Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 May 1990

Vol. 398 No. 5

Death of Cardinal Ó Fiaich. - Turf Development Bill, 1988: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(7) The Board shall each year present a full set of accounts in respect of ventures established under this section to the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies, which shall in turn respect their confidentiality if requested to do so.".

This amendment amends the section which deals with the establishment of subsidiaries by Bord na Móna. In this amendment I am seeking that the subsidiaries they would establish should present a full set of accounts each year, in respect of these ventures, to the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies, which shall in turn respect their confidentiality, if requested to do so.

On Committee Stage the Minister gave assurances that he has power to instruct Bord na Móna as to the format of their accounts, but in my view it is of little value that we have the assurance that the Minister has such powers, if he does not exercise them and give the Dáil and the public at large the opportunity to examine the performance of these new ventures which Bord na Móna would enter into. On Committee Stage I suggested that there should be an open-ended obligation to publish accounts and the Minister pointed out there could be a commercial difficulty in requiring Bord na Móna to publish accounts in respect of their ventures while a commercial competitor would not have such an obligation. As a result, I have modified the proposal so that it would be the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies which would receive the accounts and as in all of the work of that committee they would respect the confidentiality of those accounts, if they were requested to do so. It is important that the representatives of the public in the Dáil get access to the performance of these companies.

It seems that I am in complete disagreement with the Minister on this matter. Throughout the Bill, the Minister has sought to limit the rights of Bord na Móna to do all sorts of things, insisting that they get duplicate sanction from the Minister for Finance and from himself before they do the most trivial things. At the very same time he is insisting that both he and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, crawl all over the company in their smallest plans but he is insisting on denying the Dáil the right to see how they are performing. My view is that we should be courageous enough and confident enough in the boards of State companies to say to them they are responsible for running the show but they must be judged on their results. That means there is a much greater emphasis on accountability and less emphasis on bureaucratic sanctions which the Minister has enshrined in the Bill.

I have moved this amendment in the hope that the Minister will give to the Dáil and the committee the right to examine the accounts of the new ventures that Bord na Móna should enter into. The existing Companies Act, 1986, would not give the joint committee that access and the Minister's reference to the Companies Act on Committee Stage did not resolve the problem.

It is also important that the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies get greater authority to become involved in the scrutiny of companies and their performance than they have had in the past. It has been a matter of very great concern to me that this Minister and his predecessors have refused to allow the INPC, the company involved in the oil industry, appear before the committee for what I believe were spurious reasons. It is important, therefore, that the committee get certain statutory rights to see the performance of companies and get access to how ventures are going so that members of the committee can execute their duty to the House. The Minister's own party has been strong in their advocacy of reform of the way the Dáil operates and I hope he will take this proposal in the spirit it is intended, which is seeking to get access to what is their rights for an important committee of the Oireachtas, that is to examine the financial accounts and performance of State companies. That is their mandate and this amendment is only endorsing that existing mandate.

Minister for Energy (Mr. Molloy)

I am amazed that Deputy Bruton should introduce an extraneous matter in his reference to the INPC, stating that my reasons for not granting permission to the board of INPC to appear before the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies were spurious. I am amazed at that, because I had explained in some detail to the members of that committee that the Attorney General had advised me on the legal reasons why I should not give my permission at this time. I am disappointed that Deputy Bruton still seeks to promulgate the lie that I have other reasons or some interest in withholding the INPC from appearing before the committee. I have absolutely none.

Mr. R. Bruton

On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is the Minister permitted to say that I am promulgating a lie? I thought that was unparliamentary language. The fact is that the committee have not accepted the Minister's argument, so if the Minister is suggesting I am promulgating a lie, he is, also by implication, suggesting that the committee are equally doing so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In view of the sensitivities in regard to that three letter word, I ask the Minister to rephrase his reference on the promulgation of——

Mr. Molloy

Promulgating a falsehood.

Mr. R. Bruton

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is a matter of opinion. The Minister said he sought legal opinion which said one thing, but the committee have a different opinion. Therefore, it is no lie to say that the committee are very disturbed that the INPC have not appeared before them. I think the Minister is being not only unparliamentary but also being inaccurate in his presentation of what has occurred.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has indicated that he withdrew the word in question. That, having been so indicated——

Mr. R. Bruton

Sir, you permitted him to use the word falsehood, which I equally dispute.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is not the same sensitivity about the word falsehood as there is about the other. I have heard it used and I hope that the Minister will proceed with the matter.

