I want to remind the House that the arrangement is that ten minutes will be devoted to this matter.
Turf Development Bill, 1988: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (2), line 26, after "determine.", "At least one member of each sub-board shall be a person elected to the Board under the terms of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977-1988." inserted.
When the Minister for Energy first considered the subject matter of this amendment he thought it would be anomalous to make express statutory provision for a particular kind of director. He believed that there should not be any such type of classification as between directors, because, in practical terms it would mean that if a vacancy was temporarily unfilled of such a worker-director on a sub-board that sub-board would not be able to do its work during that time. However, it was always intended that there would be a worker-director on a sub-board in the normal course of events and, that being so, the Minister, on further reflection, decided in the Seanad to accept this amendment. I ask the House to agree to it now.
We might agree to discuss amendments Nos. 1 to 3 together. Perhaps the Minister would advert to amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendment No. 2 is a minor drafting amendment.
It is consequential on amendment No. 3.
It proposes to delete the word "and" in line 20 of section 8 because of the words proposed in amendment No. 3. The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to enshrine in the legislation relating to Bord na Móna a requirement to exercise concern for the environment. Bord na Móna have always been conscious of their environmental responsibilities. They have, for example, worked closely with the wildlife service to identify and set aside areas of bog of particular environmental significance. I think it is fair to say that public interest generally in environmental matters has grown considerably since this Bill began its passage through this House in 1988. The spirit of the amendment and of our increased environmental awareness is echoed within Bord na Móna. They are developing new peat based products for the environmental protection market. As concern for the environment grows this is expected to be an area of significant potential.
I welcome amendment No. 1, which was moved originally in the Dáil but turned down at that stage. I am glad the Minister has had a rethink on this amendment. I welcome the proposal in relation to worker-directors on sub-boards. Sadly, the Minister has not accepted the notion that there should be new blood, outside of the existing board members, on these new sub-boards. A worker or manager within the company or an outsider with new skills in, for example, horticultural peat, could bring their new skills to that activity.
While I welcome the commitment in amendment No. 3 to protect the environment, it does not fit very easily in the Bill in that the section the Minister is amending provides that the board may "do any or all of the following..." Obviously, this will afford them the opportunity to fail to act on this addition. This amendment should more properly be listed as one of the functions of the board and not one of their optional commercial activities. All the other activities the company are given the option of undertaking are commercial activities. While I welcome the principle of the amendment, it does not seem to sit very easily in the existing Bill. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this point.
The dogs in the street know that Bord na Móna have an excess of debts over their assets of £73 million and are technically in a negative net worth position. During the week the chief executive of the company said that opportunities to develop both their solid fuel business in Dublin and their horticultural peat business on the continent have been lost because the Government have not yet acted on the capitalisation issue for the company. It is sad that we are debating a Bill which is supposed to open up opportunities while at the same time the company are telling us that opportunities are being closed to them by Government inactivity.
I am glad the Minister for Energy accepted the amendment No. 1 from the Seanad which proposes that there will be a worker-director on the sub-board. Amendment No. 3 proposes that Bord na Móna must ensure that all of their activities are conducted in such a manner as to afford appropriate protection for the environment, both locally and nationally.
Time will tell whether the amendment, which I welcome, will be made by the board. It is aspirational; and I am aware from my own experience that on many occasions there has been conflict between the board's commercial activities and the necessity to protect wildlife. I should like to think that the board will adopt this amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled and that the Government will ensure that the board will not be denied resources when it comes to protecting the environment and our heritage in the midlands. There has been conflict in the past in relation to the board requiring large tracts of peatland and bogs for their commercial activities when the same land is demanded by the wildlife department. Will the board be compensated for loss of their resource?
I urge the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ensure that his colleague, the Minister for Energy, tackles the enormous problems facing Bord na Móna. It has been made clear that the board need urgent attention by the Government and I welcome the statement made by the Minister for Energy in the House yesterday that he will be tackling this as a matter of urgency. In welcoming these amendments, the major overall question facing the Minister for Energy is to ensure that the Government make an urgent decision in regard to financing Bord na Móna.
I particularly welcome the fact that amendment No. 1 has come back to the Dáil. It is the very same amendment which was proposed on Committee Stage by Deputy Sherlock on 28 February. It was opposed by the Government on that occasion and was defeated here by 62 votes to 52 votes. I am glad that the Minister for Energy had second thoughts in relation to allowing worker-directors to be on the sub-boards and to incorporate it in the amendment.
In relation to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I am glad that amendment No. 3 requires Bord na Móna to carry out their activities in such a way as to protect the environment. An issue arose here during the debate on the Water Pollution Bill which related to Bord na Móna. On that occasion, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment did not accept my amendment, which would have deleted the exemption currently given to Bord na Móna under the Fisheries Acts and the Water Pollution Acts.
In view of this amendment, perhaps the Government should take another look at the exemption currently given to Bord na Móna under the Water Pollution Act, because water pollution officers and local authorities have indicated that there are serious problems in regard to water pollution arising from some of Bord na Móna's activities.
I am obliged to the House for agreeing to the amendments. As far as the point made by Deputies Bruton and Spring is concerned regarding the financing of Bord na Móna, as the House knows, they have suffered very substantial losses and the Government have the matter under consideration at present. A decision will be made in regard to it quite soon.
As far as the environmental amendment is concerned, it must be recognised that the environment legislation and the statutory obligations regarding environmental impact studies, which apply to Bord na Móna as well as to all other similar operators, make it appropriate to put this amendment in as a function of the board and not to repeat the environmental legislation.
Why is it optional?
Section 8, which we are discussing, is the equivalent of a memorandum of association of a company. It gives the company powers to do certain things if they choose to do them. It does not oblige them to do all these things, because there is a long list and the company might decide that it is not commercially appropriate to do some of them. That is why it is worded in that way. It is the same as it would be for an ordinary company.
Similarily, the company might decide it was commercially appropriate to protect the environment.
The company are bound by environmental legislation generally in so far as it applies to Bord na Móna. The purpose of this amendment, as the Minister would see it, is not to create additional legal liability for Bord na Móna but to remind them of their environmental obligations and the anxiety of this House that they would observe those obligations to the greatest extent possible.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 8: In page 5, line 20, "‘, and" deleted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 20 and 21, the following new paragraph inserted:
"(m) ensure that all its activities are conducted in such a manner as to afford appropriate protection for the environment both locally and nationally.', and".
Question, "That Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, be agreed to in Committee; that the Committee reports its agreement to Seanad amendments and that An Dáil agrees with the Committee in its report" put and agreed to.