out of order on the basis that it is a charge on the Revenue. If the review takes place and the semi-State pays for it, it is still a charge on the taxpayers. If the superior body, be it the Government or the Minister of the day or the Department to whom the semi-state reports, decides as an agency or individual to carry out a review of an organisation, the cash for that review should be paid by those who take the decision.
There is no transparency, accountability and impartiality in a review if the body must pay for the review even though it did not decide to carry it out. There is a conflict in this and it must be addressed. This is an opportunity to address it and we should do that. I ask the Minister to review that situation.
There was a great deal of public debate on this issue arising from a case made public by the ESB. It obviously struck home in some places. Even if the amendment proposed earlier was acceptable, I would oppose it. I do not agree with the Deputy.
If we need to review the electricity industry, not just the ESB, the best people to pay for it transparently are the ESB who will pass it on to their customers. There are few people who do not use electricity in some form. If they do not have it in their homes they have it in their towns, so everybody uses electricity. That is the broadest possible spread for collecting the costs that are necessary. The Deputy said they were necessary to review the electricity industry and to look at the restructuring and regulation of it. The best people equipped to do that are the ESB.
I held the contrary view until I looked at the complete case. I thought that if somebody looked for a review they should pay for it. However, there is a broader group of people than taxpayers who are consumers of the ESB and who will pay for this. The cost to them is tiny individually. If one tried to put the cost on a unit of electricity in that year it would be so tiny one would not be able to calculate it. We are talking about a large amount of money if an individual Department must pay it and that would mean the Department could not do a great deal of work because the money would be spent. It is much better to use the broader brush and collect it effectively from ESB customers because the effects and results of the review will be to their benefit.
I do not agree with the Minister. If a review of the electricity industry is to be done that is a national review of a national industry. The ESB is a semi-State organisation and if a review of the ESB is to be carried out, that is a different matter. On the other hand, if the ESB management or board decides to carry out a review of the ESB why should they not pay for it?
This is a temporary measure. An energy regulator will be appointed in the forthcoming Bill and it will be a matter for him to apply fees for licences and permits. He will collect the costs of his operation, including any reviews, through that system. We are talking about a temporary measure until the regulator is appointed.
Will the regulator have the power to carry out reviews of all these agencies?
I do not want to pre-empt the legislation.
I have to know before I move on this section.
Can the Deputy make the point again?
Will the energy regulator have the power to carry out reviews and pay for them?
All pricing will be a matter s for the regulator.
Pricing has to do with energy costs.
And efficiency.
Of course.
Reviews to ensure efficiency will affect pricing. All pricing will be a matter for the regulator; he will do this work in the near future. This is a temporary measure.
Perhaps the Minister may be able to take my amendment on board in the new Bill.
Maybe. It would be more fruitful to discuss it at that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 25, before section 22, to insert the following new section:
" 22.— (1) In this section ‘the Board' means Bord na Móna.
(2) (a) The Minister for Finance shall cause to be kept in the joint names of himself or herself and the Minister an account with the Paymaster General for the purposes of this section and such an account is referred to in this section as ‘the special acocunt'.
(b) The special account shall be operated subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister, may determine.
(3) The Minister for Finance may from time to time pay out of the special account such sums of money to the Board as he or she considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling the Board to—
(a) repay the principal of any money borrowed by it,
(b) pay any instalments or other amounts of money owed by it under a contract entered into by it,
(c) pay interest on any money, instalment or amount referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), and
(d) pay any commission or incidental expenses arising in connection with the borrowing by it of any money or the entry by it into any contract, and any sums of money paid to the Board under this section shall be used by it for the said purposes and for no other purpose.
(4) (a) Any moneys paid to the Board under subsection (3) shall not be required to be repaid by it to the Minister for Finance.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment, the receipt by the Board of any moneys under subsection (3) shall not give rise to any charge to, or liability on the part of the Board for, tax of whatsoever kind.