Mr. Molloy

There was a specific suggestion that my reasons for withholding permission from the INPC to appear before the committee were based on spurious grounds, when I had given the committee full information that they are based on the advice of the Attorney General and I feel duty bound, as a member of the Government, to accept the Attorney General's advice in a matter of this kind.

With regard to the amendment that has been proposed, as I have already informed the House there is adequate provision existing which would satisfy the Deputy's concerns in this area. The statutory framework outlined in section 59 (1) of the 1946 Act enables the Minister to direct Bord na Móna as to the form of their accounts. Furthermore, under the provisions of section 2 (6) of this Bill the power of the board to establish ventures is subject to the consent of the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Finance therefore, if it was considered necessary, suitable conditions concerning the accounts of any such venture could be attached to this approval. On Committee Stage I said that I would be happy to exercise my powers under the 1946 Act to ensure that the accounts, as presented, will show the performance of each division of Bord na Móna and each of their subsidiary companies should any be formed under these new powers, which of course, are, being introduced in this Bill for the purpose of extending the functions and opportunities available to Bord na Móna. They are certainly not to restrict the operations of Bord na Móna as has been somehow suggested by the Deputy. In any event, I do not think it would be appropriate that the powers of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies should be limited by the type of provision suggested in the amendment and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

There is no suggestion that the powers of the committee are being in any way limited by this amendment. This amendment provides purely that the committee would be given access to accounts. That is written into the committee's standing orders. The Minister is inaccurate in saying this would in any way infringe on the rights of the committee. The committee have adopted this as a practice.

I am reassured to hear that the Minister will use his powers to provide that accounts will be published for each of the ventures. Contrary to what he suggested in his reply a moment ago, he indicated on Committee Stage that he would not use that power because he felt that in some instances the commercial confidentiality of Bord na Móna would be infringed. It was for that purpose that I sought to have the publication restricted, if necessary, to the Oireachtas committee. I am glad to learn the Minister has gone back on his position on Committee Stage and I look forward to him making such an order. I hope the Minister will not quietly forget about his undertaking here tonight and that those accounts will be available in the way in which he has said. The Committee Stage debate suggested that his thinking was otherwise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"4. —(1) The Board shall transfer to such sub-boards the assets, valued according to their audited worth to the Board, necessary to execute the delegated function, along with such liabilities determined by its auditors to be supportable by that sub-board operating at optimum efficiency.

(2) Any surplus of borrowing after the auditors have settled the levels supportable by sub-boards, shall be carried by the Board.

(3) The Board shall apply to the service of these borrowings—

(a) dividends remitted by the sub-boards,

(b) the product of a levy as shall be set from time to time by the Board on peat extracted by the sub-boards from the bogs, and

(c) an appropriation as shall be set from time to time by the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Finance.".

This Bill is about the restructuring of Bord na Móna and expanding their capacities to do certain things. The Bill was introduced in November 1988. I think Deputies on this side of the House are totally frustrated at the way in which this Bill is proceeding, in a complete vacuum from the reality that is facing Bord na Móna. Since this Bill was first mooted two reports have been commissioned by the Minister, neither of which has been presented to the Dáil and in the case of both, the Minister has refused to give any information as to what is recommended by those commissions as regards restructuring of the company. This is the enabling legislation which would permit restructuring and yet we are denied any access to the sort of advice the Minister is receiving.

We have been unable to see the March 1989 accounts of Bord na Móna, which at this stage, are long overdue. However, we have read very substantive rumours in the newspapers as to the true nature of those accounts, the fact that there was one very bad year and that the company's debts are now higher than the stated value of their assets. The crucial issue facing Bord na Móna is the restructuring of their capital base in such a way that the companies and the sub-boards about which we are talking can perform effectively. They cannot perform commercially with the debt in which they now find themselves. I find it totally frustrating to be debating a Bill that is supposed to be about restructuring Bord na Móna and about finding new opportunities and new ventures for the board while at the same time we are denied any inkling as to what the Minister intends in this regard.

What I have proposed in this amendment is essentially similar to the format devised for NET when they found themselves in difficulties, with borrowings outrunning the value of their assets, that is to provide for a holding company to which the portion of the debt that could not be borne by the various divisions of the operation would go. The operating divisions or sub-boards would only have such debt as is deemed supportable by them when operating at optimum efficiency. That was the procedure not only adopted in the case of NET but also advocated in 1984 by the National Planning Board in their report which dealt with State companies. They recognised that some of these companies would not be able to recover or grow of their own accord because of the overhang of debt. I have made an attempt here to provide a statutory vehicle which would permit this recommended type of dealing with a company that got into difficulty and this was the format recommended by that board. I have not seen any other analysis comparable to that done by the board of the problems of State companies, and I think this is one very worthy of consideration.

On Committee Stage the Minister said the Government have sufficient legislation at their disposal to deal with the difficulties of Bord na Móna and that he did not think new legislation was necessary. However, I would draw his attention to the remarks of his party colleague, Deputy Pat O'Malley, on Second Stage in November 1988 in which he was at pains to point out that this legislation was a totally inadequate vehicle for the task that confronted Bord na Móna. He believed there was a need for a completely new framework within which the company could compete and grow. He advocated that such a legal framework be adopted and was bitterly opposed to the Bill as presented. Now his colleague has an opportunity to provide the statutory framework asked for by his party and is falling back on Fianna Fáil's inadequate Bill as underlined by his colleague at the time.

I find it very difficult to gel all these positions that are being taken. On this side of the House we are genuinely trying to grapple with problems in Bord na Móna, problems which are very deep and very real and must be confronted. The company have performed remarkably well in the last two or three years. They have done wonders with their operations and are now trading profitably again. Their workers have made sacrifices in restructuring their operations that are hardly equalled in any other State body. Yet, as the elected representatives debating the affairs of Bord na Móna, we are left in the dark and are putting through legislation without knowing what is going on. I hope the Minister will take this format which has a very respectable pedigree as one that would deal with the problems of Bord na Móna. It provides for a holding company to which the surplus debt could be removed from the operating divisions and it would give the horticultural peat division, the milled peat division and so on, a chance to perform commercially and trade successfully.

Mr. Molloy

There is no doubt that the situation in Bord na Móna presents a difficult problem for the Government, a problem which I have inherited. I agree with the Deputy's remarks in regard to the efforts that have been made by the management and board of Bord na Móna and also the workforce to come to terms with the financial difficulties the company have been confronted with for some time past. This whole matter is at present being comprehensively reviewed and I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the financial position.

No decisions have yet been made by Government as to how the matter will be dealt with. I commented on this issue on Committee Stage and earlier and assured the House that the future of Bord na Móna is a matter of very grave concern to me. I am satisfied that the proposals contained in this legislation will be of great assistance to the board to help them to develop along strong commercial lines in the future in the division into three separate divisions and also in the additional powers that are being given to the company to extend their operations at home and abroad.

The whole question of the future financing of the board and what decisions the Government have to make will occupy some further time before final decisions can be made. I am not in a position to say any more about that at present.

I do not envisage that this amendment would make any great contribution in trying to find a solution to the difficulties with which we are confronted. The provision for the setting up of sub-boards within Bord na Móna is designed to give the board maximum flexibility in carrying out their functions. The purpose of these sub-boards may be to operate the separate divisions, to which I have referred, or to examine specific proposals on behalf of the main board. In the event that any division of the board was to be established as a separate subsidiary company — which seems to be what Deputy Bruton has in mind — then they would require to provide separate accounts.

The intention of the Bill is to open up commercial opportunities for Bord na Móna and the amendment would have the opposite effect by imposing rigid statutory restrictions on these sub-boards. The division and transfer of the assets is not the intention. The board shall, by their legal instrument, delegate functions so that the sub-board may act as if it were the board, to the limit of that delegated authority. It is not the intention to break up or apportion the assets. That would have far-reaching legal and accounting consequences.