(5) (a) Whenever and so often as the Minister for Finance gives a direction in that behalf there shall be paid out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof into the special account such sums of money as are specified in the direction for the purpose of enabling the payment from that account under subsection (3) of moneys to the Board.
(b) Any moneys standing to the credit of the special account may, where the Minister for Finance gives a direction in that behalf, be paid into, or, in such manner as is specified in the direction, disposed of for the benefit of, the Exchequer.
(6) The total of the sums of money that may be paid out of the special account to the Board under this section shall not exceed £100 million."
The Government has approved in principle the injection of £120 million in equity into Bord na Móna in three tranches in 1995, 1996 and 1997. The Government decided that the first tranche, payable in 1995, would be £30 million. There is no statutory basis at present for the injection of equity funding into the company. This section provides that moneys not exceeding £100 million required by the Minister for Finance to meet sums payable under the Government decision shall be paid out of the Central Fund and shall not be required to be repaid to the Minister for Finance.
This section also provides that the moneys shall be paid into a special account and issued from it subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, may determine. The purpose of this provision is that the first tranche of Exchequer funding, that is £30 million, can be paid out for budgetary purposes before the end of this year. It will not be invested in Bord na Móna until such time as the terms and conditions determined by the Minister for Finance have been satisfied.
In practice, any such terms and conditions will depend on the final decision of the EU Commission on the proposed injection into the State aid provisions of the Treaty. If such exemption is secured in December the £30 million can be invested in Bord na Móna before the end of the year. At this stage it may be necessary for technical reasons to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to this section to deal with the operation of the special escrow account.
I am worried when I hear the Minister say that this proposal is subject to EU agreement. I would have thought that the Minister would have secured this injection by now given the time that has elapsed since the initial Government decision, based on the recommendation of the Department, to provide this injection. I had thought that the legislation would have been effective from the time it was passed. It now seems that this is conditional on EU support.
Bord na Móna needed this capital injection and I hope there will be a positive response to it from both Europe and the company so that the company can develop its resources and make another contribution to the State by way of surplus cash in the future. It has served our nation well over the years but it has been the victim of difficult decisions in the past, both managerial and political. It has also been the victim of detrimental weather which has had a serious effect on its balance sheet.
The Minister is attending an EU Council of Ministers meeting tomorrow. Will there be agreement on this matter at the meeting? Will discussion on it go to the wire? Will we have another situation like Irish Steel?
The competition directorate, DG4, is dealing with this issue. It will not be necessary for it to come before the Council of Ministers. Irish people and others outside the State have complained to the European Commission that Bord na Móna had an unfair advantage and this complaint is being dealt with. I am confident of a positive outcome and we will seek this as quickly as possible. This complaint is the reason the issue is not finalised at this level.
When does the Minister anticipate a conclusion to this matter? There are only a few weeks left before the end of the year and Report Stage is being taken this week.
I hate giving the answer "as soon as possible". When I was a back bencher I often received this answer and did not like it. I cannot give a definite date.
Is the Minister optimistic it will happen this week?
No.
If we pass the Bill this week, is it possible that it may have to be amended again?
No. If we pass the Bill this week we will have the potential to do what we wish with regard to Bord na Móna. Without this Bill we will not be able to do so, no matter what the European Commission says.
We will have to facilitate the Minister on this because the future of Bord na Móna is at stake and we all have an interest in maintaining it. The nation needs a solid, solvent, progressive Bord na Móna. I presume that if objections were lodged, they were made by competitors in the fuel industry. In the past the company was not slow to lodge similar objections when other companies competed with it in providing resources and fuel products.
People in the horticultural sector have lodged complaints.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 26, before section 23, to insert the following section:
23.—Nothing in the Gas Acts, 1976 to 1995, or the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Acts, 1960 and 1995, shall prejudice the provisions of the Foreshore Acts, 1933 and 1992.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.