The effect of subsection (2) of the amendment would, in practice, delegate to the auditors of Bord na Móna capital decisions in relation to the apportionment of the board's resources. This is a function of the board and the involvement of the auditors as proposed in the amendment is unacceptable. The amendment introduces unnecessary statutory restrictions on the board, severely constraints their flexibility and is contrary to the very intention of the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

I would like to comment on some of the points raised by the Minister. I contest the view that a system whereby the various divisions of Bord na Móna were relieved of debts beyond their capacity would not help their success. The only hope for the divisions of Bord na Móna is if they have a capital base from which they can profitably grow and trade. A provision such as a holding company that would take away the excess debt will become inevitable in some shape or form. The Minister is being somewhat disingenuous to suggest that my amendment would restrict or impinge on the freedom of the board. Essentially what is involved is allowing the companies to have only that portion of the debt that they can support when operating at optimum efficiency imposed upon them and that they would not carry a debt that would drag them down despite their very successful trading.

The Minister suggested that the amendment was giving to the auditors powers that should be rightly executed by the board. However, I do not agree that that is the case because the amendment provides that the board shall transfer the assets valued according to their audited worth. I do not know what other system can be adopted for apportioning assets other than getting their audited worth. It does not in any way restrict the board in their duties. All this legislation is asking is that the board apportion assets among the different divisions.

The role of the auditors is simply to provide the information on which the board would make their decisions. If the Minister was seriously concerned about the phraseology, I am sure he could amend it to meet his requirements to ensure that it was the board that were making the decisions and the auditors were providing them with the information necessary to make those decisions in a fair and objective way.

The purpose of this legislation, if it is to mean anything, is that Bord na Móna will, in future, have a number of different subsidiary companies. That is what is stated in the Bill. If they form a number of different subsidiary companies, including some of their existing divisions, of necessity those companies will need to have some assets apportioned to them. I would have thought that, as night follows day, that is what would happen. This amendment is not breaking new ground in talking about apportioning assets as the Minister seems to suggest; it is just putting forward one approach to do this.

I do not want to force to a vote an amendment of this kind in a way that would be divisive because obviously the Minister is studying the difficulties faced by Bord na Móna. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously a format of this nature as one which would deal successfully with the board's difficulties. Unless a formula for some new capital restructuring is found by the Minister, Bord na Móna, despite their successful current trading in a very difficult market for an energy producing company with low fuel prices, will be in serious difficulties in the coming years. I will not press this amendment because I believe the Minister is acting in good faith and is comprehensively reviewing the position. I hope he will understand the frustration on this side of the House that after two commissioned reports by the Minister, 14 months after the crux year for Bord na Móna, we are no closer to having solid proposals from the Government to deal with the problems. That is very unsatisfactory for Bord na Móna.

Mr. Molloy

We are a lot closer.

Mr. R. Bruton

We are closer in time, but this House is no closer to knowing the intentions of the Government or their predecessors who had a much longer time to consider this problem than is being suggested to the House. I hope that very soon the Minister will be forthcoming and that he will tell to the House how he proposes to deal with this issue. In view of that I will give the Minister a period to come up with a response and I hope he will consider favourably a vehicle such as the one I am suggesting.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Hilliard)

It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 3 and 5 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, line 6, to delete "the Minister for Finance" and substitute "where the value of the capital funds committed, or the value of any long-term contracts entered into by the Board exceed £10 million, shall be subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance".

Essentially the purpose of this amendment is to do what I think the Minister is keen to do, that is, to give Bord na Móna greater flexibility. If we want companies behaving commercially we must be willing to give them a commercial mandate and judge them by the results. I am trying to provide that the requirement for sanction from both the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Finance should be diluted in this Bill. The duplicate sanction by the Minister for Finance as well as the Minister for Energy should be removed except where the value of expenditure undertaken by the board exceeds £10 million.

If a board were raising new borrowings the Minister would like to be consulted if he were offering guarantees on those borrowings, but I understand the Minister for Finance has powers already, where new borrowings are being entered into by the company, to withhold his consent if he wishes, but where the board are using their own retained earnings or raising their own borrowings without a ministerial guarantee I do not see that the Minister for Finance should be brought into this as well as the Minister here today. I am not requiring the dropping of ministerial sanction, but I am asking that it be just the Minister for Energy, who is examining the affairs of the company on a day-to-day basis, to be consulted about sanction. In my view for the Department of Finance to have a role in respect of small sums of money would not be helpful. The Department have already offered to all companies and all public bodies guidelines as to how projects should be assessed and they provide a headline for companies like Bord na Móna as to how they assess investments. The Minister for Finance should not be crawling all over a company in their intentions.

In section 8 the Minister has provided for extraordinarily detailed consent procedures on very minor elements of the board's business. On Committee Stage the Minister took a few rather trivial elements of the dual sanction procedure away in respect of overseas operations of the company, but still any decisions by Bord na Móna within the State regarding non-peat research have to get consent from both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Energy, regardless of how small the expenditure. The purchase of any business, even a small stretch of bog, as I understand from reading this Bill, would require consent from both this Minister and the Minister for Finance. Any decision to develop a cutaway bog for a new commercial purpose, even if it complied with the Minister's directives with regard to policy, would still require his personal consent and the consent of the Minister for Finance. Any joint venture again would require that dual consent. Outside the State even more operations are brought into the requirement of all these consent procedures. We are ending up in a position where very trivial decisons — not trivial from the point of view of Bord na Móna but trivial from the point of view of the Minister for Finance and all his huge Department — are going to be kicked back to his Department where they can be potentially sat upon for weeks, months and years before a final sanction goes through. The Minister here should have a little more confidence in his own board whom he appoints to run Bord na Móna and in his own ability to assess what they are doing, and cut out the Minister for Finance's role in some shape or form from the present proposal.

In my amendment I have suggested that the figure of £10 million be used as a cut-off point. The Minister may come forward with some better way of avoiding excessive bureaucratic control over Bord na Móna, and if he can suggest some way in which that be done I will be very happy to see it done, but the Bill as now framed is far too bureaucratic, and the Bill that ostensibly tried to give a company rights to establish new businesses and become more commercial is ending up having civil servants from both the Departments of Finance and Energy involved in the most minor of commercial decisions by the company.

Mr. Stagg

Is it not true that the amendment is seeking to restrict the Minister's powers as regards the board? Is it not true also that the history of Bord na Móna is that the existing powers that are being sought now exist with the old Bord na Móna, and that Bord na Móna are heavily in debt arising from the Minister allowing substantial borrowings beyond the capacity of Bord na Móna to repay? Is that not the crux of the problem of Bord na Móna? The amendment as stated seeks to give more freedom to the board. I am not sure that is desirable in this instance, but I say it is desirable that the Minister should have a better housekeeping attitude to Bord na Móna, so that the type of borrowing that previously occurred and landed them in the trouble they are now in — I do not blame the present Minister for that — would be restricted, and borrowing would be on a commercial basis for use on commercial enterprise that could show a return whereby the borrowing could be repaid. That is not the present position and I am not at all sure or satisfied that the amendment as proposed would have that effect.

Mr. Molloy

This is exactly the same amendment as we had from Deputy Bruton on Committee Stage and on that occasion I stated clearly the reasons I could not accept it. If one leaves aside the necessity for controls by the Minister and the Minister for Finance and looks at the arbitrary figure of £10 million as in the amendment, one can see that this limit can easily be circumvented. By a multiplicity of proposals and a multiplicity of £10 million sums, very quickly one could reach a situation where the board could borrow vast amounts of money without the Minister who is guaranteeing these borrowings having any say in the affair. It seems a highly irresponsible way for the State to carry out its business. So long as the State owns companies of this kind it has a duty to the taxpayers and to this House to exercise due controls. It should be very obvious regarding the person, the Department or the Minister who is guaranteeing these loans — capital borrowings are all guaranteed by the Department of Finance — that it is very necessary that legislation should contain a provision whereby his consent would have to be obtained initially before these borrowings could be undertaken. I understand the provisions in this Bill are similar to the provisions contained in other Bills under which other semi-State bodies are established. In these circumstances I can see a necessity to retain this level of control, and for the same reasons I gave on Committee Stage, again I indicate to Deputy Bruton that nothing he has said or that has happened in the meantime could lead me to change my mind on the matter.

Mr. R. Bruton

I think the Minister is reciting that all other State bodies are under similar restrictions to get consent from both the sponsoring Minister and the Minister for Finance for research, purchase of assets, development of cutaway bogs and minor elements like that. If that is the case it explains to a large extent why our State companies have had enormous difficulty in executing a commercial mandate. For instance take the development of a cutaway bog or the purchasing of a new piece of bog: if they have to go back not only to the Minister for Energy but also to the Minister for Finance to make that sort of decision, the company are hidebound and restricted in their ability to operate commercially. I do not think the Minister for Finance would have greater competence in deciding on whether those were wise things to do than the board the Minister put there to execute the function. I do not know how this can have evolved as a set piece for running State bodies.

It seems to be a rather sad way to conduct our business. The Minister should have availed of the opportunity when presenting the Bill to do what his party spokesman suggested on Second Stage, to provide a new mandate which would be genuinely commercial and free the company from bureaucratic controls. The Minister should allow the company to be judged on their performance and results. The company have proved themselves very capable in the last two years.

Mr. Molloy

There is another way of achieving what the Deputy is suggesting.

Mr. R. Bruton

I do not know what the Minister has in mind.

Mr. Molloy

Is the Deputy suggesting privatisation?

Mr. R. Bruton

I am not suggesting privatisation. I am suggesting that if Bord na Móna have it in mind to carry out research into non-peat business opportunities they should not have to go cap in hand to two Ministers seeking permission.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy may not be aware that matters which are not of major importance can be covered by way of general directive. The Deputy seems to be under the impression that all matters, even of minor importance, will have to be placed before the Minister for Finance for approval. That is not the way this will operate. The minor matters can be covered by a general directive. The capital borrowings will have to go before the Minister for Finance but there are procedures to eliminate what the Deputy has described.

Mr. R. Bruton

That is reasonably reassuring. It is important where the Minister has guaranteed borrowings that he should have control, but the Bill as drafted is deceptive in that regard in that it suggests that ministerial consent is required for trivial things. If there are procedures to ensure that the company will not be blocked the provision I have referred to is acceptable.

Deputy Stagg rose.

Acting Chairman

My apologies Deputy, but as Deputy Bruton has concluded the debate on that amendment, the Deputy is not permitted to contribute.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

"(2) Section 18 of the Principal Act is hereby further amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3):

`(4) In any event, when the Minister lays a report of the Board before each House of the Oireachtas in accordance with subsection (3), he shall do so not later than six months after the end of the financial year of the Board to which the report relates.'.".

We discussed an amendment along similar lines on Committee Stage and I was not satisfied that the Minister had advanced reasons why a board like Bord na Móna should not present their accounts within a reasonable period of the end of the financial year. The Minister, when pressed, said that Government policy required the accounts to be presented within six months but he was not willing to say why we should deviate from that practice and why there should not be a statutory provision to produce the accounts within six months. If a company had a bad year, or decided to revise the valuation of their assets in accordance with standard accounting procedures, that should not necessitate the postponement of the presentation of their financial returns. As I understand it, companies in the private sector are under an obligation to file returns to the Companies' Office within a specified period and if they do not do so they can be struck off. I do not think it is unreasonable to be seeking for the presentation of accounts within a six month period of the end of the financial year.

There is no doubt that there are serious problems to be confronted in many companies from time to time, but I do not see why that would necessitate keeping the House in the dark as to the true financial state of a company. I was not satisfied with the explanation advanced on Committee Stage and I retabled my amendment in the hope that the Minister would explain why he felt that a statutory provision as I have suggested should not be included. I appreciate that there is not such a statutory provision in respect of many State companies but we are dealing with a State company who have breached Government guidelines. The Minister must have alerted to that fact once they had breached that six month rule which, as he said, is the convention. However, accounts were not produced and they have not been produced to date. There seems to be a weakness in regard to presenting returns and I suggest that a statutory requirement along the lines I have put forward would not be unduly burdensome on a company. The company should be capable of presenting a true account of their financial position each year as a normal part of their operations. That should be enshrined in the Bill.

State companies are in a unique position in that in most cases their borrowings are guaranteed by the State. That puts a greater onus upon them to make statutory returns. For that reason the requirement for returns should be statutory. We are all involved in making guarantees for their operations and we are entitled to see the returns published on time.

Mr. Molloy

This amendment, which is similar to the amendment tabled on Committee Stage, has been brought forward by Deputy Bruton because of the exceptional circumstances that obtain in regard to last year's accounts of Bord na Móna which have been delayed longer than is normal. There are very special circumstances involved and they were explained to the House before. It is my hope that those circumstances, once they have been dealt with, will not arise again for some time. I beg the indulgence of the House because of the delay but I am aware that all Members are concerned, like the Government parties, to ensure that the right decisions are made to guarantee the future commercial success of Bord na Móna. We have had this inordinate delay due to exceptional circumstances but that does not justify placing a clause in the Bill which would make it a statutory requirement that the company produce accounts within six months one way or the other. Flexibility should be allowed in the present arrangements to take account of exceptional circumstances and that is understandable. I ask the House to agree to that.

It is a Government requirement of all semi-State bodies that they must produce their reports within six months of the end of the financial year. The Government are anxious to ensure that that is complied with at all times but where exceptional circumstances occur, as is freely admitted occurred in the case of Bord na Móna this year, we should permit a delay in publishing the accounts. Major decisions are being faced up to by the company. Some matters were let slide in the past and they could easily have been let slide in another year but, because the problems were faced up to this year, there will be a delay in publishing the accounts. I do not think it would be wise to insert a statutory requirement as suggested by the Deputy. The chief executives, chairmen and board members of those semi-State bodies are aware of the Government's requirement in regard to publishing their accounts and, as far as I know, they seek to comply with that requirement. I accept that that has not been achieved in regard to Bord na Móna this year and I hope it will not happen in the future. It would not be appropriate to include a clause as suggested in the amendment. As I explained on Committee Stage, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

I understand the Minister not wanting to put in statutory requirements but not only was the presentation of these accounts to the Minister delayed this year — he told us they were only formally presented on 5 February — even when presented to the Minister, the Dáil has not had the benefit of examining them. We are at a very considerable disadvantage in assessing the direction of the company and it would be courteous of the Minister to provide Members of the Oireachtas with accounts which have been duly presented to him so that we can examine and assess Bord na Móna's future in the same way that he does.

We are entitled to debate and decide the best way to approach the problems of the company but we do not have the access to the information which the Minister has. It is damaging the ability of this House to contribute to the debate on the future of the company. I will not press the amendment but I hope the Minister will make available to Members of the House the information on which we can assess — as well as the Minister and his Department — how the difficulties of this company can be resolved.

Mr. Molloy

I hope that the House will have all the information without too much delay and we are trying to bring it forward as quickly as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 33, after "Minister." to insert "Such directives shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and shall come into force within 21 sitting days unless a motion is passed in either House to the contrary.".

This amendment is concerned with the proposed policy directives which the Minister intends to introduce in relation to the future use of cutaway bog. As the House knows, the Minister has established a committee which will examine the different options for the use of cutaway. On foot of those recommendations the Minister proposes that he will produce general policy directives as to how cutaway bogs should be used. The different possibilities for the use of those bogs will be considered, some perhaps will be allowed to revert to wetlands, some will be used for forestry and others will be used for agricultural land or whatever.

I support the Minister's approach in establishing such a committee and having a detailed study of the best options because very large acreages of land are involved. Other Deputies remarked that the acreages are as big as County Louth so they are very substantial amounts of land and their future use is of very considerable importance to the House. My amendment involves a standard procedure where the House can look at proposed decisions which the Minister intends to implement in a Bill. This would apply in cases where the House would have an interest in seeing the contents of such proposed decisions and rescinding or altering them if it felt it was appropriate.

On Committee Stage The Workers' Party sponsored an amendment which was similar in nature but required the more onerous system of positive approval by the House of those policy provisions. From my very brief period on the other side of the House I realise that having to get positive approval from the House can be very difficult because of the lengthy queueing time involved on the Government side in getting motions before the two Houses of the Oireachtas. This provision of only requiring them to be laid before the House and going ahead unless they are rescinded by the House is fairer to the Minister and gives him greater flexibility in making speedy decisions. However, the House has a legitimate interest in seeing the policy directives which the Minister intends to take on foot of the recommendations of this committee.

Mr. Cowen

Will the Minister tell the House whether there is a possibility that the report by the consultants to discuss the future of Bord na Móna will be made available to Members of the House? The report was made available to the then Minister, Deputy Smith, before the new Government took office.

Section 8 (1) (j) states that the board may develop commercially or otherwise any bog vested in the board which is, has become or becomes incapable of commercial exploitation for the production of turf or turf products. The whole area of cutaway bog and its future use will determine the mid to long-term viability of Bord na Móna when their main job of commercial exploitation of turf has been completed. Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether public representatives in the area, who have a very important point of view to put, will see consultants' reports, the terms of reference of which did not include the social implications of changes which would be brought about in relation to the use of cutaway bogs or the future of Bord na Móna. The terms of reference were strictly economic and it is strange that there is such a lack of information available to public representatives in the area. The economy of these areas depends on their continued viability and prosperity.

Mr. Molloy

Is Deputy Cowen referring to the committee which were set up to take submissions on the future suggested use of the cutaway bogs and to make recommendations to me? That is a committee of experts rather than consultants.

Mr. Cowen

I am referring to previous reports.

Mr. Molloy

It is not proposed to publish the Deloitte-Haskins report because it contains vital commercial information in relation to the operations of Bord na Móna and it would not be in the best interests of the company or their employees to publish it. I will consider publishing the report of the Committee in relation to cutaway bogs.

The amendment suggests that any directives made in relation to the future use of cutaway bogs should be the subject of a motion. Deputy Bruton gave a good reason for not following that route, because of the need to avoid seeking to clog Dáil business and debates with a series of motions. I know the amendment is worded in such a way that it would only come into force within 21 sitting days unless there was a motion to the contrary. However, I do not see the necessity for a motion of that kind to be placed before the House. This is a policy decision which the Minister will be obliged to make in the same way that he is required to make various decisions in the ordinary day to day running of his Department in relation to a variety of matters. It would be an impossible situation if everything had to be the subject of such a directive. I do not think the principle enshrined in the amendment should be applied in a Bill of this kind which deals with the possible future use of cutaway bog, which could result in a variety of uses being made of it. In addition, it would mean the Minister of the day would have to continually review the policy he would apply in relation to the disposal of cutaway bog.

I am very pleased at the response to the public invitation to make oral submissions to the committee of experts. It is very satisfying to see the wide spectrum of society represented in the submissions which have been made and which I hope will help to ensure that the recommendations ultimately will be of a very comprehensive and valuable nature. I will consider the submissions very carefully before making any final decisions in this area. I will be pleased to keep the House informed about decisions which will be made in the future about these matters. The House will have the opportunity, if it considers the issue warrants it, to raise the matter in the House by way of private notice question, parliamentary question or special motion.

I find it difficult to agree to the amendment. A similar suggestion was made before and I do not think it would be really appropriate to specify in this legislation that any directions the Minister might issue should require a further resolution of the House before coming into effect. One could extend the principle to a whole range of areas and make the Minister's work very difficult and slow down the decision-making process. It would certainly delay the coming into effect of any decision the Minister may make. I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

I beg to differ with the Minister. The Minister has taken on a new power by restricting the rights of Bord na Móna to use their cutaway bogs as they see fit and to pursue their normal commercial mandate. There is a respectable legal precedent in this House for requiring the Minister, when he is making special orders as to how a business should be carried on, to execute the general wish of the Dáil. It is quite usual for such orders and directions to be laid before the House and to have this provision for delay before they come into force. This means the House is given a chance to consider these new directions before they are put in place and commercial and irrevocable decisions taken on the basis of them. If the Minister is going to the trouble of setting up a committee who will produce recommendations, which he will act upon as he sees fit by rejecting some of them and accepting others, I do not think it is unreasonable for the House to request a delay of 21 sitting days from the date on which he makes his decisions before they come into force. This is a reasonable balance and would give the Minister discretion, as is his right, to make decisions in this area. It will ensure that the House will get an opportunity before final decisions are made by Bord na Móna on cutaway bog to consider what is intended and the policy framework within which they will operate.

The Minister's attitude to this amendment is a bit narrow. We are not seeking to make his life impossible but he is proposing to lay down policy directions as to how cutaway bog will be used. Within the large volume of cutaway bog which will be available for use it is likely that these directions will prevail for a long time to come and dictate how these lands will be used. I believe the House is entitled to have such directions laid before it within 21 sitting days so that it can consider the implications for the many regions which will be affected. I do not think this is an unreasonable request and I hope the Minister will reconsider the amendment.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. R. Bruton

No, I should like it to be enshrined in the Bill.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration" put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and passed.

Sitting suspended at 6.35 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.